Originally Posted by Coochie liquor:
Is Friday considered a comedy?
100%. No question.
It's sort of funny when you think about it. That movie is just Craig and Smokey chillin' on the porch the whole movie, talking shit and getting into trouble. Very little plot involved.
That actually reminds me of another: what would we consider Dazed and Confused? That movie is basically just a bunch of kids dicking around on the last day of school. Not much of a clear plot involved.. but I'm hesitant to call it a comedy, even though I can't say what label I'd put on it. [Reply]
I didn't like Napoleon Dynamite at first. It did grow on me after giving it another chance. Not the funniest movie or even close to one of my favs, but it does make me laugh.
Many great flicks have already been mentioned. I'll just put in my 0.02.
- Christmas Vacation
- Malibu's Most Wanted [Reply]
I keep thinking about this "defining a movie" thing, and have a proposal.
We define movies purposes into quarters. Zero, 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4ths. We'll use comedy as our genre for this discussion, but the same could apply to any genre: action, drama, adventure, fantasy, etc.
Here we go.
If more than 75 percent of a movie's focus is on comedy, it's known as a "comedy movie". Vacation, Young Frankenstein, and Coming to America are comedies.
If 50 to 75 percent of a movie's focus is on comedy, it's known as a (adjective) comedy, where the adjective is the next largest focus. Back to the Future is an adventure comedy. Ferris Bueller is a coming of age comedy. City Slickers is a buddy comedy.
If 25 to 50 percent of a movie's focus is on comedy, it's a comedic (noun), where noun is the major genre focus. About Schimdt is a comedic drama. Raiders of the Lost Ark is a comedic adventure. Time Bandits is a comedic fantasy.
If less than 25 percent of a movie's focus is on comedy, then it's not a comedy. Schindler's List is not a comedy. Twelve Angry Men is not a comedy. An Officer and a Gentleman is not a comedy.
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
I keep thinking about this "defining a movie" thing, and have a proposal.
We define movies purposes into quarters. Zero, 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4ths. We'll use comedy as our genre for this discussion, but the same could apply to any genre: action, drama, adventure, fantasy, etc.
Here we go.
If more than 75 percent of a movie's focus is on comedy, it's known as a "comedy movie". Vacation, Young Frankenstein, and Coming to America are comedies.
If 50 to 75 percent of a movie's focus is on comedy, it's known as a (adjective) comedy, where the adjective is the next largest focus. Back to the Future is an adventure comedy. Ferris Bueller is a coming of age comedy. City Slickers is a buddy comedy.
If 25 to 50 percent of a movie's focus is on comedy, it's a comedic (noun), where noun is the major genre focus. About Schimdt is a comedic drama. Raiders of the Lost Ark is a comedic adventure. Time Bandits is a comedic fantasy.
If less than 25 percent of a movie's focus is on comedy, then it's not a comedy. Schindler's List is not a comedy. Twelve Angry Men is not a comedy. An Officer and a Gentleman is not a comedy.
What do you think?
This is actually genius. I keep plugging movies in to the formula and the outcome aligns with what I'd consider that movie to be labeled.
The 25-50% group even articulated some hesitations I had on an entire group I wasn't sure how to label.
He laments that if the coach had only put him into the game in the fourth quarter, they would have won the state championship, leading Uncle Rico down a completely different life path to NFL fame and riches.
His throwing motion is obviously unorthodox, but it's not really different than Phillip Rivers' arm motion. And the one time we see him throw to a target, his accuracy is dead on accurate.
So is it possible that Uncle Rico is correct? Was he penalized unfairly by a closed-minded coach for not having a classic throwing motion, and that derailed an otherwise stellar NFL career?
Or was his throwing motion too elbow-driven to ever have the NFL velocity needed to hit the deep out? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
I have a question about Uncle Rico.
He laments that if the coach had only put him into the game in the fourth quarter, they would have won the state championship, leading Uncle Rico down a completely different life path to NFL fame and riches.
His throwing motion is obviously unorthodox, but it's not really different than Phillip Rivers' arm motion. And the one time we see him throw to a target, his accuracy is dead on accurate.
So is it possible that Uncle Rico is correct? Was he penalized unfairly by a closed-minded coach for not having a classic throwing motion, and that derailed an otherwise stellar NFL career?
Or was his throwing motion too elbow-driven to ever have the NFL velocity needed to hit the deep out?
Well, considering he can throw a football over those mountains, i think it's safe to say Coach was wrong for not putting him in.
It's too bad they didn't bother to show him throwing the pigskin a quarter mile or over them there mountains. A lot more data couldve been gleaned from the throwing motions. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Also, a vague general reference to 'Python' doesn't tell anyone much about your criticism.
They've been around for half a century and have been very prolific. . . I'm not arguing that every single frame of every single property has been unmitigated platinum-level comedy.
If he's seen like half of Holy Grail or Life of Brian and still hates it, that's inexplicable. . . . If he saw the wrong 30 seconds of Meaning of Life, or just a few clips of a skit or two from Flying Circus, . . . well you can just point him to better content.
Another recommendation that is Python-adjacent, A Fish Called Wanda is a great comedy
Pretty good mentions so far. I'll throw in Weird Science, Waiting, Smokey and the Bandit. Not a fan of Dane Cook but can't turn off Employee of the Month if I stumble on it mostly because of the other characters. Also Kingpin is drastically underrated, best Farrely brothers movie in my opinion. [Reply]