Okay, I'm all for the avant-garde films that expand your mind and aren't your average formulaic movie, and this was rather thought provoking in places. I'm not discrediting the humor that is there; a lot of parts made me laugh (Tony Shaloub getting hit, etc.), but it was much more serious for the rest of it. I just don't know how they could have billed this as a comedy.
Someone explain. Or debate. Something. Tell me how.
Really?
I saw from the description that it was about post-9/11 new yorkers dealing with the aftermath psychologically and I had no illusion that this would be a 'comedy'.
Sure it had some funny parts, lots of drama's do.
But I just can't even fathom someone saying, just 4 years later especially, "Let's make a comedy related to 9/11! And about New Yorkers ta boot!"
I wonder if it was the presence of some 'comedic' actors that got it thought of as a comedy.
"Oh, it's got Tony Schlub in it? It MUST be a comedy!"
"Oh, AND Jim Gaffigan too? It MUST be a comedy!"
etc.
Which is 'funny' in it's own way because I often find that comedians make some of the best dramatic actors.
It looked like a comedy but its really a drama. False advertising.
shareI was never under the impression this was a comedy. Maybe I was saved by not putting stock in DVD cover tag lines or that I remembered seeing the trailer when this film was released. I was even a Gaffigan fan before he became well-known. However, I still expected a somber film simply by its description - intersecting stories of people dealing with personal struggles in NYC after 9/11. How do you miss that even if you do see "Comedy" splattered on the cover? I'm not even into dramas. I prefer comedy and action like most movie-goers. I'm not even from New York; born and raised in Phoenix. Never even been to NY. Yet I still recognize the quality of this film and value of the stories. Why does one need to be from NY to get this film? There is nothing earth-shattering or groundbreaking in the story or the film making, but it's a decent film. I gave it 8 of 10 because I liked it, but it still deserves at least a 6 (i.e. above average) from those who allowed themselves to be duped into thinking it was a comedy. You can't say it's the "worst film ever" because of bad DVD cover marketing and your false perception of the film's intent. What if the filmmakers didn't intend that and the error was due to the publishing company's staff making the same mistake you just did? The phrase "judging a book by its cover" comes to mind. Or judging a movie by its cover. Pay more attention to your choices next time and rate it for what it actually is, not for what it isn't but what you expected. How fair is that? I understand the criticism of the error, but accept some of the blame yourself if you didn't know this was a drama. I challenge the naysayers to re-watch it with the intention to see a somber drama, then honestly tell me it's the worst movie ever.
sharea romantic comedy
shareActually, you can (or course) bill a film any way you dare to. I've never given this much thought, but I guess it has to do with the degree to which you trust the impact of a film.
In other words, if 1) billing it a certain way will put more a55e5 in the seats, and 2) you feel assured that the impact of the viewings will be such that the "bad faith" billing will be overlooked by 99% of the viewers, then, yeah, you might purposefully misbill the flick.
Funny story about this: The _Fight Club_ box set includes about 15-to-20 trailers, and they're keyed to a lot of strange demographics. Believe it or not, there actually edited a trailer targeted to be previewed at light-hearted rom-com screenings! Talk about bad faith! Think about _that_ for minute!....
--
And I'd like that. But that 5h1t ain't the truth. --Jules Winnfield
Absolutely agree! Just watched it this morning, and surprised to see at least twice on dvd case it's said to be a 'comedy.' I'd absolutely put it into 'drama' category. I found little 'comedic' about it.
share