Funny People and Grill's Favorite Lazy Idiot

I saw Funny People yesterday and quite liked it. It's been getting some fairly bad reviews for being too serious and not "Apatow" enough and containing some fairly blah acting performances. But I think it's been unfairly criticized. This, apparently, puts me in the same camp as Grill's favorite lazy idiot, Ross Douthat. (His commentary can be found here). I'll save my general feelings about the movie until the bottom, but first, a little bit of a response to what he had to say...

First:

"No recent movie has made the case for abortion look as self-evidently awful as "Knocked Up," Apatow's 2007 keep-the-baby farce."

REALLY?

I find it hard to take anything he says seriously after a comment like that. A "keep-the-baby farce?" While I think it was pretty ridiculous that that movie mentioned abortion once (because clearly anyone in that situation - ESPECIALLY a reporter in Hollywood - would at least broach the subject), I have a hard time believing that was an intended purpose/message of the movie (i.e., "keep the baby"). In fact, I would go so far as to say that Apatow likely left out that discussion specifically to appeal to a large portion of this country who would have written it off on principle if that discussion had gotten to direct, serious or graphic. To take the fact that they did keep the baby, which - as you know - like DROVE THE PLOT OF THE ENTIRE MOVIE and suggest it was a sign of social conservativism is (to take grill's line/complaint) both quite lazy and reeks of backwards rationalization/reasoning.

More goodies (baddies?):

"Tolerate a much more abortion regime" (emphasis mine). Posted without comment, but with nausea. (Which I guess means I posted with comment. So sue me).

"We wring our hands over stem cell research." We do? Who are the "we" here, exactly? Know your audience, at least a little, even if you are the conservative op-ed voice at the Times.

Douthat uses this all as support of his argument that, "we’re conservative right up until the moment that it costs us," and again, I think I will ask: who are the "we?" America? Because I'm not in that camp, and - judging by our most recent election - I'm certainly not alone. In fact, I would argue that people are liberal up until the moment that it costs us. Last time I checked, it's generally more expensive to be a liberal, what with our paying for more services, higher taxes and everything else that we get accused - somewhat rightly - for doing.
< /Douthat criticism>

Onto the movie itself:

As I said, I really liked it, although I'm still feeling pretty deflated about it, which is how I was feeling when leaving the theater. It paints a pretty gray picture of everything, which I think is probably a more accurate depiction of many aspects of life and relationships than what usually gets shown to us in movies, but that doesn't generally leave you feeling warm and fuzzy inside. I think the fact that the movie descended into something of a Greek Tragedy in the second half was actually kind of refreshing. Yes, it was a little schizophrenic, but I think that life and relationships (especially marriages) are all over the place and clearly full of conflicting feelings and situations, and the movie did a good job of giving that feeling. Coupled with the fact that the first half was legitimately hilarious, and I genuinely liked the movie.

On the other hand...

I thought that Seth Rogen kind of sucked (he's just not a good serious actor...his idea of acting appears to be making lots of different uncomfortable faces to convey various emotions), and I also thought that Jason Schwartzman, who I generally like, was pretty thin. BUT, Adam Sandler was fantastic, and while I think many people will probably think that Eric Bana's character was supposed to be fluffy and despicable, I actually thought he was pretty good and redeeming [ducks lightening bolt].

My biggest gripe about the whole movie was the big fight between Leslie Mann & Eric Bana. That she slipped into that Aussie accent annoyed me so much. What the hell was the purpose of that? Was that her suddenly standing up to him, when she never would before? Was she trying to throw something back in his face? It just struck me as totally out of place and unnecessary. She was finally, although somewhat misguidedly, revealing her true feelings and yet it came across as trying to get a cheap laugh.

And speaking of Leslie Mann: I found it pretty clear that Apatow is madly in love with his wife...the way that he shoots her is pretty intense. Lots of closeups and very flattering lighting. While she did a serviceable job, I don't know that I needed all of that. Then again, it's not about me.< /disjointed criticism>