Let it be known that I throw my full support behind Hollywood remaking good movies that nobody has seen. Death at a Funeral is a remake of a 2007 British film by the same name. I remember when it first came out. It got good reviews but almost no distribution. None of the theaters where I lived were showing it so I never saw it. It must have been hilarious though because the remake is pretty funny and is currently getting a low 40% on RottenTomatoes. That sort of rating baffles me. I can only assume that most of the critics actually saw the British version and simply didn’t think the American interpretation was enough like it. Sort of like how people who saw the original British TV Show “The Office” don’t like the American version. Now, I’ve seen both versions of “the Office” and I’ve liked them both equally. In fact I got sort of a kick out of seeing different people interpret the same material. I bet I would like the British version of "Death at a Funeral" as much as this one. I'm not about to say that remakes somehow denigrate the original version. That's just stupid. With that logic we should stop putting on new productions of Shakespeare. I hope the movie industry remakes more good movies for several reasons. 1) A good remake will raise awareness of the classic movie it reinvents. The reason I saw the original “Manchurian Candidate,” an awesome movie, was because I liked the remake. 2) Not all classic movies are perfect! They have flaws that can and should be improved upon. The best example of this Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” which not only updates the special effects and action sequences but provides much more depth into the relationship between the girl and the Big Ape. 3) Hardly anybody has seen the original movie. When a movie ages a couple generations all the jokes become new again. I find it deplorable that a movie like “Date Movie” can come out with absolutely nothing creative in it when the writer could have simply watched a bunch of Billy Wilder movies, plagiarized all the great jokes, and incorporated the ones that still work into his screenplay. Keep in mind that it is the studios that own the original movie. There’s nothing illegal about sifting words you own from the past. You may find that somewhat unethical but as far as I’m concerned it is much better than the alternative: Knowingly putting out a bad movie.
“Death at a Funeral” takes place all within a single day at a single place: Chris Rock’s house on the day of his father’s funeral. His entire family has shown up to share their respects. Each one of them has their own storyline. There is Rock’s brother played by Martin Lawrence. Lawrence is the successful one in the family who never visits and owes everybody money. There is a sibling rivalry rising from the fact that Lawrence is a published author and Rock isn’t. There is Rock’s wife Regina Hall who is on the last day of her cycle and wants Rock to take time out of his busy day to help make a baby. There is his mother Cynthia who won’t stop crying about her husband’s death and the lack of grandsons. There is his cantankerous Uncle Russell played by Danny Glover and his infantile helper Norman played by Tracy Morgan. There is his niece played by Zoe Saldana who is in the middle of a romantic triangle with Luke Wilson and James Marsden. Her father, Rock’s other Uncle, hates the one she likes and likes the one she hates. James Marsden, the one he hates and she likes, is super nervous to meet him again. She calms him down by giving him one of her brother’s, Rock’s nephew Jeff (Columbus Short), valium. Except it isn’t Valium. Jeff happens to be a chemist and Zoe just gave her nervous fiancé a hallucinogenic that will last the entire movie. The priest is played by an underused Keith David. Finally there is a strange little person who inexplicably shows up to the funeral and wishes to talk to Rock privately about his relationship with his father. The little person is played by the only holdover from the British Cast: the irreplaceable Peter Dinklage. He informs Rock that his father was having an intimate affair, with him, and that he’s got pictures to prove it. He wants $30,000 or he will walk into the next room and show the pictures to Rock’s mother. All of this happens in the first 30 minutes. The increasingly complex plot builds up from there into some pretty funny screwball territory for the rest of the movie.
Complex ensemble movies are harder to write and direct but it really pays off in the comedic department. For one thing it adds in the spontaneity of all the jokes. A big scene for one of the characters can also serve as a subtle setup for the next big joke for another one. Also it helps the pace of a movie when there is always a different person to go to for a cutaway joke even if it is only for a second. The director Neil Labute does a very good job of organizing the whereabouts of everyone and keeping the comedic rhythm between all of the different storylines as they expand and interweave with each other. I don’t want to give away too much of the intricacies of the plot except to say that it gets pretty manic near the end. And yes, it’s all very funny.
I hate to say this about Chris Rock but this might be the best movie he has ever starred in. That’s not much of a compliment. Rock may have been a classic standup comedian at his peak but he has almost never been in a good movie. His best before this just may have been 2000’s “Nurse Betty.” In this movie he’s not that funny either but that’s mostly because he is pulling his weight as the straight man all the other crazy characters goof off around. I can say basically the same thing about Martin Lawrence. This is his best movie since 2000’s “Big Momma’s House.” He's consistently funny though. He spends a significant portion of the movie hitting on the youngest girl at the funeral. When his brother bothers him about it, he tells him to take a hike because he’s too busy grieving. If there were a character that is probably nothing like his British counterpart it would have to be Tracy Morgan. I got the impression that he was ad-libbing most of his lines in his “30 Rock” persona. I can’t imagine the British screenwriter coming up with the story he tells the priest about finding God in a strip club.
Perhaps the best performances though are by the non-comedians Peter Dinklage and James Marsden. Dinklage has the very modern task of presenting his character in a way that is not offensive in terms of race, sexuality, and height discrimination. He does a very good job in still being hilarious. I think it works even better when his motivation isn’t shady greed but a sense of betrayal and outrage that he wasn’t included in the will of the man he had a serious relationship with. As far as Marsden is concerned, his performance is the type that is very hard to critique on any level. He spends the majority of the movie tripping on acid and the entire second half buck-naked and freaking out on the roof of the house. I’m just going to go ahead and say it: This is the best performance I’ve ever seen him give (Other movies of his are, “The Notebook,” “X-Men,” and “Enchanted.” He’s usually the fiancé of somebody) and he deserves some sort of award. (Oh and there are gratuitous shots of his ass. He like totally works out.)
If I ever see the original someday I will add a caveat here that says which one is better. Till then I’m pretty sure either one would be enjoyable.
No comments:
Post a Comment