CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
5.7/10
56 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Un funeral da paso a una serie de rencillas familiares, secretos ocultos y cuerpos extraviados.Un funeral da paso a una serie de rencillas familiares, secretos ocultos y cuerpos extraviados.Un funeral da paso a una serie de rencillas familiares, secretos ocultos y cuerpos extraviados.
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Elenco
- Premios
- 6 nominaciones en total
Zoe Saldaña
- Elaine
- (as Zoë Saldaña)
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
Death At A Funeral is easily one of the funniest films I've seen in months. Those looking for something hilarious should definitely see it. It's a simple film; just a series of events and misunderstandings at a funeral. All these lead to real chaos, however. The physical and even the spoken humour is well executed. The whole cast deliver solid performances. The script is surprisingly good for a film like this. Add to this a fitting ending, and you've got one satisfying comedy. There's some gross humour, but unlike recent gross-out comedies the stuff here actually works and doesn't feel unpleasant. In addition, most gags contribute to later events in the story. Death At A Funeral is a solid Hollywood product with a star cast that manages to make every star worthwhile. It doesn't break any new ground, but it's truly hilarious.
This film is about the funeral of a family man. the funeral turns out to be very eventful with many surprises.
"Death at a Funeral" is almost the same as the British original, be it the title or the plot. The British one was really funny, I remember myself laughing very hard when I watched it. This remake, is mildly funny, but it is just in a different league. It uses cheap humour to make people laugh, and it lacks the witty dialog of the original. Moreover, characters are less sympathetic and more annoying in this remake. Despite a few funny moments, I would stay "Death at a Funeral" is an uninspired remake of a great comedy.
Maybe filmmakers will bear in mind that remaking such a recent film in the same language with the same plot is not such a good idea, as it will inevitably draw comparisons between the original and the remake.
"Death at a Funeral" is almost the same as the British original, be it the title or the plot. The British one was really funny, I remember myself laughing very hard when I watched it. This remake, is mildly funny, but it is just in a different league. It uses cheap humour to make people laugh, and it lacks the witty dialog of the original. Moreover, characters are less sympathetic and more annoying in this remake. Despite a few funny moments, I would stay "Death at a Funeral" is an uninspired remake of a great comedy.
Maybe filmmakers will bear in mind that remaking such a recent film in the same language with the same plot is not such a good idea, as it will inevitably draw comparisons between the original and the remake.
Despite having double the budget and some pretty big Hollywood stars the 2010 release adds nothing whatsoever, and in fact is in many ways inferior.
Not only are there some very lacklustre performances in particular from Chris Rock and Martin Lawrence as the two sons of the deceased, but the camera work in some sections is truly awful with the decision to use "handheld" or steadicam photography resulting in the picture shaking so badly in some sections that it is almost hard to watch.
Despite all this many of the best moments of the original are copied perfectly and work just as well as they did the first time around meaning that there are several good laughs to be had, but when you've got the choice of watching this or the original there's really no contest.
Distinctly average.
Not only are there some very lacklustre performances in particular from Chris Rock and Martin Lawrence as the two sons of the deceased, but the camera work in some sections is truly awful with the decision to use "handheld" or steadicam photography resulting in the picture shaking so badly in some sections that it is almost hard to watch.
Despite all this many of the best moments of the original are copied perfectly and work just as well as they did the first time around meaning that there are several good laughs to be had, but when you've got the choice of watching this or the original there's really no contest.
Distinctly average.
This lacks all the wonderful English sense of irony. That version was laugh out loud funny. This version doesn't work,
'Unnecessary' is probably the best single word description of Neil LaBute's "Death at a Funeral." I mean, there's really no precedent for the release of a same-language remake a paltry two and a half years after its original, and yet the guest list arrives for this new "Funeral" with almost as fast a turnaround as a Hollywood sequel. Hell, Chris Nolan hibernated on his second "Batman" film longer.
Nevertheless, the reality is that the decidedly Afro-American-friendly version of the dysfunctional family comedy (notable only because it really is the later film's sole distinguishing feature), is now in theaters, leaving anyone who remembers the Frank Oz original to ponder why.
LaBute and star Chris Rock, who also served as a producer on the film, cheekily 'adapt' U.K. writer Dean Craig's screenplay by peppering it with hip-pop pop-culture nods to Usher and R. Kelly, and leaving the rest, in essence, unchanged. On one hand, I appreciate the sentiment in that it doesn't presume to outdo its progenitor, but that's its problem as a standalone piece: it's either identical or inferior in every conceivable way. As such, the majority of its first-time audience will probably appreciate the comedic build-up having not been spoiled on the gags, and that's fine for right now, but it poses a potential dilemma, say, ten years down the road.
When film buffs and historians look back on "Death at a Funeral" (which they honestly have little reason to), the choice between the two versions will be obvious. Plus, they'll have no idea who "Usher" is.
Likewise, even today I'd recommend a rental of the 2007 film over a ticket to its 2010 counterpart, because, well, the original is the original, and for all its faithfulness, the remake actually accentuates what's lost in translation. The pop-culture one-liners clash with the characters on the page, and leave them feeling half-formed and sloppy on the screen—Are we watching Chris Rock do what makes Chris Rock hilarious, or are we seeing him play a repressed, introverted protagonist? The answer, messily, is both.
On that level, there's a creative integrity to the original performances that is impossible in LaBute's version. Martin Lawrence, Danny Glover, Tracey Morgan, Zoe Saldana, Peter Dinklage, Luke Wilson, and others comprise an undeniably talented cast that does an admirable job performing characters that were written as upper-crust Englishmen, but watching Rock sulk his way through the film makes it abundantly clear that they're not being themselves.
There's also the not-so-insignificant matter of LaBute's bland artisanship. In the past, he's been responsible for equally lifeless big-screen adaptations of his own stage plays, and a spectacularly poorly-received remake of "The Wicker Man"—It begs the question, why was he asked and trusted to shepherd this project? There's no single performance in the film that feels particularly informed by his hand, and LaBute fails to bring a single funny idea to the table. In adhering so rigidly to "Funeral" prime, his remake is marked by an absence of directorial and comedic vision.
I have no qualms with anyone who enjoyed "Death at a Funeral" for the first time via the LaBute/Rock version. A lot of what made the British comedy memorable has survived, and even with a jaded precognition of the gags, I mined a couple laughs. However, the fatal flaw of the 2010 adaptation is that the 2007 version exists. It's not like it's antiquated or anything; it's three years old.
Anyone with an open mind can still appreciate the original "Death at a Funeral," and its immediate availability for less than the cost of a night at the movies makes the 2010 remake quintessentially one thing—Unnecessary.
Nevertheless, the reality is that the decidedly Afro-American-friendly version of the dysfunctional family comedy (notable only because it really is the later film's sole distinguishing feature), is now in theaters, leaving anyone who remembers the Frank Oz original to ponder why.
LaBute and star Chris Rock, who also served as a producer on the film, cheekily 'adapt' U.K. writer Dean Craig's screenplay by peppering it with hip-pop pop-culture nods to Usher and R. Kelly, and leaving the rest, in essence, unchanged. On one hand, I appreciate the sentiment in that it doesn't presume to outdo its progenitor, but that's its problem as a standalone piece: it's either identical or inferior in every conceivable way. As such, the majority of its first-time audience will probably appreciate the comedic build-up having not been spoiled on the gags, and that's fine for right now, but it poses a potential dilemma, say, ten years down the road.
When film buffs and historians look back on "Death at a Funeral" (which they honestly have little reason to), the choice between the two versions will be obvious. Plus, they'll have no idea who "Usher" is.
Likewise, even today I'd recommend a rental of the 2007 film over a ticket to its 2010 counterpart, because, well, the original is the original, and for all its faithfulness, the remake actually accentuates what's lost in translation. The pop-culture one-liners clash with the characters on the page, and leave them feeling half-formed and sloppy on the screen—Are we watching Chris Rock do what makes Chris Rock hilarious, or are we seeing him play a repressed, introverted protagonist? The answer, messily, is both.
On that level, there's a creative integrity to the original performances that is impossible in LaBute's version. Martin Lawrence, Danny Glover, Tracey Morgan, Zoe Saldana, Peter Dinklage, Luke Wilson, and others comprise an undeniably talented cast that does an admirable job performing characters that were written as upper-crust Englishmen, but watching Rock sulk his way through the film makes it abundantly clear that they're not being themselves.
There's also the not-so-insignificant matter of LaBute's bland artisanship. In the past, he's been responsible for equally lifeless big-screen adaptations of his own stage plays, and a spectacularly poorly-received remake of "The Wicker Man"—It begs the question, why was he asked and trusted to shepherd this project? There's no single performance in the film that feels particularly informed by his hand, and LaBute fails to bring a single funny idea to the table. In adhering so rigidly to "Funeral" prime, his remake is marked by an absence of directorial and comedic vision.
I have no qualms with anyone who enjoyed "Death at a Funeral" for the first time via the LaBute/Rock version. A lot of what made the British comedy memorable has survived, and even with a jaded precognition of the gags, I mined a couple laughs. However, the fatal flaw of the 2010 adaptation is that the 2007 version exists. It's not like it's antiquated or anything; it's three years old.
Anyone with an open mind can still appreciate the original "Death at a Funeral," and its immediate availability for less than the cost of a night at the movies makes the 2010 remake quintessentially one thing—Unnecessary.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaIn the original Death at a Funeral (2007) screenplay, the character that Peter Dinklage ended up playing (named Peter) was of average height, and not written as an achondroplastic dwarf. The character was changed for him after he auditioned and was cast. He then became the only actor to reprise his role (with the name of Frank) in this remake.
- ErroresJeff says he's a pharmacology student. His father Duncan asks him how things are going at Pepperdine. Per their own website, Pepperdine has no pharmacology program. He is using term "pharmacology student" as a euphemism for "drug dealer."
- Bandas sonorasLife
Written by Sly Stone (as Sylvester Stewart)
Performed by Sly and the Family Stone (as Sly & The Family Stone)
Courtesy of Epic Records
By Arrangement with Sony Music Entertainment
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Death at a Funeral?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Sitio oficial
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Cái Chết Trong Đám Tang
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 21,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 42,739,347
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 16,217,540
- 18 abr 2010
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 49,050,886
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 32 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
What is the Japanese language plot outline for Death at a Funeral (2010)?
Responda