Funny Ha Ha

An ultra-low budget film about aimless twenty-somethings wasting their lives brings to mind Richard Lindlater's 'Slacker'; and while Andrew Bujalski's film lacks that movie's experimental formlessness, it does share something of the same mood. The cinematography has the feel of a super-eight home movie; but the piece is acutely observed and feels real throughout. Unfortuantly, it's just not that interesting, in part because its characters just aren't that interesting, and in a sense this isn't accidental; their directionless existence owes much to the fact that they simply haven't lived enough to have anything to care about, anything to say. And while there should be a profound sadness underpinning this, and some sociological analysis, the film never seems to scrape below its surface of whiny, unhappy people. You wouldn't dislike these people in real life, but if they have any notable attributes, they're not on display, and you wouldn't go out of your way to spend time in their company. But what's true of the characters is sadly also true of the film that contains them.

where have we heard this before? Ah yes, Woody Allen on down to his character actor acquaintance Larry David (creator of Seinfeld), etc...., etc.... Yes, it was once a novel idea. In 1979.

Has anyone who watched this ever seen Woody Allen's "Manhattan"? you will be interested in the parallels.

This was filmed primarily in Allston and Cambridge, and I agree with an early reviewer, who stated that a mirror image of his own single life there was reflected. Imagine each person living in The Back Bay or South End with a similar story. After all everyone has experienced the void of dating, working in Boston,(or any metro area city) and going home alone on your birthday. Not exactly earth shattering.

Kate Dollenmayer is not bad as the primary character, but Andrew Bujalski has so many Allen-like mannerisms, it is almost embarrassing to watch. The only members of the audience who will not pick this out would have to be 17 years old, at most.

There are a few decent scenes, the awkwardness Kate feels with an old boyfriend, the vacuous conversation at a keg party, but really; is this considered different?. If it is, then next time you or I go to the supermarket we should tag along someone with a handy cam, start a conversation, and we too would be considered a writer/director.

I got dragged to see this movie by a friend who knows the director and several of the people in the movie. I guess I didn't have high expectations for it, but it came through nicely. I still don't understand what the title has to do with the movie, I didn't find it really funny, just sweet. I agree that it's a movie not about plot or even characters, but about moments. I kept thinking, "how many times have I been in one of these situations, talking about a relationship or my feelings with someone... how many times have i been on either side of this conversation. I've been this person, and I've been that person too." it was interesting. I really liked it. like I said, it wasn't that funny but it didn't try to be. It was nice to just watch it and soak up the simplicity and not watch some movie that tried to do all of your thinking for you.

Films like this naturally annoy and disappoint many people, and it isn't hard for me to see why. This movie is plotless, not much really happens, and the ending is not an ending at all, if anything it is an anti-ending, which I found fitting. There is no real way to conclude this film unless all the main characters die in some way, or something much bigger happens to them, but anything like that at all would be totally out of place here. The point of this film is to depict the daily lives of some characters, dig deep into their emotions and thoughts, and then carelessly shrug as the film cuts to a solid black that feels especially opaque considering how seemingly random it is. The movie just ends in the middle of a scene that could easily have gone on for another few minutes, and led into some other scene which would then lead to yet another. The film has no real beginning, either. It opens up on a quick, insignificant little moment as the main character drunkenly looks around a tattoo shop and talks with the tattooist for a couple of minutes and he explains why he doesn't give tattoos to drunk people and then the scene kind of rambles off into termination. For me, the movie was very interesting and enjoyable to watch. The comedy was fittingly mild and usually rather uncomfortable, the atmosphere was lifelike but interesting, the main character was good company to be around, and those around her were fascinating in their own ways. The movie has emotion, but it also has moments of total dullness. It's entertaining, but also kind of boring, which doesn't make any sense but it's true anyway. It's a witty movie partially about relationships or lack of relationships, and it handles things with a sharp, and sometimes excruciatingly awkward, sense of humor as well as slight sorrow.

This seemed to be just the kind of movie I enjoy, but turned out to be a shell of the same.

The director gets some things right, like his choice of star and some of the scene pacing. Dialog and character interactions breathe properly; they're languid and yet vaporous, as some other reviewers have said.

Too bad they all come to nothing. Marnie's a vacuous amalgam, not a character; she's the camera, not a human being. Encounters and relationships don't build through sequence or consequence; almost nothing happens that informs or affects a subsequent scene. Through her, we see the other characters, who are almost universally portrayed by much lesser actors. There's no character arc; the script feels self-indulgent and ultimately trivial. The entire movie is Marnie amused, Marnie bemused, Marnie bored... audience bored.

Bujalski had the pieces to make a remarkable film, but instead he never got the transmission out of neutral.