1) Zoe Saldana
2) Funnier than the original. Better execution.
3) Alan Tudyk's awful. He was overreacting and the british accent is phony.
==
"We didn't cross the border. The border crossed us!"
4) Neil Labute
==
"We didn't cross the border. The border crossed us!"
5) James Marsden
But I own the British original and will just rent this remake
6) James Marsden
7) James Marsden
8) and so forth..... James Marsden
Certainly NOT Martin Lawrence. His performance was embarrassing.
The ever obnoxious Martin Lawrence is the main reason I will NEVER see this.
Jesus is my Best friend, but he still won't loan me money.
It's too bad, archer1949, that you wouldn't see the dvd: what I'm going to say is not in the film except in the special features of the dvd: the director's commentary with Chris Rock. Lawrence was, like I said, embarrassing.
LaBute and Rock were extolling the merits of Lawrence: how he "listens," which is the hallmark of a good actor. That is true of good actors, but I don't think he belongs in that category.
The really good performances in the cast were mostly ignored, as the two of them kept talking about Lawrence. It just seemed to me (and still does) that they were trying to enhance his career - saying in effect that he belongs in a really good film, to show his talent. I just don't agree.
He overacts. He hams up a scene.
And the worst part of it for me is how he swallows his dialog, so that a person watching can only figure out what he said because someone else repeats his line.
The best of exampleof this is the scene where Rock has the picture he got from Dinklage, and wanted to consult with the Lawrence character.
"You mean he was on the (mumbles: down-low?")
"Way down low."
If Rock hadn't said "Way down low", I wouldn't have known what Lawrence said.
Lawrence's level is Big Momma.
I, too, found the remake funnier.
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl
[deleted]
You really gotta watch them both, the original isn't really that dry. It's one of the least dry British things i've ever seen.
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl
Hell no! ORIGINAL British humour beats slap-stick, crappy American humour ANY day. All the British characters were better...just another example of American imperialistic bulls*$t!
shareCompletely agree! Britsh humour is about being subtle and clever... not overtly in your face. I dont think the American one worked at all... there were some funny moments James Marsden was brilliant - but if you compare the acting when they deliver the same lines, the Brits are much more believable and natural - from the way they say the lines to their facial expressions etc. The British one had really versatile and proper actors and with the exception of Danny Glover and James Marsden, the American one had actors that can pretty much only do one thing.
shareI thought the original was far more believable and funnier. For one I actually bought in to the fact it was all happening at a funeral. The remake never achieved that, they never got the feel right. The remake shamefully ripped off nearly every joke, making sure they shouted the punchline where possible.
They conciously changed it to a mostly black cast which was perculiarly done. I've not got a problem with that, obviously, but I do have a problem with how it is almost offensively done. It's like the director read a book on how to make a 'black' movie, put in the cliche black phrases and character archetypes. Maybe this is more obvious because of the original version completely lacking this and it being super-imposed onto the remake. It's part of the reason most of the characters in the 2010 movie were so incredibly two-dimensional.
I liked the American version of DAAF; I also liked the British version. Each version had its faults and strengths. And in some aspects, it was about even for me. I liked the performances of both MacFadyen and Chris Rock, for instance. Matthew MacFadyen is one of Great Britain's best actors - he does drama and comedy well.
I didn't like the British boyfriend with the black fingernail polish in the original - or anything else about him. Luke Wilson was far better and more believable. I liked Alan Tudyk, but I liked James Marsden far better.
Some of the women in the British version were far too shrill - when they didn't like something, their eyes bugged out. Example: in the funeral when they were discussing the parking situation. I am aware of the director's dvd commentary about the British actors' use of their eyes, but in a couple of instances, it was overdone. Mostly done well, though, with some exceptions.
I've said it before: Martin Lawrence was just plain not funny and his diction is terrible. His best scene was "Ohhh, Daddy!" but then he ruined it by adding to the dialog - about the yoga wheelbarrow position. Less was more.
I think there was a good-old-boy system working there. There are funnier comedians than Lawrence. I watch a great deal of comedy - stand-up - and Lawrence is not half as good as others I've seen.
I'm very glad James Marsden was in the film - I don't know who casted him or how the casting system works, but Straw Dogs will be his second Screen Gems film. And it seems to me that he was in more than one New Line film besides Hairspray. Do they sign contracts with the studios to do x number of films, and then the casting directors have to choose from who's available? LaBute said in the dvd commentary that Marsden was a "surprise." When did he find out about Marsden's talent for comedy? And I got the distinct impression that when LaBute was complimenting Marsden (and Rock was part of the commentary), Rock did not want to hear it. He kept praising Morgan and Lzwrence. Rock has an undercurrent of hostility in his personality - just look at his stand-up work - and I wonder how far that hostility goes. Just asking.
But I'm not complaining - just asking, aa I said. Marsden was the best actor in that whole movie. More than one person has said he deserved an Oscar for his Oscar.
To respond to deviates' March 20 posting, I don't think the director is entirely to blame for any lack of humor. And LaBute has worked with Chris Rock before - and Rock, I think, had a great deal of input in the film.
Someone else spoke of British versus American humor. British humor can be very broad - just like American humor can. Don't forget the British vaudeville stage or Benny Hill. (Hill could also be subtle - he was a favorie of mine.)
Completely agree! Britsh humour is about being subtle... not overtly in your face.
Could you be any more pathetic? Go jump off a pier? Seriously whats the need in being so rude just because someone has an opinion that you dont agree with?
shareCould you be any more pathetic? Go jump off a pier? Seriously whats the need in being so rude just because someone has an opinion that you dont agree with?
Lol @ "British humor is about being subtle and clever"
Don't get me wrong, I also love British humor. But subtle and clever it is not. Well, not more so than American humor.
So what would you say it is then compared with the states? Of course there are exceptions, especially with sit coms - but as a whole you'll find comedians etc to be very dry and sarcastic which often doesnt go well in the US because Americans aren't supposed to get irony - I'm not saying that by the way, its a general saying. Even James Mcavoy in an interview said that we try to dumb down our humour etc because we dont think that Americans will get it. My point in this was regarding Death at a Funeral - where the comedic acting was subtle and clever, unlike the American one where it was too in your face and obvious, therefore the original dialogue wasnt delivered as well. The producers of the original were shocked at how well it did in the States because they didnt think the humour would translate well.
share[deleted]