MovieChat Forums > Married Life (2008) Discussion > Comedy? Even IMDB doesn't put in that '...

Comedy? Even IMDB doesn't put in that 'Genre'.

posted 16 years ago by RDrrr
16 replies | jump to latest

What I don't get is anyone calling this movie a comedy... dark or not. (not)
It was very interesting but a languid movie... it definitely wasn't much of a Hitchcockian dark comedy... it was more matter-of-fact. Reviewer Joanna Langfield says it's a "sly and smart comedy"... ??? Sly, yes, smart, ok... comedy, no. Review? 'sell the picture'.

While Richard started to almost seem like he could be an amusing bounder... he turned into a simple narrator of an odd set of circumstance. Too subtle...No comedy for me. If you're going to call a movie 'comedy'... it should invoke a laugh... or at least a grin, wry or otherwise. Didn't for me. But I liked the movie.

Spoilers for alternate endings follows....
.
.
.
The alternate endings are interesting, but I don't care for the crash scenes.
I like happy endings ;) alt#3 was ok though... however what they finally did choose was more upbeat.

Spoiler for main movie....
.
.
.
And it wasn't made overly apparent that Harry practiced on the dog... if he did in fact. One scene he gets poison... another scene the dog is dead. No connection... no mixing with food, no 'here boy', no 'I hate that dog', nothing. Just a new scene, wake up, -old- dog dead, bury dog. Definitely no comedy. Not even in Richard's offering to go buy a headstone for the dog.
People do do that and far more.

Maybe if they had an older Greg Kinnear bumble his way through as Harry... and Pierce more caddishly bumbling desperately trying to steal his girlfriend... more like their hitman movie, Matador. Chris Cooper was just serious about it, good acting, good movie, but serious, not dark comedy... the second half of the move was simply serious... no dark humor even implied.

Quote: "It's funny, isn't it? ...what we do for love."
Funny, odd... -not- funny, haha. Yes it is odd.
More of a character study of how we flaw as we age.

Critics/reviewers... can't live with 'em, can't kill 'em. (that's dark humor ;)

[–] jltyler 16 years ago

I think the critics who thought it was a comedy, thought so because some of the narration, and Pierce Brosnan's reading of it, had an amusing tone. Also, I think they meant funny as in "ironic."

Also, some of the scenes seemed farcical (e.g. Richard discovering Pat with her lover; Harry in the bathroom with the tub running over while he's trying to pour the poison in Pat's stomach medicine).

[–] mathmaniac 14 years ago

I'm beginning to think that critics just have an extremely limited vocabulary when it comes to classifying films.
This was not a comedy. It was not a heavy, somber drama. It was not a suspense film. What the heck was it?
I thought it was just a good story. A good film. Chris Cooper was excellent - I think he deserves awards for his acting in this film.
I hate, hate, hate to get a film, looking to enjoy laughs and humor, and find out it is not a comedy. Several times, I have rented films that called themselves comedies and they turned out to be Jewish 'coming of age' films where a young Jew has a bar mitzvah and there are Holocaust survivors figuring prominently in the story. Not funny, not fun, and it ruins the film.
Time to come up with some new names for categories of films.

[–] jltyler 14 years ago

Some films can't be categorized or put into a genre; they mix several genres. Films from the 40s did that a lot, and I doubt anybody got as upset about it in those days as critics (and some audiences) do today.

I thought the book on which "Married Life" had a good story. But I think the filmmakers decided to omit too much that was good about it (the seemingly civilized but pathologically ruthless nature of Brosnan's character; the pathetic, psychologically broken man that was Cooper's character)in favor of making everyone "normal." For me, that decision ruined the film. The cinematography was great, though, and McAdams did a great job playing the character rather than worrying about how her actions might be perceived by others.

As for what's funny - Have you seen the Coen brothers' "A Serious Man?" I LMAO, but a lot of other people didn't think it was funny and some people were offended.

[–] The_Yellow_Wallpaper 15 years ago

I must disagree - this film reaks of satire. It's farcical, and ironic. And a great film, too.

[–] haloplayanwn 15 years ago

Please review the definition of comedy...

Comedy: a play, movie, etc., of light and humorous character with a happy or cheerful ending; a dramatic work in which the central motif is the triumph over adverse circumstance, resulting in a successful or happy conclusion.

Source: Dictionary.com

Were it so easy.

[–] tiliquaskinks 15 years ago

I am not trying to be a smartaleck but, by that definition, Saving Private Ryan and Hotel Rwanda would be categorized as comedies, no? Just an observation.

[–] haloplayanwn 15 years ago

Well, according to the English language yes those are technically comedies. A movie/play does not need to be funny to be a comedy, but normally they are. The bastardized "slang" version of the word is what is applied to movies, plays and TV shows nowadays. Romeo and Juliet was hilarious, but because it has a sad ending it is considered a tragedy. That's just the way it is. And no, you're not being a "smartaleck." I thought the same exact thing for a long time until I decided to argue an English professor about it... Boy did I look like an idiot.

Were it so easy.

[–] tiliquaskinks 15 years ago

How refreshing ... an intelligent, non-defensive reply. Thank you for that and also for further explaining the meaning of the word.

[–] haloplayanwn 15 years ago

Yeah, no problem. English is one of the most difficult and confusing languages on earth. Over the course of a couple centuries it has grown and changed more than many other languages have changed in an entire millennium. In addition to that English has existed for a lot less time and is one of, if not the most common language on earth. It is taught in almost ever country and for that it suffers from many translation problems, thanks to the hundreds of different cultures that influence the interpretation of different words. Over time definitions become confused and simplified until they almost mean something completely different from the original meaning of the word. It can really be quite confusing, and I can not blame anyone for not knowing intricacies such as what I explained in my earlier posts. Like I said the word comedy has become bastardized and is now used, it seems, to describe anything even slightly funny whether or not the ending fits correctly into the definition. All I can do is try to educate as many people as I can to what really means what. There are many misconceptions of words that seem really common now a days. If you listen/read carefully I'm sure you could find some that people around you use and help stop the further degradation of the English language. =P

Were it so easy.

[–] mrbruto 15 years ago

What words mean will also depend on the country and cultural context. However, taking only British English into consideration as the example, it is a barbaric language and is complicated mostly due to convolutions and not because of any innate beauty. It's mainly a utilitarian language that is further corrupted by officially allowing mutated expressions and ignorant misapplications to breed new life into words. Languages can evolve but what happens to the English language is ridiculous. If what happens to English were allowed to happen to Mathematics there'd be big trouble. Koine Greek, for example, can be difficult because its complexity comes from its preciseness but English is just simply confusing and often unharmonious like water and oil. Ask an Anglo-Saxon something about Spain and they will tell you one thing but ask a Spaniard and you will probably be asked to clarify whether you mean the old name of the whole peninsula or the kingdom of Spain that exists today, which are not the same thing but are both given the name "Spain" in the English language, which makes no distinction unless the more astute make the distinction chronologically. Ask an English speaker what "love" means and you might get the canned academic definition or possibly a personal philosophical opinion. Ask someone who speaks a language based around exactness and they might ask you what kind of love you mean before giving you the word for it because there might be many. People who are multilingual and not only speak other languages but who also "get" those languages can see this more clearly than someone who only knows English or has English as a first language and only learned others later in life well enough to hold a simple conversation. English is definitely far from being the worst language but from where I am looking it isn't that pretty unless you compare it to a lesser version of itself. English does the job though and for a language that was created by a bunch of enthusiasts who sat down and took bits from other languages - well done. It could be better, though but instead seems to get worse at least outside of scholarly ecosystems out here in the real world. This be what me thinks anyhoo.

You wouldn't dare!
http://thesentinel.fcpages.com/

[–] haloplayanwn 15 years ago

Well put. I completely agree. This is basically what I was getting at in my previous post. The best I can do is to try and prevent the further degradation of English. We need to be more precise with the way we speak. On the other hand, part of the beauty of English is the possibility of those double meanings. I guess the elimination of slang would be the best way to go, while still allowing some confusion survive. It's a hard thing to balance.

Were it so easy.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] noveltylibrary 15 years ago

I was confused by the 'dark comedy' description too. I'd call it a thoughtful, stylish drama.

But he did kill the dog. ("practice run" I believe he said)

[–] WarpedRecord 13 years ago

It certainly was much darker and more dramatic than I expected, judging from the description on the box, but "dark comedy" covers a lot of ground.

[–] jjamison-2 12 years ago

Good movie but in no stretch of the imagination is it a comedy.

[–] mnbush 9 years ago

In the strictest sense of the word, comedy, it is any story that ends with the main characters still alive. One where they die in the end is considered a tragedy.

But seriously, this was not a laugh out loud comedy. A very good film though - a thriller where no one died! (except the poor dog.)