Reviews for Judd Apatow’s it’s-time-to-get-serious dramedy, “Funny People,” are decidedly mixed and of course we’ve become slightly irritated with those who think it’s unfunny pretentious garbage (dead wrong) and those that think it’s a marvelous, risky and maverick left turn (hold the phone, that’s overstating the case, people), but we suppose we’ll have to be the voice of reason.
We digress. How will “Funny People,” do at the box-office this weekend? To many, including the trades, it’s apparently somewhat of a mystery. The film will open up on a whopping 3,008 screens, but apparently its exorbitant length (two and a half hours) is precipitating pundits to forecast its b.o. opening somewhere between $20-30 million.
Totally fair guesstimation. But some are screaming, “bomb in the making!” and dancing on the early grave of Universal who have had a pretty difficult summer. However, do you think the studio’s displeased with what he delivered? In a move that looks like a striking vote of confidence for the Apatow brand, the studio has hired the director/producer/writer for a three-picture deal. And no, it’s not a deal that lets him produce three whatever comedies, sign his name on to it and walk off. This deal is three more films for Apatow to write and direct himself. Apatow has already suggested that the studio asking him to trim “Funny People,” was bullshit and from the sounds of the Hollywood Reporter, Universal gave him tons of freedom (which seems pretty damn true considering how sprawling and occasionally long-winded the film is. Long leash? He was free to roam).
One thing that’s a little nuts? Apparently “Funny People,” cost $75 million. Does that mean Adam Sandler didn’t take a pay cut? If it does open at less than $30 mil that will mean the film will have a long way to recoup. What will any of these three films turn out to be? None of them are set. [THR]