Seriously, there was a lot of good things about this movie, but two and a half hours worth? I seriously found myself at one point wishing Adam Sandler's charecter would die, just so this movie would end already!
~~~~~~~~~~Say "what" again. Say "what" again! I dare you! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, the problem is that you have a short attention span, and you find it difficult to sit for too long in one spot. And no, I'm not trying to be offensive or spiteful. Rather, I'm just stating a fact. Back in the silent and early sound era of film, it was not uncommon for movies to be three - four hours long. In the 21st century, we find it difficult to sit in one spot for more than 30 minutes, what with all the sugary food and energy drinks swimming around in us. Hence why for a lot of us the closest thing to a real movie we watch is some lolcat or mean spirited prank video on youtube
Funny People isn't a movie for casual weekend watchers like you. It's a movie for film buffs, made by minds from an era when movie-making was an art, to be taken seriously. That's why the protagonists have a portrait of Peter Sellers on their wall. I freakin' love long movies. The longer the better, I say. You can always take a break.
Or, in my opinion, intermissions should make a revival. Intermissions were the greatest idea in filmmaking ever. And it doesn't need to be even a long film. Seriously, who wants to sit in one spot, staring at one spot for 80+ minutes? Plays and musicals were divided up into "acts", so why should movies be any different? I never watch an entire film at home in one sitting, no matter how good it is, and the fact that cinemas are refusing to allow viewers to do this is signing the film's death warrant. Ask yourself, how many films have you seen in the cinema, where you feel excited and full of energy at the start, and equally excited and full of energy by the end? For me, not a single one - even if I absolutely love every second of the movie; by the end of it, I'm drowsy, having trouble concentrating, and desperately needing to take a leak. Screw that. Bring back intermissions, give the audience the chance to take a break, a piss, a drink of water (or a doobie if you're someone like me), allow the audience to talk about what they've just seen, and they'll be fresh in time for the second act. Maybe if they included an intermission you wouldn't have got so bored by the second half. I'll never understand how they possibly thought it was a good idea to remove intermissions from films.
Good point, man, and well said.
Thank you: I got more laughs from this post than I likely would from the movie!
Funny People isn't a movie for casual weekend watchers like you. It's a movie for film buffs, made by minds from an era when movie-making was an art, to be taken seriously.
Intermissions were the greatest idea in filmmaking ever.
You seem really keen to use whatever you can grab your hands on in order to attack my post. First, you highlight the issue of fart jokes and Adam Sandler's terminal unfunniness as if they are vital aspects of this film. This movie isn't a comedy, it's more of a drama, about people who are, or at least - think they are funny. Secondly, what does bringing back silent movies have to do with intermissions? The only reason films used to be silent is because of technical disadvantages. The reason films used to have intermissions is because people liked to have a break halfway through, and they still do.
If you're just trying to be annoying please don't do it. I compulsively reply to every single person who thinks they have an answer to my criticisms but I wish I didn't. I have other things I need to be doing right now, so don't distract me and please get off IMDB
what does bringing back silent movies have to do with intermissions?
people liked to have a break halfway through, and they still do.
don't distract me and please get off IMDB
? Are you familiar with the idea of examples/exaggerations of connections to prove a point? It's a basic conversational tool.
Unlike you, I don't presume to speak for all people, but it seems pretty clear that you are wrong and they don't. The market dictates the rules. If there was sufficient desire for an intermission, there would be one.
Further, as the majority watch movies on DVD / Netflix etc. nowadays, your point is even more moot.
Thank you again for the laugh! Apologies for "distracting" you by possessing facts you haven't considered as well as a different opinion than you. I hope your polite requests to such people to "get off" IMDB work out for you.
[deleted]