iwishicouldthink-1
Iscritto in data dic 2003
Ti diamo il benvenuto nel nuovo profilo
I nostri aggiornamenti sono ancora in fase di sviluppo. Sebbene la versione precedente del profilo non sia più accessibile, stiamo lavorando attivamente ai miglioramenti e alcune delle funzionalità mancanti torneranno presto! Non perderti il loro ritorno. Nel frattempo, l’analisi delle valutazioni è ancora disponibile sulle nostre app iOS e Android, che si trovano nella pagina del profilo. Per visualizzare la tua distribuzione delle valutazioni per anno e genere, fai riferimento alla nostra nuova Guida di aiuto.
Distintivi7
Per sapere come ottenere i badge, vai a pagina di aiuto per i badge.
Recensioni6
Valutazione di iwishicouldthink-1
To say that Judd Apatow takes his movies way too seriously is an understatement – is in fact in an understatement in and of itself. Here is a film that attempts to "re-examine" a plot-line that we have all seen dozens of times and probably has been done over a hundred times in the history of film. When I first heard of the plot – a man finding out that he has some fatal disease and then realizes, after re-evaluating his life of course, that he, in fact (gasp) is miraculously cured (the experimental treatment with the slimmest percentage of being possibly successful worked) – I was disappointed. Apatow is as prominent a figure in the film industry, in terms of mainstream comedy, than perhaps we've ever seen before. His string of success trumps the 90s version of him, the Farrellly brothers, and with this success he opts to make the least original film of all time.
After reading some interviews that Apatow did my interest in the film was re-born. For one, he stated that it was his aim to go through these typical motions but have the character learn nothing. This, I thought, was an interesting angle and so I went into the film with an open-mind. To me, if he made true on his aim – and his protagonist was a true anti-hero, in which the lessons all movie characters learn when faced with death he simply does not learn – I would be impressed. To reveal whether or not Apatow makes good on that promise would be unfair.
What can be revealed is that Funny People is two things: one, a film that is filled with funny people, and two, a very poorly made film. Apatow has a certain gift for humor. To write any review that debates the merits of his writing, at this point, would be both unsubstantiated and out-of-touch. Apatow is a great comic writer. His regulars, Rogen and Hill, understand the material so well that it is as natural comedy as any of film's comic legends. Jason Schwartzman, who usually tends to a more quirky style of humor, fits in well in this role. But as strong as the humor in the film is, and it is very strong, it's torch of having to carry the weight of this plot is far too enormous. The problem with the style of humor, and the actors who make the jokes, is that the jokes and the way they are told are all pretty much the same. Unlike 40-Year-Old Virgin, where the characters were much more of an ensemble and Steve Carell didn't really fit the Apatow-mold, with Funny People they all are funny but they all tell jokes about balls, and penis sizes, and sexual acts. A film of over two hours requires more range, more arch, and more ambition if its humor must carry the film's weight. And it must.
While Apatow may understand how to write jokes and how to be funny, his construction of the film is sloppy. There is a sequence in which Adam Sandler's character and his lost-love played by Leslie Mann argue. This is interrupted by a rough cut in which the characters continue their argument in a different location. Again, another change of location in the same conversation. The sequence of long-shot, to medium-shot, back to long-shot is choppy and horribly executed. The film feels stale and and scenes linger on in cumbersome ways. The movie doesn't even exhibit a hint of cinematic considerations. Each scene is built around two characters in a frame telling jokes. This isn't to suggest that most comedies pay attention to the technical aspects of cinema. They certainly don't. This is what is most troubling about Funny People: it is not content just being a comedy.
I think about Wayne's World, a film that had no misconceptions about just being a comedy. In it, commercials are lampooned and the best satire I can recall every seeing against product placement takes place. Wayne and Garth talk to the camera claiming they would never sell out while throughout doing so they cheerfully pitch for Pepsi, Nuprin and Doritos (in tradition of their current commercial advertising schemes). In Funny People there is sequence donated to MySpace. The founder, Tom – who we all know so well, is there. They make fun of Facebook. The fact that MySpace is borderline obsolete makes the scenes every more, well, just embarrassing. Seth Rogen make an iTunes playlist and I know when I make playlists for people I always make sure to clarify it is on "iTunes" in every sentence. These scenes are clumsy, transparent, and pathetic. Some of the most generally distracting scenes you'll find in any film.
Continue reading at A Reel Perspective C- (55.5)
After reading some interviews that Apatow did my interest in the film was re-born. For one, he stated that it was his aim to go through these typical motions but have the character learn nothing. This, I thought, was an interesting angle and so I went into the film with an open-mind. To me, if he made true on his aim – and his protagonist was a true anti-hero, in which the lessons all movie characters learn when faced with death he simply does not learn – I would be impressed. To reveal whether or not Apatow makes good on that promise would be unfair.
What can be revealed is that Funny People is two things: one, a film that is filled with funny people, and two, a very poorly made film. Apatow has a certain gift for humor. To write any review that debates the merits of his writing, at this point, would be both unsubstantiated and out-of-touch. Apatow is a great comic writer. His regulars, Rogen and Hill, understand the material so well that it is as natural comedy as any of film's comic legends. Jason Schwartzman, who usually tends to a more quirky style of humor, fits in well in this role. But as strong as the humor in the film is, and it is very strong, it's torch of having to carry the weight of this plot is far too enormous. The problem with the style of humor, and the actors who make the jokes, is that the jokes and the way they are told are all pretty much the same. Unlike 40-Year-Old Virgin, where the characters were much more of an ensemble and Steve Carell didn't really fit the Apatow-mold, with Funny People they all are funny but they all tell jokes about balls, and penis sizes, and sexual acts. A film of over two hours requires more range, more arch, and more ambition if its humor must carry the film's weight. And it must.
While Apatow may understand how to write jokes and how to be funny, his construction of the film is sloppy. There is a sequence in which Adam Sandler's character and his lost-love played by Leslie Mann argue. This is interrupted by a rough cut in which the characters continue their argument in a different location. Again, another change of location in the same conversation. The sequence of long-shot, to medium-shot, back to long-shot is choppy and horribly executed. The film feels stale and and scenes linger on in cumbersome ways. The movie doesn't even exhibit a hint of cinematic considerations. Each scene is built around two characters in a frame telling jokes. This isn't to suggest that most comedies pay attention to the technical aspects of cinema. They certainly don't. This is what is most troubling about Funny People: it is not content just being a comedy.
I think about Wayne's World, a film that had no misconceptions about just being a comedy. In it, commercials are lampooned and the best satire I can recall every seeing against product placement takes place. Wayne and Garth talk to the camera claiming they would never sell out while throughout doing so they cheerfully pitch for Pepsi, Nuprin and Doritos (in tradition of their current commercial advertising schemes). In Funny People there is sequence donated to MySpace. The founder, Tom – who we all know so well, is there. They make fun of Facebook. The fact that MySpace is borderline obsolete makes the scenes every more, well, just embarrassing. Seth Rogen make an iTunes playlist and I know when I make playlists for people I always make sure to clarify it is on "iTunes" in every sentence. These scenes are clumsy, transparent, and pathetic. Some of the most generally distracting scenes you'll find in any film.
Continue reading at A Reel Perspective C- (55.5)
