MovieChat Forums > Funny Ha Ha (2007) Discussion > people don't get this movie

people don't get this movie


i've seen "you just don't get it!" thrown around several times on imdb, almost universally inaccurately (example: "the unsimulated sex in short bus offends me!" "you just didn't get the movie").

for once, however, i think this claim seems to fit. i think art-movie lovers seem to come to this movie expecting some life-changing moral, while (what to call them?) "people who don't like art movies" (i guess) get upset about the production values and rambling dialogue.

...and then people make a ton of threads about "i walked out of this movie after 10 minutes and it's the worst movie ever!"

really though, it's a rambling study of real life, whose crafted events and plot turns are all the more interesting for how they're woven into the unconventionally paced/acted narrative. if you're not interested in new structure (that might not actually work out to be esthetically pleasing or get at anything profound) nor in realistic character study simply for the sake of it, you probably won't like this movie. ...but saying "worst movie ever" just indicates that you don't get that last sentence i just wrote.

i fully understand people not liking this movie. personally, i watch it much better while doing something else. at the same time, the vitriol with which people criticize it is really off-base... "i paid money and then i was bored!" is like saying "i only like modern art, and i paid money to enter this ancient art museum AND I DIDN'T LIKE IT! COME ON I PAID MONEY!"

chances are i wouldn't like 2fast2furious. however, if i paid to see it, then walked out like "WTF this movie is more about cars than anything else!!?!?" what would that mean? it would mean that i just didn't get it.

reply

I "get the movie." I know what it's doing and what its trying to say. The reason I didn't like it is because it's boring!
I'm all for truly independent filmmakers like Bujalski flexing their cinematic muscles and making movies but THEY STILL HAVE TO BE GOOD!
I think it's really great and all that he got together enough money to make this and shot it on 16mm, but so what? When it comes down to it, this is still nothing more than another stupid "indie" film about college students trying to "find themselves" and find love and have relationships. It's been done before, better, and with more competence.
If anyone wants to see a GOOD, no GREAT film which examines the modern college age generation, check out The GoodTimes Kid.

P.S. The sex in Shortbus didn't offend me, it bored me. It was there only to make the movie more marketable and to cover up the lack of any real substance in the film. Putting sex in a "real movie" doesn't make it any better.

reply

but you dislike it because you don't think think it successfully does what it's trying to do/says what it's trying to say, or do you dislike because *you wouldn't want to see a rambling character study like this in the first place*? that's what i'm getting at in the first post... do you "get it" and find it a failure, or do you "get it" and just don't care for that kind of thing?

p.s. i thought the sex in shortbus was boring too. hah, in fact, i "get it" (they wanted to externalize realistically the emotional stuff between the characters), but i don't think they did that very successfully. further, as you point out, they never REALLY convinced us that the sex was there for honesty/artistry, and not for publicity. they WOULD have convinced us of that if the emotions they were going for rang true. but, alas.

reply

I "get it" and find it a failure.

reply

I concur. Failure.

reply

Failed.

reply

The duplass brothers know how to do mumblecore. Interesting characters thought you'd want to know in real life. unfortunately Andrews characters you wouldn't want to know in real life or you already do, and that's why you're watching this.

reply