I really don’t think one can dispute the comedic impact that Judd Apatow has had on the past two decades, from The 40 Year-Old Virgin onwards, Apatow has paved a way through writing, directing, and chiefly producing, for some of the finest comedies in recent memory to be made. Usually pairing himself with a comedian who he sees potential in and building a film around them, Apatow has also directed six films himself and although they are frequently very funny, and usually touching in multiple moments, they are also always too long. I feel in many ways that it’s unfair that I have committed this critism of Apatow to be the title of this article, however in many ways it is the chief crititisism of his career. Although I feel it is far more obvious in certain films that others, I still feel that in most cases I side with Apatow, who simply believes as he has stated recently that he doesn’t understand complaints from people who said they enjoyed the movie, but found it too long. Let’s get into the films themselves and see what the worst culprits are.

Credit

The 40 Year-Old Virgin (2005)

Credit

I really don’t think that one can underestimate the degree of difficulty with the ingenious concept of this film; if Andy, our titular virgin, was any less charming, any less understandable, any less wonderfully and even at points vulnerably portrayed by Steve Carrell, this film may very well have been one of the biggest comedy disasters in recent years. Then there’s the other thing, when I say “recent years”, I actually mean 15 years ago, and yet Virgin feels in many ways still like Apatow’s tightest and freshest movie. For his feature length directorial debut, Apatow paired with Carrell to develop the concept of a man who simply gave up trying to have sex after years and years of shoddy and painfully awkward experiences. This all comes out of course in the film’s singular scene, a real feat of writing and acting I think, where this nature is revealed. Carrell’s Andy really is one of the more complex and human comedy lead roles of this era and in many ways paves the way for the brand of more focussed human drama-comedies that Apatow would move on to make as his career continued. One of Virgin’s many successful facets is the ensemble in this film, which really does lead to a murderers row of future talent that would shape and colour comedy in the film world for the next decade, or in some cases not continue their careers at all, much to my personal disappointment. The central three workplace friends of Andy who make it their own personal goal to get Andy to lose his virginity consist of a truly hilarious gang of actors who never waste a frame, chiefly down to Apatow’s ‘line-o-rama’ style of film-making (a form of improv where scenes are shot once through, but then multiple takes are then done with a litany of other gag lines attempted to see if anything funnier can be created in the heat of the moment). Seth Rogen, Paul Rudd and Romany Malco highlight the three different worst ways in which Andy’s sex life could go, with Rogen as a pothead louse, Rudd as a neurotic depressed stalker and Malco as a philandering  misogynist. Again, we are in a position where if anybody wasn’t as good as an actor as they are, then these three would be some of the most repugnant and unlikeable characters in all of film, but here in Apatow’s hands that’s just not the case. The real clincher for why the film is so successful in my eyes however is Catherine Keener as Andy’s eventual possible lover, Trish, who is just kooky enough for us to believe that the relationship would exist, without us having to blame a lack of chemistry on “it just being a movie”. Roger Ebert commented in his review about his surprise with just how sweet the film was, I frankly couldn’t agree more. For a film with vomit, graphic masturbation and lots of derogatory humour by nowadays standards (not that it all isn’t relentlessly funny still), it always shocks me just how sweet and wonderful this film really is.

Knocked Up (2007)

Credit

The second film in Apatow’s directorial oeuvre is at once a comedic dissection of the sort of “nerd gets incredible girl way out of his league” movies that his team popularised, whilst also being exactly that sort of film. The set-up is very simple, on a drunken one night stand Katherine Heigl, a beautiful, intelligent career woman ends up impregnated by Seth Rogen, a shclubby jobless entrepreneur who  is building a website with his friends based around a Mr Skin formulae, not that they know that Mr Skin is already its own website. The film has truly many things to boast. Rogen and his friends, a crew assorted of familiar faces including Jason Segel, Jonah Hill, Martin Starr and Jay Baruchel (all using their own names to make the improv banter between them all even more realistic), are always a great time when they’re on screen, creating a friendship group that we feel like we are a part of and wanted to be with. In many ways they are the funniest part of the film. The core romance of the film between Heigl and Rogen is believable in many ways, but also falters in one chief regard; although Hiegl is in many ways perfect for the part and according to Rogen and Apatow was one of the only actresses that auditioned that could keep up with the improv and the comedy of the film – I fundamentally think this film improves tenfold with her recast. Rogen is excellent, more or less playing himself, but there are layers here. A lot of Apatow’s vehicles place big name stars in roles where they are not wholly unlike their real-life persona’s, however when the films work (as I feel this one does) it is a multi-dimensional character that becomes more than just a cheap imitation. The other chief factor of the film is the relationship between Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann as Heigl’s sister and brother-in-law, eventually becoming the focus of their own film in the “sort of sequel to Knocked Up”, This is 40. Their chemistry is great as an irascible married couple with children, played by Mann and Apatow’s own children, Maude and Iris. The family unit is realistic and fun to watch, so a vehicle for these characters to continue seemed like a good idea. We’ll get to that later. The film can also boast in my personal opinion the finest “f*ck off” ever delivered on film. Bravo Mr. Rogen. All in all the film is an enjoyable work of comedy with the drama of real life imbued into and looked at with a humorous lens. Certainly not the greatest of Apatow’s efforts, but definitely not the worst.

Funny People (2009)

Credit

I really do feel that Funny People is a film of two halves, with one being significantly better than the other, and although the conceit of the shift that splits the film is intriguing, it ultimately just leaves us with a far less interesting second act. Adam Sandler is a great actor, full stop for me. No addendums and no “only in this movie”, he just is a great actor. However he is at his best when he is with directors who know how to utilise him, along with of course solid scripts and the rest of the surrounding elements. Funny People places Sandler in the role of George Simmons, a dying comedian of the exact sort of ilk of Sandler in real life, as he strikes up a friendship with Seth Rogen as a budding comedian, upon the realisation that he has a serious life-threating disease. This is when the film works best, when it works in this darker vein and contemplates the relationship we all have with death, but in particular those who have to always put on a brave face due to the fact that they are the “funniest people of a generation” or whatever. Rogen and Sandler have great chemistry and the film works really well as Simmons comes to terms with the nature of his life and his death. The film really does just fall apart when the mid-way reveal comes that Simmons is cured and effectively has the rest of his life ahead of him, after thinking he was facing down his final months. As I’ve already said it’s an interesting premise for a film of two halves, however the second half just isn’t as funny or dramatic or compelling. The second half consists of Simmons rekindling and attempting to rebuild his first significant relationship, with Leslie Mann, since married with two children. Again, I just have to repeat myself; it’s just nowhere near as enticing, developed or interesting as the previous plotline. The second half isn’t terrible, but it certainly isn’t anywhere near as good as the first. I don’t wish death on anybody, but I do wish death on the fictional character of George Simmons, for I feel a far better movie would have come from it.

This is 40 (2012)

Credit

A noted example of a trend that I actually wish was more common; This is 40 follows up on the often commented, but rarely followed through concept of wishing certain supporting characters had their own movie. The supporting characters in question here are Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann’s Pete and Debbie from Knocked Up, as we follow the trials and tribulations of their married life with two children as they both reach that dreaded double digit age milestone of 40. The chemistry of Rudd and Mann is still there and is still frequently hilarious however this may be the worst example of Apatow’s films needing a trim, as was often quoted in its contemporary reviews that the film should have been called This is 40 Minutes Too Long. Maybe 40 minutes is a little strong, but a trim certainly would just make this film a lot better in my eyes, whereas with Virgin or Knocked Up, the argument sort of feels half-arsed when you say it, because everything you’d cut is actually quite funny and is just getting in the way of the film being a nice tight 90 minute feature. Here however certain stretches and sub-plots just go on for far too long. The film hits a major peak in its penultimate birthday party sequence with a sudden development in the relationships between Rudd and his father, played exceptionally (obviously) by Albert Brooks, and Leslie Mann’s father, played similarly wonderfully (obviously again) by John Lithgow. The intriguing dialogue of this exchange could have fuelled a tighter and shorter movie, and possibly a better one. However you would lose the wonderful parent-child dynamic that’s explored with Mann and Apatow’s real children once more, Maude and Iris – both of which again are surprisingly pretty great for the brand of improvisational movie that this is. You would also lose a very funny and naturally very sexy Megan Fox, perfectly embodying for Mann everything she wishes she could be. You would also lose very funny turns from Chris O’Dowd and a returning Jason Segel. I think you could still try your hardest to fit in Melissa’ McCarthy’s hilarious cameo appearance however. However in the long run these losses may not have been a bad thing and may have led to a more efficient, funnier and more effective feature returning to characters that we greatly enjoy watching.

Trainwreck (2015)

Credit

I lied in my title. Apatow’s films aren’t always funny, because there is the 2015 film that lives it up to its title more than any other feature I’ve ever seen; Trainwreck. I can’t stand this film. I don’t know whose brilliant idea it was to give Amy Schumer a film- But, wait, I do. Apatow. Apatow directs Schumer’s own intensely humourless script and manages to give the film nothing. Schumer is so repugnant and unlikable as a lead that we root against her the whole way. Although one can very easily throw the lazy argument that the character of Amy is supposed to be unlikable, this really doesn’t ring any bells for me, because by the end of the film we are supposed to like her and frankly – I hate her even more by the end. Apatow’s direction is also at its worst here, in multiple horribly bland set-ups leading to painful improv sessions between actors who have done excellent work before, but are terrible here. I don’t like being this negative but I can’t explain to what extent this film infuriates me so, it is such a unbearable waste of two hours I struggle to fathom it. To not laugh once, I’m not over-exaggerating, but to not laugh once in a film of 2 hours and 5 minutes length is inexcusable to me. The cameos are constant and feature many actors who I love. That is unfortunately however the end of that sentence. I put off writing this article for a long time because I knew for my own integrity that I would have to re-watch this bloody film. I clearly am a sadomasochist. The one saviour in this film is Bill Hader. Genuinely one of the greatest talents we have working today, from his exceptionally diverse range of acting talents to his newfound excellence in directing, along with his truly brilliant writing skills – Hader really is one of our greatest current talents. Here he is lovely, funny, sweet and caring as our romantic lead. But as such was the case with Hugh Grant in Four Weddings and a Funeral, if we don’t like the counterpart to this brilliant force of unexpected charisma, then we grow to dislike our charming lead too. Thank god I will never have to sit through this film again. And let the record show, although Apatow’s work isn’t stellar here; I put the failure of this film chiefly down the Amy Schumer, whose dreadful scripting and performance leads me to truly distain a feature film in a way that I haven’t in some time.

The King of Staten Island (2020)

Credit

I wasn’t nessecerilly surprised that I enjoyed The King of Staten Island, Apatow’s latest directorial effort from a semi auto-biographical script (co-written by Apatow) by comedian Pete Davidson, but I was surprised by simply how much I enjoyed the film. And here’s the kicker, Staten Island is Apatow’s second longest film and I have to say I really wouldn’t make it any shorter. Sure, if I was strict about it I could get rid of ten or so minutes, but this film really does with its comedy and its drama earn its run-time. Whereas previously character arcs have felt forced and not earned, the progression of Davidson’s Scott feels human, realistic and not movie-like or formulaic in the slightest, whilst still never losing any of the humour. Davidson has done terrific work with his script, creating a piece of darkness and serious contemplations on grief, aswell as never sacrificing any of the truth of that life for cheap comedy, all the comedy here is natural and comes from a place of truth. I can’t comment which of these six films was based more in improv than the other, but I can comment that this film has one of the better structures and narratives of the collection. The film also boasts a wonderful supporting cast, distancing itself from the cheap and lazy humourless cameos of Trainwreck as much as possible. Here our entire supporting cast is made up of well devised characters brought to the screen by actors doing truthful work. Bill Burr and Marissa Tomei are the two people with the most work to the do, besides Davidson, and again both bring so much humour and life into these realistic situations, utilising their talents to create great chemistries with the other performers, aswell as in their scenes with Davidson, the crux of the film. Bel Powley is Scott’s love interest and their chemistry too is undeniable, working so well off one another that their scenes seem effortless. Powley brings integrity, and again, masses of humour to a character that comes in and out of the story, but is never not wholly interesting when on-screen. Steve Buscemi is terrific as a sort of wise older figure in the piece, delivering the core of one of the films greatest scenes. Staten Island really is a wonderful piece of work and is one that I hope gets more fanfare in the future.

 -

Liberace’s oft quoted motto was “too much of a good thing is wonderful”. Although it may not be the case with every film, specifically not f*cking Trainwreck, it may very well be the case with the rest of the films in this article. They are very enjoyable and in many ways each one works as a perfect time capsule for the comedy of that year and that moment, but above all they are just plain funny and although the re-watchability wains as the career continues, there are still some serious gems here.

-      -    Thomas Carruthers