MovieChat Forums > Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World (2006) Discussion > read this before posting about this movi...

read this before posting about this movie

posted 18 years ago by bleveque
39 replies | jump to latest

I am shocked at the ignorant people who are actually taking this movie at face value.

The movie has nothing to do with "Finding Comedy..." It is about the ineptitude of the U.S. Gov in handling multicultural issues. Al Brooks is actually making fun of himself, it is called self-deprecating humor. Demonstrating why he would be the worst person to take on a task like this, not to mention what a bad idea it is in the 1st place. There is a lot more going on in the movie; Hollywood, outsourcing, Jewish-Muslim issues, Al Jezzera, foreign policy, interfaith relationships, bureaucracy etc...

Ok that said...

The downside is, Al Brooks is not funny. Yes, I know he is not supposed to be funny in the movie (he does a great job of not being funny), but the movie still should have been funny. More of stuff with the state dept guys and the Indian & Pakistani politicians would have helped. I really felt that they were going somewhere with the girls boyfriend wanting to do comedy, but they just dropped it.

To rebuke some of the more stupid things posted in other threads,

1. People upset because they went to India
India is not a Muslim county, correct. You and I know that. That is the irony of the movie. In movie The U.S. Government knows that but, they justify it by saying, there’s a lot of Muslims there. (i.e. close enough for government work)

2. The idea that the movie is trying to say that every one group will find the same things funny.
Once again who in the movie is saying that? That is who the movie is poking fun at.

3. Islam is a religion of hate
Religion is what you personaly choose it be. Don't give me a bunch of crap about the koran, bible, torrah or what your dog tells you in your sleep.

[–] lewlishboy 17 years ago

regardless of you're comments, this is easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen - It was an actual struggle to watch.

I find myself numb, trying to understand how any movie producer or DVD manufacturer could let something like this make it into people's homes.

I am a worse person having seen this movie.

Thank you

[–] gfarrell80 17 years ago

Agreed. This movie was an abomination. It tasted all the more bitter because the basic idea behind it could have been brilliant, yet it utterly failed.

I felt that properly executed it could have been educational, hilarious, and believable. It was none of those things.

[–] Tyler3777 17 years ago

Trust me, i get it. It is just not funny at all. Not only that, but there must be something wrong with me for actually watching nearly the whole thing. You can't defend this movie, it is just painfully unfunny.

[–] dixiegal_15 17 years ago

Agreed. It was painful to watch, and I gained nothing from it. Granted, I watched for research (international humor is my topic). However, it didn't even begin to help me with that.

"Its a secret place, the land of tears."
-The Little Prince

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] elmo55 17 years ago

Actually I think that Bowfinger and Meet the Fockers are pure drek and I found this movie painful to watch. I don't think I've ever actually turned off a movie partway through before. I wish I hadn't spent $4 to rent it.

"Normal is Boring" - Me

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] btoh2003 17 years ago

Bowfinger was hilarious.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] alphachimp 17 years ago

I did not know that about Stalin.

Bowfinger WAS hilarious.

Why isn't Maya listed in the cast on this page? She was damn cute.

[–] VinnyM27 17 years ago

I'm sorry but that;s such a classist arguement it's far worse than people who seemingly just don't like (and perhaps don't get) the movie.

Just becuase they hate the movie doesn't mean that they like Adam Sandler or whatever...what a conclusion to make. I do like some stuff like that but can also enjoy a movie like this as well.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dslodynsky 17 years ago

no brooks is an idiot to think that the US government would do such a thing. HOW THE *beep* DO ASK PPL WHAT MAKES THEM LAUGH?!

HOW THE *beep* DID HE MAKE PEOPLE THAT DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH UNDERSTAND AND LAUGH NO LESS AT, "WHY DO INDIAN'S HATE HOLLOWEEN? BECAUSE THEY TOOK AWAY THE GHANDI (i.e. it sounds like candy).................AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

BROOKS IS A MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!! READ THIS BROOKS!!!!!!!!
YOU HAVE TAKEN AWAY 2 HOURS OF MY LIFE. I WANT THEM BACK

but on a positive note, you have made the worst movie i've ever seen. quite an accomplishment

[–] anthony-cesnik 17 years ago

A little overboard with the caps, but I totally agree with the last line.

-And for the record Brook is an absolutely horrible stand up comic, and I don't know
how he got a movie made after his stand up comedy, let alone got it published, and
into my home... disgusting.

HORRIBLE Movie

[–] soitgos 17 years ago

Agreed. A perfect example of The Intentional Fallacy. Regardless of the intention of the movie, it failed. As another person said, painful to watch. Any future Brooks films will need to have a great deal of positive press before I'll consider renting it. He may have done a serious disservice to his career with this abomination.

[–] danfixed 17 years ago

i dont understand why everyone here is saying they hate albert brooks it shows that your all kinda crazy....for one thing he is a great comic actor hes really funny...to the right person.......not everyone is gonna love him.....but to put the effert into bashing him just makes you look sad and well nuts.

i think this movie may be a little over all your heads....im not saying you guys are stupid im just saying maybe you dont get it.

dont bother trying....after all its just a movie.....its all in good fun

and to the guy with a the caps and anger towards anyone who hates the u s gov. calm down man youll live longer.

p.s. if you think the movie wasted your time why waste more writing about it

[–] cinemafia 17 years ago

Okay I'll acknowledge that:

A) Albert Brooks' comedy is generally too subtle, self-effacing and 'smart' (for lack of a better term) for the average public.

and

B) Despite Brooks having made several gems (Lost in America, Defending Your Life, Mother, the Muse), and the fact that this had more than enough potential to be another, it unfortunately wasn't.

But if you honestly, deep down in your heart think this is the worst movie you;ve ever seen, you either haven't seen more than a half dozen movies in your lifetime and/or you need help bathing and dressing yourself.

And, that goes for the rest of you in this thread who stated the same.

[–] mjp36 17 years ago

dslod,
Put down the crackpipe and relax.

Arthur
http://wewerethecoolkids.blogspot.com/

[–] brownnoizeboyz 17 years ago

You are a moronic piece of human garbage. For real. You're a moron.

[–] frikusa 17 years ago

2. The idea that the movie is trying to say that every one group will find the same things funny.
Once again who in the movie is saying that? That is who the movie is poking fun at.

hihi this is kinda funny, people on this board are arguing over whether this movie is funny or not, as if they are all supposed to have the same sense of humor. ironic :)

God: Every time I try to talk to someone it's Sorry this and Forgive me that and I'm not worthy

[–] DLeahy-2 17 years ago

Albert Brooks seems to know the profession of comedy inside and out, but he is not at all funny. Not even a little. Maybe he missed his calling as a critic?

[–] mrsdagle 17 years ago

I *got* the movie, I got the message, I got the satire at hand. But it was still missing a huge chunk of plotline. It was going for the over-arching cultural message (that you can't do a study like that in such an objectifying way).
But Albert Brooks' character, Albert Brooks, never finds any comedy. It doesn't make sense. He at least should have found some Indian/Pakistani/Iranian/Arab humor somewhere. He should have shared jokes with the Pakistanis, he should have asked Majeed a couple of jokes.
I also didn't like that faced with the personal problems of his assistant, he contradicts himself and gets involved. He doesn't want to be used as a reason for the breakup, citing that he doesn't want to get involved. But then he "reasons" with the male and convinces them to stay together. Silly and paternal. She had already tried to break up with him, maybe she didn't like him and felt manipulated.

The punchline is basically what his male assistant is lecturing to him as they are oblivious to the Taj Mahal. Know your audience.
I was still disappointed.

[–] soitgos 17 years ago

I also got. I understand what it was trying to do. Plain and simple, it failed. It isn't funny. It isn't interesting. It is tedious. That's an opinion. It also happens to be accurate. I'm always interested that people want to justify their own position by putting someone else down, such as saying one doesn't "get it." One person even called those of us who don't like the movie "nuts." Well, that may be true, but the movie is still awful.

[–] garypen 17 years ago

Jesus H Tap dancing Christ on a popsicle stick!!! You people need to chill the *beep* out. It was neither the masterpiece that some delusional posters point out, or the abomination that other cinematic cretins seem to think it is. It was merely a mediocre movie. It had great potential, of course. Which made it that much more disappointing.

Albert Brooks is a very clever comedy mind. His brilliant "Defending Your Life" is one of the most clever, original comedies ever made. But, they can't all be gems. Get over it.

Would the US gov't actually have undertaken such a project? Of course not. OTOH, I would think that they at least have consultants and CIA employees who are experts on various cultures, and ask their advice on occassion. (Well, before 2000 when the moron-in-chief was appointed as President, anyway.)

And, why India, when it isn't a Muslim country? Because it's the closest thing to a Muslim country that they could safely and cheaply film in. It's that simple. In an actual Muslim country, their lives would have been in danger. The added value is that India is cheap as dirt.

So, lighten up people. It's just a mediocre movie, not the end of the world, or the second coming of jesus. (Oh. Those are the same thing, aren't they?)

[–] DLeahy-2 17 years ago

No, it really was an abomination.

Brook's bad comedic timing (in this film) and the overall script made this turd so agonizingly bad the only reason I didn't walk out was because I was waiting to see if the crappyness was part of the joke and there'd be a great payoff at the end.

The joke was on the audience.

It COULD have been funny. It COULD have been clever. It just wasn't.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Kind67 17 years ago

I think the originial poster hit the nail on the head in his post. I liked this movie and do "get" Albert Brooks and have for a long time. I do think that with the situation in the world, he could have made the movie more meaningful, and he may have tried but the studios might have deemed it too risky.

But my main point is that what some people find funny, some people don't and vice versa. So, to those who don't like this film, I think it would be better to state I didn't see the humor in this film or I didn't find it funny rather than stating, This film stinks, since many people, such as myself, didn't think so. It's not a great film, but it's not that bad either.

[–] FMC 17 years ago

I've been a fan of Brooks for some time. I admire his refusal to compromise. But I have to admit I avoided seeing Looking For Comedy based on the brutal critiques I'd read. Well, I shouldn't have been worried. Brooks has another film he can be proud of. I enjoyed every frame and gave it an 8 rating. I'd love to see another of my favorites, Will Ferrell in a Brooks production.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]