MovieChat Forums > Observe and Report (2009) Discussion > All that needs to be said about this mov...

All that needs to be said about this movie contains spoilers

posted 12 years ago by kolchak-thenightstalker
19 replies | jump to latest

i don't want to insult anyone or be a jerk and rain on anyone's parade but it needs to be said about this DARK COMEDY.

it sucks and isn't done well at all. just watching the movie with that in mind (that it is a dark comedy) doesn't help. it just isn't funny. maybe it was the choice of casting that ruined it. perhaps if Jim Carrey played Seth Rogan's character and portrayed the character like he did in Ace Ventura Pet Detective or like in the Cable Guy it would have helped. seth rogan acts the same way in every one of his movies. he is a one note actor. i enjoyed him in the 40 year old virgin and in Pineapple Express but he essentially plays the same character all the time.

IMHO i don't think anything could save this movie.

let me use a scene from the movie to elaborate. Take for instance the scene where Seth Rogan's character shoots that guy he was trying to capture who goes around flashing his genitals, not funny. shooting an unarmed man who has not exhibited any violent tendencies is funny?? it is disturbing.

if anyone does find it funny, they should literally, right now, start looking in the yellow pages or on the internet for a psychiatrist AND call that psychiatrist and make an appointment. Please do not miss that appointment and during your session, make sure you tell the doc that you find senseless violence humorous. Just tell the doc you find this movie funny. you probably will be committed to a mental hospital, but it will do you so much good AND upon your release remember to always take your meds.

i know that someone with a seriously deep mental problem is going to reply and say that "You don't get the movie. it is making fun of movies that are overly violent for no reason" (see, i know what's going on). well, the writing does not make that apparent at all nor does the acting. it is so subtle (if present at all (and it isn't)) that anyone, even with an ounce of intelligence, misses the boat.

if you want to see movies that parody other movies or offer satire on life: watch National Lampoon's Loaded Weapon 1 from back in the early 90's. It pokes fun at the Lethal Weapon movies. watch the Naked Gun movies, and the tv series as well, for parodies of police dramas done with a very dry subtle humor at times and in a much much more effective way.

For satire watch Monty Python and The Holy Grail or the Life of Brian which pokes fun at religion. Oh my God it is so funny and the Brits know what they are doing.

If you want to see a dark comedy that is done much better, watch the Cable Guy.

[–] Message_deleted_by_Angus 12 years ago

"i don't want to insult anyone or be a jerk and rain on anyone's parade but it needs to be said about this DARK COMEDY."
"if anyone does find it funny, they should literally, right now, start looking in the yellow pages or on the internet for a psychiatrist AND call that psychiatrist and make an appointment. Please do not miss that appointment and during your session, make sure you tell the doc that you find senseless violence humorous. Just tell the doc you find this movie funny. you probably will be committed to a mental hospital, but it will do you so much good AND upon your release remember to always take your meds.
i know that someone with a seriously deep mental problem is going to reply and say that "You don't get the movie. it is making fun of movies that are overly violent for no reason" (see, i know what's going on). well, the writing does not make that apparent at all nor does the acting. it is so subtle (if present at all (and it isn't)) that anyone, even with an ounce of intelligence, misses the boat."
You are a douche. You know why? Because you use the word "literally." Don't. It is unnecessary. Unless you've been speaking figuratively and need to clarify that you are no longer doing so, you look stupid dude. Are you one of those ftards that says crap like, "I literally $#!+ my pants." Because David Cross has got a nice bit about that.
Also if you want to insult, don't start your post by saying you're not trying to insult. It just makes you look like a sheila. Just go ahead and insult. We'll be okay. Remember, we watched the film and walked away unoffended. I worry more about the poor bastard injured enough by this films climax that they need to take it out on folks mentally intact enough not to. Now that's a fragile Ego. I hope they stick to Jim Carrey films. Those things are hilarious and the only thing offended by the end credits is your intelligence.

Quoting others in your signature is stupid!
-Someone smarter than me

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Message_deleted_by_Angus 12 years ago

Haha. That last part was actually funny. Nice work RTD. And I agree criticizing someone's grammar is pretty spurious. I was not debating sentence construction. I was calling the OP a douche for using the word literally. If someone drops an Nbomb it's not their grammar that they are getting punched in the face for. As far as my grammar goes, you're right. It's atrocious. However, my use of quotes was not gramatically incorrect. To look less stupid, perhaps you can quote one of your recommended remedial texts when you feel that the English language has been slighted. Otherwise you just sound like you're making stuff up. Also I won't have to take time off from paid work to attend the kind of free schooling that has made you the intellect you've proven yourself to be.

And in spite of your intellect, I'm sorry you found it difficult to take on more than one quote at a time. My response was intended for the OP who I figured was intelligent enough to deal. Don't get angry because you had a hard time following. Calling me stupid for making things too complicated for you, just makes you look dumb; and me, at the least, less dumb than you.
"the only way you can debate the fact that this film is a piece of turd is to criticize someone's grammar."
Actually, I've debated the merits of the turd in question by many means (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1197628/board/flat/158778556?p=2&d=163 838284#163838284 for example). I'm still waiting for you to answer any of them or at least give reasons for your opinions. The best you've come up with is: movie bad because direction bad or movie bad because acting bad. You do realize why this makes you look dumb right? Do you come back here every five months because it takes you that long to figure out what to say, or do you just like looking dumb every five months. Or perhaps just a kook suffering from the most retarded (and I mean that clinically) depressive portion of a manic/depressive cycle I've ever witnessed. At least you're fun for the next few days. But man I'd hate to be around you when you're not posting on these boards.
Cue request for elaboration. Haha.
PS- It's good to have you back with us on these boards RTD. It's been at lot less entertaining without you.

Quoting others in your signature is stupid!
-Someone smarter than me

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Message_deleted_by_Angus 12 years ago

Again spurious. Are you trying to to look like a douche by saying I'm being a douche by doing the same thing you criticized me for? That's dumb. Also claiming not to read the rest of the post is merely a convenient way not to address my points. Your transparent RTD. When you are made to look like an idiot in person do you stick your fingers in your ears? Try harder. You won't look like an idiot or feel like an idiot when you can address my points. The fact that I admitted poor grammar means I accept the criticism. So continually arguing about it just makes you look like an anal retentive db. I guess you got nothing on my use of quotes, hunh? Back to "literally." Using a word when you don't understand its definition is not a grammar issue as that would have to deal with sentence structure (ie punctuation and word order).
Do you have anything to say about the film? This is a film board after all.

Quoting others in your signature is stupid!
-Someone smarter than me

[–] Soodinum 10 years ago

The reason they quoted two bits without commenting on the first immediately is because the second quote directly contradicted the first one.

'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.

[–] deephouse412 9 years ago

Litterally a Bnch'a *beep'in grammer expirts 'n this thred,,, *beep*!!

What business is it of yours... where I am from, Friend-O.

[–] taumpy_tears 12 years ago

"if anyone does find it funny, they should literally, right now, start looking in the yellow pages or on the internet for a psychiatrist AND call that psychiatrist and make an appointment. Please do not miss that appointment and during your session, make sure you tell the doc that you find senseless violence humorous. Just tell the doc you find this movie funny. you probably will be committed to a mental hospital, but it will do you so much good AND upon your release remember to always take your meds."

you know most teenagers these days find violence funny, right? Just watch Family Guy or South Park. you sound like you're stuck in the 60s.

besides, that scene doesn't even seem like it was intended to be funny. just because it's marketed as a comedy doesn't mean every single scene has to be comedic.

everyone knows the movies you've listed, by the way. I'm not sure why you're recommending them as if you've stumbled upon some huge revelations.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Message_deleted_by_Angus 11 years ago

You've also accused this films fans of needing psychiatric help for liking it. Why criticize kolchack for doing the same? He at least put some thought into his/her post.
Sorry to hear that you can't enjoy fart or poop jokes. I guess that makes you a humor elitist. Personally, I find that context is more important than subject. That is, given the proper context, subtext nuances the subject in potentially humorous ways. That is of course allowing for audience members who have not already closed their minds to a subjects potential for humor. I hope the doors you've closed to comedy serve you well, but I find humor without rules to be a lot more interesting. It's probably why comedy isn't taught via textbook or by morons like yourself.
Perhaps this is why you didn't get this film. It doesn't care about your preconceptions about how to bring the funny. And considering how little humor you display with your posts, I doubt others do as well. Keep an open mind and maybe you won't come across as mentally constipated $#!+ for brains. Haha.

PS-Will I have to wait more or less than 7 months for your response?

Quoting others in your signature is stupid!
-Someone smarter than me

[–] chamohlamb 9 years ago

Sorry for finding fart and dick jokes amusing. Sorry my iq is so low...me stupid.

[–] Soodinum 11 years ago

Anyone that liked this movie is not going to suddenly stop doing so after reading your post. And anyone who is likely to think it's good is not going to hate it just because they read your post. So - honest question - who/what is your post for? Who is it really directed to? What purpose does it really serve?

If you just wanted to voice the fact that you didn't like it, why didn't you just say that? Do you realize how ignorant you look when - over an issue like comedy which is notoriously subjective - you claim liking one kind of comedy is actually wrong in some way, but liking the things YOU like is good?

I gave this a 9. I own it on blu-ray. And I'm not going to call a psychiatrist. Though if you hook a brother up, I'll definitely give your mum a call.

Plot Hole - the most overused and least understood phrase at IMDb

[–] dini0519 10 years ago

Good post. The OP ridiculously thinks someone reading an IMDB thread is going to call up a shrink after reading this? Why would we care if some stranger has different taste in movies?
Dini

[–] everydayboredom1980 11 years ago

I'm off to therapy because I find humor in over-the-top violence in films.

[–] mutationjason 11 years ago

I laughed my ass off when he shot the flasher!

[–] TheGiantPaperPanda 11 years ago

I'm not going to lie, I didn't read all of that OP. I just came in here to say, this movie was hilarious and at least a 5.7 to 6. After all the controversy I wrote it off, but I watched it now and I laughed my ass off at how delusional Ronnie was.

And yes, I loved that Ronnie shot the perv point blank and f'd up Patton Oswalt.

[–] criztu 10 years ago

let me use a scene from the movie to elaborate. Take for instance the scene where Seth Rogan's character shoots that guy he was trying to capture who goes around flashing his genitals, not funny. shooting an unarmed man who has not exhibited any violent tendencies is funny?? it is disturbing.

You didn't like this movie.
I liked this movie.

You tell me this movie sucks, is not well made, Seth Rogen plays the same character, there should have been Ace Ventura instead of Ronnie Barnhardt, shooting an unarmed man is disturbing, who likes this movie should get a check from a psychiatrist, and so on.

This movie is a satire about Fascism. A mental disorder where a man has an urge to impose unto others, his vision of how things should be -like having Ace Ventura instead of Ronnie Barnhardt- and if you don't agree with him, then you are a big cloud of cancer and pus that should get checked by a psychiatrist, and he fantasizes of destroying you in the face with the biggest shotgun you've ever seen!

The scene with Ronnie shooting the exhibitionist, is utterly funny, because it depicts the insanity of Fascism.
A society obsessed with worshiping the Police and the Army and the Superheroes (this is Ronnie), utterly defeated by drugs, pornography and promiscuity (this is Brandi)

You're just another victim kid.

[–] dedeurs 8 years ago

The scene with Ronnie shooting the exhibitionist, is utterly funny, because it depicts the insanity of Fascism.

There's just one film that depicted the insanity of Fascism in a stunning way: A Clockwork Orange. You don't know whether to laugh or winch or gasp or snort. Kubrick's scenes are almost cartoonishly funny, at the same time there's a gruesome realism that leaves you dazed.
The fights in Observe & Report are not realistic and they are overdone. So, we see a satirical comedy. But when Ronnie shoots the flasher, for a split second it becomes realistic. Because it's so unexpected. What happens is that we lose contact with the comedy. The contact is quickly reinstated when we realize the flasher shows no signs of hurting or dying, but then it's too late- there's nothing left to laugh about.
Any professional screenwriter could have made this scene work, by handling the Flasher and his flashtools in a different way. The shooting is not just senseless, it's way out of tune.

[–] resmat-1 9 years ago

let me use a scene from the movie to elaborate. Take for instance the scene where Seth Rogan's character shoots that guy he was trying to capture who goes around flashing his genitals, not funny. shooting an unarmed man who has not exhibited any violent tendencies is funny?? it is disturbing.

Do you understand what is meant by a "dark comedy"? Could you list some specific examples of dark humor in other films that you think worked?

i know that someone with a seriously deep mental problem is going to reply and say that "You don't get the movie. it is making fun of movies that are overly violent for no reason" (see, i know what's going on). well, the writing does not make that apparent at all nor does the acting. it is so subtle (if present at all (and it isn't)) that anyone, even with an ounce of intelligence, misses the boat.

You're wrong about why it was meant to be funny. Yes, "senseless violence" isn't inherently funny but, in this case and in many dark comedies, the context makes it funny. 'Observe and Report' introduced senseless violence at the end of a feel-good montage so as to parody the cliches of the feel-good comedy.

This is the part in a cookie-cutter comedy where the schlubby hero proves to everybody that he was right all along. Following a touching scene between Ronnie and Nell, we see Ronnie finally chasing the pervert in slow-motion to an uplifting cover of 'Where Is My Mind?', the camera occasionally cutting away to show other characters' reactions. All of this belongs to the cliched, feel-good territory of the comedic redemption story. Then, suddenly, Ronnie jumps out and violently shoots the pervert. The music cuts out, the film speed returns to normal, our expectations have been subverted and we laugh.

It baffles me that you find this joke too subtle. The music cuts out and the film changes speed! How much less subtle could it possibly be? It's not the senseless violence on its own that's funny, it's the unexpected shift from the montage to the senseless violence.

All that needs to be said about this movie *contains spoilers*

All that needs to be said about this movie contains spoilers