MovieChat Forums > The Comedy (2012) Discussion > Heidecker is very good in this, but . . ...

Heidecker is very good in this, but . . .


the film itself is pretentious, meandering, and underwritten. It isn't a feature film; it is a short s t r e t c h e d to feature length.

reply

I agree. Once you get a sense for the character there's almost no reason to keep going. It doesn't take you on any kind of journey and there's no redemption. I'm not saying every film needs that, but without those elements I'd hope it would be funny or in some way entertaining. Most of the characters are despicable and hard to watch. When I finished it my only positive thought was that Heidecker did a good job.

reply

I found myself laughing harder at this than most comedies. Not the crude humor scenes so much, but the really awkward human interaction scenes, like when Heidecker asks the Rich couple if the gardeners can swim in their pool.

reply

Yes. But its still mesmerizing to watch this like crawling through a portal and being john malkovich.

reply

the only part I laughed at was the cab scene when they were all singing that annoying song. Now that was hilarious! :)

From dream to dream....we have always been, like an ever flowing stream....

reply

I totally see what you mean, but I disagree. The film does not unfold into a climax or resolution--you're right about that, but it does progress. We see different aspects of this character in different situations, and each new situation asks us to reconsider our understanding of him.

Rather than the film resolving the character's issues, we as audience members are asked to look closer and puzzle out who he is. We get no climax. We get a sort of anti-climax, an antithesis to a resolution. I believe this comes as the seizure scene, which is a restatement of the character. He has not grown. He may in fact be revealing his true inner self for the first and clearest time--an uncaring onlooker, something that, if you're watching closely, is not entirely clear up until that point.

And even the final scene is a reversal of that. We see him playing on the beach like a child, a very human thing to do, and again we have to ask ourselves, is he a sociopath, or what?

The film is sort of repugnant. It is not meant to be entertaining. That, in itself, will piss a lot of people off, and I get it. I kinda hated it when I finished it, but I've been thinking about it ever since, and the more I think about it, the more I think it's sort of brilliant, even if it's not "enjoyable."

reply

" ... but it does progress. We see different aspects of this character in different situations, and each new situation asks us to reconsider our understanding of him.

Rather than the film resolving the character's issues, we as audience members are asked to look closer and puzzle out who he is. We get no climax. We get a sort of anti-climax, an antithesis to a resolution."


I see where these inferences can be drawn, but I don't believe the film really earns the right to 'ask us to look closer and puzzle out who he is'. His slavery aside (among other blatherings on that he does) sure plants socio-political thoughts and considerations into our minds, but in hindsight they come across as a futile attempt to indeed trick us into giving the film unearned merit. He is a guilt ridden spoiled white American, but again, the film just meanders. It brings up interesting questions and then just masturbates with them. However, like you say; "there is no climax".







"I believe this comes as the seizure scene, which is a restatement of the character. He has not grown. He may in fact be revealing his true inner self for the first and clearest time--an uncaring onlooker, something that, if you're watching closely, is not entirely clear up until that point."

Yeah, I 'get it', but that scene in particular rings as cheap manipulation to me. I felt that it's already been established that he is "an uncaring onlooker". The film maker exploits our natural sentimentality. "Now we'll have this 'next' random chick that falls for this stooge's schtick have a seizure and the audience will be stunned and puzzled and it's, like, all DEEP and stuff". It didn't work for me.



reply

It's almost like there are different opinions.

reply

Of course, it's no Mad Max: Fury Road, which you apparently gave a 10, so you sound like an authority on what makes a great film.

---
in the beginning, it is always dark

reply

So, what do you think about this film? Apparently you disagree that Fury Road is good, but what about this one? It is pretty funny that you dismiss my opinion because I really like the best reviewed film of the last two years, though. And you say it with such self righteous arrogance. All "anybody that does not think the one film made this year that has gotten practically unanimous acclaim is terrible is obviously an idiot unworthy of an opinion".

reply

Best reviewed film in years sounds substantial when you forget the caliber of most reviewers which doesn't lead any credence to whether a film is well reviewed or not

As for what I thought of this film, i enjoyed it a lot. I thought it was highly relevant, clever and well acted.



---
in the beginning, it is always dark

reply

That made absolutely no sense.

reply