Is Judd Apatow’s Funny People Ha-Ha Funny, Or Awkward “Funny?”
Yesterday, the first reviews of Judd Apatow’s Funny People started to trickle out from the major film critics. How’d it do? Well…
Wordy but fun, overreaching yet accurate, Variety’s Todd but McCarthy-who gives great analysis with sometimes decent box office projections-has mixed, yet succinct, feelings, to put it lightly. His lede, emphasis mine:
Candid but long-winded, well observed but undisciplined, “Funny People” feels like Judd Apatow’s diploma picture marking his move from high school to college as a filmmaker. Amusing and engaging yet lacking in snap and cohesion, this insider’s look at the world of standup comics in contempo Los Angeles rings true in its view of the variously warped, stunted and narrow lives of its mostly male denizens. Adam Sandler’s central performance as some version of himself is notable for its revelation of callowness and ambivalent self-regard, which will fascinate some fans and turn off others. Curiosity should spur a healthy opening, with likely widely divergent reactions suggesting questionable staying power.
Could’ve guessed that one, though: Apatow’s making a movie with a big heart where the endgame is more than just some great dick jokes and a moral, and that’s evident by the premise. How about that third act, when the movie inevitably gets all serious on us to show what an aueteur Apatow is?
While it has its moments, this long latter stretch drains the picture of what little momentum it had and switches the focus to Laura and her own marital problems, which are annoying and not entirely convincing.
Eegh. McCarthy goes on to slam Leslie Mann, and take us away from the Apatow and Sandler we want to see (like, incidentally, the last third of Funny People, apparently). But what’d the other trade in town think? Silly wittle Hollywood Reporter, show us what you’ve got:
Bottom Line: A more mature but still funny Judd Apatow comedy whose move into serious human relation issues nearly scuttles the third act…there is a serious side to this film that makes the second half go awry….George’s [Adam Sandler's] disease goes into remission — and the air comes out of the movie.
Finally, what do the bloggahs have to say? Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere, Keyboard Cat us out of here:
It’s not a “great” film but for me it’s a stunningly brave (by which I mean exceptionally candid and self-revealing) one. And funny as shit.
And we have a consensus! While it’s funny and great and well, Apatow’s noble attempts at painting deep, murky moral colours at the end of his film aren’t as good as Apatow’s skill at directing a good dick joke. And this is the problem I always had with people who would shove a boxed set of Freaks and Geeks DVDs in my face like it was the second coming of good television that I’d never seen: sure, it has its moments, but I can’t see beyond the non-revelatory revelatory moments to understand why it’s the best thing in dramedy since Edward Albee.
That being said, I’m willing to give Sandler and Apatow the chance, probably sometime in the next week. The 40 Year-Old Virgin was one of the best sad-clown comedies ever made, and Sandler’s done this well, before (Punchdrunk Love). Will you? No? Uh…
Funny People Review [Variety]
Funny People Review [The Hollywood Reporter]
Apatow’s Big Surge [Ed. WTF?] [Hollywood Elsewhere]
adam sandler
first impressions
funny people
judd apatow
the hollywood reporter
todd mccarthy
variety
- Next Post: Will John Travolta Renounce The Church Of Scientology? »
- « Previous Post: Breaking: Hollywood Still Out Of New Ideas
Comments (AU Comments | US Comments)
@maude_flanders: I totally agree. You're spot on. I wish the guy would just go away for good. He's so irritating.
El_Gato
@Paul_Is_Drunk:
Um, they haven't made that movie yet. But good luck with your search!
KittyCarlisle
I've got a lot of friends who are lifers in stand-up comedy, and I'm hearing that the script painstakingly reveals what life is really like for them -- those on the way up, in the middle and on top. 99/100 for accuracy. Will that translate into a movie for the masses? Who gives a fuck -- at least more people will observe and understand the unique way comics think, and to me, that matters more.
VernonCabiri
This movie was already ruined for people who saw the trailer. In that alone they gave away the entire plot, including he was now in remission. You could figure the whole thing out with no need to pay $10 to see it.
@DJ Large Dog: oh, you lucky one to see it so early... I'm looking forward as it seems to play off themes I gravitate toward (love, death, ones that got away, never being too late to change). I'm looking forward.
I think Todd McCarthy's movie-reviewing style is extremely ripe for a close deconstructive reading, and I recommend this task to Defamer.
For instance I suspect there's a lot of mileage in the bottomless existential question, "When has a Todd McCarthy view ever deviated from kneejerk, analysis-free, conventional wisdom in any way?"
What is supposed to be continually fascinating about Judd Apatow's films is now lost similarly to one's virginity: in an endearing lack of prowess. He has made enough money off of this crap, and you would think Woody Allen has exhausted the issue onscreen before him but in better-written, more original cinematic format. Hope this is his last.
The best part of this movie is clearly RAAAAAAANDY http://www.laughyourdickoff.com/
Excusado
This may be controversial, and I do like Apatow, but I think people should stop using Freaks and Geeks as a defense of his abilities because in retrospect it's pretty clear that F&G was great more because of creator Paul Feig and less because of Apatow.
kthnx
@El_Gato: I have nothing against Seth Rogen (yet...he seems charming and easy-going funny enough, but then again I didn't see "Observe and Report") but Adam Sandler is WAAAY overrated. Wasn't funny on SNL....was enjoyable in the Wedding Singer in part because of his costars and because making fun of the 1980s is easy.
If he wrote the script I'll give him credit for that too.
I wasn't a fan of Happy Gilmore-era Sandler. when he was more popular than now, and the films he's made recently are inevitably among the year's worst.
maude_flanders
@DJ Large Dog: Soulless? Really? Gotta say The 40 Year-Old Virgin is an absolute classic. Outside of a few maudlin moments that push the sympathy buttons the wrong way, it's a film I’d recommend.
Knocked Up? Okay I get the premise and I was willing to buy the premise, but when the film unrolled on screen? Wow, I didn’t buy anything about that film.
Funny People seems to be Judd’s plea to the world of "C’mon, we are dark a-holes who should have blunt objects smashed in our face but we’re real people just like you!" Well, here’s my problem with the premise.
First, anyone remember Punchline? Exactly. Now in this film, the premise being pushed on my is this guy has cancer and a failing marriage and now I have to feel sorry for him and excuse his arrogance. C’mon, you know what, comedians aren’t the only ones out there who act callously. And cancer that magically makes a-holes nice people is not something I want to see/hear. It’s a button-pushing premise that drives the point home like a freight train.
Apatow is not a bad guy and Freaks & Geeks is an amazing show, but I don’t think he’s a genius filmmaker and I think he’s reached the limit of what he can create. What’s next? An Ingmar Bergman period?
@Paul_Is_Drunk:
It would be "gloriously feminist" if she didn't obsess about the guy at all, hot or otherwise.
lrubemp
sure, it has its moments, but I can't see beyond the non-revelatory revelatory moments to understand why it's the best thing in dramedy since Edward Albee.
agreed. the only true revelation of "freaks and geeks" is that american beauty WILL change your life, and i'm not even remotely a deadhead.
@ObtuseGoose: I have never gotten the feeling that Adam Sandler or his movies have a problem with gay guys. What are you talking about?
jacobestes
Let's see... it has Adam Sandler in it. That's an automatic "I'm not ever going to see it". That a-hole has filled his lowbrow movies with enough homophobic shtick to last a lifetime (all in the name of making a buck). He will NEVER see a dime from me.
PS: As you might have guessed, I'm a pissed off gay guy with an axe to grind.
@lrubemp: Anne Taylor Fleming gone wrote a fab essay in the current ish of Los Angeles magazine about the rise of the developmentally arrested schlub as a cinematic archetype. She mirrors exactly what you said--it's not unfunny and pathetic because she's a stick in the mud; it's unfunny and pathetic because it, er, actually is. (And of course the piece is *not* posted on lamag.com..)
snugbug
@lrubemp: Have you ever even seen a Judd Apatow movie?
@lrubemp: I know! I'm so sick of these everymen going out to try and achieve their goals, including that of settling down with a woman. It's like that sexist flick Knocked Up. How dare they suggest an attractive woman would ever want to be with anyone but Brad Pitt? Why, it's insulting to the very feminist movement!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to see the latest chick flick where a "less than attractive" woman is going to go after some impossibly hot guy, and revel in it's feminist glory.
Paul_Is_Drunk
This movie looks dreadful. I can't believe anyone would want to see it. And what the hell is up with Seth Rogan playing the Green Hornet? I've never seen one Green Hornet comic book, one second of whatever TV the character was on. I vaguely remember Bruce Lee playing Kato. Does anyone, anywhere want to see these films?
@AuntPenny: I second randomlunatic. I plan on using that at a later date.
@DJ Large Dog:
Uh, not particularly liking stories about schlubs and their pathetic search for the hot babe (and she MUST be hot, always) does not make me "soulless", just grown up.
lrubemp
sick and tired of adam sandler. he hasn't been funny since the wedding singer. his bored performances and played out schtick are beyond annoying. and seth rogan is well into overexposure. he needs to take a break.
El_Gato
@AuntPenny: Please consider "Episcopalian in its predictability" stolen for use elsewhere at some later date. It was too good not to put on a post-it by the 'puter.
I was lucky enough to see this pre-release. It's not the game changer that I hoping for. Too many of the jokes are topical and Sandler's voices shtick is not only irritating, but dated. He's outshined by every cast member. Seth Rogen (obvi) is the most memorable. At times it does drag on, but the people that populate Apatow films are like friends to me, so I felt at times like I was indulging them in a favor, and happy to do so.
In short, if you like Apatow, you'll like Funny People. If you're a soulless fool and know nothing, you won't like it.
Ambitious, but somewhat strident, and Episcopalian in its predictability.
AuntPenny