Punchline

A reviewer once complained that "Punchline" commits an unforgivable sin by being an unfunny movie about stand up comics. For anyone who agrees, try looking "irony" up in the dictionary - it's an element that's occasionally used outside of the literary world.

The film's deliberately awkward and painful scenes illustrate the point, "Lady, nothing is a joke to me. That's why I'm in comedy. And that's why you're not."

The same reviewer made the hilarious claim that comics never tell jokes out of compulsion or denial, but simply because "they love making other people laugh." newsflash: creative and hysterical people are often highly dysfunctional! :D thank you goodnight!

55/100. David Seltzer's direction doesn't guide the film along as it should, he doesn't seem to know what direction to go in. . It jumps from comedy, to satire, heavy drama, romance and back again. Sally Fields and Tom Hanks try, but the material they are working with just doesn't know what it wants to be. The romantic angle is completely out of place, and overall the bitterness of the film is a turn off. Even the stand up comedy scenes shown in the film that are supposed to be good, simply aren't. The ending is not satisfying at all. It is a shame the stars didn't get better material, it could have worked so well in different hands.

A moderately hard-edged drama about the private and public lives of comedians, with a special emphasis on the desperate lengths they'll go to for a laugh, or to get an edge on the competition. Sally Field is the focal figure, a mousey housewife who feels destined for greatness but can't locate her own voice, while Tom Hanks plays a big supporting role as a natural performer who's an irresponsible, selfish a-hole behind the scenes. It's an uneven picture that doesn't really click for a number of different reasons. Primary among them is this unspoken sense that a movie about comedians should be funny. Though the on-stage segments are indeed quite flat, big punchlines (if you'll forgive the pun) aren't really the point of this story. Less forgivable is the awkward, cloudy relationship between Hanks and Field that dominates the plot, and the constant shifts in tone from one scene to the next. I never got a real handle on where the film was going, what it wanted to be or to say. That writing jokes is hard, I guess? Sometimes the happiest guy in the spotlight is actually a poisonous, miserable bastard? A complicated, tentative take that's puzzling in its lack of a firm identity.

My father is a stand-up comic, and all I can say is that this film above most others shows comedians for what they truly are. Comedy is truly based out of pain, and the two main characters truly have a great deal of pain in their lives. All the actors give their performances more than two dimensions, and are truthful in what they are dong at all times. If your looking for a laugh out loud comedy, than you'll be greatly disappointed, this film is really about he drama of the life of people who are trying to make it in the entertainment business. As a closing statement, i have heard many comics who were around at the time of this picture say that Tom Hanks was one of the greatest comics that they had seen, and if he had not caught the acting bug first, that he would have been a great comic.

There is something not right about this movie. What is it? I don't know. It could be one, a few or all of many things:

Characterizations change by the minute, with flimsy and/or no explanation. It bounces back and forth and back again between slapstick, light-hearted comedy, gritty drama, and sappiness. It spends painful stretches focusing on comedy acts that are supposed to be funny (everyone on the screen thinks they are) but they really aren't. It runs far too long.

But at the same time, it's okay. Amusing at least, and it has it's decent moments, among the forgettable and awkward ones.