list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Funny People on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Funny_People/365976/default.aspx Title: Funny People
Year: 2009
Director: Judd Apatow
Plot: Judd Apatow makes his directorial follow-up to the wildly successful Knocked Up with this comedy starring Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, and Leslie Mann. Columbia Pictures and Universal Pictures team up to co-produce the feature, focusing on the standup comedy circuit and one comedian's near-death experience. Eric Bana, Jason Schwartzman, and Jonah Hill co-star. ~ Jeremy Wheeler, All Movie Guide
Number of Lists: 3
Number of blog posts: 3
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:44:20 GMTFunny People2009Judd Apatow<a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___188203/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Judd Apatow</a> makes his directorial follow-up to the wildly successful <a href="http://www.spout.com/films/279565/detail.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Knocked Up</a> with this comedy starring <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____62990/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Adam Sandler</a>, <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___297862/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Seth Rogen</a>, and <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___215767/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Leslie Mann</a>. Columbia Pictures and Universal Pictures team up to co-produce the feature, focusing on the standup comedy circuit and one comedian's near-death experience. <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___224103/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Eric Bana</a>, <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___263441/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jason Schwartzman</a>, and <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___418718/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jonah Hill</a> co-star. ~ Jeremy Wheeler, All Movie Guide333http://www.spout.com/images/no_image.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Funny_People/365976/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2009/8/11/43480.aspxPost By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 8/11/2009 12:44:20 PM
Body: Judd Apatow's third directorial effort, Funny People, is being marketed as a comedy. And, to be fair, the flick revolves around a handful of comedians and has genuinely funny moments. But it's not a comedy in the conventional sense of the term. Apatow, who also penned the script, uses misdirection to tell a more dramatic story modeled more on All About Eve than Billy Madison.George Simmons (Adam Sandler) is a successful comedian who's received bad news: he has advanced leukemia. One night at a comedy club, he comes across Ira Wright (Seth Rogen), an aspiring comedian. Simmons hires the young gun to wright jokes and be an assistant, though their relationship quickly begins to look like friends. Whatever the relationship, it's tested when George reconnects with a former fiancee (Leslie Mann) and Ira speaks his mind.There is so much story crammed into this admittedly long film-it has a 146 minutes running time-it wouldn't be disingenuous to say the end result is ambitious, possibly overambitious. There's a veritable flood of major and minor characters and a host of plot lines which never quite gel to form a cohesive whole. When Joseph L. Mankiewicz wrote the 1950's Eve, he didn't have to worry about making the audience laugh or living up to some preconceived notion of what the movie was going to be. Rather, all he had to deal with was adapting Mary Orr's original story for the screen and juggling the ego's of both Bette Davis and Anne Baxter. Apatow's version doesn't work precisely because he found himself having to juggle disparate elements which shouldn't be thrown together.Take, for instance, a subplot concerning Ira, his roommates (Jonah Hill and Jason Swartzman) and a girl named Daisy (Abrey Plaza). The relationship between the four recurs trough the entire picture yet amounts to nothing in the long run. It's as if Apatow simply threw the characters in to give his usual stable of talent something to do. What, exactly, does Ira living on their couch have to do with anything? Where does Daisy truly enter the picture? The sad truth is neither is connected to the main plot. If Ira had articulated to George how knowing Daisy and Mark (Schwartzman) spent a night together made him feel, perhaps the younger man's actions in the third act could have made sense. But he doesn't and, more importantly, it doesn't.Where the story should have focused its energy is delving deeply into the George/Ira relationship and, more specifically, why it is George decides to hire him. We're told it's because of the jokes, but that' terribly simplistic. There has to be something else. Is it because George is supposedly dying and he's lonely? Does he want to leave a legacy aside from juvenile comedy films? Or is it possible, no matter how remotely so, he wants to actually help Ira, that he's being selfless in his final hours? We're never told, leaving the audience to wonder about that lingering question at the end. Had this been a normal, everyday comedy, no one would give it a second thought. But due to Apatow's unconventional way of creating this comedy, he draws attention to these types of loose threads.Funny People is wholly concerned with showing off to the audience. I can imagine Apatow writing certain scenes and congratulating himself for being so reverential toward the stand-up community, telling himself everyone between New York and Los Angeles will enjoy the references. I'll tell you quite simply Middle America won't get it. I'm told stand-up comics routinely get together to celebrate or just to eat. Fantastic, if Apatow is trying to recreate that milieu. But does it matter to people not in the loop? Doubtful; the sequence becomes something created for the "in crowd" instead of the masses. And to those of us who actually do care, it's overkill. (For the record, I noticed Ray Romano, Eminem, Norm McDonald, Carol Leifer, Andy Dick, Sarah Silverman and Paul Reiser. The cast list says a great many more were sprinkled in the finished product.)There's nothing wrong with the cast; not a single one of them can compete with Davis or Crawford, though they're a solid group capable of playing comedy or drama depending on the script. Sandler and Rogen are known quantities, so we know what we're going to get with them in this genre. I was more struck by Leslie Mann and Eric Bana, who plays her husband Clark in the film. They're storyline is relatively small, though she is a magnetic presence whenever she takes the screen. And Bana does the most with the limited screen time he gets, effectively making the audience question whether he really is the douchebag Laura (Mann) has made him out to be. As with all things involved with the film, the third act, which squarely focuses on these two characters, runs overlong and wears out its welcome with far too long remaining.Since he is the lead, I feel compelled to say something...substantial about Sandler, though what that something is I don't know. He's wholly convincing as a successful loner, someone who makes the people around him laugh but has precious little to laugh about when he's alone. Simmons isn't the most engaging or likeable character, especially when he verbally berates Ira late in the film. Maybe he's channeling Margo Channing after mentoring Ira's Eve Harrington, kicking the protege to the curb when he becomes a career threat.A word of warning: Funny People is rated R for a very good reason. Each of the stand-up routines prominently deals with sex and profanity. No more than five minutes goes between references to balls or cock. In other words, it's a typical Apatow and Sandler film, not intended for the squemish or easily offended.
]]>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:44:20 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog8/11/2009 12:44:20 PMJudd Apatow's third directorial effort, Funny People, is being marketed as a comedy. And, to be fair, the flick revolves around a handful of comedians and has genuinely funny moments. But it's not a comedy in the conventional sense of the term. Apatow, who also penned the script, uses misdirection to tell a more dramatic story modeled more on All About Eve than Billy Madison.George Simmons (Adam Sandler) is a successful comedian who's received bad news: he has advanced leukemia. One night at a comedy club, he comes across Ira Wright (Seth Rogen), an aspiring comedian. Simmons hires the young gun to wright jokes and be an assistant, though their relationship quickly begins to look like friends. Whatever the relationship, it's tested when George reconnects with a former fiancee (Leslie Mann) and Ira speaks his mind.There is so much story crammed into this admittedly long film-it has a 146 minutes running time-it wouldn't be disingenuous to say the end result is ambitious, possibly overambitious. There's a veritable flood of major and minor characters and a host of plot lines which never quite gel to form a cohesive whole. When Joseph L. Mankiewicz wrote the 1950's Eve, he didn't have to worry about making the audience laugh or living up to some preconceived notion of what the movie was going to be. Rather, all he had to deal with was adapting Mary Orr's original story for the screen and juggling the ego's of both Bette Davis and Anne Baxter. Apatow's version doesn't work precisely because he found himself having to juggle disparate elements which shouldn't be thrown together.Take, for instance, a subplot concerning Ira, his roommates (Jonah Hill and Jason Swartzman) and a girl named Daisy (Abrey Plaza). The relationship between the four recurs trough the entire picture yet amounts to nothing in the long run. It's as if Apatow simply threw the characters in to give his usual stable of talent something to do. What, exactly, does Ira living on their couch have to do with anything? Where does Daisy truly enter the picture? The sad truth is neither is connected to the main plot. If Ira had articulated to George how knowing Daisy and Mark (Schwartzman) spent a night together made him feel, perhaps the younger man's actions in the third act could have made sense. But he doesn't and, more importantly, it doesn't.Where the story should have focused its energy is delving deeply into the George/Ira relationship and, more specifically, why it is George decides to hire him. We're told it's because of the jokes, but that' terribly simplistic. There has to be something else. Is it because George is supposedly dying and he's lonely? Does he want to leave a legacy aside from juvenile comedy films? Or is it possible, no matter how remotely so, he wants to actually help Ira, that he's being selfless in his final hours? We're never told, leaving the audience to wonder about that lingering question at the end. Had this been a normal, everyday comedy, no one would give it a second thought. But due to Apatow's unconventional way of creating this comedy, he draws attention to these types of loose threads.Funny People is wholly concerned with showing off to the audience. I can imagine Apatow writing certain scenes and congratulating himself for being so reverential toward the stand-up community, telling himself everyone between New York and Los Angeles will enjoy the references. I'll tell you quite simply Middle America won't get it. I'm told stand-up comics routinely get together to celebrate or just to eat. Fantastic, if Apatow is trying to recreate that milieu. But does it matter to people not in the loop? Doubtful; the sequence becomes something created for the "in crowd" instead of the masses. And to those of us who actually do care, it's overkill. (For the record, I noticed Ray Romano, Eminem, Norm McDonald, Carol Leifer, Andy Dick, Sarah Silverman and Paul Reiser. The cast list says a great many more were sprinkled in the finished product.)There's nothing wrong with the cast; not a single one of them can compete with Davis or Crawford, though they're a solid group capable of playing comedy or drama depending on the script. Sandler and Rogen are known quantities, so we know what we're going to get with them in this genre. I was more struck by Leslie Mann and Eric Bana, who plays her husband Clark in the film. They're storyline is relatively small, though she is a magnetic presence whenever she takes the screen. And Bana does the most with the limited screen time he gets, effectively making the audience question whether he really is the douchebag Laura (Mann) has made him out to be. As with all things involved with the film, the third act, which squarely focuses on these two characters, runs overlong and wears out its welcome with far too long remaining.Since he is the lead, I feel compelled to say something...substantial about Sandler, though what that something is I don't know. He's wholly convincing as a successful loner, someone who makes the people around him laugh but has precious little to laugh about when he's alone. Simmons isn't the most engaging or likeable character, especially when he verbally berates Ira late in the film. Maybe he's channeling Margo Channing after mentoring Ira's Eve Harrington, kicking the protege to the curb when he becomes a career threat.A word of warning: Funny People is rated R for a very good reason. Each of the stand-up routines prominently deals with sex and profanity. No more than five minutes goes between references to balls or cock. In other words, it's a typical Apatow and Sandler film, not intended for the squemish or easily offended. http://www.spout.com/blogs/hautecritique/archive/2009/8/6/43437.aspxPost By: hautecritique
Post To: The Haute Critique on Spout
Post Date: 8/6/2009 2:01:41 PM
Body: So I’m watching a movie where Adam Sandler is playing a character who is obviously designed to closely resemble Adam Sandler (in fact, much real young Adam Sandler footage is used to backstory the character) *and* I’m at the premiere where the “real” Adam Sandler is in the audience.  Oh, if only I had a blunt.  Ah, well, onward and upward! This is a movie about a bunch of comedians of different generations living the life of being a comedian.  Three roomates: one is the sudden star of a lame sitcom;  another is starting to get gigs at “The” Improv;  the third, well, he has a “real” job at the food court.  At first glance, this is a form of situational comedy about stand-up comedy and comedians.  But that’s really just its cover,  a lame-sitcom excuse for them to tell a different story.  A completely different story about an aging comedian who (spoiler alert) discovers that he is dying from a rare form of leukemia and has suddenly to come to terms with his mortality and with his failed and dysfunctional life choices; to learn the true meaning of friendship and family and Christmas, and to become a better person.  All well and good, but if you stare long enough you get the feeling that this too is really just a hook to keep you distracted while they do their real dirty work. You see, the psychonaut goes into this film fully armed with the full oeuvre of Judd Apatow, Seth Rogen and crew.  We believe in secret messages.  We know that anyone who can make Pineapple Express and Forgetting Sarah Marshall is going to be leaving plenty of breadcrumbs for like minded patrons.  So we watch Adam pop corn into his mouth six rows down and settle-in for a bit of nudge nudge, wink wink. And then Mr. Sandler’s character, absurdly being “talked to sleep” by Mr. Rogen’s character, critiques Seth’s ability to be funny: “Your generation had divorce, I’m sure it was tough, but its a whole different kind of funny when dad is coming after you with a baseball bat,” bing, you are in and the whole thing starts to unravel.  Comedy is a weapon.  Invented by little kids who needed some way to fight back.  And it all goes from there – every facet of life is some kind of battle and every way of living a kind of waging war.  And our heroes, in spite of all of their flaws and weaknesses – indeed because of them – are engaged in some kind of extended warfare.  Although one has to wonder and decode – where is this battle happening and who is doing the fighting? This is a story written people born in the sixties who have become pop culture machines.  Sandler can crank out hit movies with a signature everyman-dope-with-a-heart-of-gold-and-edge-of-darkness formula.  Apatow has responded with a reflection of that kind of success, but with a twist and a slightly more subversive set of ingredients.  These guys have all kinds of mojo.  And then you have the younger crew.  Rogen seems to have been going gangbusters since his partnership with Apatow in Freaks and Geeks and even Jason Schwartzman seems to be plugged into some kind of magic.  How did they come to be in this place that they are?  When they write a movie about themselves, what do they say? The younger crew of Rogen, Schwartzman and Jonah Hill is commenting on its generation and sub-cultures. They are lite and trite and just beginning to get a sense of edge.  Your roomate fucking the girl that you imagine you might ask out is a minor crisis and the worst thing you can imagine is choosing between a sell-out career and impoverished pseudo-authenticity (importantly, Rogen’s character has assumed a non Jewish name).  Pretty par for the course in an Apatow film. But then you layer in the older crew helmed by Sandler and Leslie Mann.   Their painful reality crashes right into the not-yet-having-been-there imaginings of Rogen’s youthful playhouse and fantasies of what life might become.  Sandler has achieved superlative success within the boundaries that his comedic weapons allow.  He can defend himself but good and can command a world of shiny things and shiny women.  He cuts through Rogens life like an exacto knife, simply by fiat hiring Rogen away to become his assistant and instantly immersing him in the life that Rogen imagines to be his ideal.  But Sandler’s life tastes like dust and even faced with the crisis of death and a surge of an effort to correct his bad decisions, he still finds himself lost in a game that can’t really be won.  To “reclaim” his “one true love” he must break up a family – and even while the flesh is willing it turns out the spirit is too weak for even this churlish act.  Turns out that in the end, maybe he didn’t get as far away from Dad’s bat as he thought. Its a bitter pill and one delivered nicely with the sugar coating perfected by the comedian.  And this starts to dig.  Remember, the haute critic doesn’t need to be reminded that these are the guys who have been the strongest advocates of the ganja since Bob Marley.  If there is some signal to be received from the higher perspective, it should be here.  So then you have to start linking the thing in stronger.  Think about the total circumstances.  Judd Apatow is a self-aware guy.  He grew up Jewish in New York, rubbing elbows as a teenager among the rising luminaries of the 80’s stand-up scene.  This is a guy who goes on the Daily Show and talks about masterbating to a Jon Stewart interview of neo-con Bill Cristol.  He understands the dark art of comedy. Funny People doesn’t exactly stare into the abyss.  But it looks deeply into the eyes of comedy and reminds us that the people who are most capable of making us laugh are often brutally damaged.  Folks like Bill Hicks and George Carlin and Richard Pryor were latter-day Frank Booth’s who gave us a shot of laughing-gas before they showed us the severed heads and tortured bodies that they were extracting from the subsurface of every-day culture.  At its best, Funny People is an homage to this practice and its practitioners.  A subtle reminder that there is something ancient and noble and dangerous in the role of Trickster. In the end, it reminded me a bit of an essay from F. Scott Fitzgerald quoted by Gilles Deleuze: “The Crack Up“.   [Now that, my friends, is a link - if you came back from that in one piece, more power to you.]  Sadly, Funny People is not quite to that level.  It is not a Divine Comedy (Unless my being in the actual audience with the creators themselves, the very people I am writing about implied something spookily more fundamental in its efforts),  but it is a nicely crafted mainstream-with-an-edge postmodern comedy.  And, as I’m walking out on the red carpet surrounded by famous faces that I recognize but don’t know, I’m quite certain that the entire experience would have greatly benefitted from some of Saul Silver’s best stuff.  Cheers! No related posts. Originally posted on:The Haute Critique
]]>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:01:41 GMThautecritiqueThe Haute Critique on Spout8/6/2009 2:01:41 PM So I’m watching a movie where Adam Sandler is playing a character who is obviously designed to closely resemble Adam Sandler (in fact, much real young Adam Sandler footage is used to backstory the character) *and* I’m at the premiere where the “real” Adam Sandler is in the audience.  Oh, if only I had a blunt.  Ah, well, onward and upward! This is a movie about a bunch of comedians of different generations living the life of being a comedian.  Three roomates: one is the sudden star of a lame sitcom;  another is starting to get gigs at “The” Improv;  the third, well, he has a “real” job at the food court.  At first glance, this is a form of situational comedy about stand-up comedy and comedians.  But that’s really just its cover,  a lame-sitcom excuse for them to tell a different story.  A completely different story about an aging comedian who (spoiler alert) discovers that he is dying from a rare form of leukemia and has suddenly to come to terms with his mortality and with his failed and dysfunctional life choices; to learn the true meaning of friendship and family and Christmas, and to become a better person.  All well and good, but if you stare long enough you get the feeling that this too is really just a hook to keep you distracted while they do their real dirty work. You see, the psychonaut goes into this film fully armed with the full oeuvre of Judd Apatow, Seth Rogen and crew.  We believe in secret messages.  We know that anyone who can make Pineapple Express and Forgetting Sarah Marshall is going to be leaving plenty of breadcrumbs for like minded patrons.  So we watch Adam pop corn into his mouth six rows down and settle-in for a bit of nudge nudge, wink wink. And then Mr. Sandler’s character, absurdly being “talked to sleep” by Mr. Rogen’s character, critiques Seth’s ability to be funny: “Your generation had divorce, I’m sure it was tough, but its a whole different kind of funny when dad is coming after you with a baseball bat,” bing, you are in and the whole thing starts to unravel.  Comedy is a weapon.  Invented by little kids who needed some way to fight back.  And it all goes from there – every facet of life is some kind of battle and every way of living a kind of waging war.  And our heroes, in spite of all of their flaws and weaknesses – indeed because of them – are engaged in some kind of extended warfare.  Although one has to wonder and decode – where is this battle happening and who is doing the fighting? This is a story written people born in the sixties who have become pop culture machines.  Sandler can crank out hit movies with a signature everyman-dope-with-a-heart-of-gold-and-edge-of-darkness formula.  Apatow has responded with a reflection of that kind of success, but with a twist and a slightly more subversive set of ingredients.  These guys have all kinds of mojo.  And then you have the younger crew.  Rogen seems to have been going gangbusters since his partnership with Apatow in Freaks and Geeks and even Jason Schwartzman seems to be plugged into some kind of magic.  How did they come to be in this place that they are?  When they write a movie about themselves, what do they say? The younger crew of Rogen, Schwartzman and Jonah Hill is commenting on its generation and sub-cultures. They are lite and trite and just beginning to get a sense of edge.  Your roomate fucking the girl that you imagine you might ask out is a minor crisis and the worst thing you can imagine is choosing between a sell-out career and impoverished pseudo-authenticity (importantly, Rogen’s character has assumed a non Jewish name).  Pretty par for the course in an Apatow film. But then you layer in the older crew helmed by Sandler and Leslie Mann.   Their painful reality crashes right into the not-yet-having-been-there imaginings of Rogen’s youthful playhouse and fantasies of what life might become.  Sandler has achieved superlative success within the boundaries that his comedic weapons allow.  He can defend himself but good and can command a world of shiny things and shiny women.  He cuts through Rogens life like an exacto knife, simply by fiat hiring Rogen away to become his assistant and instantly immersing him in the life that Rogen imagines to be his ideal.  But Sandler’s life tastes like dust and even faced with the crisis of death and a surge of an effort to correct his bad decisions, he still finds himself lost in a game that can’t really be won.  To “reclaim” his “one true love” he must break up a family – and even while the flesh is willing it turns out the spirit is too weak for even this churlish act.  Turns out that in the end, maybe he didn’t get as far away from Dad’s bat as he thought. Its a bitter pill and one delivered nicely with the sugar coating perfected by the comedian.  And this starts to dig.  Remember, the haute critic doesn’t need to be reminded that these are the guys who have been the strongest advocates of the ganja since Bob Marley.  If there is some signal to be received from the higher perspective, it should be here.  So then you have to start linking the thing in stronger.  Think about the total circumstances.  Judd Apatow is a self-aware guy.  He grew up Jewish in New York, rubbing elbows as a teenager among the rising luminaries of the 80’s stand-up scene.  This is a guy who goes on the Daily Show and talks about masterbating to a Jon Stewart interview of neo-con Bill Cristol.  He understands the dark art of comedy. Funny People doesn’t exactly stare into the abyss.  But it looks deeply into the eyes of comedy and reminds us that the people who are most capable of making us laugh are often brutally damaged.  Folks like Bill Hicks and George Carlin and Richard Pryor were latter-day Frank Booth’s who gave us a shot of laughing-gas before they showed us the severed heads and tortured bodies that they were extracting from the subsurface of every-day culture.  At its best, Funny People is an homage to this practice and its practitioners.  A subtle reminder that there is something ancient and noble and dangerous in the role of Trickster. In the end, it reminded me a bit of an essay from F. Scott Fitzgerald quoted by Gilles Deleuze: “The Crack Up“.   [Now that, my friends, is a link - if you came back from that in one piece, more power to you.]  Sadly, Funny People is not quite to that level.  It is not a Divine Comedy (Unless my being in the actual audience with the creators themselves, the very people I am writing about implied something spookily more fundamental in its efforts),  but it is a nicely crafted mainstream-with-an-edge postmodern comedy.  And, as I’m walking out on the red carpet surrounded by famous faces that I recognize but don’t know, I’m quite certain that the entire experience would have greatly benefitted from some of Saul Silver’s best stuff.  Cheers! No related posts. Originally posted on:The Haute Critique http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/2/40782.aspxPost By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/2/2009 8:02:25 PM
Body: Between the new Vanity Fair spread starring his comedy troupe (which includes his wife) and official word that he’s producing Ghostbusters 3, Judd Apatow is the talk of the Internet today. Eric D. Snider, in a new post at Cinematical that is apparently unrelated to either bits of news, even discusses Apatow’s potential status as this generation’s John Hughes. Considering some bloggers refer to the stars of the Vanity Fair feature as the “Frat Pack,” despite that term’s origins being with another set of actors (though Apatow’s pals do overlap and have been deemed “Junior Varsity” members), may give weight to Snider’s claim. Whatever Apatow’s group is called (Vanity Fair simply yet prematurely labels them “Comedy’s New Legends”), their leader is certainly ruling over a large part of Hollywood these days, enough that he’s sure to appropriate more than just the Frat Pack name before he’s done with his reign as King of Comedy. Now that he’s borrowed the talent of Adam Sandler (for this summer’s Funny People) and is about to take charge of even older SNL alum (for the next Ghostbusters flick), what could stop him from hiring Anthony Michael Hall or Shirley Maclaine in order to align himself with even the “Brat Pack” and “Rat Pack,” respectively? We’ll just have to wait to see how much Apatow will ultimately conquer. So, for the time being, let’s take a look at what the blogosphere is saying about him and his crew today: In addition to Snider’s discussion, Cinematical has a post about the VF feature from editor-in-chief Erik Davis, as well as a gallery of images from the spread. I have to agree with Davis’ gratitude regarding a lack of nudity in the parody of the famous Tom Ford VF cover, but not because I don’t want to see those guys naked. Rather, I believe male nudity as comedy is so 2008, and therefore the bodysuits are much funnier. Alex Billington of FirstShowing.net somehow dislikes the Tom Ford parody enough not to showcase the image with the rest, but he does have special affinity for the Jason Segel-as-Buster Keaton image, so I can’t hold too much against him. Vulture claims, “For what it’s worth, of the twelve people that they feature, only one of them (Anna Faris) hasn’t appeared in either Arrested Development or a Frat Pack release.” Well, despite it not being produced by Apatow, I’d argue that her upcoming role in Observe and Report counts. No? Mark at I Watch Stuff worries about the future marketing of Ghostbusters 3: “Does this mean the trailers will triumphantly announce that Ghostbusters 3 is ‘from the guys who brought you The 40-Year-Old Virgin‘? Because the far more impressive part is still that it’s ‘from the guys who were the Ghostbusters–even Bill Murray, I shit you not!’” The Playlist received an email from Production Weekly confirming Apatow’s credit as a producer, though they write, “In what capacity of creative involvement he will lend to the project is undetermined at this time.” The blog also shares this short logline given to the film: “A ragtag group of paranormal researchers reopen their notorious ghost removal service.” Vulture again (specifically Lane Brown) responding to the confirmation: So were early whispers about this very thing last summer based on actual fact, or were they lucky guesses that turned out to be true? Or did Apatow just throw up his hands and submit to the almighty will of the Internet? If so, we demand that he cast Seth Rogen, Paul Rudd, James Franco, and McLovin as the new Ghostbusters, stick with the original Ray Parker Jr. theme song, and release this thing on our next birthday (November 16, which is a Monday this year). Make it happen, Apatow! And here is a behind-the-scenes video from the VF shoot: Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 01:02:25 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/2/2009 8:02:25 PMBetween the new Vanity Fair spread starring his comedy troupe (which includes his wife) and official word that he’s producing Ghostbusters 3, Judd Apatow is the talk of the Internet today. Eric D. Snider, in a new post at Cinematical that is apparently unrelated to either bits of news, even discusses Apatow’s potential status as this generation’s John Hughes. Considering some bloggers refer to the stars of the Vanity Fair feature as the “Frat Pack,” despite that term’s origins being with another set of actors (though Apatow’s pals do overlap and have been deemed “Junior Varsity” members), may give weight to Snider’s claim. Whatever Apatow’s group is called (Vanity Fair simply yet prematurely labels them “Comedy’s New Legends”), their leader is certainly ruling over a large part of Hollywood these days, enough that he’s sure to appropriate more than just the Frat Pack name before he’s done with his reign as King of Comedy. Now that he’s borrowed the talent of Adam Sandler (for this summer’s Funny People) and is about to take charge of even older SNL alum (for the next Ghostbusters flick), what could stop him from hiring Anthony Michael Hall or Shirley Maclaine in order to align himself with even the “Brat Pack” and “Rat Pack,” respectively? We’ll just have to wait to see how much Apatow will ultimately conquer. So, for the time being, let’s take a look at what the blogosphere is saying about him and his crew today: In addition to Snider’s discussion, Cinematical has a post about the VF feature from editor-in-chief Erik Davis, as well as a gallery of images from the spread. I have to agree with Davis’ gratitude regarding a lack of nudity in the parody of the famous Tom Ford VF cover, but not because I don’t want to see those guys naked. Rather, I believe male nudity as comedy is so 2008, and therefore the bodysuits are much funnier. Alex Billington of FirstShowing.net somehow dislikes the Tom Ford parody enough not to showcase the image with the rest, but he does have special affinity for the Jason Segel-as-Buster Keaton image, so I can’t hold too much against him. Vulture claims, “For what it’s worth, of the twelve people that they feature, only one of them (Anna Faris) hasn’t appeared in either Arrested Development or a Frat Pack release.” Well, despite it not being produced by Apatow, I’d argue that her upcoming role in Observe and Report counts. No? Mark at I Watch Stuff worries about the future marketing of Ghostbusters 3: “Does this mean the trailers will triumphantly announce that Ghostbusters 3 is ‘from the guys who brought you The 40-Year-Old Virgin‘? Because the far more impressive part is still that it’s ‘from the guys who were the Ghostbusters–even Bill Murray, I shit you not!’” The Playlist received an email from Production Weekly confirming Apatow’s credit as a producer, though they write, “In what capacity of creative involvement he will lend to the project is undetermined at this time.” The blog also shares this short logline given to the film: “A ragtag group of paranormal researchers reopen their notorious ghost removal service.” Vulture again (specifically Lane Brown) responding to the confirmation: So were early whispers about this very thing last summer based on actual fact, or were they lucky guesses that turned out to be true? Or did Apatow just throw up his hands and submit to the almighty will of the Internet? If so, we demand that he cast Seth Rogen, Paul Rudd, James Franco, and McLovin as the new Ghostbusters, stick with the original Ray Parker Jr. theme song, and release this thing on our next birthday (November 16, which is a Monday this year). Make it happen, Apatow! And here is a behind-the-scenes video from the VF shoot: Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comedian/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomedian
Number of films tagged: 948

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 26

]]>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:01:54 GMT9481626Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/terminalillness/MemberTagFilms.aspxterminalillness
Number of films tagged: 482

Number of people who tagged: 13

Number of times used: 16

]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:23:54 GMT4821316Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mentor/MemberTagFilms.aspxmentor
Number of films tagged: 242

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 14

]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:23:54 GMT2421014Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/neardeathexperience/MemberTagFilms.aspxneardeathexperience
Number of films tagged: 52

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:08:44 GMT5222Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/standupcomedy/MemberTagFilms.aspxstandupcomedy
Number of films tagged: 530

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 3

]]>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:04:22 GMT53023Tag