Honestly I didn't mind Funny People much, I've always been a Sandler fan. Even if he acts himself I find him funny and at the end of the day that's all I ask for. However I really hated the ending, it seemed like the only cutting was at the VERY end of the movie. Oh well, at least there's not gonna be a sequel since everything has been touched on so I don't think it'll make much sense to.

I just said it. Even if he did do good in this film (like most of thje actors did here), he serious sucks... He's Eddie Murphy's equal. No matter how good either can act, neither ever sign on for good movies, nor do they try to avoid being in bad ones. They're both just money grub bing whores who need to be treated like real hookers- RAPED AND SHOT.

As for this movie- decent actors+
bad director with no clue to the message he/she is trying to spread*
bad scripting and storytelling=

ONE BAD MOVIE. END OF STORY...

Boy howdy, I'm going to have to go ahead and say that this review lacks a certain amount of imagination.  When I read reviews (which I do sparingly) I tend to merely agree or disagree with the statements, nit-picks, and summations.  Simple enough, yeah?  Almost too obvious to have to mention.  But it isn't.  Because every now and then certain specifically keyed phrases leap out at me, and certain attitudes chafe me in the ol' brain-bowl.  That is, within the parameters of established criticism, I come across something that seems objectively like crap-trap.

The contention in this review that Apatow should have found a more "universal" subject matter, such as he did in pregnancy with "Knocked Up", falls into this category.  I think it's a load of snoopy's balls.  It's a story about isolation and interaction.  As movies frequently do, it uses a particular back drop to exaggerate this, to heighten it through the prism of fame.  Ye' ole "money can't buy happiness", which is a pretty standard motif that’s popped up in most of the arts at one time or another.  While it's true that I wouldn't especially want to see your Home Movies without knowing you, I can say that if you made a film in which they could be used to illustrate something useful, go ahead and throw them in.  Aside from the fact that Sandler and Apatow were roommates a long time ago and, as a lot of artists do, Apatow used what he had on hand, I think it was thrown in there to highlight the fact that George has hardened, withdrawn himself from a world in which he perceives everyone wants something from him for nefarious reasons, and in which he himself is responsible for losing the one thing that really mattered to him.  I mean, I really dig "Alien", though I can't say that I've ever been in space.  Nor have I been terrorized by something out of Giger's nightmarish imagination.  In fact, aside from being chased by an over enthusiastic dog once, I've never been pursued by anything in close quarters while my pals were dropping like proverbial flies all around me.  Does this mean Ridley Scott was being self indulgent? I don't think so.  Art is meant to be personal.  Apatow is a rich, famous, working man in a very public industry.  If he wants to make a movie about isolation and interaction, is he obliged to set it in a gas station, or a doctor's office, or an art gallery so as not to be accused of being self indulgent?  And if he did, would I be at a loss as to how to relate to it, as I have never worked in either of those settings personally?

I would disagree with you that Sandler goes back to the comedy circuit to recapture his youth.  It was more about confronting his current mortality than trying to return to a time before he learned he was ill.  When we meet George he's already burned all his bridges.  It takes his relationship with Ira and other comedians to even consider trying to rebuild them.  I would agree with you that there were times when a lot of the gags didn't work, but that's an element of the movie's story as well.  Stand Up comedians do the same bits of routine over and over again, looking for what works and what doesn't.  In much the same way that the characters are trying to find what works and what doesn't in their lives.  One of my favorite moments in the film was when Ira has a shit fit after Daisy sleeps with his friend and she simply rebuffs him with "we hardly know each other."  Their relationship had grown in his mind into something it wasn't.  He went ahead and created his own set of expectations and reacted poorly when he felt they had been betrayed.  Personally, this is something I can relate to in spades.

I won't really agree or disagree with you about the acting, or the statement that most of the actors seemed to be playing themselves, because it wouldn't bother me if they were.  But, as you yourself pointed out, I don't know them personally, so I'm not really in a position to assess that.  I agree that Bana was funny, but I in no way felt that he stole the show.  In fact, there were moments where he went a little broad.  Which is fine, I don't have a problem with broad.  Pie-in-the-face stuff is funny.  But a lot of this movies humor comes from its subtlety, and there were a couple of moments when a big strapping Aussie tackling people took me out of it.  As did Leslie Mann's accent-off, and the well worn "last minute save at the airport", though I didn't really think of this last until a buddy of mine pointed it out.  That particular style of scene should be banned from movies all together. I can answer one specific question, though, about why Seth Rogen would want to draw attention to the fact that he recently lost weight - because its funny as fuck to have someone tell a previously fat guy that he "looks weird skinny" and should gain the weight back.  But then, along with pie-in-the-face jokes, I'm also a big fan of antagonistic humor amongst friends.  When a particular friend of mine calls I frequently answer the phone "What's up dummy?"

I think Funny People does know what it wants to be as a story about human beings.  I don't know that it needs to be forced into a specific genre - in my mind genre's are mostly meant to point me in the right direction at a video store, so's I know where to find something I'm looking for.  I worked at a video store, and we had "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" in comedy.  Would you define that as a comedy?  It's true that it can be a fucking hilarious movie, but it's also heart breaking and touching and strangely & vividly (very few people agree with me on this) realistic.  If I had to put it in a genre section myself, I'd have chosen drama, but no one at the store I worked at would let me change it.  Funny people made me laugh, but I was also invested in the personal stories being told, and the natural dynamics that existed between the characters on a small scale - I dunno, such details as George needing to have someone talk him to sleep stand out as a fairly obvious example of the subtler side of the characters - resonated with me.

And that's why I say this review lacks imagination.  I didn't disagree with all of your criticisms (I ain't exactly down with J. Hill myself) and I have a few of my own that you didn't mention, but you also didn't mention a single thing about the entire movie that I feel had real value to it.  Were "Funny People" simply a broad, genre-comedy, with less talented people helming it, then your review would probably have been spot on.  But it wasn't, and it wasn't trying to be.  All in all I'd say give it a second shot and try to focus less on the jokes and more on the emotions underlying the reasons why any of these people want to be funny in the first place.  It's sure as shootin' not because they like hitting people in the face with pies.  It's much easier to make people cry than it is to make them laugh.

Anyway, keep the videos coming. As I said, I only read reviews sparingly, but I watch the shit out of some videos.

Hmm, I can't help but feel you shouldn't use scores at the end of your reviews and just let the writing speak for the film's quality. That 3/5 just doesn't seem to add up with the words in the review.

Mind you, if it was up to me, no reviews would have arbitrary scores attached to them...

Excellent review. I wanted to like this movie but it was too much of a mess. The humor wasn't that great either. It seemed to mostly rely on dick and fart jokes, which get stale after the first few of them.

Once again you amaze me. How can you give funny people a better score than Inglourious Basterds? Funny People just isn't as good. I laughed way more time at Inglourious Basterds than I did at Funny People because QT knows how to break the serious mood of something with a funny line or situation. Apatow tryed to be serious and get the people and in doing so he lost the funny.

Mat, you realise that from now until the day you die you'll have IB fanboys constantly moaning when you give a film a higher mark than it. Then when you DO die it will be put on your tombstone and people, for years and years will talk about how Film Brain rated movies above Inglourious Basterds.

Get where I'm going here? He rated Inglourious Basterds 2.5 and justified it in a detailed review. GET THE FUCK OVER THAT PEOPLE !!!

There's a fundamental problem with your assessment.
Yes, he did justify his rating of Inglorious Bastards. I do not agree with him, but at least he explained why he disliked the film and gave it the rating he did. Again, I don't agree with him, but to each his own.
With Funny People, however, he writes a scathing review (a review I do happen to agree with) yet he gives it a 3/5.
Ummmm....ok? It may just be me but 3/5 seems way to good considering the review. Whereas he may have explained his rating for IB he doesn't explain his rating here. The text says "bad movie" but the rating says "enjoyable."

And all of that aside, in no way, regardless of the rating system used, is IB a worse movie then FP.

I can't lie: there were bits of Funny People I liked, but in the end, it was all a it pointless. Also, when you write a review, its hard not sound more negative on a movie than you really are. At the end of the day, I thought it was "average" and a 3/5 score reflects that.

Why do people always state opinion as fact?

Isn't that what you do? You said IB was a bad film. Is that not your opinion? Yeah, you have an internet column, but at the end of the day you're just stating your opinion as fact, no? Which is pretty much what I was doing. I, personally, can't see a confused, scattered, and to be honest somewhat dull movie like Funny People being better then Inglorious Bastards which entertained me from start to finish.
Now yes, Funny People did indeed have its funny moments (most involving Bana weirdly enough) but really, I felt very confused after watching it. Like "yeah it had some good stuff, but what kind of movie did I just watch?" And that gut feeling, IMO, tends to be the mark of a less then average flick.

As for IB, I'll just say I agree to disagree. I loved it. Though I couldn't give your article a bad review, because while I disagreed with you, you did provide an excellent argument for your PoV.

I love Adam Sandler's older movies. The ones that only exist because of him, Happy Gilmore, Mr Deeds, Little Nicky, etc. But i have to say that this wasn't nearly as entertaining as those, yet i still enjoyed it, partly because i'm a fanboy, partly because it wasn't TERRIBLE. I agree with the brain. 3/5 is the perfect score for this gre--cra--average movie.

You can't have a movie called "Funny People" without Jim Carrey!

well, it wasn't called "every funny person ever" so I think when it didn't have Carey, you could just start listing the comedians who are hilarious, but not in the movie. I for one enjoy Lewis Black, but I don't believe he is in there, neither are some of my other favorites (possibly because many of them are dead now, Carlin, Pryor, half of the SNL's best roster, etc...) As for the movie, I didn't see it because, I live in a small town, and the guy who runs our theatre is a dick who will always get new chick flicks in, but never anything fun on its opening weekend (except Transformers 2, and I wish he had let that one go)

This review pretty much said nearly everything that needed to be said. It was a confusing mess of a movie, and the ending (the entire portion of the plot that involved Leslie Mann as...what's-her-name) seemed tacked on, rushed. Also, that part of the plot seemed like a complete ripoff of The Great Gatsby (sans for the bootlegging and the murder).