Death at a Funeral (2010) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
125 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
A pointless remake of an excellent British film.
NorthernDragon25 May 2010
Despite having double the budget and some pretty big Hollywood stars the 2010 release adds nothing whatsoever, and in fact is in many ways inferior.

Not only are there some very lacklustre performances in particular from Chris Rock and Martin Lawrence as the two sons of the deceased, but the camera work in some sections is truly awful with the decision to use "handheld" or steadicam photography resulting in the picture shaking so badly in some sections that it is almost hard to watch.

Despite all this many of the best moments of the original are copied perfectly and work just as well as they did the first time around meaning that there are several good laughs to be had, but when you've got the choice of watching this or the original there's really no contest.

Distinctly average.
144 out of 181 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
In a Word, Unnecessary
colinrgeorge27 April 2010
'Unnecessary' is probably the best single word description of Neil LaBute's "Death at a Funeral." I mean, there's really no precedent for the release of a same-language remake a paltry two and a half years after its original, and yet the guest list arrives for this new "Funeral" with almost as fast a turnaround as a Hollywood sequel. Hell, Chris Nolan hibernated on his second "Batman" film longer.

Nevertheless, the reality is that the decidedly Afro-American-friendly version of the dysfunctional family comedy (notable only because it really is the later film's sole distinguishing feature), is now in theaters, leaving anyone who remembers the Frank Oz original to ponder why.

LaBute and star Chris Rock, who also served as a producer on the film, cheekily 'adapt' U.K. writer Dean Craig's screenplay by peppering it with hip-pop pop-culture nods to Usher and R. Kelly, and leaving the rest, in essence, unchanged. On one hand, I appreciate the sentiment in that it doesn't presume to outdo its progenitor, but that's its problem as a standalone piece: it's either identical or inferior in every conceivable way. As such, the majority of its first-time audience will probably appreciate the comedic build-up having not been spoiled on the gags, and that's fine for right now, but it poses a potential dilemma, say, ten years down the road.

When film buffs and historians look back on "Death at a Funeral" (which they honestly have little reason to), the choice between the two versions will be obvious. Plus, they'll have no idea who "Usher" is.

Likewise, even today I'd recommend a rental of the 2007 film over a ticket to its 2010 counterpart, because, well, the original is the original, and for all its faithfulness, the remake actually accentuates what's lost in translation. The pop-culture one-liners clash with the characters on the page, and leave them feeling half-formed and sloppy on the screen—Are we watching Chris Rock do what makes Chris Rock hilarious, or are we seeing him play a repressed, introverted protagonist? The answer, messily, is both.

On that level, there's a creative integrity to the original performances that is impossible in LaBute's version. Martin Lawrence, Danny Glover, Tracey Morgan, Zoe Saldana, Peter Dinklage, Luke Wilson, and others comprise an undeniably talented cast that does an admirable job performing characters that were written as upper-crust Englishmen, but watching Rock sulk his way through the film makes it abundantly clear that they're not being themselves.

There's also the not-so-insignificant matter of LaBute's bland artisanship. In the past, he's been responsible for equally lifeless big-screen adaptations of his own stage plays, and a spectacularly poorly-received remake of "The Wicker Man"—It begs the question, why was he asked and trusted to shepherd this project? There's no single performance in the film that feels particularly informed by his hand, and LaBute fails to bring a single funny idea to the table. In adhering so rigidly to "Funeral" prime, his remake is marked by an absence of directorial and comedic vision.

I have no qualms with anyone who enjoyed "Death at a Funeral" for the first time via the LaBute/Rock version. A lot of what made the British comedy memorable has survived, and even with a jaded precognition of the gags, I mined a couple laughs. However, the fatal flaw of the 2010 adaptation is that the 2007 version exists. It's not like it's antiquated or anything; it's three years old.

Anyone with an open mind can still appreciate the original "Death at a Funeral," and its immediate availability for less than the cost of a night at the movies makes the 2010 remake quintessentially one thing—Unnecessary.
128 out of 174 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Uninspired remake of a great comedy
Gordon-1115 August 2010
This film is about the funeral of a family man. the funeral turns out to be very eventful with many surprises.

"Death at a Funeral" is almost the same as the British original, be it the title or the plot. The British one was really funny, I remember myself laughing very hard when I watched it. This remake, is mildly funny, but it is just in a different league. It uses cheap humour to make people laugh, and it lacks the witty dialog of the original. Moreover, characters are less sympathetic and more annoying in this remake. Despite a few funny moments, I would stay "Death at a Funeral" is an uninspired remake of a great comedy.

Maybe filmmakers will bear in mind that remaking such a recent film in the same language with the same plot is not such a good idea, as it will inevitably draw comparisons between the original and the remake.
40 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Watch the original instead
thufirhawat33313 July 2010
Let me cut it short. There was a refreshing, funny, utterly lovable and enjoyable death - comedy titled Death at a Funeral. It's not even outdated, came out a couple of years ago. This movie tries to live up to the original English comedy, but despite the brilliant actors like Glover and David, it doesn't succeed. It actually made every mistake a remake can make, therefore the original remains brilliant and this one is just a weak copy. Sad, but true. They tried, even tried hard, I admit, but there are things that best remain untouched. Death at a Funeral is one of them. It's a nice try, but will disappear undocumented, unlike the original one that remains a fine example of English black humor.

My recommendation: Watch that one instead.
86 out of 117 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This movie is terrible.
trimmelin8 August 2010
This is a terrible remake, the original came out less than three years ago.

Originally the film is set in Britain and the dark humor rolls through the entire movie. The new one? Not so much. It seems someone decided that the the original "Death at a Funeral" wasn't 'black' enough, so they did a black-cast, and changed the location to urban America. The dialogue and story? All the same as the original.

This remake seems too forced. The jokes aren't funny, the actors seem fake (despite it being a great cast) and overall just terrible.

I hope that you take the time to watch the original and have some laughs instead of this garbage. Hollywood just seems to be getting lazy.
30 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
What was that about?
sacoshao20 July 2010
I watched the original Death at a Funeral when it first came out and thoroughly enjoyed it, however this remake, though possessing arguably greater star power fails to live up to it's predecessor. in my opinion, it misses the mark completely, and was absolutely unnecessary. I know everyone has different taste, but this was just bad. Bad Bad Bad. It is difficult to give an unbiased review seeing as how I have watched the original, but this to me has just highlights how substandard this film is. It is as if Hollywood was trying to prove a point, but failed miserably. I have watched the original four times and still am able to laugh throughout. This was just terrible. This brings me to the question "why?" Who felt that this was necessary? I was gravely disappointed with this film and I think an apology is due to it's original writer and cast members for this atrocious remake!!.
51 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
If you want to enjoy this story...
Go and see the recent original film 'Death at a Funeral,' the British version, hilarious. It is a black comedy, which isn't depressing but is light hearted fun of the almost delicious Charles Addams school of macabre humour.

I can only surmise the US film industry thinks US viewers too thick or insular to watch a comedy in the same language with a (nowadays) slightly different accent.

If you aren't as puddle headed as they've assumed, see the original and laugh yourself sick, as I did. PS it so far has got 7. something on IMDb... enough said, you'll be pleased you did. What's more the whole family can enjoy this one without boring anyone at all let alone to death.
76 out of 108 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I was really impressed............WITH THE ORIGINAL
fortunesmiles1 June 2010
Why was this film remade? Why can't the Americans just let us have our comedies? Why do they have to steal all of our ideas? Why would James Marsden and Danny Glover degrade themselves in this movie? Why can't they try something original for a change? And when will Chris Rock realise that he's really not all that funny?

Please take my advice all avid film and comedy fans if anyone out there is interested in watching this film STOP!!!! Go out and find the original and watch that. I promise you it is so much better.

The British have a much more tactful way of creating comedy. We don't need to use short people jokes and sexual innuendo to get laughs. IT'S JUST SIMPLY BETTER
205 out of 321 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Absolute Crap!
goreanspank14 July 2010
If you have seen the 2007 version, you will probably go to sleep watching this crap! They even copied off the lines...

from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0795368/

absolute crap man!

Seriously!

You got these people, trying desperately to copy of an originally made movie, my advise, don't even download the DVDRip for free man! waste of bandwidth! Who make the same movie 3yrs later man, seriously! What sort of demented joke is this, unless the producer and actors were gaining some income tax benefits by making some crap sound expensive...
81 out of 124 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bored to Death....
boogiegir18 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Very talented comedic cast...unfortunately the material and character development were lacking. I only chuckled a couple times at best.

Hopefully, if Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence,Tracy Morgan and Luke Wilson (some of the funniest and most talented),should have the opportunity to perform together again, it will be in a screenplay that will play to their talents, not confine them in characters that are stereo-types.

Loretta Devine...an amazing talent as seen briefly on television's Eli Stone, was used minimally and not to her full potential.

Danny Glover...played an erasable old codger, once again,character not fully developed.

Example: James Marsden's character consumed a hallucinogenic unbeknownst to him, so when Peter Dinklage's character & Danny Glover's character also had consumed a hallucinogenic the effects of the hallucinogenic seemed over the top for James Marsden's character "Oscar", and Peter Dinklage's character had quite a few more pills and yet had a more subdued reaction. Finally Danny Glover's character who was physically immobile somehow managed to end up naked on the roof after consuming the hallucinogenic.

This wouldn't be that big of a deal had it not been one the integral 'sight gags' involving Tracy Morgan with Danny Glover's character earlier in the film.

Bored to death by Death at a Funeral!
54 out of 85 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Comedy that goes absolutely nowhere
raisleygordon21 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I grant you this is a potentially good idea for a movie, especially a comedy. But the results are very disappointing. There are about 1 or 2 laughs few and far between, which are very minor. I'm not even convinced these actors are trying at all, or if there's a real story here. At the very beginning, after Chris Rock finds that the wrong body is in the casket, I thought this movie might go somewhere. Boy, was I mislead. And the subplot, involving James Marsden, is a complete misfire. Wow. Actually, his part is so stupid, calling it a misfire is an understatement. However, it is not exactly a boring movie. I suppose the picture makes up for in admiration what it lacks in humor. Also on the plus side, it's only around 90 minutes in length. As for the toilet humor (which isn't funny either), well, let's just say this film gives that term a whole new meaning. If you absolutely must see this, at least skip a trip to the theater.

** out of ****
35 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
They Should Make a CGI Version Next!
samuelwiggins19 March 2011
It's hard to believe that all of the people involved had time to waste making this horrible movie. I knew this was going to be terrible, but I watched it anyway because I suppose I had time to waste myself. This film has too many problems, so I'm not going to waste your time nitpicking.

The American version of Death at a Funeral lacks the subtly that the original has. All of the characters are obnoxious and vulgar, so when these embarrassing situations happen, the viewer isn't surprised. What makes the British movie funny is that the characters come from affluent families and are forced into uncomfortable, compromising situations. Everything seems expected in this movie. It's like watching a taxman do taxes.

SPOILER ALERT: This movie is almost identical to the British version, except this version is terrible. If you have seen the original movie, then there really isn't any point in watching this one. It almost seems like no one really wanted to make this movie. The dialog has barely been altered. They just threw in some Americanisms and thought they made enough of an effort. Why was this movie made? Maybe it was just to reach an audience that would otherwise not watch the original, but I don't think that would justify the production costs.

The one thing I did find interesting is that both versions include actors from the Firefly series: the preacher and the pilot. Why didn't they just use the money from this film to make more Firefly episodes?
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It has its fair share of funny moments, but does not live up to the original
Jackpollins19 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
It's unfortunate watching a talented cast not live up to their considerable talents. This is why Death At A Funeral, a remake of the 2007 British farce is so unfortunate. While the funny, talented cast does what they can and produce their fair share of laughs, they don't live up to their considerable talents nor does the film live up to its original. I think the reason I actually kind of enjoyed this is because I view the 2007 version and this version as two completely different films, but it's hard not to compare the 2 if you walk into this version having already seen the 2007 version. I'm happy that this story is getting a wider audience because the script is brilliant. A cast including Martin Lawrence, Regina Hall, Columbus Short, Chris Rock, Zoe Saldana, Luke Wilson, Danny Glover, Peter Dinklage, Keith David, Loretta Divine, Ron Glass, Tracy Morgan, James Marsden, and Kevin Hart create a better than average comedy, but not the comedy this talented cast could of created. I really liked the cast and did laugh at this more than at something like, say, The Bounty Hunter. I'm sure a lot of people are gonna like this, but, unless you have not seen the original, and in that case, do not know there was an original, you can wait for video, or better yet, skip it.
34 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Shameless ripoff
PWNYCNY21 September 2010
This movie is a shameless and unfunny ripoff of the 2007 British movie of the same name. Nothing in this movie even remotely approaches the humor of the 2007 original version. What makes this movie even more pathetic is how it even botches up those scenes that in the 2007 movie were hilarious. After watching the 2007 movie one left the theater with a smile; after watching this movie one leaves hoping that their funeral won't be as disastrous as the one in the movie. The cast featured some really good comic actors, but in this movie they are not funny. The acting was poor, Martin Lawrence and Chris Rock were unfunny (in fact, Mr. Rock was actually subdued), the dialog was flat, the story, as already indicated, entirely unoriginal, and the plot nonexistent. And as for Danny Glover, this movie has to be the low point of his acting career. The movie attempts to be goofy but winds up being contrived. But the worst element of this movie is the story's utter lack of plausibility. In the original British version, the story works; in this ripoff version, the story collapses. As this movie proves, what may be funny in one movie may not necessarily be funny in a remake, even if the story is exactly the same. May this movie rest in peace in DVD land.

Orchestra Wives (1942)
18 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Deadly
jdesando19 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
"Let me get this straight: our dad was "bromantically" involved with a guy that could fit in his pocket, and you're mad because he's white?" Aaron (Chris Rock)

That's the story line for Neil Labute's remake of Frank Oz's Death at a Funeral. And that's the best line in the film, a foolish, slapstick send up of a funeral service in which Chris Rock's Aaron tries to keep the event from sinking with the news that their dead dad was, when he was alive, very much alive with his short lover, Frank (Peter Dinklage).

Funereal is how I would characterize the humor of this iteration, in which the most offensive scene is not as good as any other like it in film slumdom. By that I mean when Norman (Tracy Morgan) holds Uncle Russell's (Danny Glover) fundament for everyone to see on his hand, face, and shirt, comic scatology has reached bottom, so to speak. (Oh, Danny boy, how low can you go for a buck?). To compare this scene with the pool sequence in Caddy Shack is to make Caddy Shack the Citizen Kane of comedy. Similarly James Marsden's manic turn as the guest on a hallucinatory drug must be embarrassing for an actor whose role as Corny Collins in Hairspray now looks favorably like Ryan Secrest after a summer at Actor's Studio.

I'm wasting your time by trying to make up for this lame comedy of bad manners. If you want to feel as if you've died and gone to purgatory for indiscriminate film goers, then see Death at a Funeral.
39 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bad, bad, bad
TheColonel194725 May 2010
This is an example of movie-making at its worst. I really am at a loss to know what market these sorts of movies are aimed at. Perhaps a black US audience might find more amusement than a UK audience – although the director is white. I don't know. This IS a black movie with a capital B. There are three token white actors one of which is a token midget. They studiously avoid referring to his lack of height until the end of the movie when it all comes thick and fast but, as with the rest of the movie, unfunny. Chris Rock, arguably the lead, is not an actor of any discernible talent, closely followed by his brother in the movie – that's brother rather than brother – Martin Lawrence. The women and the white actors come off marginally better. A gag about a guy getting crap all over his hand is a toe-curlingly unfunny set-up for a totally unamusing running gag. The movie doesn't even end when it should do but has another two or three minutes of 'story wrap-up' scenes which are completely unnecessary. Directed by Neil (The Wicker Man 2006 remake) LaBute one can only wonder what dirt he holds on Hollywood execs that they continue to bankroll his worthless projects. If anything, perhaps it is good to see something like this occasionally just to remind oneself what good cinema is all about.
33 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Completely pointless remake
jacob-l-williams30 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Death At A Funeral is a remake of what is a fantastic British comedy about a funeral service where everything goes wrong. The original is brilliantly funny, well acted and the jokes work perfectly with what is a great script.

It's such a shame that the same script can be ruined so badly by a Hollywood remake of a film less than three old that didn't and shouldn't have been remade.

Now I can understand the point of some remakes for example Tim Burton re-creating Charlie and The Chocolate Factory for a new generation, but Burton didn't take the script from the original and he didn't make the film until like 30ish years later (thats a guess I don't know when the original. I can also understand why Hollywood remake foreign films because a majority of people will not go and read subtitles for an hour and a half. I just cannot understand why they wanted to remake Death At A Funeral and even more so why to keep the same script and add in about two extra jokes.

Now I do believe that if an audience member where to see this without having seen the original they would find it funny, I even laughed twice. However if they were then to see the original I think they would still laugh more. The original is better in pretty much every way apart from the amount of money its made.

Completely pointless and if you want to buy the DVD just make sure its the original you click on and not this piece of rubbish.

4/10
13 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Inferior in every way to the original
nerklus13 August 2010
There are many great and funny American films. Death at a funeral (2010) is not one of them.

If you only have time for one film - watch the original British version - it's funny, tightly scripted, well-acted, fresh.

The American retread tried to copy the film, but misses by a mile. The only reason to watch this film is to see how badly they missed. Did they not care? Was it just a grind it out, punch the clock, who gives a sh*t effort.

If you do watch the film - watch the Brit version after - it's still funny and you'll be amazed how actively and egregiously stupid and cringe-worthy this version is.

For shame Hollywood.
15 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Everything is so f***ing green
paul_haakonsen13 July 2010
Alright, well I haven't seen the 2007 version, so I can't really compared this remake with that movie. So I will be making my review here solely on the 2010 version.

I found this odd comedy to be delightfully screwed up and so far out there, that it was well worth it. Given, there weren't that many moments where I was laying flat laughing, but there were some moments in the movie that were funny and cool.

Now, as for the acting, well I found all cast actors and actresses to be good in their given roles and they did well with the material they had. And having James Marsden and Luke Wilson in the roles as the two white people worked quite well, and they brought some fun to the movie. And I also think the dialogue was nice. And also Danny Glover in the role of that uncle in the wheelchair, that was just so cool. He truly is a nice actor.

I would have to say that, for me at least, this is the type of comedy that is watched once, then probably never again. It just didn't stand out that much so that it had repeated watch value.

If you like off-comedies and got a twisted sense of humor, then this movie would be something for you. I found it to be enjoyable enough, especially because it was amazing how the funeral turned out with all the weird things happening.

There are some pretty nice twists to the story throughout the movie, and if you are in for an evening of some comedy, then "Death at a Funeral" might be a good suggestion.
21 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not a Classic But It Made Me Laugh
Michael_Elliott18 September 2010
Death at a Funeral (2010)

*** (out of 4)

Remake of a 2007 British film, this comedy is certainly done in bad taste but the talented cast bring enough laughs to make it worth viewing. The "story", if you want to call it that, is rather simple as a group of people show up at a funeral only to have one thing go wrong after another. This includes the dead man's sons (Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence) constantly fighting, a man showing up claiming to be the lover of the dead man and we even get a white boyfriend who everyone hates and they're really going to hate him after he accidentally takes some acid. This is a rather vulgar movie that makes a living on bad taste and dirty jokes but what makes them so funny is that no one wants the stuff to be vulgar. It's strange but all the characters here are good people who mean no one any harm yet they just get into situations where they're forced to do things that they normally wouldn't do and that's what makes the film so funny. The film contains a terrific cast lead by Rock and Lawrence but we also get Danny Glover, Tracy Morgan, Luke Wilson, Loretta Devine, Peter Dinklage, James Marsden and Keith David. All of the actors are obviously given it their all. Sometimes they deliver wonderful jokes while at other times they fall flat on their face but no matter how the joke comes out you can at least see how hard they're working to try and make the laugh. One of the highlights of the film is when the crippled character played by Glover gets diarrhea and has Morgan rush him to the bathroom but his hand gets stuck in the toilet as the old man sits down. Another running gag has the father being gay and hiding it his entire life and his son played by Lawrence gets upset because the lover is white. The movie runs a very quick 90-minutes but every ten-seconds there appears to be a new joke being thrown out. I give the film credit for pushing all the right buttons and at least attempting to make fun of more dramatic situations. There's no good flow to the movie and the story is certainly nothing special but people are tuning into this thing to laugh and they'll be doing that quite a bit from start to finish.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Very Unfunny
murdakillemall17 April 2010
I had a feeling this movie wouldn't be funny at all. The previews didn't look funny but some family members wanted to see it so off we go to watch it.

For being a "comedy" I don't remember laughing at all. I guess most of the "funny" stuff is when people make mistakes in the movie. Acting was average, comedians weren't funny, but if you are a fan of slapstick movies, you may like this one.

Now, I like some slapstick actions in some comedies but to me even this one had bad or too much slapstick. I don't ever remember falling asleep at a comedy but I fell asleep at this one.

The movie could have played out the same way with a much cheaper cast but then again, maybe no one would have watched it.
48 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Only watched half of it - what a waste of time that was
jon_longworth12 March 2011
The original UK version was really funny. I got an uncomfortable feeling early on when the guy who was drugged delivered a line taken straight from the original and delivered it without any comedic impact whatsoever.

This character was used to drive a lot of the comedy and vibe in the earlier film - and in this film he was just hopeless - wasn't funny, he didn't appear ready to tear things apart, or drive the plot - it was woeful, flaccid stuff and I'm just bloody mystified how the film makers screwed this up. If this character doesn't work the film doesn't work. And this film didn't.

So what was actually a very good cast (sans Chris Rock) couldn't save it and they and every other creative clearly turned up for the money and made a very forgettable picture.

What a dreadful, dreadful shame looking at the raw material they had available.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
How to spoil a good movie.
peter-moxom2 October 2010
After watching and thoroughly enjoying the 2007 version at a friend's place, I thought I would get my own copy. Unfortunately, I didn't know about this remake until I played the disc. I'm afraid this just didn't work for me. The scene set-ups did nothing to help suspension of disbelief, rather the opposite. I couldn't transcend the sense that I was just watching actors trying to be funny with inappropriate lines delivered with poor timing, as opposed to the original version that employed irony instead. I can't understand why this movie grossed the figure mentioned above, unless others made the same mistake I did. The disc I bought now resides somewhere near the bottom of my trash bin.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Haven't seen the original yet, but I can still tell this version is inferior
KineticSeoul11 May 2011
I heard positive stuff about the original after this version came out. And from what I heard this movie is a negative compared to the original. So I don't really get why they came out with this version when the original came out just a few years ago. The whole movie is basically a black comedy revolving around one funeral. Most of the jokes come from the whole family gathering at a funeral and begin to argue and bicker in a obnoxious manner. I don't know how good the original version is, but this movie felt like a waste of time most of the way through. The jokes in this movie isn't even funny most of the time, but what it does is over exaggerate everything and try uber hard to make unfunny funny. Which doesn't really work most of the time, the trailer seemed pretty dull and boring comedy and this movie is basically the same. Since the positive reviews the original has been getting, I wonder why they decided to make this version when tanks. And I can tell without even seeing the original that came out in 2007. The plot about almost everything going wrong at a funeral might be a good idea for a black comedy, but this one goes in a direction where it's not effective at all.

3/10
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Zoe Saldana at a funeral
shantbe30 April 2010
Horrible film. I voted 1 because the scale didn't have a -10. The movie focused more on washed-out, skeletal, looking Zoe Saldana and her idiot, hallucinating boyfriend than the actual funeral. It was totally false advertising. I saw more of her than the people who were supposed to be starring. Poor Danny Glover. How did he go from lethal weapon and the color purple to this?Poor Martin Lawrence. He used to have one of the funniest shows on t.v.(except for that last season.)Where did it all go wrong? How could he and Chris Rock do a movie that even Eddie Murphy and Will Ferrell wouldn't touch? Such a shame. Awful, crude, disgusting movie. Although I accept most of the blame because I knew the movie wouldn't be funny from the previews. It's my own fault that I was boring and watched it anyway.
21 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed