That would not be me, but don’t underestimate Hal. The second time I watched it, I was awestruck at how smart and clever and sensitive it was. I got things out of it that I hadn’t on the first watching. And I maintain that it has the funniest line of any movie ever made. Far better even than “Franks and beans”, “R.U.N.N.O.F.T”, and “Don’t call me Shirley.”
Well, my comparison in horses wasn’t meant to reflect a high- vs. lowbrow preference as much as simply a funny vs. not-funny opinion. I don’t think the Farrelly movies are very funny. Mary’s the best of the lot, but even that can’t compare to the Coen’s A-game. For me, the Farrelly’s are one-trick ponies. The Coens make lots of different types of films, the Farrelly’s only one, and while some are fans of that one type, me? Not so much. And while one can always identify a Coen brothers “style”, their movies (even the not-so-successful ones) are always ambitious, unpredictable, and full of elements you won’t find in most other American filmmakers. The Farrellys may be better at their type of film than others, but very little (even the “audacious” stuff) surprises me, and there’s very little outside the obvious that is there to hold my interest.
Again, not even in the same league.
That’s true of TSAM, SOY, D&D and Shallow Hal.
I can’t say I really liked “Me, Myself & Irene” as much, but it’s easy to underestimate the Farrelly’s or miss the nice touches amongst all the retards and testicles.
I’m not sure what line you’re referring to, though. Although, one of my favorites is (roughly) “what are you doing, building a parachute?”
Agreed.
SH goes from dumb slapstick to sensitive tearjerker when we find out what the little girl really looks like. Gets me every time. sniff
I like SOY because the opening scenes take place in my favorite vacation spot, but were actually filmed 90 miles away – in my second favorite vacation spot. Funnily enough, you’d never see a burger joint like that in either place!
“These women are ugly!”
“According to who?”
“Bausch. And. Lomb!”
Of course, Jason Alexander’s delivery accounts for half of the laugh.
I think “Stuck on You” has a lot of great stuff.
As a guy with a brother who I didn’t always get along with, things in it resonate.
The movie got written off as a series of gags about conjoined twins. And, they certainly played every angle in that – hilariously. But the movie is good because it really treats seriously how you would go about living your life with that.
E.g. the masturbation scene isn’t just played for laughs.
Sure, it’s funny how Greg Kinnear sits next to that statue on the bench, but it’s also sincere. Each brother reacts to being attached a bit differently, and they realistically portray how they’re both comfortable with it, but still self-conscious about it in certain situations.
I’m not going to go into some “Showgirls” type treatise here. I’m just saying that the Farrelly Bros. have more going on in their movies than a lot of people give them credit for.
Kingpin is probably weakest in this regard.
Shallow Hal’s heart got overlooked because it was on the heels of TSAM. I think SOY got a little more respect, and Fever Pitch is probably going to go even further because I don’t think it has any gross out gags at all.
Another thumbs up for the Coens and a thumbs down for The Farrelly’s.
You can’t judge quality by sheer gross revenue, otherwise you would have to say that Celene Dion (to name one example) is one of the all time greatest musicians.
But I don’t think most people here are going by box office – it’s really only been brought up once. Most of us are going by content.
As I have observed in other threads, most humor snobs don’t find lowbrow comedy funny or appealing at all and their preference for more cerebral humor manifests itself in a blanket condemnation of low humor no matter the performer or context. Even if you don’t care for the Farrelys, I have grave doubts you’d care for the Wayanses, classic Cheech and Chong, or Mike Judge’s movies, either. Your complaint about the lack of novelty in their humor is a common one. Yeah, getting bonked on the head or kicked in the balls or unwittingly using other people’s bodily fluids as something to inhale, imbibe, ingest or smear on isn’t exactly original, but it can still be funny as shit when successfully executed. Hell, I don’t find anything novel in my family’s retelling the same stories EVERY Thanksgiving and Christmas but I enjoy them just the same; or rather, I infectiously enjoy their enjoyment of them. I find there is often a great comfort and satisfaction in the familiar. I wonder sometimes if this need for novelty isn’t a defining characteristic in humor snobbery in general.
Oh, and as for the two posters who claim they aren’t humor snobs and like fart jokes just fine and I’m dead wrong in my theory, I require more than just your lame assertions to be convinced. Describe the set-up of a fart joke in a movie which you found the FART JOKE ITSELF funny: maybe then I’ll reconsider.
vl_mungo. So far only** Marley23, adam yax** and you have said that you hated Farrely Brother’s films. Most everyone else here expressed some degree of enjoyment.
Well, I for one, take umbrage with the assertation that my taste in humour runs more towards the droll than into the realms of the madcap and/or uncouth. Humour snob, me? Bosh! Flimshaw! I enjoy the shenannigans of Harpo just as much as I love the verbal virtuosity of Groucho. As for Blazing Saddles… the “one false move and the n*gger gets it” scene is one of the all time best comedy bits ever. Is that highbrow humour? The problem with the Farrelly’s, IMHO, isn’t that lowbrow humour isn’t funny, but the unfortunate actuality that they aren’t funny. Poke me in the eye and kick me in the posterior if I’m wrong. Nyuk nyuk nyuk.
Re: BLAZING SADDLES “hostage” bit being highbrow. The “Excuse me while I whip this out” part wasn’t highbrow (it is funny, though) but the notion that he avoided getting lynched by taking himself hostage was a brilliant bit of inverted satire with a dash of surrealist absurdity elegantly married to, ironically, a pitch-perfect parody of lowbrow coonery. If Stepin Fetchit played Bart that bit couldn’t have been done better. It’s on par with Richard Pryor getting a sympathetic Klan to push the bus out the mud in BUSTIN’ LOOSE and the little old white lady in AIRPLANE speaking Jive.
As one of those you’ve accused of being a humour snob, merely because I do not like the Farrelly brothers, I am not sure who Mike Judge is, but I love classic Cheech and Chong. I’ve also loved most of Adam Sandler’s movies (except for Punch Drunk Love) and he’s not what anyone would call “high-brow”.
I don’t remember the exact set-up, but while watching the first Scooby Doo movie there was a scene where Shaggy and Scooby went on a fart spree. My friend and I laughed quite a bit at that. The second Scooby movie which I watched over the weekend (which pretty much sucked) did have one fart scene (which I can’t remember the context) which was about the only scene in the movie where I did laugh.
Oh, and while this wasn’t a movie when watching the Surreal Life, Chris Knight let out a fart at the most opportune moment I’ve ever witnessed and I laughed my ass off (pardon any unintentional puns). I’ve also “threatened” my best friend with farts - and executed them, and been “threatened” in return. You’ll just have to take my word for that as I have no proof.
Is that enough for you?
I may not have used the word “hate”, but I certainly also stated my distaste for 99% of their movies. I don’t think it’s because I’m a humour snob - because I still assert that I am not. I just don’t find their idea of comedy very comical.
So, Mauvaise, are you a big fan of Terrence and Phillip?
(Pssst. Mike Judge is the creator of Beavis & Butthead, King of the Hill, and the classic movie Office Space. That and Beavis & Butthead Do America are the only two movies of his I’m aware of.)
You watched the Scooby-Doo movies? The live action ones? WILLINGLY? You defy my categorization.
I should have included you with Marley23 and the rest. Not liking any Farrelly Brothers movies is not definitive proof you’re a humor snob, but they are a good litmus test and a damning indicator you just might be. With performers as diverse and talented as Jim Carrey, Cameron Diaz, Ben Stiller, Markie Post, Keith David, Matt Dillion, Chris Elliot, Greg Kinnear, Matt Damon, Jack Black, Jason Alexander, Meryl Streep, Gwenyth Paltrow-- I just don’t see how you can fail to be amused by all of that talent.
Mike Judge did Office Space, Beavis and Butthead and the TV series King Of The Hill. (I see on preview Thudlow Boink took care of this.) What’s your opinion those and on the Wayans clan-- Keenan, Damon, Shawn and Marlon?
I loved the very first short - the christmas episode with Jesus and Santa and that figure skater dude. And I’ve watched and enjoyed a few episodes here and there, but I never got really into it - don’t know why exactly - too much else to watch on TV that I enjoy.
Ohhh, Beavis & Butthead. Eh, I didn’t find them particularly funny, but I love King of the Hill, even though I don’t watch it all that much (other shows conflict) and I loved Office Space.
Well, In Living Color was brilliant, and I do like just about everything I’ve seen by Mike Judge. C&C can be funny, as are the Keystone Kops and Inspector Clouseau, but the Stooges aren’t. Monty Python could be incredibly lowbrow, and they were often funnier then than in some of the tediuos wordplay. No blanket statements here. Everything’s case-by-case.
Agreed. And there are the occasional laughs in the Farrelly films. But (for me) not many. I also am not a big fan of their saccherine sensibilities, which I find either disingenuous, clumsy, or both, depending on the film.
Yeah, I agree. I assume at this point you’re just making a case to somebody else, 'cause none of this applies to me…
This is like saying a food snob is someone who won’t eat pizza every day, or a TV snob is someone who can’t veg out in front of Aaron Spelling shows 24/7, or a literary snob is someone who isn’t content with Jacqueline Susann novels as their only reading pleasure. :rolleyes:
My love for SMG and Linda Cardelini (?sp) knows no bounds! 
Please the actor that played Shaggy was amazing! 
Well, I don’t like Jim Carey in anything. I’ve tried and his presence even ruined most of the enjoyment of Bruce Almighty for me. But aside from him, it’s not the talen (or lack thereof) that makes me not enjoy the Farrelly brothers - it’s that I don’t find their movies funny. I’ve seen several, and the only one I remotely liked was Shallow Hal (and I was surprised as hell that I didn’t hate it).
I liked Undercover Brother - but I don’t remember if that was a Wayans clan or not.
When have I advocated doing anything 24/7, every day, or advocated exclusivity or limited choices? Snobs do tend to do that sometimes, be they geeks or social elitists, but that’s not what i’m saying at all. A happier remedy is “Everything in moderation.”
I’m a bit of an elitist when it comes to movies, so I definitely prefer the Coens.
The only Farrelly movie I liked was Me, Myself, and Irene. The few others I watched were just not funny. I thought Something About Mary was horrible, but everyone else seemed to find it hilarious. I just don’t find jokes about semen as hair gel funny, call me snob if you will. Bodily function humor doesn’t appeal to me, but I don’t look down on those who laugh at it.
The Big Lebowski is one of my favorites of all time, so is Fargo. And Raising Arizona is also a classic. I just think they have more substance, and are funnier and more intelligent.
But then, I also laugh at Friends and think Mama’s Family was comedic brilliance, so what do I know?
You didn’t, but you did say: “I wonder sometimes if this need for novelty isn’t a defining characteristic in humor snobbery in general.” This suggestion that “need for novelty” = “snobbery” implies that people should be willing to find sufficiency in a singular style/type/form or else run the risk of being elitist.
Everything, eh? Sounds like someone may need a little novelty. Could that someone be…a snob?
Ah. On the contrary, not a singular form, but maybe a willingness to try more sophomoric forms of humor and learn to distinguish between good executions of physical comedy and not just witticisms, snappy dialogue, bon mots, puns, wordplay, regional eccentricities and Anglophilic comedies that are supposed to be funny just 'cuz they’re British. Most comedies aren’t cerebral and people who insist they’re happier with those kinds limit themselves. I will say, most cerebral humor is inherently novel because the humor frequently juxtaposes new and/or unfamiliar ideas. But not all comedy has to be about – to borrow from Indygrrl – substance and intelligence. That said, I don’t expect anyone here to wallow in teen sex comedies, National Lampoon flicks, Saturday Night Live alumni movies and Jim Varley movies ad nauseum either. I suppose the only thing worse than a humor snob is a frathouse filmgoer. All profanity, sex, violence, drugs, body fluids, slapstick and crudeness isn’t good for the funnybone either, either. This is the problem I have with most Martin Lawrence movies.