Sometimes, the NY Times does a fantastic job of writing incisive, inspiring film reviews (Hurt Locker — amazing flick), and other times, they just seem to be on crack (Funny People — extremely well-written screenplay).
Hurt Locker is amazing (bland praise, sorry). It’s so stressful and in the center is a dude who actually loves his job — detonating bombs. Funny People, I dug as well. None of the jokes were funny, but the story and relationship were interesting. There’s all this chatter about Judd Apatow depicting sexist female characters, which I don’t see (and the Times does). I just really admire his writing. But I think the Times loses their judgment whenever there are a lot of penis jokes, like they think it’s a movie like Van Wilder and there’s no craft involved.
They missed some essential character points, for example, the movie star’s happiness. They commented how Judd Apatow is too smug and self-satisfied now, b/c the movie star was enjoying the perks of his success too much, whereas I saw a dude who was loaded but leading an utterly meaningless, empty life due to the fact that he had no relationships. HE HAD NO FRIENDS! He has to hire someone to help him through an illness. How is that self-satisfied and like an endorsement of the fabulous life? Uh doy.
Anyway, I’ll settle down now. This is like when I pick on someone’s grammar, no one wants to observe that. I will say it was an interesting picture, but its serious parts are the most compelling. The penis jokes are dead boring. Thank you.
P.S. What is the Hurt Locker anyway?