Funny People

[SiliasRuby]

It wasn't REALLY that dark, no.

[socketlevel]

agreed wasn't dark at all, i think pensive and having a serious tone is being mixed up with "dark"

[modage]

i found it to be dark.  the characters were not sympathetic for the most part so there wasn't really anyone to identify with.

[Stefen]

You guys make it sound like something James L. Brooks shit out.

[pete]

stop talking about what you think the film was supposed to be and just talk about the film itself!

[socketlevel]

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.

[MacGuffin]

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."

[RegularKarate]

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.

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?

[Neil]

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.

[RegularKarate]

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.

[Neil]

If you say so...

[hedwig]

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.

[picolas]

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.

[Neil]

- 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.

- 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

[picolas]

(spoils btw)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Why condemn a movie for doing things that happen in real life.  I get Execution as gripe

i'm talking about execution.

but 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.

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?

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.

Oh yeah, and by the pfft, the one who got away....How fucking faggy can you be, jesus.

are you serious?