MovieChat Forums > Death at a Funeral (2007) Discussion > WHY did anyone allow the drugged up guy ...

WHY did anyone allow the drugged up guy to attend?


I mean seriously it was the single STUPIDIST part of the movie and ruined it completely.

I MEAN COMPLETELY. Why didn't they just send him away, lock him in a room, hospital, but for GOD'S SAKE it was just freaking stupid. WHY do they put in things like this?

I love a good farce but there has to be at least a smidgen of intelligence and this one got so stupid.

That plot arc RUINED the movie.

I have to be honest, I switched to watch Monsters Inc. THAT was more intelligent.

That plot device of being f&)#ed up at a weddinig/funeral/graduation/whatever has been BEATEN TO DEATH and I can only think of a few times when it worked and the last time was SIXTEEN CANDLES.

But it completely ruined the movie.

I just couldn't finish it despite what looked like a great premise.

Morgan's characterization was just as bad.

But Lawrenece's character began to grate pretty badly.

Why did it go so badly when the original was very funny.

I love a good farce. If they can translate A Confederacy of Dunces as well as the book then you will see a great farce.

This was just plain a poor a attempt.



They who give up liberty to
obtain a temporary safety deserve
neither liberty or safety

reply

Are you refering to the 2010 remake with Chris Rock in it? If so you're commenting on the 2007 version, wich was in fact an excellent film.

reply

You should watch the original 2007 movie, not the 2010 remake.

reply

***SPOILERS***





Simon and Martha were on their way to the funeral when he got "drugged up". She said later that if they left, her aunt would never speak to her again. She didn't know what Simon would do next and thought she could keep him under control.

reply

taylorje,

READ what you are replying to. READ the comments. there are ONLY TWO comments! If you had done this you would have realised that your spoilers were unnecessary.

The OP (as explained above) had not watched the English movie. They had watched the American remake.







"great minds think differently"

reply

^what an unnecessarily rude post. why aren't you directing your rage towards the OP for being stupid enough to post this in the wrong forum?

reply

...why aren't you directing your rage towards the OP for being stupid enough to post this in the wrong forum?
I think she was trying to be politically correct...on a forum board.

This thread is almost as funny as the 2007 film, with people attempting to discuss different events in 2 different films and subsequently getting as completely confused as Simon himself after ingesting "valium".

reply

@DaytonaBob

That's just YOUR opinion---I actually thought it was funny, especially when the drugged-up guy started to completely lose his damn mind, and even more so after he found out what the hell was actually happening to him. And I really enjoyed this film----unlike an American movie, which would have focused on being gross as all hell to the detriment of the plot (especially with the toilet scene) it focused on the characters and their reactions to the insanity developing all around them. The scene where the drugged-up dude's fiancee is trying to get him off the roof and she winds up cussing the hell out of the guy who's been following her around trying to get with her had me actually laughing out loud, something very few comedies do nowadays---it's one of those films that's so entertaining you want to watch the whole thing straight through just to see how the hell everything turns out in the end,and it's definitely worth it, in my opinion. Haven't seen the remake,though. And,yes, as far as farces go, it's way better than average.

reply

Poor troll try to hard. No try so hard troll!



Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived. -Isaac Asimov

reply

In the english version it is explained as to why and it's actually the funniest part of the movie..
I loved it.

reply