5.6? These people don't know good film. . . - Punchline (1988) Discussion

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jescci 19 years ago

Thought the 5.6 rating too high. Found the writing trite, and the acting/directing forced/labored. Hanks worst performance - almost embarassing. Communicative art forms should show and not tell - this film does the reverse. Important character history takes place off camera - we get only to hear them yap and whine about it. That may fly in Europe, but in America, which is where the film was made ... it's ... a ... snore.

Do you know that guy?
No. But he's a dick.

reply

[–] sara-34 19 years ago

This was just on TV and I saw everything but the last 20 minutes... How does it end?

reply

[–] tellafriend 19 years ago

I agree 1000% with the OP. Punchline was a fantastic film and deserves a much higher rating than it has.

This film has so many layers it isn't even funny. When I rented it I felt I had cheated the rental store out of the price of another rental. It's like two films in one.

Anyway, some will love it, others will hold it up against Gone With The Wind and think it "trite" but I laughed so hard during the first 2 minutes of the film I had to pause the dvd! I think this film pushes the limits of it's two main actors and you don't really see that too much anymore.

I give it an 8.7

reply

[–] WavyG 19 years ago

You are WRONG. What a horrible excuse for a comedy. Not only were the story and dialogue cringeworthy, but I can't imagine a movie about stand-up comedy being less funny. Why did this movie need to be made? Was it to show the "seedy underside" of the stand-up world? Or was it simply to have a showcase for a bunch of comedians to tell jokes? In either case, it fails, (or more appropriately, "bombs").

Notice the audience in the club, as Hanks delivers his final routine. They don't laugh at first, because he's not funny. By the end, however, they're laughing out loud and cheering--at material which just as unfunny! Why? It's almost as if the movie attempts to employ the "sitcom laugh-track" approach to comedy: if the audience is told when to laugh, then they will know it's funny. I'm just as embarrassed for whoever wrote this movie, as I am for Hanks's character when he tries to be funny.

The worst part of all is, the movie uses real stand-up comics. I mean, I know this isn't what the world of stand-up comedy is like, and I'm not even a comedian. Almost all of the secondary characters are real comedians. Couldn't won of them have stepped up and said to the writers, "Uhh, guys? This isn't the way real comedians act. Oh, and this material...it isn't funny!" Watch the scene after the "big contest," as all the comedians are sitting around in their locker room, (yes, I said "locker room"), waiting nervously for them to announce the winner. They're all just sitting there, staring at the floor, not speaking, (there's even a guy in a nun outfit, pacing back and forth). You would think that in a room full of comedians, there would be at least a little bit of levity.

Are we supposed to take this seriously? Or laugh at it?

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nbcfan01 18 years ago

I happen to be a stand-up, and this is a fairly real portrayal of comics. And the movie isn't suppose to be funny. comedians aren't suppose to be "on" 24/7. The business is a sink or swim game.

reply

[–] cuttingedgenyc 18 years ago

Exactly, nbcfan. I have done some comedy myself and you are 100 percent correct. The whole point is that most comedians, or wanna-be comedians, aren't actually all that funny even when they do stand-up - and certainly they aren't funny all the time. The job is a struggle. It's pretty depressing to try to be funny all the time, but it's also a huge driving force for these people (many of whom are both talented and troubled, as we saw in Tom Hanks's character).

This film captured all that pretty accurately. Call me crazy but I liked it.

reply

[–] boyalien0 18 years ago

this film just plain rocks. those who find it unfunny might try looking at the date this movie was released and try to remember that what a culture finds funny tends to fluctuate over time. still, in this jaded day and age, i found hanks' rant about hate to be bitingly hilarious. also, no one laughs at the beginning of his set because it isn't funny at first. it's mean, dark, and depressed. that this film can go from one to the other so quickly is, as has been proven by others' comments, one of its strongest features. i also found it to be quite inspiring that hanks' character did it his own way. i believe a truly great comic can't be afraid to have a breakdown on stage. a truly great comic lights themself on fire while trying to hit the crack pipe then commences to go onstage and talk about it. Anyway - this is definitively one of hanks' best performances, if not THE best.

reply

[–] kevon45uk 18 years ago

I saw this on TV last night just by chance. Nothing else to watch. I was really taken with it. I know a few street comics and performers and to be honest they aren't generally a barrel of laughs. Sally Field was great and I thought it was a top performance from Tom Hanks. I wondered towards the end whether he wasn't basing his character on Bill Murray. John Goodman added a bit of stability to the film and allowed us to get an insight into Field's reason for being a comic.

As far as the script went it was good. Nice and tight with only a couple of ventures into schmaltz. I thought when Hanks, after doing the hospital gig, is seen talking to some ill kid that the film was veering into a Patch Adams thing but it quickly went back to something sensible.

My only real problem was that the 'great' material being generated for performance was actually terrible. I mean that bit about how to respond to a heckler: 'Do you have any naked pictures of your wife?' was so lame. Although it was used well as a running gag. Maybe the script should have included some stuff from the actual comedians who took part so as to lend a bit of real comedy.

A couple of the above users have complained that the film should be funnier what with it being about stand-ups. The thing is that comics have to work at being funny on stage. The key to being a comedian is the ability to deliver pre-prepared material. Most people have the ability to be naturally funny in normal social situations. Doing it from a script of sorts in front of a roomful of people, expecting you to make them laugh, is a very different propostion. I think Punchline gets that across well.

Punchline is an intelligent feel-good movie. I'd give it 7 out of 10.

reply

[–] WavyG 18 years ago

Wow, you missed my point totally.

I was saying that the material at the end of Hanks's routine (at which the audience is laughing hysterically, as though it were the funniest damn thing they'd ever heard) is JUST AS UNFUNNY as the material at the beginning of the set. However, we're all dictated by the filmmakers to laugh by forcing the "audience" in the movie to laugh. It takes away the realism they're trying to convey, because it's bad comedy. It's like they let the film writers write "jokes" instead of letting actual comedians supply genuine material for the movie.

reply

[–] chrisbedford 17 years ago

No, no, no - YOU'VE missed the point. Completely.

How dare you tell other people their opinions are "WRONG"? (your capitals) It's YOUR OPINION that the material at the end of the gig as as bad as that at the beginning, etc etc, blah blah blah, and you may even be right, in your own little parallel universe, but that's NOT THE POINT.

THE POINT is that standup is as much about your delivery as it is about your "jokes" (although very few comics make it any more telling jokes). And the point the movie makes, particularly during that scene, is that Gold's routine "warms up" from a shaky start to the point where he has the audience eating out of his hand.

And it's YOUR OPINION that the movie sucks. Well, I think you are outvoted, on this board anyway.

reply

[–] WavyG 17 years ago

It doesn't matter if I am "outvoted." I am right. They are all wrong. I am like an intelligent shark swimming in a sea of...something that is really, really stupid. See? See my analogy? It really works, doesn't it? It makes you think. Well, I am going to retire now. I bid you all a fond evening, and I wish you a pleasant morrow.

Love,
Wavy G

reply

[–] Lolyeah (44) 8 months ago

Omg, you're so stupid. And WRONG.

reply

[–] waterandafter 18 years ago

i didn't think the film was supposed to be a comedy

reply

[–] BernardHermann 17 years ago

WavyG missed the point completely.

reply

[–] WavyG 17 years ago

Apparently. I'll take your word for it. I "missed" a miserable excuse for a story puntuated by disturbingly misguided attempts to reproduce "stand-up comedy." But, have it your way.

reply

[–] ben-leos 10 years ago

What the hell were you watching??? Oh God the 80's cheese!

reply

[–] Stickman38 18 years ago

5.6 does seem a little low for this film but the jokes in this movie really hurt it quite a bit. I mean, the 'where are you from' jokes got old rather quickly... they were just lame, lame, lame!

I think some better material could`ve improved this movie a lot! But as is, I think its a pretty funny movie. I actually thought the best scene was the on-stage breakdown by Hanks, and the "I am spartacus scene" was the 2nd best, not because it was funny but because it was just good acting by Hanks.

Without Hanks, this movie would`ve been a real stinker. He basicly saved this film from being utter crap.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gilmourfan 18 years ago

I'm a big Tom Hanks fan, and I've seen most of his movies.
I think Punchline is great! The scene were he braeks down on the stage, ah, it really breaks my heart!And the cafê scene, I love it!
He truly gives a great performance in this movie, but then again, I think he always does!
I'm a big norwegian fan!

reply

[–] jcarter-21 18 years ago

I really like it. I'll give it about a 7,. It was a very enjoyable romatic comedy. I love Sally Fields and Tom Hanks, and the screenplay was very good. Overall I would recommend it to people. Very underrated.

Guess what? I got a fever! And the only prescription.. is more cowbell!-
Christopher Walken

reply

[–] realdeal88 18 years ago

Yeah I agree. I think this is the most underrated Tom Hanks movie.

The problem is that people treat this movie as a comedy or romantic comedy, it's really much more of a serious drama. There are a few Hanks scenes in this movie I think rival any of his Oscar winning/nominated performances.

And yes, not all of the stand-up jokes are hilarious. But it's also that the routines are edited and sometimes being shown through montages--it doesn't have the same effect.

I'm not a comic myself, but I know a lot about some of them. I have a feeling a lot of them enjoy this movie.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] I_have_a_brain_cloud 18 years ago

yes, this is definitely an underrated film, and also another one of Tom Hanks's little known stellar performances.

It's probably underrated because several major elements of it are just wrong. John Goodman is totally wasted; he's wasted because Sally Field is not the right actress for the role. The idea that her character has a burning desire, and the necessary talent, to become a successful standup comedienne just never takes off. Fortunately, Tom Hanks can act with a volleyball, so Sally Field's performance doesn't wreck his.

I don't know who should have played her part--maybe Margot Kidder?

I don't know if this was intended, but Sally Field's wooden performance makes the romance appear to be totally one-sided and even mildly sociopathic on Stephen's part. And it's hard to take the kissing scene because I can't get the idea of Forrest Gump kissing his mother out of my mind, but maybe that's just my limited imagination.

Anyway. Loved the "King Lear" scene. Loved the portrayal of the tragic clown. This movie is definitely not a comedy, even if Stephen did get the spotlight at the end. Loved the music, which made me think of a circus in purgatory.

Since Stephen has a tendency to blow it on stage when the stakes are high, how do you think he's gonna do on the Carson show?

Jedi-R-Us

reply

[–] savvyjacksgirl 18 years ago

I agree, Tom was wonderful in this movie, absolutely amazing. In another year, I would have been sure that he would have been nominated for it. (There was no way he would have gotten nominated for anything but Big that year).
Sally Field just did not sit right with me in this movie. It wasn't because I was sitting there, picturing Forrest's 'mama', but she just did not seem right for the part. I believed that Tom, rather Stephen, could have been in love with her, but that was through Tom's performance and not because Sally conveyed that she could be loved by him. I adore Sally, but not as an aspiring stand up.

John Goodman is one of my favourites, but he was severely underused in this movie, and I just didn't like the sudden character shift that his character undertook. It just did not seem right. He did very well with the little that was given, however.

I've heard people mention Tom's use of the Jack Nicholson technique, forgive me, I don't recall what they called it, but I did pick up on a bit of the Nicholson technique, especially in the diner, and I thought Tom handled it admirably. This is one of his darkest roles (possibly his darkest) and I think it is a testiment to his abilities as an actor that he pulled it off so well. I would love to see Tom take on another role like this, because I'm not sure how many people remember this movie, and know of Tom's performance in it. Those are probably the people who complain that Tom always plays the same person in each movie. I think, if they were shown this movie, they may just realise why Tom is Hollywoods golden boy. He can act. *Very* well, and I think that is why this movie worked as well as it did. (It had major problems, but the character of Stephen succeeded). Stephen was a very messed up boy, had a lot of psychological problems, and to see such masked pain in an actors eyes is a wonderful thing (when they're acting, not in real life).

Personally, I would love to see *Tom* do some stand up. The jokes in 'Punchline' just weren't that good, as it has been mentioned countless times, but I recall reading that Chris Rock has said that Tom was the funniest stand up he had ever seen (this might have changed since then, but still). I don't really doubt that; Tom is always hilarious in interviews, and he has supreme comic timing, but I would still love to see him up on stage, doing his thing.

Oh, and I'm not sure how Stephen would have done on Carson. I have a feeling that he would have succeeded (I hope so, otherwise he would have been even messed up), but who knows?

"Disco, disco, good, good!" - Uri Shurinson (Tom Hanks)

reply

[–] I_have_a_brain_cloud 18 years ago

yes ma'am, surely one of his very best, in fact I was thinking, "he won an Oscar for BIG when he had this in the can?" Compare that (silly) chop-stix scene in Big (the one that is always trotted out) with Stephen's King Lear/Singin' in the Rain schtick. Sheesh.

Truly an amazing movie, one of Tom's most--if not his very most--complex characters. Gave me many chills. I've developed major joneses for various actors (and actresses) over the years but no one evokes emotion in the same way that Tom does.

Sally Field--well, at the risk of dating myself, I grew up on "The Singing Nun" and just never got over it.

Jedi-R-Us

reply

[–] savvyjacksgirl 18 years ago

Nominated for an Oscar for Big, you mean:D. I can totally see why he was nominated for Big though, it has been listed by many people as one of the best performances of all time, and for good reason. There are some people who just dismiss it, but Tom essentially became a twelve year old in every aspect, and that takes some serious acting.

You're right, complex was the word I was trying to think of when describing the characters, thank you. That breakdown on stage was just masterful, and I had trouble watching it because it seemed so real and I hate seeing Tom in pain heh.

Don't worry about dating youself...I'm 19, not that that probably makes you feel any better hehe.

"Disco, disco, good, good!" - Uri Shurinson (Tom Hanks)

reply

[–] joflo11 18 years ago

I am also a comedian, have been for years. While this movie has decent performances, it is an absolute farce as far as showing the actual business of stand-up. A comedy club with lockers for the comedians? Please! We real comedians laugh about that all the time. A club in New York with the same open mic acts every night? Please. There are so many wanna be comedians in NY, as well as seasoned pros there, that even a small club could have different pros every night. A network willing to have a weekly show with open mic acts and the winners get on Carson? Please! There are thousands of real comedians out there. Why give a shot to amateurs.

And, yes, the "material" was awful. Sally Field making fun of her husband pulling his underwear out of his crack, Charles Manson babysitting the kids, Tom Hanks yelling about Debutantes? Not funny. It would get you booed off a stage, not winning a contest.

Some of you say it's a good movie because it shows comedians being not funny. That's hardly an insight. It's true comedians aren't always funny, but contrary to myth, we are also not depressed basket cases. If you want to see a movie about stand-up that gets it right, I mean REALLY right, rent "Mr. Saturday Night".

reply

[–] Stickman38 18 years ago

You know.. the number of times you say the word PLEASE is actually very funny!

reply

[–] chrisbedford 17 years ago

Three. Yeh, hilarious.

So what's your point?

reply

[–] Lolyeah (44) 8 months ago

You're not a stand-up comedian.

reply

[–] Greenteeth 17 years ago

I did not like the movie. I am a big fan of both Field and Hanks, but as I watched I felt an undercurrent of deep sadness being enacted up on the screen, and I'm not at all sure it was intentional.

reply

[–] chrisbedford 17 years ago

I'm absolutely sure that's exactly what they intended. The whole point (to me) of this movie was that the life of a comic is often the complete antithesis of what so many assume, i.e. all jokes & fun.

I heard once (may well be one of those urban legends) that John Cleese had to have therapy to get over everyone always expecting him to be funny all the time. Imagine how exhausting that must be.

reply

[–] Cartwheeling 17 years ago

I saw this when I was a kid, I remember it being "OK", but I bought it the other day and just finished watching it and I loved it. Great performances by Goodman, Hanks & Field. It was depressing but that was the point. The jokes weren't good though, but besides that the movie was great.

Updated! He's Dying To Do Letterman http://axelfoleypresentsstandup.spaces.msn.com/

reply

[–] jake_stephans 16 years ago

it deserves higher than a 5.6

reply

[–] Isaac5855 16 years ago

I couldn't agree more...this film was completely overshadowed because it came out the same year as BIG, but this film contains a much richer and complex performance from Hanks, who manages in this one performance to have me doubled over laughing during some scenes and quietly weeping during others...I give it 8/10.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tzot 16 years ago

Sure. Also, a movie about death should display lots of (gory or not) ways to die (beat that, Bergman!), a movie about babies should display lots of sex (look who's talking!) and people baby-talking (subtitles optional), and a movie about idiots should be completely stupid and boring (dumb and dumber-- oh, wait. Spot on, mate).

HHBS, the movie was unfortunate enough to be characterized as "comedy", so I understand why people might be disappointed. I was lucky enough to watch it accidentally on TV without any previous knowledge about it, and I enjoyed to the fullest. I would describe it as "character drama".
--
I speak England very best.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] petermbracke 14 years ago

I have always felt that the reason Punchline was not widely embraced is because the domestic storyline with Sally Field was weaker than the one with Tom Hanks. Hanks creates a truly compelling character -- as a previous poster said, one sad, brave, compelling and complex. Field, by comparison, is stuck in a somewhat sitcom-y premise.

Also, did anyone buy that Hanks would be romantically interested in Field? I didn't feel any chemistry.

But overall, I think Punchline has much to recommend it and is a bit of a sleeper.

reply

[–] schroeber 14 years ago

Just watched this...I'll start with the bad...

I didn't feel any romantic connection between Hanks and Field and no reason for it either.

Hanks as complex? More like mentally unstable, he(his character) should pay more attention to his psychotherapist. He jumps between emotional states like he's changing lanes, with no reason for the switch except some self inflicted wish to suffer, or to scare people. More than anything he comes across as a self-obsessed sociopath.

The comedy is not funny.

Sally Field was miscast, she just doesn't convince me she has a passion for comedy. And she has one reaction face for every situation; mouth hanging open.

The soundtrack is cheesy.

The editing could have been better, some scenes were far, far too long; where Lilah rushes home to prepare dinner being one example.

There is some good stuff in there...

A few nice lines of dialogue -

Lilah:I love my husband.

Steven:Well, if we're married you'll have to get over that.

Also a good scene with Goodman but I can't remember the lines, however, Goodman is great as the husband. Steals every scene he's in.
*
Basically the bad outweighs the good. If for some reason you're a fan of Hanks then watch it, otherwise give it a miss. I watched it to study Seltzer's dialogue style but I think 'Lucas' is better for that as I think he used up his brain-power coming up with 'jokes' on this one.

reply

[–] Lolyeah (44) 8 months ago

Nothing you said is true.

reply