(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache01-sos01.myspacecdn.com%2F1%2Fi_09a358d62a59faab4c1e1bbe26b560c7.jpg&hash=9bcd045b599f303373dc454d9023b306ad59c851)
http://www.myspace.com/funnypeople
Seth looks like Sean Astin
"the third film" bit reminds me of Tarantino.....i hate it
Quote from: edison on November 13, 2008, 05:00:24 PM
"the third film" bit reminds me of Tarantino.....i hate it
Yeah, it seems a bit silly.
I wonder if it's just to give it feel a bit more eventful for the average moviegoer who already assumes Judd Apatow directed Pineapple Express, Walk Hard, Forgetting Sarah Marshall and fifteen other films in the last twelve months. I assume most people think he has something to do with Zack & Miri and Role Models and Sex Drive as well.
If you narrow it down, it adds a little currency to a name that's attached to fucking everything.
A Night of Funny People at the Orpheum Theatre
Source: Universal Studios
Universal Pictures, in association with The Improv Comedy Club, is presenting "A Night of Funny People" at the Orpheum Theatre in Los Angeles on Tuesday, January 13, 2009. The details...
WHAT: "A Night of Funny People": a one-time-only comedy performance that will be filmed for use in Universal Pictures' upcoming Funny People, from writer/director/producer Judd Apatow. The film stars Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Leslie Mann, Eric Bana, Jonah Hill, Jason Schwartzman, RZA, Aubrey Plaza and Aziz Ansari.
WHO: Judd Apatow hosts, performing live as their characters in the film are Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill and Aziz Ansari, as well as Patton Oswalt and other surprise special guests in the line-up.
WHERE: The Orpheum Theatre, 842 South Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90014.
WHEN: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 7:00 PM
Tickets are $20 and go on sale through Ticketmaster at 12 PM on Friday, December 19. Call (213) 480-3232 for tickets or go to Ticketmaster.com. Performances are for audience members over the age of 18.
WHY: The night will benefit the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and 826LA.
826LA is a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting students ages 6 to 18 with their creative and expository writing skills, and to helping teachers inspire their students to write.
Funny People arrives in theaters nationwide on July 31, 2009.
Quote from: MacGuffin on December 18, 2008, 11:39:27 AM
WHO: Judd Apatow hosts, performing live as their characters in the film are Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill and Aziz Ansari, as well as Patton Oswalt and other surprise special guests in the line-up.
That sounds fucking amazing.
You should go. Fuggin jergoff.
First Pic:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsfluxe.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fwp-o-matic%2Fcache%2Fa11df_funny_people_1.jpg&hash=385f53379ca84a8e428c381e1bfe38c1a3273de4)
Second Pic:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2009%2F01%2Ffunnypeopletimes.jpg&hash=92a5aa47e519faa8e89e926d13ff76b12e6d353a)
Trailer (http://www.cinematical.com/2009/02/20/judd-apatows-funny-people-gets-a-trailer/)
WARNING: This trailer appears to give the plot of the whole movie.
also warning: Sandler has a guitar.
with this and Basterds it's been a big week for probably great movies with pretty crappy trailers. Trailer making really seems to be a lost art.
it really does give away the whole movie! i still think this will be good, unless it slides to the spanglish side of the james l. brooks scale.
I think it looks great. REALLY GREAT. :shock:
trailer/movie, apparently spoilers
i really wish i'd seen RK's warning/gotten the link here... why didn't they just fuckin make it look like it was about him dying?? why show the next act??? WHY
Yeah I don't understand why they did this. I'm disappointed, especially because the whole thing looks great.
it's not just the trailer either, i've read plot synopsis elsewhere that states adam sandler has a "near death experience". hopefully the movie doesn't try to build up too much suspense in that regard.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2009%2F05%2F03%2Farts%2F03itzk_600.jpg&hash=d47912bdb999f303cc429ab94bd4309950a01575)
Funnymen With Serious Ambitions
By DAVE ITZKOFF; New York Times
ASSUMING Judd Apatow doesn't change his mind, and he often does, his new movie, "Funny People," will begin with a scene of Adam Sandler as no paying audience has ever seen him. In grainy video a boyishly goofy Mr. Sandler, still in his 20s with a tilted baseball cap on his head, is shown as he lies across a messy bed in a dingy Los Angeles apartment, making prank phone calls to the delight of a few off-screen observers.
In the context of the movie (set for release on July 31), this is our introduction to the fictional comedian George Simmons, who grew up, got famous, became an arrogant movie star and then was told he had a fatal illness. For the character, the scene is a final moment of innocence before he loses his way on the road to celebrity and success.
But in real life, this is material that Mr. Apatow shot himself almost 20 years ago, when he and Mr. Sandler were still struggling performers and roommates for whom a night at a Red Lobster was a costly indulgence. To the man who taped the scene (and then had the foresight to hang onto that tape for two decades) it is an intimate tribute to Mr. Sandler, with whom Mr. Apatow shares history and a professional trajectory; the two men also find themselves at a similarly uncertain moment in their careers.
The footage is also a deceptively tender introduction to a movie that takes on stark issues of death and the value of life — issues that Mr. Apatow admits have dominated his off-screen thoughts, even as he insists the on-screen characters and situations are largely fictitious.
"I guess," Mr. Apatow said a few weeks ago, "the lesson is, It's O.K. to write about yourself as long as you're making almost all of it up."
Despite Mr. Apatow's ubiquity as a producer of sloth-celebrating movies like "Superbad" and "Pineapple Express" and a recent spate of comedies about emotionally stunted males ("Role Models," "I Love You, Man") that share his influence if not his input, "Funny People" is only the third film that he has directed. But moviegoers expecting a breezy romp in the style of his hit movies "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" and "Knocked Up" had better hold onto their bongs.
In part, the film is about an established comedian (Mr. Sandler) who takes under his wing an insecure neophyte (played by Mr. Apatow's disciple Seth Rogen). To this extent, the story is inspired by the earliest professional breaks Mr. Apatow received from stars like Garry Shandling, Roseanne Barr and Tom Arnold, and how he later returned the favor to emerging talents like Mr. Rogen.
But sensing that his own Horatio Alger-style ascent wouldn't provide a movie with much tension, Mr. Apatow said, "I thought: What if I did a movie that was like 'Tuesdays With Morrie,' but the main character learns nothing?" So, after that sympathetic video introduction to Mr. Sandler's character, the next scene finds him being informed 22 years later that he has a rare blood disorder with no known treatment. In the time that he believes he has left, he resumes his stand-up career and tries to reconcile with a lost love (Leslie Mann, Mr. Apatow's wife and a regular in his films).
Asked why, at 41, he would follow movies about sexuality and childbirth with a film about mortality, Mr. Apatow was circumspect. "I've unfortunately been around people who have been ill and seen people figure out how to deal with it," he said. Some, he added, "just keep plowing on forward, and they don't seem to change."
His evasiveness is surprising, given that his filmmaking process is otherwise open and participatory to the point of neediness. On this day at his West Los Angeles office, he was rotating among four editing suites with his producer Barry Mendel, convening with four different editors to review dozens of scenes. That night, even before his studio-mandated test screenings of the film, Mr. Apatow would hold his second private showing for friends and colleagues (whose feedback he does not fully trust, being that they're industry insiders). This comes after months of script drafts and table reads that he shared with trusted colleagues and a shooting process well known for its reliance on improvisation.
Mr. Apatow said that he developed his inclusive filmmaking style over many years and that he paid particularly close attention to the lessons he learned from the writer, director and producer James L. Brooks ("Broadcast News," "Terms of Endearment") while working on the animated series "The Critic."
"What I took from it was, the audience is supposed to like the movie, as simple as that sounds," Mr. Apatow said. "If they're not loving it, you failed."
But even Mr. Apatow's closest confederates recognize that "Funny People" may not be as easily loved as his two previous films. "I wouldn't describe it as dark," said Mr. Rogen, a star of "40-Year-Old Virgin" and "Knocked Up." "I would say it's more ambitious in what it's attempting to make light of."
Mr. Sandler's character, in particular, can be an ornery, unhappy guy: a list of his stand-up comedy bits that Mr. Apatow was editing included routines titled "George's dad beat him," "George likes dumb girls" and "I wish I'd never been born."
In another scene that may or may not make it into the movie, Mr. Sandler ad libs a song during a performance at the Improv comedy club in Hollywood. Seated behind a piano, he sings: "How would you people live without me?/Who will bring you joy when I go?" When the crowd laughs and applauds, he responds: "Leave me alone. Don't visit my grave."
The character, Mr. Apatow said, "is what me and Adam would become if we didn't get sane and get married and have children."
"This character is our ego run amok," he added.
Although Mr. Sandler has made more than his share of juvenile comedies, his presence in "Funny People" may actually signal the grown-up ambitions that Mr. Apatow has for the film.
As Ms. Mann said in a telephone interview, "When you achieve a certain amount of success and you're surrounded by people who will basically tell you anything, you can't always trust what those people are saying." For Mr. Apatow, she said, Mr. Sandler is a "touchstone person" who keeps him grounded and gives him reliably honest feedback.
Mr. Mendel described the two comedians' relationship more succinctly: "Judd worships Adam," he said. "He just thinks, 'That guy is so much funnier and more original and charismatic than me.' " Yet they both find themselves at similar junctures in their careers, when they can make movies that easily find mass audiences, but their ability or interest to create more iconoclastic work remains untested.
In Mr. Sandler's case, Mr. Mendel said: "Everybody in the world wonders how much does he relish the 'Punch-Drunk Love' experience versus the 'Bedtime Stories' experience? Maybe he knows and doesn't choose to share, and maybe he's figuring it out." (For now, Mr. Sandler chooses not to share; via his publicist, he declined to comment for this article.) Likewise, Mr. Mendel said that Mr. Apatow is caught "betwixt and between" the worlds of populist filmmakers like Mr. Brooks and Billy Wilder, and auteurs like Hal Ashby and John Cassavetes.
Having produced movies for Wes Anderson, M. Night Shyamalan and Steven Spielberg, Mr. Mendel cautioned that committing fully to either philosophy can have its perils for a director like Mr. Apatow, who wants his work to be liked and admired.
"The populist mentality can defeat the attempt to do something more singular," Mr. Mendel said, "and the attempt to do something singular can make it inaccessible."
Despite the fact that Mr. Apatow has imbued "Funny People" with intensely personal touches — snippets of Ms. Mann's early television commercials might appear in the film, as might a video of their daughter Maude singing "Memory" at a recital — the director said he had no more at stake with his latest film than with his previous efforts.
"When a movie comes out great, I'm not even happy it came out great," he said. "I just think: 'Wow, whoo. That could have turned out really badly, and I escaped a horrible situation.' " Mr. Rogen, however, said the stakes for "Funny People" had inevitably been raised, not only by the existential subject matter but also by the extent to which Mr. Apatow has already telegraphed his intentions to his audience.
"To say you're making a movie about a 40-year-old virgin, you don't owe the audience quite as much as when you say you're making a movie about a guy who realizes his life has gone astray," Mr. Rogen said. "There's probably more pressure just because of what we're claiming to make. Nobody put that on us."
If more is being asked of Mr. Apatow with "Funny People," Ms. Mann said she has seen her husband evolve, in his brief directorial career, into someone who might just be capable of delivering it.
"On '40-Year-Old Virgin,' he was eating a lot of doughnuts in the morning," she said. "And 'Knocked Up' it was like every other day."
But while Mr. Apatow has been working on "Funny People," Ms. Mann said: "He doesn't really have doughnuts. It was all nerve. Not that he's entirely comfortable, but he's a lot more confident, and his stomach is a lot flatter because of it."
Judd Apatow Wants You To 'Enjoy The Ride' Of 'Funny People' For 2.5 Hours...Then Watch The Super-Long DVD
Source: MTV
Judd Apatow needs more time. He's got a ton of material for his upcoming Adam Sandler/Seth Rogen comedy "Funny People"—footage that both made it into the movie and was left on the cutting room floor. Which is why the film will likely have an approximately 150 minute running time and why Apatow is trying to finagle extra room for the DVD release.
"The main argument I'm having with the studio is, 'How much DVD capacity can you get me?'" the writer/director told MTV News.
The film is set in the world of stand-up comedy, and tells the story of two comics with vastly different careers: George Simmons (Sandler) is a legend, while Ira Wright (Rogen) is a struggling up-and-comer. But they end up working together and becoming friends. The catch is that Simmons is dying because of an inoperable blood disorder.
"Every time we shot stand-up comedy, we shot their entire act," says Apatow. "We didn't shoot it on a stage and add laughs later. We brought in real audiences and shot with six cameras and whatever happened happened. There are 5-10 minutes of stand up in the movie, but we shot everybody's act seven times so we have all of that material to play with [on the DVD]."
Like Sandler, Simmons is a movie star, and Apatow created many scenes from his fictional filmography that he'd also like fans to have a chance to see. "Every time there's a clip in the movie of one of George Simmons' films, we shot several scenes from that movie so there's a lot of material," he said.
Of course, before the DVD comes the film itself (on July 31st). And, as with Apatow's "Knocked Up," expect "Funny People" to run far longer than your typical theatrical comedy. "It'll probably be a little less than two and half hours," Apatow said. "The story covers a lot of ground. I'm a fan of movies that are on the longer side. I never sit in a movie I like and think I wish this was over already. I think people will be very involved with these characters and enjoy the ride. There's plenty of time to get back home and watch 'The O'Reilly Factor' and do whatever else you need to do."
As much as I enjoyed Apatow's last two efforts, the trailer this left me pretty indifferent (save for a few genuinely funny moments).
However, these last two articles have more than compensated for that indifference. Apatow might be a great hype man, but he's convinced me... very excited.
Hey, guys! Hey, remember when we were all wondering how the trailer for this managed to give away the WHOLE movie in less than 3 minutes? Well, I just saw a tv spot for it and they managed to give away the whole movie in 30 seconds!
Adam Sandler's 'Redo' and Other Fake 'Funny People' Films
Source: Cinematical
Judd Apatow's Funny People has launched a wave of meta movie marketing we haven't enjoyed since Tropic Thunder. (Actually, viral marketing as a whole seems to have faded away. Feel free to speculate on that.) As you probably remember from the practically-reveals-the-entire-plot trailer, Adam Sandler plays a successful comedian-turned-actor named George Simmons. It turns out, Simmons has more in common with Sandler than just his career trajectory ... they practically share a filmography. Simmons has been in such wonderful films as MerMan, Little by Little, My Best Friend is a Robot, Sayonara, Davey!, and many more. I've collected the posters and print adds from Simmons' official website, and put them in our gallery, and embedded the various clips below the jump. (I hope a clip for My Best Friend is a Robot or Code Green is coming at some point.
Sandler isn't the only one getting a bit of viral action. Jason Schwartzman also has a sitcom kicking around the Internet called Yo, Teach! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwwSf8WeJSo) starring his Funny People character, Mark Taylor Jackson. The best part about Jackson's promo (besides how wincingly familiar it is) is that NBC.com helpfully hosted it as if it was promoting a real show. There's probably going to be a lot of people sitting around this fall waiting for "that really sweet looking teacher show" ...
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2009%2F06%2Fthemistake.jpg&hash=4dffd6fb1b475e1a399cd8a9bc2c46811bfca874)(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2009%2F06%2Fbeerguy.jpg&hash=8a8d00e999f32ae7a3548e8302fbe10a65eaf106)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2009%2F06%2Fmerman.jpg&hash=732ce7182e8c5d8efeb102dbc3dcd812a7a3d9f1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXbovK0etyA
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2009%2F06%2Fredo.jpg&hash=da175deed0f88b4549efa93656362aa92d3b4e7b)
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/8f7cafcb30/george-simmons-in-re-do
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2009%2F06%2Fthechampion.jpg&hash=a5dfd092bf9f9b9733806778289f3060110362d3)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2009%2F06%2Fsayonaradavey.jpg&hash=05c7de1287d00c79550c8fe508e686cb5cc4f951)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqsVz7P4OEs
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2009%2F06%2Fmybestfriendisarobot.jpg&hash=cda6ac1f915e8de36b522a9d9737f293be403b28)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2009%2F06%2Flittlebylittle.jpg&hash=aa91a92474dd6cd18c0bba5cff136ec8029c12b1)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2009%2F06%2Fdogsbestfriend.jpg&hash=e309aaf73736237a45cf4263070c9e32715dd0dd)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP6td7I5-tE
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2009%2F06%2Fcodegreen.jpg&hash=33c766c3e0ad666541a16ddfaec9672da3a60216)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2009%2F06%2Fastronot.jpg&hash=38e1c3b495746a2693cc9f28507020bea9780eab)
:bravo:
Clip from Re-Do (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/8f7cafcb30/george-simmons-in-re-do#player)
Justin Long would be in that movie.
http://www.laughyourdickoff.com/
I'm going to see this july 25 with the cast and Judd Apatow :yabbse-thumbup:
I love those posters.
:yabbse-thumbup: for Paul Rudd being in the credits for almost all of them.
Red Band Trailer here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB5IxT9sEoU)
This is by far the most anticipated movie for me. I saw some scenes the other day at the studio. Looks awesome.
It's interesting that Apatow is making a huge push with Universal to make this film 'award' worthy. Not only getting by Janusz Kaminski, but everything he says about the movie and what I heard Universal will plan to do after the release. They think it has potential to win Oscars.
its ok. liker apatow. he is a good guy. i miss you all. congrats stefff! you
r a daddy!!! man! dont lie! god bless!!
awesome use of some wilco.
wish they'd stop using that lame ikea joke to end all the trailers
Quote from: squints on July 09, 2009, 04:47:13 AM
wish they'd stop using that lame ikea joke to end all the trailers
That was the first time I heard it and I laughed at it. I don't think it's in the other trailer.
i was the 2nd person in the standby line for An Evening with Judd Apatow & Funny People screening. i waited an hour and a half and didn't get in.
Excerpt from Movieline Interview w/Judd Apatow
I heard somewhere that you brought James Brooks and P.T. Anderson into the Funny People edit bay with you as you were putting it together.
When I made this movie, I knew that it was very ambitious creatively, and I always ask people that I respect to see my movies and give me honest feedback, in addition to doing seven previews with real audiences. I do a lot of private screenings and screenings for friends. So this time out, anybody whose opinion I valued I showed the movie to, and there's no one whose opinion I valued more than James Brooks and Paul Thomas Anderson, and Cameron Crowe I showed the movie to. There were many people that were kind enough to tell me what they thought of where I was at, at that moment. Ron Howard gave me incredible notes at one of the screenings. I'm sure I'm leaving out a lot of people. Jay Roach also is always a go-to person that always has great perspective on all of these films.
But at the end of the day, you do have to decide what you would do, because even great filmmakers might go a different way with it. But it does give you a sense of if people are getting what you want them to understand. And people who make films, when they watch the movie, they're more aware of the levels that are being attempted.
Were there any significant notes that you took from any of these people that changed the outcome?
It's not that there was one note that was so specific. At the end of the process, Garry Shandling said, "I think the music cue starts at the wrong point in the last five minutes," and it completely transformed the last scene. Those types of notes can take the movie from working well to working great. Everyone gave me notes like that. James Brooks didn't go into the editing room, but Paul Thomas Anderson came in and sat with me as I made a couple very difficult choices about what to remove. He's a good friend of Adam's, and having seen the movie several times, had a lot of fantastic insight into what information was needed and not needed, and what was having an emotional effect and what was repetition.
Anderson having probably gotten the last, great dramatic performance out of Adam.
Punch Drunk Love is one of my favorite movies of all time. It's sweet and funny and I bawl my eyes out the last 20 minutes of it every time I watch it. I couldn't respect it more.
http://www.movieline.com/2009/07/judd-apatow-the-movieline-interview.php
PTA & JA = BFF.
Good to see a respected filmmaker give props to PDL. That's always nice.
This is a really inspired film and Judd's best one to date. I liked it alot and it touched me personally. George Simmons is really a selfish insensitive jackass who is hard to love and while it has its flaws and its a bit uneven (and 146 minutes at that) it worked for me.
My favorite so far, too.
All films have flaws, the difference is whether they are intentional or not and this films flaws are inherent to it's accomplishments. It's long and a bit tangential. If it, occasionally seems unforcued, it's only to give a proper chance to humanize and fully color more of the supporting cast.
As successful as Apatow can be at an isolated gag (like the chest waxing in Virgin) it's wonderful to see him moving away from that. Even in Knocked Up, where the humor succeeds by being incidental, it's still magnified. Here, there are barely any traces of that.
The stand up performances do a great job developing the characters, as well. The succeed and fail beautifully.
Even with it's running time, this is the first film in a while I didn't want to end. As it concluded, it might as well have been the beginning of an entirely new act, I was that happy to spend this time with these characters... and it was a beautifully chosen ending.
SMALL SPOILER:
Apatow attended a screening for the San Francisco Film Society a couple weeks back and there was a Q&A afterward. My friend asked if it was hard to get James Taylor to say "fuck Facebook". Apparently Apatow had asked Taylor to say it, he declined, they did several takes and on the last one Taylor blurted it out. I'm glad he relented, because that was a pretty humorous little moment.
I wanted to love it. I didn't love it.
Funny People is a hilarious, dark, messy, sprawling, deeply personal film from Judd Apatow. I had braced myself for a more dramatic film but was still surprised by how dark it was. The film basically merges two distinctly different films together: one with Adam Sandler as a famous comedian who has a terminal illness and forms a friendship with Seth Rogen a fledgling stand-up, the other has Sandler trying to reclaim Leslie Mann, his former girlfriend.
Setting the first 2/3 of the film in the world of stand-up comedy, the story is made up almost entirely made up of narcissists. All the characters are flawed and some are completely unlikable so I can see the desire to escape that world but the transition is not a smooth one. As Sandler and Rogen take a road trip to reconnect with his former girlfriend, they become trapped in Mann's house and the film which had been moving along so quickly comes to a halt. The supporting cast from the first half of the film virtually disappears as the film spends about 45 minutes on this doomed romance.
I admire Apatow for being so bold to make this film but I didn't love it. While there is a lot to appreciate, I prefer the warmth of Knocked Up.
I think a reviewer I read on rottentomatoes captured this film really well in one sentence, 'Its as if George Carlin doctered a screenplay written by Ingmar Bergman'
i just saw it last night and kinda loved it, i think the on the road house scene runs a little long, but it's kinda an almost perfect, beautiful, sad and funny film that doesn't leave any tears. cuz who says you gotta be blown away with either the sadness or jokes. it shouldn't always be about bigger and more improved, because i don't think this film was aiming for the fences. it works for what it is, and i think it's one of the year's best.
Quote from: SiliasRuby on August 01, 2009, 03:44:25 PM
I think a reviewer I read on rottentomatoes captured this film really well in one sentence, 'Its as if George Carlin doctered a screenplay written by Ingmar Bergman'
I'm not sure what this means. But i think i would love this film as well...The movie is easily apatows best film. Capturing real life in a sense that not many people can, or are able to do. I definitely agree with john in the fact that the film works really well, just presenting life, and the humor that can be find in simple things. and the fact that there really wasn't some gimmick gag ( i suppose other than the stand up stint, which i feel on one hand was 100% appropriate). Socket kills it, i agree. they don't play too hard or overdue the serious themes involved that way it doesn't take a turn towards 'melo drama' or whatever.
I do disagree with you however about it being a swing for the fences. Judd really fucking swung for the fences considering his past works...now that rotten tomatoes quote is starting to make sense. However swinging for the fences doesn't mean sending the audience out with some some grandiose over improved whatever (refering to
Quote from: socketlevel on August 01, 2009, 04:13:47 PM
it shouldn't always be about bigger and more improved, because i don't think this film was aiming for the fences
I just think breaking his mold gimmick gags with hipster humor in this way was a swing for the fences.
To me the previous apatow films had heart, just more humor, this had pure heart, and the humor is sprinkled on top.
any way. loved the fucking film. i'll come back with my gripes soon as i see it again, i'm just not sure about whole love issue ending...I suppose is fucking blunt real life though, so maybe i'll have very little cripes.
i see what you're saying and agree, i guess i meant swinging for the fences in a lustrous way. it's not attempting to be THE funniest or THE most emotional, it's more organic which i like.
i don't know what hipster means where you're from, but in Toronto hipster and apatow never meet. everything hipster lacks humor over here, to be hipster in toronto is to be post-post modern and insecure... they def don't have the authority or creativity for humor :)
just kidding
You are correct in that lack of just about everything including humor regarding any kind of "hipster" whatever. That was just a quick type and a misrepresentation about what i was getting at.
Judd is telling me either he's fucking hip or his characters are, and he uses his sets to prove it. Granted, i have posters up in my apartment at the time, and will probably have these kinds of things hung up in all of my places of residence in the future, i just don't know if he's doing it to add "realness" or to pay homage. But whether it's steadmen(sp?) Belushi, topher grace or whoever. (Some of those from knocked up other from funny people) or whatever, might come close to being just kind of college kids me in the wrong way. I get it, he's hip with the cool shit. I was kind of referring to that. However typing all this out has made me pretty aware that 40 year old virgin didn't do much of that (did it?) and knocked up was supposed to give me a "college type" (or adolescent) view of things. So maybe it works, and i just need to shut it
Point: Hipsters (whatever those/they are) are not funny.
still a fan of this film, and say people should see it. and i think i have apatow poster envy :(
He said in interviews that it was a homage and that he felt that aspiring comics would probably have those specific posters and pieces of art on the wall.
Judd Apatow's 'Funny People' takes a serious risk
The director says he wants it to be as funny as his previous films, but deeper.
By John Horn; Los Angeles Times
The Improv was packed with prominent wisecrackers, Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill among them. But as writer-director Judd Apatow was filming one "Funny People" scene at the Hollywood comedy club, the laughs were few and far between.
Apatow was more than halfway through principal photography last December, and like many scenes in his movie about a comedian's brush with mortality, Sandler's character George Simmons wasn't in a joking mood. Instead, he was having an uncomfortable encounter with his assistant, an aspiring stand-up named Ira Wright, played by Rogen.
"Really go at him," Apatow coached Sandler.
The 41-year-old filmmaker wanted Simmons to dissect Wright's comedy act, and Apatow didn't want the criticisms to be constructive -- they needed to be personal, cutting, egotistic. "George could never be more self-involved," Apatow said during a break in filming. "He never tells Ira anything that can help his act."
Apatow has become a self-titled Hollywood franchise thanks to exactly the opposite kind of behavior.
His hit comedies (Apatow directed "Knocked Up" and "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" and produced "Pineapple Express," "Superbad" and "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," among others) may be filled with raunchy dialogue, carnal quests and in-your-face nudity, but at their center are surprisingly sweet heroes and heroines.
A different formula
"Funny People," opening Friday, incorporates the trademark Apatow pageant of F-bombs and penis jokes, but its central character is scarcely as likable as his other central characters: In fact, Simmons is a misanthrope. Faced with a potentially terminal diagnosis, Simmons attempts to reevaluate his narcissistic life and the people he has wronged with very limited results.
It's a curious, pricey ($75 million) departure for Apatow, and more than a few people in town have called it his "Jim Brooks movie," a reference to the director of "Terms of Endearment."
"Funny People" represents an awkward marketing challenge for Universal Pictures, in the midst of a lackluster stretch that includes the outright bust "Land of the Lost," the fast-falling "Brüno" and the expensive but modestly successful "Public Enemies."
Early "Funny People" reviews have been sharply polarized, and not as favorable as the notices for the director's "Knocked Up" and "The 40-Year-Old Virgin," both of which grossed more than $100 million in domestic theaters. Universal hopes the film could gross as much as $25 million in its opening weekend (right between "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" and "Knocked Up"), but positive word of mouth will be critical to ensure the film plays for more than a few weeks.
Universal's "Funny People" marketing campaign has not shied from the film's blood-disease plot line.
"Our establishing trailer did not attempt to hide it in any way, shape or form," said Adam Fogelson, the studio's marketing and distribution chief. "We haven't tried to avoid the fact that he's been diagnosed with a terminal illness -- or that he's been told he's actually going to be fine."
The studio's 30-second television spots tell a slightly different story. They have been focused more on comic banter with Sandler, Rogen and Hill. "We're definitely showing the breadth of the cast," Fogelson said. "But we also have spots that show what it's like to be at the top, and what it's like to be at the bottom."
Back on set at the Improv (where Sandler performed early in his career), Apatow was looking at what it's like to be in the middle.
Rogen's Wright, having served (and been beaten down) as Simmons' assistant, was trying to establish his own stand-up act. A steady stream of prurient gags wasn't wowing the crowd, and one bit about his testicles might have been stolen from another comedian. Simmons told Wright he had to stop telling the joke.
As cameras rolled, Apatow shouted out lines of new dialogue.
"Who is your audience going to be?" Simmons asked Wright, parroting Apatow's improvisation. "People with weird-colored penises?"
As Apatow's story has it, Simmons had been a talented performer who made a string of commercially successful but insipid movies, including one in which his adult head was digitally added to a baby's body. Simmons lives in a palatial compound and has casual sex with random women. But he has no real friends, and no direction.
When he is diagnosed with a potentially fatal ailment, Simmons returns to stand-up, delivering a tortured set about mortality. Wright, who's next on stage, ridicules the act. Rather than be offended, Simmons invites Wright into his life -- or what passes for it. With Wright's encouragement, Simmons tries to atone for some of his past and present behavior, but the results are not inspiring.
"It's a mentor story," Apatow said as his crew moved on for another shot. "It's a disease movie. It's a coming-of-age movie. It's a movie about trying to restart an old romance. It's 11 different movies rolled into one."
Apatow said the movie was vaguely inspired by a stroke of luck that might have saved his own life. He had bought a new home but procrastinated about moving in. During the Northridge earthquake, the chimney and roof crushed the unoccupied master bedroom.
"And I thought, 'Now I'm really going to appreciate life,' " Apatow said. "And I did for about 10 days. The tendency is to go back and be normal -- the way you always were. Sandler's character doesn't know how to lead an emotionally healthy life. So he starts making a series of terrible mistakes."
Unlike "The 40-Year-Old Virgin," those errors don't involve harmless missteps like having a hairy chest waxed. The blunders in "Funny People" include alienating loved ones, attempting to ruin a marriage and treating the one person who cares about him -- Wright -- despicably. "It's a demented 'Tuesdays With Morrie,'" Apatow said, comparing the film to the inspirational bestseller about a terminally ill man. "What if you couldn't learn any of the important lessons?"
Funny and serious
The comedy club setting was similarly inspired by Apatow's early career, when he wrote jokes for Garry Shandling, Jim Carrey and Roseanne and Tom Arnold. The filmmaker was also Sandler's roommate for more than a year in the 1990s, and "Funny People" opens with a shaky video of a much-younger Sandler and Apatow making crank phone calls from their apartment.
Apatow said making sure "Funny People's" tone consistent was among his greatest hurdles.
"It's a challenge to make a movie that is about some of the more serious aspects of life while trying to make it just as funny as the other movies I've worked on," Apatow said. "You're always terrified of making a bad movie -- the humiliation is too much to bear -- that you always try your hardest. Everything I work on is something I want to see.
"I'm trying things I've never tried before," he said. "I'd like this to be funny as anything else I've done, but to go a little deeper."
I liked this movie a lot. I would disagree with the posters thing earlier because his characters aren't really represented by what they wear or what kinda stuff they like - they are represented by the jokes they tell and the career/ romantic decisions they make.
I liked it a lot. I'll write more about it.
I thought this movie had a lot of problems. From what I can gather, Apatow wanted to make a movie about the nature of stand-up comedy. However, this movie is coated in three generic stories–one about illness, a love story, and a kind of "bromance"–that detract from the core of the film and seem superfluous and weak. In the end, the movie ends up being about these petty, contrived storylines instead of comedy itself, which would have made a much stronger picture.
The quote above–about George Carlin directing a film by Ingmar Bergman–doesn't make any sense to me because Bergman's films are tight and poignant, even when they're long they're never really sprawling like Funny People.
First of all, he said he wanted to make a film that dealt with a dying, then getting better and dealing with that experience. It was set in the stand up comedy world but thats not what it was about. Secondly, what I quoted a reviewer said was that "Its as if George Carlin doctored a Ingmar Bergman Screenplay". Doctored means being a script doctor which means a rewrite. Jesus Christ, read something very carefully before writing it down and posting it.
I'm sorry I misquoted your quote.
I'm sure he wanted to make a movie about death, but I don't think it comes across in the film. As a finished product I think it deals much more with comedy than death, which David Denby recognized when he wrote about the movie in the New Yorker. If Apatow really wanted to make a movie about death, I think he would have done well to lessen the preference given in the film Simmons' life as a comic and all the other auxiliary storylines–including the younger comics. I think it would have made a stronger film.
You may be right and he might have been spreading himself too thin but I really am happy that he was trying to do something different.
Apatow's other ventures are among my favorite comedies, but this one is the most powerful because of its reluctance to maintain the same level. Whereas his comedies tend to be formulaic, but heartfelt, this one retains heart and ditches the formula. Why aren't there more comedies with this much ambition?
It goes beyond seeing a situation's particular humor and instead tackles people who devote their lives to humor, even in the face of death. I'm not sure of any movie I've ever seen that is as simultaneously hilarious and touching.
Quote from: Walrus on August 02, 2009, 06:13:16 PM
Apatow's other ventures are among my favorite comedies, but this one is the most powerful because of its reluctance to maintain the same level. Whereas his comedies tend to be formulaic, but heartfelt, this one retains heart and ditches the formula. Why aren't there more comedies with this much ambition?
It goes beyond seeing a situation's particular humor and instead tackles people who devote their lives to humor, even in the face of death. I'm not sure of any movie I've ever seen that is as simultaneously hilarious and touching.
Hear hear.
I won't get to see this until September and that upsets me.
I enjoyed the movie for sure, but I don't get how people are calling this "Easily his best".
I mean, I think the best you can say is "nice try".
It's clear that Apatow is trying to break free of the "bromance" or whatever dumb word has been used to describe 40yov and Knocked Up, but he's still really clinging to it, which is why it kind of fails.
It's a mess. There's no fluidity. Every time it starts to get to true heart, it gets scared and hides behind an improvised dick joke.
I did enjoy trying to call out which comic wrote which of their jokes though.
Quote from: RegularKarate on August 03, 2009, 12:05:32 PM
Every time it starts to get to true heart, it gets scared and hides behind an improvised dick joke.
Even if it's unintentional, this is what I absolutely loved about the movie. Every time that Sandler faces mortality, he has escape. So it plays out that every time we are about to discover something about him, it's diverted by him trying to shift the focus to something less miserable, or at least, something to laugh about.
Quote from: Walrus on August 03, 2009, 12:22:54 PM
Quote from: RegularKarate on August 03, 2009, 12:05:32 PM
Every time it starts to get to true heart, it gets scared and hides behind an improvised dick joke.
Even if it's unintentional, this is what I absolutely loved about the movie. Every time that Sandler faces mortality, he has escape. So it plays out that every time we are about to discover something about him, it's diverted by him trying to shift the focus to something less miserable, or at least, something to laugh about.
because that's what most comedians do.
Quote from: Walrus on August 03, 2009, 12:22:54 PM
Even if it's unintentional, this is what I absolutely loved about the movie. Every time that Sandler faces mortality, he has escape. So it plays out that every time we are about to discover something about him, it's diverted by him trying to shift the focus to something less miserable, or at least, something to laugh about.
It would be one thing if Sandler's character did that. It would make sense for the character, but while that's the case SOME of the time, most of the time that's just what the whole movie does. It cuts to the roommates (Apatow's crutch) or another ridiculous scene. It can't fully commit to being real. "That's what comedians do" is a cop-out (especially because that's what HUMANS do... comedians are just sometimes funnier when they do it). If you wanted to claim that the movie is mirroring this behavior, then we would have to be able to see more of the "harsh reality" that lies behind the jokes.
Once again, I liked the movie. I just wanted something more from a movie about stand-up.
Maybe on the DVD RK you'll find more what you were looking for.
I think judd hacked into silas' account. but anyhow do you think this causes it to lose depth, or what? I'm saying in almost compliance with your posts that this flick has attempted more heart than 40YOV, and more realism than 'Knocked up' IMO!!!!, and i mean in the face of a situation like this, what's to debate how humans act? Or what should play out? regardless of the profession? It's purely situational, and i feel it works. I kind of think the comment on "another ridiculous scene is a cop out. I understand the crutch with roommates, but don't you think Rogan is as an important character as Sandler, i mean for the films progression? and i could agree that there may be some filler scenes. But, we're supposed to see the young side too with Rogan, and i guess "yo teach" and other sequences fuel that? Like i said, i have only watched it once, i'm not sure about the depth and consistency, upon one viewing it seemed to work, i'm just curious on more of what you thought didn't.
One last thing on this movie, some of the marketing was a little wacked as most people on here could see. I am going to quote another review and say "The more I think of this film, the more I think it is a dark drama punctuated by some funny lines. The trailers have been playing up this angle of it is from this guy who wrote '40YV' and 'knocked up' but, as my wife commented, that's like marketing "Schindler's List" as "From the director of 'E.T.' and 'Jaws'." It doesn't tell you much about the movie you are about to see."
Yeah, just thought I should put that out there.
Was this movie really that dark, though?
Eric Bana was tops. And Eminem should do more acting too.
It wasn't REALLY that dark, no.
agreed wasn't dark at all, i think pensive and having a serious tone is being mixed up with "dark"
i found it to be dark. the characters were not sympathetic for the most part so there wasn't really anyone to identify with.
You guys make it sound like something James L. Brooks shit out.
stop talking about what you think the film was supposed to be and just talk about the film itself!
Quote from: Stefen on August 03, 2009, 10:45:45 PM
You guys make it sound like something James L. Brooks shit out.
ya it's funny i thought this was going to be a universal thumbs up kinda movie... so strange how polarized some of the feedback is.
Judd Apatow finds himself at crossroads
'Funny' boxoffice doesn't lower filmmaker's stock
Source: Hollywood Reporter
NEW YORK -- In the wake of Judd Apatow's latest film "Funny People" opening to a middling $22.6 million, Hollywood was eager to pass judgment on the hyphenate's stock.
Their verdict: It's still very high.
Managers, agents and development execs interviewed Monday said that Apatow's minor misstep at the boxoffice as well as some industry grumbling about the picture's length and tone weren't likely to affect his standing with studios.
"This is someone who still makes movies at a pretty low cost, works with amazing talent and has the boxoffice track record to back him up," one talent rep said.
Or as Underground Management's Trevor Engleson, who reps a number of comedy clients, put it: "If I were his manager, I wouldn't tell him to change anything. The town is going to let him continue making the movies he wants to make."
"People" underperformed compared to Apatow's last pic ("Knocked Up," which opened to $30.7 million on the way to a $149 million domestic cume). Although it outgrossed the $21.4 million opening of Apatow's first directorial effort, "The 40-Year-Old Virgin," "People" is not expected to show the leggy holding power that ultimately boosted "Virgin" to $109.4 million at the domestic boxoffice.
Still, the new Universal release nonetheless earned about one-third of its estimated $75 million budget, and it could break even when all is said and done.
Many also were willing to give Apatow a pass because he tried something off-brand by tackling more serious themes. They said that Universal, which last week signed him to a three-picture directing deal, made the right move to lock up Apatow despite the shaky tracking for "People."
Since the movie pushed in a dramatic direction with mixed critical and commercial results, there's a question about what direction those upcoming Uni pics could take -- will Apatow continue with the dramatic elements of "People" or revert to earlier form?
Because the filmmaker tends to write his own material, developing his scripts with an intimate group and then casting among an almost equally small coterie, little is known about his projects while they're in development.
Nor do they take a long time to come together; Apatow has been on a bi-annual directing schedule since 2005's "Virgin."
One talent rep said that he believes Apatow would find a way to go back to the high-concept material that marked his previous ideas, the kind that could be summarized succinctly ("Schlub gets hot girl pregnant") while still tapping into the zeitgeist.
"I still think he does something relevant and very observational," the rep said. "But I think he goes back to something with a big hook."
Others said they could envision him continuing in a dramatic direction, and that "People" would smooth the way.
"He has to ease his way up the slope," said Conan Smith, the former Endeavor rep who has launched his own comedy-centric banner, Ante Up Prods. "But once you get to the top of that slope, you have a newfound audience."
If there is a more significant change in the cards, it will be on the producing side. After some mixed results with his production slate during the past 18 months, Apatow Prods. will likely concentrate on its homegrown talent.
Arguably the two movies from the Apatow Prods. factory that struggled the most, Sony's recent period comedy "Year One" and Paramount's Owen Wilson-starrer "Drillbit Taylor," were not developed and honed in-house in the way that, say, "Pineapple Express" was.
The cupboard is now a little more bare than it's been in the past, when several Apatow Prods. were shooting or in post at the same time.
In fact, there's only one unreleased project now beyond the development stage. For the first time since 2006, next year will bring only one Apatow Prods. title: the music comedy "Get Him to the Greek," which spins off Russell Brand's deluded rock star from "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" and reunites that pic's Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller as writer and director, respectively.
That lull should allow Apatow and producing partner Shauna Robertson to decide what direction they'd like to take.
There are titles on the Apatow Prods. slate with proven Apatow proteges like Jonah Hill (the adoption comedy "The Middle Child," which Hill has written) and another Stoller-Segel collaboration, the couples tale "Five-Year Engagement."
At the same time, the calm offers a chance to develop newer names within the Apatow fold. That includes figures like Ian Berger and David Krumholtz, who have penned development projects like the buddy comedy "A Whole New Hugh" and hip-hop sendup "Attorneys at Raw," respectively.
"Judd was smart. He struck while the iron is hot," one development exec said in describing the development slate. "That means he's not going to have as much as he once did. But knowing him, he'll put a few other things forward. Even if 2010 is quiet, 2011 will be busy again."
Quote from: Neil on August 03, 2009, 03:31:43 PM
I think judd hacked into silas' account. but anyhow do you think this causes it to lose depth, or what? I'm saying in almost compliance with your posts that this flick has attempted more heart than 40YOV, and more realism than 'Knocked up' IMO!!!!, and i mean in the face of a situation like this, what's to debate how humans act? Or what should play out? regardless of the profession? It's purely situational, and i feel it works. I kind of think the comment on "another ridiculous scene is a cop out. I understand the crutch with roommates, but don't you think Rogan is as an important character as Sandler, i mean for the films progression? and i could agree that there may be some filler scenes. But, we're supposed to see the young side too with Rogan, and i guess "yo teach" and other sequences fuel that? Like i said, i have only watched it once, i'm not sure about the depth and consistency, upon one viewing it seemed to work, i'm just curious on more of what you thought didn't.
I'm trying to understand what you're saying here so forgive me if I'm not answering the right questions...
I DO think Rogen is as important as Sandler's character. Don't know why you thought I suggested otherwise. I DO think that giving him a love interest was an extremely tacked-on attempt at fleshing out his character though. It was "sweet" and all, but I think it's just there to make it more "sweet".
I guess what "didn't work" was really the over-all flow of the movie. It stuttered a lot and the "Joke-breaks" in the middle of drama felt like brick walls at points.
Again, I'll point out, I thought most of it DID work though.
Quote from: pete on August 03, 2009, 10:53:40 PM
stop talking about what you think the film was supposed to be and just talk about the film itself!
huh? Are you posting this in the right thread or are your words wrong?
It's real sweet when some random bitch you like fucks your best friend. MMMM, so sweet, that next time you're inside her, you become that much closer to your bestie!!!! bullshit. That ain't sweet, it might be tacked on or just plain tacky , but definitely not your run of the mill sweet either. The rest i dig though.
Quote from: Neil on August 04, 2009, 02:03:44 PM
It's real sweet when some random bitch you like fucks your best friend. MMMM, so sweet, that next time you're inside her, you become that much closer to your bestie!!!! bullshit. That ain't sweet, it might be tacked on or just plain tacky , but definitely not your run of the mill sweet either. The rest i dig though.
it IS sweet though. It's made to make Rogen's character look sweet. "Aw, he's so cute and innocent that he can't understand someone wanted to have some drunk sex... AW and look even after that, he forgives her and still wants to date her... how CUTE"... all for that kiss that no one gives a shit about.
If you say so...
i didn't think this was very good. in fact, i feel compelled to revisit "Knocked Up" now to make sure that one's actually as good as i remember.. probably not. :\
it makes sense that apatow consulted James Brooks for notes on this movie, because this really feels like something james brooks would make-- in a BAD way. in a SPANGLISH way. after only three movies, i'm afraid apatow's raunchy-comedy-with-a-heart-of-gold formula has become predictable and stale.
as a movie about stand-up comedy, it doesn't work for me. As a movie that is superficially about stand-up comedy but is actually about death and dying, it still doesn't work for me. for a film called "Funny People", there is surprisingly little insight on that subject. instead we get the generic archetype of the self-loathing loser who uses humor to cope with the agony of being alive. sandler's performance is great, but the character.. not so much. seth rogen's character is even worse. i can't tell if it's the character i don't like or seth rogen's performance. i think it's both. LAME character. there is nothing cute about his naivety or his unfunny jokes. his attempts to help george with his relationship are absurd. the performance feels one-note because every opportunity for character development is stomped on. each moment of genuine emotion turns into a joke.. not a very funny one. daisy was a boring character too. her banter with rogen made me cringe a bit.
the whole death angle would be GREAT if it actually sustained itself throughout the movie, instead of becoming a mere plot device to move forward the story of simmons re-connecting with his ex-girlfriend. the rest of the movie is forgettable, lame, crap. Funny People ends up feeling like a movie George Simmons would make. (i hope adam sandler's health is okay.)
i don't know, man. this bromance shit is getting on my nerves. i understand the idea, and i guess it's better than straight-up homophobia, but it's obviously a by-product of the same problem. otherwise it wouldn't be so cute and trendy and funny to watch a film about men who care about each other and love each other but don't engage in sexual activities with each other. GET OVER IT, america.
jason schwartzman was my favourite part of the whole thing. i'd rather watch an entire episode of "Yo, Teach" than rewatch this movie.
i agree with hedwig a lot. aside from a couple things.
1: i revisited knocked-up a few days ago. while funny people may retroactively harm it a little bit the next time i see it, it's still a genuinely wonderful movie, and i think it's as personal and sincere as funny people was aiming to be.
2: how in the hell is bromance an obvious biproduct of homophobia? bromance is just a loving relationship between heterosexual men. there's nothing hateful or repressive about the idea of bromance. the concept has existed long before the word was invented. the goonies is pretty much a bromance. bromance is just a clever word.
i don't think funny people is a complete disaster. things that are good about it:
- the first few minutes. the cut from the fantastic prank call footage,--[which is like a perfect, crystalized moment that sets up the overarching motivation of why all these people devote their lives to comedy]--to the older, richer, more tired adam sandler, is mindblowing.
- eric bana. eric bana confuses me. he can be so amazing in the right role, and then so unremarkably okay in everything else... this may be my second-favourite performance of his next to chopper. it's just great casting.
- there are many funny moments, however most of them were ruined beforehand by clips/trailers.
aside from these things it's a big mess.
- yes, rogen and sandler's characters are terrible. i tend to enjoy watching rogen because he's just a genuine performer. he's clearly not about crafting a character. he's just always present and himself, which works very well. here he's given a character which is very not him: a really nervous, star-struck guy who doesn't quite understand his own comedy yet. and as an actor seth rogen cannot pull this off. it's a very, very awkward performance. and sandler is just a douche. the idea of a mirror-image sandler is great, but the movie never develops him beyond exactly what you'd expect (guy living in a bubble of wealth and fame having trouble connecting with the real/comedy world) minus being likable. also i really wish they'd just called him adam sanderson or something. 'george simmons' is such an unimaginative, random alter-ego name. just come out and say this is a version of adam sandler.
- all the other characters aside from jonah hill are just constantly doing terrible things to each other. you can't really like anyone as a character. there's just nothing redeeming or interesting going on beyond douchey, obvious cut-outs.
- yes daisy was TERRIBLE/a terrible subplot. she was just as douchey/uninteresting as any of the other characters. it was agonizing to watch seth rogen pine for her because she's soooo douchey. i have a feeling the real person playing her may be a victim of being forced into that character arc, though.
- leslie mann. again, i know she's a good performer and i like watching her. but everything about her character was SOOO insincere/contrived. the first meeting she has with sandler is cringey because out of nowhere she breaks down and admits her whole life without him has been a mistake. it's so easy. it takes almost no effort on sandler's part. and from there on she's so easygoing and open about having an affair with him and risking her family you never feel like anything's actually at stake. generally the characters in this movie feel like pawns in a pre-destined narrative as opposed to organic beings. one obvious example being when sandler chooses rogen to write for him based on what he saw of rogen's set. that absolutely wouldn't happen. mann is the biggest victim of this. she only does things for the sake of the plot. i never felt like she was deciding her own course of action.
- i thought it was an odd choice to have the ikea doctor be offended by sandler/rogen's playful jabs at him... i wonder why apatow made that decision. why couldn't he have enjoyed their jokes? i bet his laughter would've sounded like a sinister european villian and fueled further jokes. and that choice clashes with the later moment where he embraces sounding like a villain.
- yes all the stories are really generic/archetypal. what?? people are mean to each other in the comedy world and can be secretly very unhappy? i had no idea. the master/apprentice relationship, the rekindled romance with the one that got away who is now married.. it's all so by-the-numbers. i'm very let down by the idea that apatow considers this his 'most personal' movie.. i think a lot of people could have made this movie. a lot of people have, actually. this is probably just the first time these particular archetypal stories have been woven together for 2 1/2 hours.
:yabbse-sad:
Quote from: picolas on August 11, 2009, 05:35:46 AM
- all the other characters aside from jonah hill are just constantly doing terrible things to each other. you can't really like anyone as a character. there's just nothing redeeming or interesting going on beyond douchey, obvious cut-outs.
People ARE VERY fucking douchey, not sure if you have noticed.
I actually thought this was a sort of realistic port of portrayal the type of people we're dealing with. Fuck "likable" Self serving, actual losers who can't see it themselves. I actually prefer none of the characters being likable, because lets face it. In this biz, we want everyone to notice, everyone to acclaim, and yadda yadda. That is def what these characters are riding on. All of these negative things about the character could have been intentional, I mean was it possible all the side trailers and posters made you guys think a certain way about the comedy aspect of the film, I don't know? I see where all these issues with the film exist, i'm just kind of trying to do the devil's advocate to find out reasoning behind some of this
And as for this whole thing being "by numbers" ...Does this sort of thing not happen in real life? Are all these stereotypical archetypes not true to some degree, if so, leave it alone. If not tell me the movie that is exactly like this, so we can compare it to and bash? Why condemn a movie for doing things that happen in real life. I get Execution as gripe, whatever, but tell me what film was a success at the exact same things this film was trying to get across, tell me why this contrived (realistic) series of events is so out line in this particular film? aside from rogan talking to the chick with no personality who slept with some dude when she was drunk (sound realistic) at the end, nothing is resolved. Aside from maybe a friendship. Considering he's the "only guy [Ira] knows who wouldn't learn anything from a near death experience" don't you think that he deserves at least a friendship, or is that too PRETENTIOUS for all you realists?
Oh yeah, and by the pfft, the one who got away....How fucking faggy can you be, jesus.
you guys.
Quote
- i thought it was an odd choice to have the ikea doctor be offended by sandler/rogen's playful jabs at him... i wonder why apatow made that decision. why couldn't he have enjoyed their jokes? i bet his laughter would've sounded like a sinister european villian and fueled further jokes. and that choice clashes with the later moment where he embraces sounding like a villain
Ya know, as much as i'd like to think the doctor who just told you your condition was terminal, and that you're probably not going to make it, would love to share in your insecure jokes at the time, which was all it was, another masquerade of comedy in the face of a life altering moment, I tend to believe doctors (Have you met any?, not your family physician either) will stick to the books, and will probably either not get your since of humor, or find it inappropriate to advocate that? I don't know, to me it was a defense mechanism and the DR was smart enough to know that, Because after all he gives cheeky jokes later
(spoils btw)
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2009, 11:34:24 AM
People ARE VERY fucking douchey, not sure if you have noticed.
yeah but there has to be more to it than that. writing a character who's just a solid douche all the way is very easy. larry sanders is a good example of a show that goes beyond/to the heart of douchery.
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2009, 11:34:24 AMI actually prefer none of the characters being likable, because lets face it. In this biz, we want everyone to notice, everyone to acclaim, and yadda yadda. That is def what these characters are riding on. All of these negative things about the character could have been intentional
it was definitely intentional. my complaint is that it's shallow. again there's a difference between 'likability' as a character trait and a likable character. i can easily love a bastard on the screen if he's an interesting character. these characters aren't interesting.
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2009, 11:34:24 AMAnd as for this whole thing being "by numbers" ...Does this sort of thing not happen in real life? Are all these stereotypical archetypes not true to some degree, if so, leave it alone.
yeah something like this probably does happen. if it's in an apatow movie it's likely based on something that actually happened. but that doesn't make it good storytelling. like someone has been through what leslie mann went through in this movie, but the way that story was written/acted out was like a condensed, unreal version of that experience because it was so fast and unmotivated.
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2009, 11:34:24 AMWhy condemn a movie for doing things that happen in real life. I get Execution as gripe
i'm talking about execution.
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2009, 11:34:24 AMbut tell me what film was a success at the exact same things this film was trying to get across
again i think larry sanders is a better, more insightful version of this world. and apatow basically learned the foundations of his schtick from there.
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2009, 11:34:24 AMConsidering he's the "only guy [Ira] knows who wouldn't learn anything from a near death experience" don't you think that he deserves at least a friendship, or is that too PRETENTIOUS for all you realists?
no that's fine as an idea, it just didn't have much of an impact on me because they were so at odds with each other for the rest of the movie. it seemed like another moment where the characters were forced into a situation. it could happen, but there wasn't anything touching about the fact that he came back, really. it's just an easy plot point.
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2009, 11:34:24 AMOh yeah, and by the pfft, the one who got away....How fucking faggy can you be, jesus.
are you serious?
Executed poorly? I'll take that. And the faggy comment was sarcasm. i'm definitely in agreeance that none of those things make it great storytelling, I was just in defense of all of those comments in order to clear it up like you have. Are you speaking of larry sanders stand up or what? I'm not really sure about the guy?
the larry sanders show. an hbo sitcom from the 90s about the behind the scenes of a talk show. apatow was a writer for it and his first directing gig was an episode of it. apparently his relationship with garry shandling was a major inspiration for the rogen/sandler relationship. and the show in general taught him about how to make good/real/autobiographical stuff. you can see the influence on freaks and geeks etc.
This movie is a sprawling mess. It feels like a whole movie compiled out of deleted scenes. I think Apatow got a bit too ambitious for his own good.
It's not that bad, it's just not very good. It basically feels like a learning experience for them. Something Apatow and crew can learn from.
i downloaded the most popular torrent of this movie and it was cut to shit. and not cut in a way that was intended, something happened to the file.
I definitely admire the ambition this film shows, but it certainly fell a little short.
During the first half I actually kept saying to myself "wow, he's doing it, this is an amazing movie". I felt Apatow was really going out there with this. It was moving, darkly funny, very true emotionally. Really, it was near perfect.
But there's no way to deny that once everyone arrives in the exgirlfriend's house this thing just drags for no real reason at all. A lot, and I do mean A LOT of the stuff that happens during this long sequence is repetitive and uninteresting, but worst of all, you can feel it clearly as a member of the audience. I, for one, didn't find the first scene between Sandler and his ex to be contrived or easy, it felt very true to that kind of feeling between two people who had it and lost it, and who know it but will do nothing about it.
But in the second half all this is thrown away, and a new movie, a more conventional, silly and safe movie begins. There are great moments during this sequence, but they are mixed up with some bad ones and some really forgettable ones. Too much shit going on, too much explanation. The film feels this unhealthy urge to tie every knot. The subplot involving Seth Rogen's love interest is very lame and as someone else said, tacked on, and it was just boring. I had no interest in seeing what would happen with those two. Their scene at the end...unnecessary.
This contains Adam Sandler's best performance, and its a shame that it loses it's way. I liked it a lot but this had the potential to become a masterpiece. It chickens out on the big issues of death and the world of stand up comedy and transforms itself into ANOTHER film about some fucked up creative guy dealing with being an asshole in his mid life crisis. It turns into corny shit. This is what comedians always do and I can't understand why.