IMDb > Death at a Funeral (2010) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Death at a Funeral
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
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
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

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

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 6 of 10: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [Next]
Index 99 reviews in total 

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

When the Cosby Show tries to be British.... Thick, heavy, a Total Disgrace

Author: yachtskipper
8 September 2011

Please God, erase this movie from my mind... I saw the Original about 5 times and I can't stop laughing each time. I desperately wanted to show it to my girlfriend and could only see this one in the Video Store. When I saw Lawrence and the rest of the crew I was kind of expecting something heavy, but if they did it their way, they could have done something funny, so I went ahead and get it. But instead of exploring a really funny subject, they brain-dead copy paste the scenes, the dialogs etc to make a meaningless copy. ... Except that this one isn t funny... Everything about it is heavy, people have to scream to try to be funny. Really, what an Horror !! How can people sell royalties of a brilliant movie to some grotesque people like this.

Now my advices: If you haven't seen the original, give yourself a favor and watch the wonderful British Black Comedy instead of this horrible black American comedy. If you have seen the original, seriously, Follow everybody's advice, and don t even watch the trailer of this crap.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Well-Named. Lifeless.

Author: jacklmauro from United States
13 February 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

(Note: scroll to 'PS': it says it all.) It was shocking to see that this film actually got quite a few good, national reviews. I am inclined to think only liberal white guilt is responsible because, after the first few minutes, everything in this thing is sadly, painfully, unfunnily, forced. I am not interested in the original, nor in why this follows so quickly on its heels. I am more interested in how some fine talent can accept such really dreadful writing and direction. At this stage in his career, Danny Glover is content to get old-man-cursing laughs? Even that's all right, though, given how the entire energy and feel of the film is wrong. It wants to be mad slapstick, but reverts all the time to ponderous, sibling-issues dialogue utterly out of place, and unthinkable during the crises. No one seems to know just how to play anything; should the young wife, desperate to conceive a child on the day of the funeral, go earnest or silly? She does both. Should the mother, who witnesses her husband's being dumped out of his coffin, play it confused or blithely unconcerned? She does both. But, again, the whole problem is the whole film. It has no idea of what it wants to be, or how to get there, and absurd situations are reacted to in infuriatingly dull, normal ways, yet not in the manner that underscores absurdity well. PS The father has had a long, secret gay relationship. No one had a clue. So no member of this family, living in this house for ages, has ever noticed how, in the father's extremely accessible den, statues and pictures of male erotica abound? That's not funny, or slapstick, or burlesque - it's just dumb because great farce needs to be set up on realistic premises to be farcical.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Game cast doesn't make up for this colossal disappointment.

Author: callanvass
14 June 2011

Aaron's father's funeral is today at the family home, and everything goes wrong: the funeral home delivers the wrong body; a cousin gives her fiancé a Valium from her brother's apartment, not knowing her brother is dealing drugs - it's LSD and the fiancé arrives at the funeral wildly stoned; Aaron's younger brother, Ryan, a successful writer, flies in from New York broke but arrogant; one uncle is angry over his daughter's choice of boyfriends, and the other is cranky and coarse. Add an ovulating wife, a jealous ex-boyfriend, and a short stranger who wants a word with Aaron - what could he want? Would another death solve Aaron's problems? And what about the eulogy?

An incredible comedy cast gives way to overly crude material. I laugh at crude stuff, as long as it has a heart, but this doesn't. The scene where Danny Glover Takes a dump and Tracey Morgan Gets crap all over him was the only laugh I got.

Bottom line. I'd suggest the original over this. Trust me you'll feel much more satisfied.

3 ½ 10

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:


Author: WakenPayne from Valhalla
29 January 2011

Yes I am one of the people that will tell you how good the original is being that both of them were written by Dean Craig my question is "are these people short of cash?" of course to make a remake this awful I'll say yes they were.

Hollywood only does remakes to make money the ONLY decent remake I've ever seen is the 70's Nosferatu made by Werner Herzog and that's it. The remake was done too soon in 3 years just too soon.

For the jokes in the original in this they added on stupid "secondary punchlines" to make the jokes unfunny like this as an example Chris Rock: Who's this Guy 1: what? Chris Rock: that's not my father... You put Jackie Chan in my dad's coffin

wow how ####ty is that. I'm gonna stop blabbing about this and watch the original sorry to say what has been already said

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

An exact rip-off

Author: muttleyh from United Kingdom
3 November 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Have just sat and watched this film on DVD, and what a surprise, it's another American rip-off of a British film from a couple of years ago.

The plot, involving a very dysfunctional family, who are having the fathers funeral, live through a large number of calamities including the ejection of the corpse from the coffin and a mystery lover of the deceased, is exactly identical to the British film, starring Kris Marshall, released in 2007.

Admittedly, the jokes do start out funny, however, about half an hour into the film, they become cringe-worthy and worn, however, once you reach the end of the film, there are another couple of wild laughs.

My main gripe is, this is marketed as a brand new film and yet, it's just a repackaged and slightly tarnished product...

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Missed opportunity for a different spin

Author: sandtonvideo from South Africa
19 October 2010

DEATH AT A FUNERAL (2010) Chris Rock has taken the 2007 English comedy "Death at a Funeral", and set it in America, where the patriarch of an African-American family has just died. His will requests that the funeral service take place in their large home, where Chris' character Aaron lives with his wife and mother. Aaron has a "practical" job, while his younger brother Ryan (Martin Lawrence) is a successful writer, something that Aaron has dreamed of doing himself. Their rivalry is one of a number of plot threads, including a cousin whose boyfriend has mistakenly taken a hallucinogen instead of a valium, a cantankerous uncle, and a mysterious stranger. All of these plot lines (and more) weave through an increasingly dysfunctional funeral service, and will all manage to be tied up by the end. It is a good script, and my big objection to the film is that it almost duplicates the 2007 film, with a different cast. I think a great opportunity was lost to make a film that was much more African-American in tone; these characters are too ethnicity-challenged, mainly because the script is nearly unchanged. For those who have seen the original, this will add no new wrinkles, and so will not be particularly funny. For those who haven't, it could be a clever, fun comedy. My instincts are, though, that the script is funnier set among the "stiff-upper lip" English than among a predominantly African-American group in LA.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Its not that baaaad!

Author: Tendayi Chin from Ghana
31 December 2010

Look, I've seen some pretty bad excuses for films. I've witnessed a lot of cinematic "black movie" tragedies, like "Soul Plane" and others I don't even bother trying to remember. I feel as if people are not being fair with this film.

Yes, it is quite poor, in relation to comedies like "A Fish Called Wanda" and the like, but that does not mean that it will fail to entertain you. I believe that this film is best watched tired with low expectations and I almost guarantee that you will find a few laughs and not get bored with events.

The acting is quite poor, but succeeds because it is sometimes laughably poor and the actors take their characters in a daft script seriously. The story succeeds because it makes absolutely no sense and has the audacity to keep heaping it on without apology. And the set and filming are great, more than functional.

So, not really a film I could seriously recommend to anyone, but if you do come across it, give it a try, I doubt you'll find it a waste of your time.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

A retelling of the original, not a copy.

Author: T&R W from United States
22 August 2010

It may not be fully the equal of the English movie that it is based on, but I think that what sets this movie out as being worthwhile is that it ISN'T just a flat remake; and yet, at the same time, it faithfully carries the whole heart of the original story. This is still a great movie, and worth a watch.

What sets it apart is that it takes one of the original's greatest strengths - the wonderfully woven storyline that created the whole comic setting that the cast plays off of - and then detaches it from typically dry British humour, then pairs it with the more overstated humour of black American movies. It really is a polar opposite style of comedy -- think of the contrast between a black Gospel church and a quiet Anglican church in Oxfordshire. You could complain about its bluntness compared to the English version; but that's the whole point here, and it's what makes the remake worthwhile. This is the same great story, with the same roles, but new characters playing the parts to a completely different beat.

I'm a born and raised Englishman, and I really love the original. It's a fine example of a British comedy movie, probably the best I've seen in many years. But I think that the American version attracts too much of its criticism for not being the English one, and I think that misses the point. This movie isn't trying to be the original. It's retelling the story, rather than trying to carbon-copy it.

And really, it's the only reinvention of this movie that ever COULD have been worthwhile. Trying to copy the original version, bones, style and all, would have been futile and pointless. But this version, instead, gives the same story a fresh rhythm; a rhythm that may appeal to some on whom the original's dryness might have been lost. And I'm quite unashamed to say that while the original, for me, is the fairest in the land, my heart loves them both nonetheless.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

so bad

Author: gusy98 from United Kingdom
8 June 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

they could not have copied the 2007 movie more if they tried! The script was even the same!

Why they released this film, I do not know, but it is not worth watching, unless you haven't seen the other film!

you need to watch the original as it is better! and was not copied!

This film is the same, but with different actors!

DO not watch unless you have seen the first one

Don't watch don't watch

it is not worth it

DO NOT WATCH DO NOT WATCH It is not worth your time

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A Comedy Without Humor

Author: redryderralphie from United States
30 January 2013

Viewing this dreck is equivalent to watching one of those atrocious American remakes of a fantastic British comedy...oh, wait this IS an atrocious American remake of a fantastic British comedy. Not being a fan of remakes, I tend to watch them simply to have the arsenal of knowledge needed to make a fair argument against their existence. However, on occasion I find myself with an agreeable attitude, as in this case, watching and hoping to find a nugget of merit amid a pointless mimic. What I found was an over talented cast plodding through a filmic regurgitation filled with poor timing, poor delivery, poor reaction and poor cinematography (apparently they have not yet discovered the steadicam). In my opinion, Death At A Funeral (2010) is an abysmal failure and one's time would be far better spent enjoying the comedic delight of the original script performed by a superb cast with impeccable timing in the authentic Death At A Funeral (2007).

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 6 of 10: [Prev][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