Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

FUNNY PEOPLE (no spoilers)

0 views
Skip to first unread message

moviePig

unread,
Nov 26, 2009, 10:52:44 AM11/26/09
to

Judd Apatow undoubtedly meant FUNNY PEOPLE to dissect the "cost" borne
by the humor-gifted ...as only such a trove of personal insight would
seem to justify his comedy-drama's two-and-a-half-hour pursuit of it.
Indeed, Adam Sandler's familiar serio-comic comic stays pretty much
intact throughout ...although it's second-banana Seth Rogen, as well
as surprising tenth-banana Jason Schwartzman (with a music credit,
too), whose work most livens the screen. The comedy material itself,
both in-movie and out-, is hit or miss ...and the plot is an updated
'50s concoction. Frankly, I'm surprised the whole thing emerges as
quite watchable. Recommended.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

nick

unread,
Nov 26, 2009, 11:56:26 AM11/26/09
to
The comedy material is miss-miss. I'm not a fan of standup comedy
anyway so I'm no judge but even the funny routines in Funny People
were unfunny. David Beckham, Will Smith and Tom Cruise rubbing their
dicks together just because they can? Whatever. Sandler's parodying
of his own image as a family-friendly entertainer bordered on the self-
loathing so I'm wondering if that had something to do with the less
than stellar Funny People box office. The Great American Public
doesn't like to think they're being pissed on. But Sandler was good
even if James Taylor gets the film's most memorable line.

I also wonder about the bad language and obsession with dicks
(speaking of Taylor). Apatow passes this off as daring dialogue,
Kevin Smith does too. But I don't know any adults as foul-mouthed or
as obsessed with dick size as the men in their movies. People mostly
grow out of that stuff but not with Apatow and Smith.

moviePig

unread,
Nov 26, 2009, 12:28:56 PM11/26/09
to

Yeah, it was hard to overlook the movie's phallus-obsession. It's
been theorized that humor needs to prick (as it were) balloons of
personal discomfort ...but movies like this are so relentless about it
that they seem almost like desensitization therapy. In fairness,
though, Eddie Murphy has pretty much mined to exhaustion our formerly
rich unease surrounding flatulence. Now, once masturbation has
petered out (as it were), I'm not sure what embarrassing scatology
will be left to exploit.

Re James Taylor, this movie was ostentatiously full of celebrity
cameos, like it was trying to don the stature of an epic ...say,
AROUND THE CIRCUIT IN 80 DAYS. Though, as I said, the mixed bag kept
me watching for the full 2.5, I'll admit I was looking for more of a
punch. I think many of the favorable critics admired Apatow for being
venturesome... rather than judiciously, successfully venturesome...

MFalc1

unread,
Nov 27, 2009, 3:03:04 AM11/27/09
to
On Nov 26, 8:56 am, nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
Regarding the "family-friendly" movie jokes, those seemed to be aimed
more at Eddie Murphy and the Wayans family than Sandler's own career.

Mark L. Falconer
http://www.youtube.com/terrymcca
http://www.poetry-arts-confidential.blogspot.com
Recent films seen:
PRECIOUS **1/2
FANTASTIC MR. FOX ***
2012 **1/2
BAD LIEUTENANT: PORT OF CALL NEW ORLEANS **
PIRATE RADIO **1/2

sirblob2

unread,
Nov 28, 2009, 3:40:53 AM11/28/09
to

the pic doesnt seem to be a fan of standup either
i dunno, i thought it was great,, as a correction of appatow's other
work and 90s sitcoms like friends or how i met your mother, it was
rambling, messy and rubbishy, however, its more useful as a way of
never having to see an appatow pic anymore, rather than becoming his
fan, and much more real and entertaining than the gay shit going on in
adventureland. still, i guess the important thing is having it both
ways, and this kind of rhetoric isnt usually about, btw, a pitiful
version of it, the how to do it wrong, would be tom hanks' punchline

0 new messages