Funny People
Funny People (2009)
★★ / ★★★★
“Funny People,” written and directed by Judd Apatow, stars a bunch of funny people: Adam Sandler as a senior comedian who discovers that he has a fatal disease, Seth Rogen as an aspiring comedian who Sandler hires to write jokes for him, Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman as Rogen’s flatmates, Leslie Mann as Sandler’s ex-lover and Eric Bana as Mann’s unfaithful husband. Unfortunately, the material was not as funny as I expected it to be. In fact, it was quite serious because the lead character was obviously depressed because of his doomed fate. There were a few jokes with chuckling from here and there but there were no laugh-out-loud funny moments as they were in “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” or “Knocked Up.” If Apatow was aiming for some sort of a dark comedy because it did (or was supposed to) have jokes about death, then I believe it completely failed on that level. I had major problems with Sandler’s character because I wasn’t sure if I was supposed to feel sorry for him. Not for one second did I feel bad for him because he was a jerk even to those who obviously cared for him. When his character finally met up with Mann after years of not seeing each other, he fell in love with her all over again but I didn’t buy it. After all, how could a guy who didn’t value himself and his friendships value some kind of a romantic relationship (and a flimsy one at that)? The film wasn’t logical and it should have been because this picture was supposed to be for adults. I was more interested in the angle regarding what it took to be a successful comedian instead of Sandler’s so-called plight. I enjoyed the cameos from Sarah Silverman, Andy Dick, Charles Fleischer, Eminem, Ray Romano, and others. With such a brilliant cast who are very funny in other movies, this film failed to take risks. Instead it featured one contrived and sometimes uncomfortable moments on top of one another. If it weren’t for the breathers (such as the cameos) that had nothing to do with the drama in the character’s depressing lives, I would have been harsher with this picture. If you’re a fan of any of the names mentioned, then by all means, see it. However, I warn you to not expect too much because it doesn’t have enough meat to carry a two-hour-and-thirty-minute feature.
The Conversation
Conversation, The (1974)
★★★ / ★★★★
The masterful Francis Ford Coppola wrote and directed this film about a man (Gene Hackman) who finds out and keeps track of what people are doing as a living. Having realized the fatal consequences of one of his past surveillance assignments, Hackman’s character becomes obsessive when it comes to his privacy and the types of people he keeps close to him. Right off the bat, the film is focused: two people having with what sounds like a normal conversation in public. Later on, the audiences realize that it’s no ordinary conversation and the last thirty minutes of the picture highlights the most crucial elements in that opening dialogue. I have to say that I did not see that twist coming despite my (many) guesses with what was really going on. I also didn’t expect this thriller to be so character-driven. There were a lot of scenes that took its time establishing how and why Hackman’s character is the way he is. I thought it was interesting to watch how various elements are placed in front of him and how he reacts to those elements. At first I thought he was just a man who likes to have control and doesn’t like the idea of change. But I was proven wrong because I soon realized that he is open to changes in subtle and modicum amounts as long as he still manages to stick to his basic beliefs. The film really pops whenever the idea of privacy is explored. The recorded conversation was analyzed by Hackman’s character so many times to the point where I found myself obsessing over certain details like the lead character. I had several hypothesis such as the conversation being in codes and certain lines are cues that point to something that they’re seeing; as a third party, we can’t figure out what they really mean because there’s a filter between primary and secondary sources. The story enters a final phase when obsession eventually leads to paranoia. I thought the last thirty minutes was exemplary but the last scene was the most haunting. The symbolism between the home and the mind was obvious but it was nonetheless effective because of the journey it took to get there. The only real problem I had with this film was its pacing. At times it felt too slow but that’s something that one can get used to upon repeated viewings.
