IMDb > Death at a Funeral (2010) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Death at a Funeral
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Death at a Funeral More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 10:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [Next]
Index 96 reviews in total 

183 out of 243 people found the following review useful:

See the original

4/10
Author: renshaw_b from Australia
24 April 2010

The original British version is much better. It had more subtle humor and was all the more better for it. This follows typical American humor, and decides if your not slapped in the face with it, it can't possibly be funny. While I find Chris Rock and Martin Lawrence funny sometimes, they are much better when they aren't shouting at the top of their voice. Just not a huge fan of the loud African-American talk (yelling mostly). It just gets on the nerves and doesn't quite pull off being funny.

If the loud slapstick humor is your thing, then this version is for you. But if you prefer a bit more intelligent humor, go see the original version.

Was the above review useful to you?

111 out of 141 people found the following review useful:

A pointless remake of an excellent British film.

4/10
Author: NorthernDragon from Birmingham, UK
25 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

106 out of 147 people found the following review useful:

In a Word, Unnecessary

4/10
Author: Colin George from United States
27 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

166 out of 268 people found the following review useful:

I was really impressed............WITH THE ORIGINAL

1/10
Author: fortunesmiles from United Kingdom
1 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

Was the above review useful to you?

53 out of 77 people found the following review useful:

Watch the original instead

1/10
Author: Thufir Hawat from Hungary
13 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

53 out of 79 people found the following review useful:

If you want to enjoy this story...

1/10
Author: midnightsilvered-rose from United Kingdom
1 June 2010

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

60 out of 100 people found the following review useful:

Absolute Crap!

1/10
Author: Frankly Speaking from United States
14 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...

Was the above review useful to you?

32 out of 45 people found the following review useful:

What was that about?

3/10
Author: sacoshao from Kingston, Jamaica
20 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!!.

Was the above review useful to you?

44 out of 71 people found the following review useful:

Bored to Death....

1/10
Author: boogiegir from United States
18 April 2010

*** This review may contain 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!

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 27 people found the following review useful:

Uninspired remake of a great comedy

Author: Gordon-11 from Earth
15 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.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 10:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history