Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Wtf is an out and out comedy anyway? It’s a comedy. Blatantly
Disney + streaming video recommendations thread
- Thread starter Nivag
- Start date
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Well there is undoubtedly such thing as mixed genre films, as well as single subject ones. We have countless comedy films that are just that, but also plenty of comedy-dramas, action comedies or comedy horror flicks. I guess an ‘out and out comedy’ is another way of saying ‘purely a comedy film’.
I wouldn’t describe Jojo Rabbit as purely a comedy vehicle but a comedy drama. Frankly that seemed fully apparent to me even before I’d watched it, based just on the trailers and spoiler-free reviews I saw before hand.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
It’s a comedy ffs
Reno
The In Kraut
Stop moving the goalposts, most comedies are blended with other genres. Jojo obviously wants to get laughs and I found it about as funny as a concentration camp, which for me is just one of several failures.
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
I'm not denying it is a comedy, but I'd say it's got the same amount of (and intensity of) comedy as Thor Ragnarock (less actually) and and I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be top billed as a comedy.
I don't suppose it matters.
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
Giving High Fidelity the TV series a go.
Not sure what I was expecting, but it's perhaps worse than the film, which I absolutely hated. I think I gave it a chance because I enjoyed the book when it first came out . . . I'd probably hate that too if I re-read it.
Spys in disguise - Cartoon for the kids. Another low rent sub par Pixar type thing. I know it's for kids but once again (same studio as Rons gone wrong) the internal logic of the film doesn't make sense (and I don't mean people turning into pigeons). Easily fixable, it's just lazy. Not quite as bad as Rons Gone Wrong, but that's not saying much.
Not sure what I was expecting, but it's perhaps worse than the film, which I absolutely hated. I think I gave it a chance because I enjoyed the book when it first came out . . . I'd probably hate that too if I re-read it.
Spys in disguise - Cartoon for the kids. Another low rent sub par Pixar type thing. I know it's for kids but once again (same studio as Rons gone wrong) the internal logic of the film doesn't make sense (and I don't mean people turning into pigeons). Easily fixable, it's just lazy. Not quite as bad as Rons Gone Wrong, but that's not saying much.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
I’m not moving goalposts and it’s perfectly fine for you to think the comedy parts of it were deeply unfunny. But we’ll have to agree to disagree about whether the film was intended or should be considered a pure comedy film, or something rather more multi faceted as I view it.
The Producers, There is Something About Mary or The Hangover are pure comedies, and the type of film where being thoroughly amused if not laughing out loud is the chief goal and expectation. On the other hand, The Truman Show, Fargo or Little Miss Sunshine are clearly more than just comedies.
I am not discussing whether the comedy aspect of Jojo Rabbit was funny at all, but simply pointing out that there is more to it than the one aspect/ genre. Many of us would describe Fargo as very funny at times, but anyone who watched it for the first time expecting it to be a laugh out comedy and was disappointed because they didn’t find funny at all would be barking up the wrong tree and missing the point imo.
I do get what you’re saying though. As I said before in this forum, I rented Midsommar on PPV on a night when I fancied a horror movie, after seeing it described by many as one, only to discover its horror element was both very minor and as horrifying as Doctor Who. But after I got past the initial disappointment I came to value and appreciate the film for different reasons.
Reno
The In Kraut
If you got what I'm saying then it didn't really need this post.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
This is so weird. You can’t just decide something’s not horror when it patently is. Same with comedy. What is wrong with you?
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
They’re not ‘just’ comedies or horrors. The word ‘just’ here is superfluous.
I don’t understand why you feel the need to elevate a film above its genre, by insisting on having subgenres to separate and elevate them somehow away from the other, supposedly less worthy genre films
I don’t understand why you feel the need to elevate a film above its genre, by insisting on having subgenres to separate and elevate them somehow away from the other, supposedly less worthy genre films
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
I think t&p made it quite clear, I could ask "what's wrong with you? "
It really seems like you are being mean spirited for the sake of it.
There are clearly different types of comedy and different levels in it in some films opposed to others.
Would you agree there are (at least) the same amount of comedy elements in Thor Ragnarok as there are in JoJo Rabbit? Was Ragnarok billed as a comedy? Nobody said JoJo Rabbit wasn't a comedy.
Lets agree to disagree.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
I just angry when other people are WRONG. Please don’t take it seriously! They’re just films
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
. . . .and nobody said by saying a film is not just a comedy it was elevated. It's just a fact that some films are not just out and out comedy machines. Doesn't make them good or bad. Go to bed.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Though I’d love to say that all Marvel films are comedies. That would be probably stretching it somewhat
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Worse than Hitler, I guess
Way to miss the point though. I never said Jojo Rabbit wasn’t a comedy, but was more than just that, and that it deserves to be judged accordingly.
I hope you’re not denying it is a drama as well as a comedy. I mean, you can’t just decide it’s not when it patently is. It’d be very wrong of you to suggest otherwise.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
All I’m objecting to is you saying it is more than a comedy. It’s a comedy. It doesn’t need to be more. Its subject is just unusual for a comedy.
Reno
The In Kraut
Nobody is denying that, what is weird that you are trying to make a case that its not important that the comedy doesn't work, because there are drama aspects to the film. Or that you make assumptions how heartily I should expect to laugh at the film considering it's not an "all out comedy". I know how film and genre works, you don't need to manage my expectations of or reactions to a film for me.Worse than Hitler, I guess
Way to miss the point though. I never said Jojo Rabbit wasn’t a comedy, but was more than just that, and that it deserves to be judged accordingly.
I hope you’re not denying it is a drama as well as a comedy. I mean, you can’t just decide it’s not when it patently is. It’d be very wrong of you to suggest otherwise.
Last edited:
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
We watched the Kingsman prequel tonight. We heard it was good. I'm not sure it was. A very strange clunky mix. Quite good in places but really terrible in others. Almost turned off in the first 45 minutes/hour, but then something seemed to change, (on reflection this wasn't all that good, just better). Best bit was an unexpected surprise. . . . . And no it wasn't the big villain reveal that was dragged out from the beginning, because that was one of the biggest anti climaxes I've ever witnessed.
I also noticed some really duff editing in a couple places. Not something I usually spot in anything, so it must have been bad.
Disappointing.
I also noticed some really duff editing in a couple places. Not something I usually spot in anything, so it must have been bad.
Disappointing.
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
Wilson.
Oddly quite close to the Daniel Clowes comic of the same name, yet has a completely different feel which completely misses / loses the 'charm' (if you can call it that) of the original. Disappointing.
One big mistake is perhaps casting. I was surprised they gave Woody Harrleson the Wilson role but thought maybe they knew something I didn't. . . . but no, it's as exactly as expected. Harrelson is quite imposing / menacing and quite a tough looking, and dare I say handsome, bloke. Not the chubby old, ugly hairy loser . . and it's not just Wilson, almost everyone is cast wrong. Harrelson and Laura Dern are good looking hollywood couple. It's not a good fit.
It also just looks like a very uninspired run of the mill indie flick. The have literally taken the book and copied it onto film in the most pedestrian way ever. Even though the content is the same, it doesn't flow and the impact and take home especially at the end is complement different.
Oddly quite close to the Daniel Clowes comic of the same name, yet has a completely different feel which completely misses / loses the 'charm' (if you can call it that) of the original. Disappointing.
One big mistake is perhaps casting. I was surprised they gave Woody Harrleson the Wilson role but thought maybe they knew something I didn't. . . . but no, it's as exactly as expected. Harrelson is quite imposing / menacing and quite a tough looking, and dare I say handsome, bloke. Not the chubby old, ugly hairy loser . . and it's not just Wilson, almost everyone is cast wrong. Harrelson and Laura Dern are good looking hollywood couple. It's not a good fit.
It also just looks like a very uninspired run of the mill indie flick. The have literally taken the book and copied it onto film in the most pedestrian way ever. Even though the content is the same, it doesn't flow and the impact and take home especially at the end is complement different.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
I’ve just googled ‘Wilson Disney plus’ and ‘Wilson series Disney’ and all I can see is references to Owen Wilson. Admittedly I haven’t searched yet for it on Disney + itself, but very weird I can find no reference of this. I’m guessing it is either very new or very old? Can’t even see it on IMDB.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
2017 film, always sounded a bit rubbish
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
I was always quite keen to watch it because of the comic book. I guess I forgot until it popped up on Disney as recommended for me.
I don't know how well it would have worked, or even if it would have worked at all, but I think I would have like to see something that flipped in style depending on the scene in the same way the comic book does (the drawing style etc varies throughout from dark and realistic to almost Charlie Brown levels of comic strip simplicity).
Last edited:
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
Mixed reviews in the Suplex house.
It's not bad, and I approve of the subject matter, however . . . . .
My daughter hated it, and I assume as a 14 year old girl she is somewhat the target market. She found the whole thing an absolute embarrassment. She called it 'second hand embarrassment', empathy for the mei character?
Personally I found all the frowns and 'whiney frowny speeches' really really hard going. Don't know if it's an 'spectrum' thing but it really stressed me out. All that frowning.
I wouldn't not recommend it though.
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
I watched M. Night Shyamalan's Glass.
Not as bad as I had been led to believe, which maaaaay have made me think it was better than it actually was.
Probably only held together by James McAvoy.
After recently watching the red letter media video about Willis not just phoning it in, but actively doing as little work in as many films as possible, I think that despite this being a bigger budget film (and not a tax write off) this is what he was doing here too.
It's like the film is working around Willis' unwillingness to do anything. Most action looks like it was done with a stand in, and for the rest of it he looks mostly like he is on a separate set repeating lines as if he has just been delivered them off camera.
The end seems like a bit of a weak reveal too.
I wonder what the inside scoop on Willis is.
Not as bad as I had been led to believe, which maaaaay have made me think it was better than it actually was.
Probably only held together by James McAvoy.
After recently watching the red letter media video about Willis not just phoning it in, but actively doing as little work in as many films as possible, I think that despite this being a bigger budget film (and not a tax write off) this is what he was doing here too.
It's like the film is working around Willis' unwillingness to do anything. Most action looks like it was done with a stand in, and for the rest of it he looks mostly like he is on a separate set repeating lines as if he has just been delivered them off camera.
The end seems like a bit of a weak reveal too.
The intention was never to go out into a public place so everybody sees the supers. . . . there was cameras everywhere, just leak them.
Except. That's a shit plan. It would be easy to brush it off as a hoax, nobody NOBODY saw it with their own eyes (apart from people who want it covered up). There were so many other ways a 'criminal mastermind' could have made it work. Stupid.
Except. That's a shit plan. It would be easy to brush it off as a hoax, nobody NOBODY saw it with their own eyes (apart from people who want it covered up). There were so many other ways a 'criminal mastermind' could have made it work. Stupid.
I wonder what the inside scoop on Willis is.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
It was rather disappointing when I saw it at the cinema IMO
Similar threads
