Mr. Kloman, I found your review to be less informative and more of an exposure of your obvious issues with the "change of race" that this remake decided to go with. Before you roll your eyes, let me explain.
For a movie that, as you mentioned, only mentions race one time, your review chooses to bring race up eleven times, and in troubling ways. Your apparent preoccupation with the fact that this is a remake with a black cast makes this an uncomfortable read.
I don't even want to think about your intentions with the first graph and the last sentence, "The difference is barely skin deep." Really? This is how you choose to begin to discuss a piece of novel American entertainment for folks to have a laugh on a weekend? This blatant, odd jab at race is amazingly transparent and troubling for me given the movie has no preoccupation with race. It's a non factor in the movie, but it's the underpinning of your review.
First, black people speak "English", not "black English". The proper term is the "black slang" used in the movie. The slang is no different than the slang of white guys in the North Hills saying "fuckin right, dude". But for you to invent this concept of black English is just ridiculous.
The R.Kelly joke was unnecessary.
Why do you care that James Marsden's character is white (you mentioned that in the review), when the movie never even mentions anyone had an issue with his race. It was a non story in the movie. Then you throw in "white stockbroker" as if again, anyone in the movie ever even cared. African Americans have had white family members and white people dating their family members long enough to get past dwelling on it before you were born. You took half of a long graph to dwell on it for no apparent reason. The story was she was dating a new guy, and the old guy-who was her father's favorite-was at the wedding. NO ONE BUT YOU CARED that the guys were white. It happens in real life, but apparently not in your social circle.
Finally, you punctuate your obsession with a unnecessary joke about James Cameron doing a remake with two prominent Asian actors. Harry, this is a movie for Americans. A simple comedy to get people to laugh. They happened to have believed that in America, maybe, we can do a remake with an all black cast and it will be funnier than dry ass English humor, which is an acquired taste.
For you to write 8 graphs before mentioning the fact that the audience was "howling" at the comedy in this film is irresponsible. This movie is hilarious. To "blacken up" the film when the film makes no attempt to be "black" (the people just want to be themselves), is to me blatant obsession with the composition of the actors in this film. You even mentioned that you were trying to discern if a white or black cast would have made a difference. Who the fuck cares, Harry? The director LaBute did not hold a press conference and say, "We want to try something incredible here and make this film all black cast. It's ground breaking and we want you to see how amazing changing the racial component is."
You write as if most Americans even know there is an English version. They don't. It was just a movie to them. Your pondering of this subject would be more relevant if this was an all-black remake of something deeply familiar to Americans like, "American Pie".
A review is not your chance to write an essay on the differences and merits of English/American and black/white humor. It's a fucking comedy movie. There's no stage. There's no cheese and crackers. This is not broadway. Was the comedy funny, Harry? That's what I wanted to know from a film critic. You slip it in at the end when its the most important thing to share with a reader. But first, you had to write your essay.
I'll repeat, 11 mentions of race in your review for a movie that mentions it once. Any they say blacks are sensitive to race. Would you review Elvis' music and harp on the fact that most of his songs were written by blacks and stolen by record companies? You know the answer to that question. A response would be wonderful. - Don
Recent Comments
For a movie that, as you mentioned, only mentions race one time, your review chooses to bring race up eleven times, and in troubling ways. Your apparent preoccupation with the fact that this is a remake with a black cast makes this an uncomfortable read.
I don't even want to think about your intentions with the first graph and the last sentence, "The difference is barely skin deep." Really? This is how you choose to begin to discuss a piece of novel American entertainment for folks to have a laugh on a weekend? This blatant, odd jab at race is amazingly transparent and troubling for me given the movie has no preoccupation with race. It's a non factor in the movie, but it's the underpinning of your review.
First, black people speak "English", not "black English". The proper term is the "black slang" used in the movie. The slang is no different than the slang of white guys in the North Hills saying "fuckin right, dude". But for you to invent this concept of black English is just ridiculous.
The R.Kelly joke was unnecessary.
Why do you care that James Marsden's character is white (you mentioned that in the review), when the movie never even mentions anyone had an issue with his race. It was a non story in the movie. Then you throw in "white stockbroker" as if again, anyone in the movie ever even cared. African Americans have had white family members and white people dating their family members long enough to get past dwelling on it before you were born. You took half of a long graph to dwell on it for no apparent reason. The story was she was dating a new guy, and the old guy-who was her father's favorite-was at the wedding. NO ONE BUT YOU CARED that the guys were white. It happens in real life, but apparently not in your social circle.
Finally, you punctuate your obsession with a unnecessary joke about James Cameron doing a remake with two prominent Asian actors. Harry, this is a movie for Americans. A simple comedy to get people to laugh. They happened to have believed that in America, maybe, we can do a remake with an all black cast and it will be funnier than dry ass English humor, which is an acquired taste.
For you to write 8 graphs before mentioning the fact that the audience was "howling" at the comedy in this film is irresponsible. This movie is hilarious. To "blacken up" the film when the film makes no attempt to be "black" (the people just want to be themselves), is to me blatant obsession with the composition of the actors in this film. You even mentioned that you were trying to discern if a white or black cast would have made a difference. Who the fuck cares, Harry? The director LaBute did not hold a press conference and say, "We want to try something incredible here and make this film all black cast. It's ground breaking and we want you to see how amazing changing the racial component is."
You write as if most Americans even know there is an English version. They don't. It was just a movie to them. Your pondering of this subject would be more relevant if this was an all-black remake of something deeply familiar to Americans like, "American Pie".
A review is not your chance to write an essay on the differences and merits of English/American and black/white humor. It's a fucking comedy movie. There's no stage. There's no cheese and crackers. This is not broadway. Was the comedy funny, Harry? That's what I wanted to know from a film critic. You slip it in at the end when its the most important thing to share with a reader. But first, you had to write your essay.
I'll repeat, 11 mentions of race in your review for a movie that mentions it once. Any they say blacks are sensitive to race. Would you review Elvis' music and harp on the fact that most of his songs were written by blacks and stolen by record companies? You know the answer to that question. A response would be wonderful. - Don