Death At A Funeral Bluray

Posted In: Death At A Funeral

Dean Walters says...

Not really much to say about this film, other than its just flat out not funny!! If this had been a movie with "lesser known" actors, then I would say "oh well, I guess it wasn't that bad given the cast"....but when you have Martin Lawrence, Chris Rock, Tracy Morgan (I'm not a fan of his), Kevin Hart, and Danny Glover, and this is what they came up with??? SAD!! Save your money and your time. I don't even think this would be funny if you were high while watching it!!

Posted on January 14, 2011

Jacquelin Tarling says...

WHY? A gag filled story filled with humor in a situation that's not supposed to be funny. You have to like this type of off-the-wall comedy drama. It is quirky humor. You have to decide if you like this US version or stick with the UK original of 3 years earlier. Both have great, top stars, doing awesomely in the roles of unusual characters through a bazaar affair.



Chris York is the deceased man's son in America. Well done. Or do you prefer a British Matthew MacFadyen taking a giant leap from Mr. Darcy in "Pride & Prejudice" for his work as the same character in the British film? Both top actors, both convincing, and creating laughs, although playing a solemn role. Directors have both done well with the same script. Even the blackmail amount of 15,000 pounds was accurately converted to 30,000 US dollars. Neil LeBute (US film) gets the most out of an American cast, Frank OZ (actually British born) puts together his cast and the story, which is as imaginary as OZ-the-Wizard's tale. Both the US & UK versions come with a munchkin-size star, Peter Dinklage (Frank in US; Peter in UK) who is fantastic in a difficult role, made only more difficult and strange in the US version due to skin tone significance. Dinklage is the only cast member to do the same role in both films.



The question is "Why?" first and then "Which?" for the viewers. Which may be best decided by buying both and making your own comparison. If you are one of the public that likes viewing the same movie multiple times, this story will give you some diversification in repetition, WITHOUT LOSS OF QUALITY.



You'll laugh till the film's end, when the bereaved son, after a day of mishaps, delivers a touching, philosophical ending that seems alien to all that happened beginning with the delivery of the wrong body to the family home on the morning of this "Death at a Funeral."



So do you want American scenery or British? American accents or British? English subtitles or ENGLISH??? This remake of a British hit for the American public reminds me somewhat of a British TV series "Life on Mars: UK Series" that was redone for American TV. Why? But both versions have their fans. There I preferred the UK.



Bottom line. If your not looking for depth in a movie, just weird stuff, this will fill your basket, US or UK. It's like picking your favorite chocolate variety--it all tastes like chocolate, and it's good.

Posted on January 14, 2011

Ilse Degracia says...

I was really excited to watch this movie, but I was drastically disappointed.Not only was the f-bomb used in almost every sentence, the movie was dully drawn out.Chris Rock was far from funny, and the actors seemed as if they didn't really want to be in the movie.I wouldn't watch this movie again if someone paid me.It lowered my IQ.

Posted on January 14, 2011

Deon Marney says...

Usually when Hollywood does a remake, it's done for one of two reasons: either the studio believes the original was such a hit that a slightly-off carbon copy will make money, too, or it's a successful foreign film they pick up on the cheap so they can do a quick translation of it in order to make money, too.



The reasons for Sony Pictures doing a remake of Death at a Funeral are a lot less clear, except for the `make money' part.



[...]

Posted on January 16, 2011

Catharine Buzzell says...

Are you kidding me?!



I caught this flick at a friend's house (read not by choice) and when I saw Peter Dinklage reprising the very same roll of Peter from the original Frank Oz production of 2007 I asked my friend to turn it off.This film is a complete exercise of futility.



The art of the ensemble is something Frank Oz handles with deft hands. Oz understands the importance of chemistry and timing in comedy - subtlety.Three years later and Sony releases a near `frame by frame' remake that exemplifies all that can go wrong in an ensemble work.No matter how talented a cast - a director (Neil LaBute) should facilitate a comedic ensemble by stressing underplay and nuance.In this remake LaBute looses or exercises little control and we end up with a one-upmanship mash up that is simply not funny.I was actually surprised that this was a LaBute film as he has a strong talent for controlling and facilitating the emotion in an actor's performance (I had the opportunity to see Sigourney Weaver in "The Mercy Seat" a devastatingly rich performance that highlights his skill as a performance driven director).



Bottom line is this film made me angry.I was angry that Sony, Labute, and Dean Craig (the writer on both versions of this film) felt it was necessary to rework the property into a dumb downed in your face version for an American audience.



My friends and I did watch the remainder of the Labute version and subsequently the Oz version - all prefer the Oz version if for nothing else than it is a genuinely funny and entertaining ensemble comedy.



I feel Labute should stay away from re-visioning films that work in their original state - as "The Whicker Man" and this death are potential career lowlights.



I give this film one star for the tremendously talented and funny cast whose directed performance was the true death at this funeral of a film.

Posted on January 17, 2011

Emerson Lacock says...

It seems like only yesterday I was giving a passing grade to "Death at a Funeral," the 2007 British farce from director Frank Oz. Amazing, how quickly a remake can come along. What's even more amazing is that, despite being virtually the exact same film, this new 2010 version is even funnier. It is, in fact, the funniest film I've seen since "Get Smart." Before, the premise was crazy, but now, it reaches levels of insanity that I simply could not ignore. Oh, I tried to tell myself that I'm an adult now, that I'm too old to laugh at any of this, that I'm supposed to be out of my dirty jokes phase. But on this particular trip to the theater, I felt very immature indeed. Essentially, I let my guard down and just allowed myself to enjoy what I was watching.



You see, I normally wouldn't be amused by the sight of an old man sitting on a toilet and doing his business while someone else's hand is pinned underneath the seat. And usually, I would find the ... aftermath of this scene disgusting, cheap, lowbrow, and needlessly vulgar. But boy, how I laughed. Sometimes, it's nice to stop being a critic and allow yourself to take pleasure in what you're viewing.



Perhaps it helps that it features a great variety of stars, all of whom are naturally funny. At the center of it all is Chris Rock, who successfully balances the screenplay's use of slapstick comedy, witty dialogue, and quiet interludes, the latter surprisingly rich, if ultimately brief. He plays Aaron, who seems to have the weight of the world on his shoulders now that his father is dead and everyone is gathering at his home for the funeral. His wife, Michelle (Regina Hall), wants to get pregnant -- on the day of the funeral. His mother (Loretta Devine) says nothing kind to Michelle and clearly favors her other son, a successful but financially irresponsible writer named Ryan (Martin Lawrence), who hasn't lived up to his end of the deal when it comes to paying for the funeral. Aaron, jealous because of his own failed writing ambitions, is continuously reminded that Ryan was expected to give the eulogy, not him.



Before long, he's approached by a dwarf named Frank (Peter Dinklage, reprising his role from the 2007 film). He has numerous pictures that prove he had been ... very, very close with Aaron's father. Unless he receives $30,000 in compensation, he will expose his secret to the rest of the family.



Other zany subplots are woven throughout the story, including the dead man's niece, Elaine (Zoe Saldana), having to get a handle on her boyfriend, Oscar (James Marsden), who mistook a hallucinogen for a valium and is now wreaking havoc all over the house. At the same time, she has to contend with her disapproving father (Ron Glass) and her ex-boyfriend, Derek (Luke Wilson), who seems incapable of taking no for an answer. We also meet the crotchety Uncle Russell (Danny Glover) and a family friend, Norman (Tracy Morgan), who Uncle Russell hates for no apparent reason. In one form or another, both find themselves drawn into the rapidly escalating Frank fiasco.



The director is Neil LaBute, whose film and stage work has been defined by unflinching depictions of human behavior (I exempt his remake of "The Wicker Man," a truly awful movie). Remember his previous film, "Lakeview Terrace"? Aside from being a genuinely thrilling ride, it was also one of the most intelligent, complex, and honest examinations of prejudice and relationships of recent memory. "Death at a Funeral" is certainly much different in tone, but it still benefits from LaBute's affinity for strong characters and themes. Yes, they're all greatly exaggerated, but not so much that we don't see some degree of truth in them; we believe in the reality of Aaron's personal and financial woes, we understand his wife's persistence, and we can sympathize with anyone who has had to deal with an Uncle Russell. As they say, there's one in every family.



I was also impressed with the quality of the performances, especially Marsden's; it's one thing to act like you're under the influence, but it's quite another thing to keep that act consistently interesting, and to make sure there's still a personality underneath it all. He manages this, making him not only funny, but engaging as well. Also of note is Danny Glover, who isn't given much screen time but definitely knows how to make the most of what little he has. He's over the top, but that's okay because, given the screwball nature of the plot, subtlety would not have been appropriate. I noted back in 2007 that the "fun" had been put back into "funeral." It seemed all right to say it then, but now I realize that I should have reserved it for this version. While the original was amusing, the new "Death at a Funeral" is truly a lot of fun.

Posted on January 17, 2011

Rossie Carner says...

DEATH AT A FUNERAL



STARRING: Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence, Tracy Morgan, Zoe Saldana, James Marsden, Danny Glover, Luke Wilson, Keith David, Loretta Devine, Peter Dinklage, Regina Hall, Columbus Short and Regine Nehy



WRITTEN BY: Dean Craig



DIRECTED BY: Neil LaBute



Rated: R

Genre: Comedy

Release Date: 17 April 2010

Review Date: 25 May 2010







I have yet to see the original version of this film that was released in 2007, but hearing that is just as good as this year's Death at a Funeral, I will surely be checking it out soon. This film was insane, hilarious, and a whole lot of fun!



We've got Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence, Luke Wilson, Tracy Morgan, Danny Glover, Zoe Saldana, James Marsden, Keith David, Loretta Devine and Regina Hall, all packed into a movie that essentially takes place within one central location. What's not to like?



If that's not sufficient enough for you, then throw in someone else incredible and who I have pegged to win the first Oscar for a littler person - Peter Dinklage. You may not know him by name, but he's every bit as talented as those previously mentioned.



Chris Rock stars as Aaron and he is having a really bad day. His father has died and all he wants to do is just get through the funeral and move on with his life. When he realizes that the funeral recession personnel have somehow `misplaced' his father's body and were in an attempt to unintentionally bury the wrong man - naturally a slight case of panic sets in. This is just one of many events that will go awry on this painful day.



When Aaron's brother Ryan (Martin Lawrence) shows up at the funeral, he heaps on feelings of insecurity and aggression to Aaron's already in the slumps mood. This stems largely from the fact that Ryan has been a much more successful writer; so much in fact that their family often seems to forget that Aaron is a writer as well.



To make matters worse, Aaron's wife is on his case about something personal; his mother is in hysterics with dealing with the death of Aaron's father; and pretty much everyone else that attends, has their own personality disorders and or bad timing mishaps that fuel to the comedic fire of this film.



But none of these situations stand up to the one that an outsider brings with him. A mysterious man named Frank (Peter Dinklage) has a painful case of blackmail that will surely tarnish his father's name, lined up for Aaron on this of all days.



As humorous as all of these events were, the one that took the cake for me, and everyone else in the theater I shared the viewing with, was the performance of James Marsden. He plays Oscar and is brought to the funeral by his girlfriend Elaine (Zoe Saldana) and has yet to meet her father, who will also be at the funeral. When Elaine accidentally gives Oscar the wrong medication due to a mix-up from her brother - Oscar will be appearing at the last rites in a somewhat `less than sober' fashion.



Marsden's portrayal of a man battling the demon of an unwanted high, while trying to make an impression on his lover's family, was classic and will have you puking your guts out with laughter. I haven't laughed this hard since The Hangover.



I have no idea how he was able to muster up some of the facial expressions that he does, but he did and God bless him for it. There is almost nothing as humorous as watching someone unable to control themselves at a time that calls for them to be on their best behavior. Marsden's demonstration is among the best of such that you will find in any cinematic recording to date.



It's a screw-ball comedy at times, for sure. But it is cleverly written and directed. Director Neil LaBute steps away from his last two top notch thrillers (The Wicker Man (2006) and Lakeview Terrace) and gets back into comedy. His forte is dark comedy; having previously directed Nurse Betty and Your Friends & Neighbors, it's clear he knows exactly what he's doing.



The film is well acted by all of its huge hitters as well. Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence and Tracey Morgan are three of the best in comedy and we see new sides to all three of them here.



And of course, James Marsden will blow you away. It's perfect that his character's name is Oscar, because he's just as worthy of an Oscar Nomination as Robert Downey Jr. was in Tropic Thunder. Comedy requires talent too, sometimes even more-so than drama, and Death at a Funeral showcases that beautifully, several times over.

Posted on January 19, 2011

Augustina Houp says...

Aaron is a well-mannered and hard working young man, married to Michelle, and still living at his father's home. When his father dies, it is up to Aaron, the oldest son, to organize the funeral and give the eulogy. The funeral takes place in his father's home and Aaron tries to put on an appropriate expression on his face to welcome his relatives, including his famous writer brother Ryan and his father's friends. But preserving a civil atmosphere will be a hard thing to do, especially, when from the very start, the undertaker makes a horrifying mistake.



This movie has almost a scene-by-scene remake of a 2007 British movie with the same title, I think it's funnier than the original, it's due in large part to the strong cast and screenplay that makes this movie funny. Overall, "Death at a Funeral" is an excellent movie that is well worth watching if you want to have a laugh or a ton of laughs.

Posted on January 20, 2011

Tony Ludeker says...

The original was really funny.I, with hardly any sense of humor, was almost laughing nonstop.This version is a klutzy twin.Why, Sony, why?

Posted on January 20, 2011

Clementina Pasquale says...

i thought this movie was actually funny. predictable but the actors all work well together. the story worked and it turned out to be a delight i will buy it when it comes out.

Posted on January 25, 2011