Agreed. David comes up with the funny scenarios very well, but Seinfeld is better at jokes. There is a reason NBC went to Seinfeld to start a series and why Seinfeld was a far more successful standup comedian than David.
Jerry was very much an active participant in the writing of Seinfeld. He was interviewed at length by Neal Brennan recently. Neal puts up the full interview, then segments of it. From the segment on writing Seinfeld here’s what he says about their process. TLDR version: David winnowed out what stories to put into an episode, Jerry did a lot of the dialogue.
Jerry wrote good stuff for Seinfeld under the mantra “Never learn anything, never grow up.” So the characters were quite immature. Funny when the people are in their 30s. Sad when they are 70.
Speaking of The Hudsucker Proxy, I’m pretty sure the “job board” scene in Bee Movie was inspired by this:
Inna and I gave this one a whirl. I called it a “good bad movie”, she thought it was a “bad bad movie”. I definitely laughed more than she did, but then, she says she doesn’t really like/understand American comedy - and an American period piece like this one is not at all in her bailiwick.
We howled, however, during the Mad Men sequence. Don’s product pitch was shockingly relevant to how our relationship developed, and it was just funny as fuck to us. To me, it alone elevated this to “good bad movie”.
All in all, it was cute. A fun diversion. But, you know, it would not surprise me if… in 20 years… this silly film is seen as some sort of benchmark, or it grows to cult film status, or something like that. The I’m Gonna Git You Sucka of our age.
But probably not.
We also finished the Seinfeld finale and, frankly, the creepiest thing was that Jerry’s voice hasn’t aged a day.
Is anyone else simply appalled by Seinfeld’s consistently terrible acting? The man does not have a clue how to deliver a line, or to play a reaction without hamming it up to a ridiculous degree. And as a director he seems to have encouraged the other “actors” (mainly comedians themselves) to ham it up in a similar over the top style.
I must be the few that do not think Jerry does all that bad, both in this and in Seinfeld.
Nobody plays Seinfeld better than Seinfeld and that’s the only character he ever plays. I don’t get the criticism either. He stays in the lane he’s good at. So does the film. It’s as funny as any other comedy released direct to Netflix.
I enjoyed Hugh Grant’s turn as Thurl Ravenscroft, especially when he’s trading barbs with Melissa McCarthy.
And yes I’m aware that Thurl Ravenscoft was from Nebraska rather than the UK.
His horrible acting is part of his character. It’s his failure as a director that’s truly noteworthy. I suppose actors somehow think his success will rub off on them. I suspect after this movie many of them will be disabused of that notion.
I give Unfrosted a solid 6.758 out of 10. I liked it but didn’t love it. It was more amusing than funny. As a child of the 60s, I related to all the cultural references and callbacks, which perhaps helped me enjoy the movie more than others.
The film has good bones. In the hands of a master director of dark comedy like the Coen Brothers or the late Stanley Kubrick, with sharper writing and a few cast substitutions, this could have been a top-notch black satire. Unfortunately, it fell short of the mark.
The settings and cinematography are quite good. Seinfeld’s one-note acting (non-acting) didn’t bother me; it just added to the film’s absurdity. In fact, if a film is over-the-top, it should go way over the top. For example, they should have made the milkmen more ominous, with better jump scares and Psycho-style music when they appear. The Mr. von Braunhut Nazi character should have been portrayed as Peter Sellers played Dr. Strangelove, etc.
I didn’t laugh a lot, but the film made me smile.
And, I agree with those who say Seinfeld is a good stand-up, but Larry David is the better sit-com writer. I liked Seinfeld but loved Curb.
I agree with your whole review. What strikes me now, a few weeks out, if how forgettable the film was. I barely remember any of it.
It was about cereal. I think…
Was it supposed to be satire? I just thought it was “A bunch of comic actors arsing around with a particular moment in American corporate culture”. And in that, it succeeded.
I’d say it’s a high-camp parody on the verge of satire. The premise is ripe for satire, and I think it would have been better if it delved deeper in that direction. But it was silly and nostalgic, and that’s not so bad.
I repeat. It was an attempt to be like Top Secret!, which was “Jokes: the movie” with a spy theme around it. Top Secret’s jokes are way better, though, so the whole thing works much better.
This movie made me giggle a bit and my son(age 13) laughed more than I did. But it was silly/zany without being consistently funny.
It’s a parody of a reality that Madison Avenue created for a generation of kids. The whole film is the world in 1963 as seen through the TV-addled eyes of a 10-year-old.
I was entertained. I would watch it again.
it was far from the worst thing we’ve watched over the past year. Certainly far from great. But modestly entertaining through its short run-time. Just a modestly pleasant way to spend 90 minutes.
I thought it was … fine? Amusingly silly, not quite LOL funny but just relentless silliness and it sure seems like everyone is having a good time.
I can absolutely understand why this kind of movie would be polarizing and I usually think it is insultingly reductive to tell someone who didn’t like a movie that they just didn’t “get it.” But that Roeper review, holy cow.
I finally got around to watching this and I thought it was really funny. Lots of jokes delivered by lots of funny people, what’s not to like? (Apparently my sense of humour differs from What_Exit.)
The most unbelievable part of the movie was when the little girl bit into the pastry part of a Pop-Tart and said it was the most delicious thing she had ever tasted.