The dark comedy genre of movies is one that has a relatively small fan base, but it’s hard to find a more devout group of movie goers. A good dark comedy movie manages the difficult task of blending the dark and twisted with the hilarious, often delivering both at the same time. If you’re watching a dark comedy and laughing your head off, but feeling horribly guilty about it at the same time, then the film has successfully managed that balance.
One of the most interesting things about dark comedies is that individual preference plays such a huge part in determining which are “best.” Three top ten lists could have thirty different movies on them depending on what worked for each viewer and what didn’t. The challenge of the film makers is to make a funny movie twisted, but not so much that the audience “Gets off the train.”
The following is a list of ten of the best dark comedies out there, including several movies that have been overlooked by even many dark comedy connoisseurs.
This movie definitely had star power with Cameron Diaz, Christian Slater, and Jon Favreau. “Very Bad Things” is a very dark comedy that starts with the accidental death of a prostitute at a Las Vegas bachelor party and quickly spirals into even worse territory. The pacing is well done, as the problem starts “small” and grows in believable increments until everything is completely out of control. This film is often one of the first mentioned when the words “dark comedy” are brought up, but this movie is also highly divisive. Half of dark comedy fans love this movie, and half loathe it. Putting it at #10 seems a fair compromise.
This Wes Anderson film is a funny and unique form of dark comedy. The darkness does not come as a result of a serial killer, a murder, or any of the normal characters or events that usually define dark comedy. This movie takes the dysfunction of a large family filled with adopted children, child prodigies, and an incredibly dysfunctional father played by Gene Hackman, and puts them all together to see what happens. The darkness is in the subtlety, and it’s obvious from early on that this family is full of mal-adjusted people who need to talk openly, and none of whom have that ability. This film is both hilarious and tragic, and really explores how to make a movie that moves based on the undercurrents of its characters.
Most people missed this movie, which is a shame because it is an incredible film. This dark comedy is about Igby, a juvenile intent on rebelling against everything and everyone in his old society rich family. What results is a series of misadventures in which the movie viewers understand right away that Igby’s optimism and hope are badly misplaced. The darkness in this film comes not only from one character, but from almost all of them, and claims hopes, friendship, and lives in the process. Despite this dark backdrop, this is an intensely funny movie that can also be very depressing and features an amazing cast that includes Claire Daines, Kieran Culkin, Jeff Goldblum, Amanda Peet, Bill Pullman, and Susan Sarandon.
Made in 1971, “Harold & Maude” is a classic dark comedy that truly holds up over time. Harold is rich, obsessed with death, and young. Maude is in her seventies, lively, and the two meet at a funeral because both go to funerals as a hobby. That strange set up explodes off the screen in this movie, and maintains it as a classic dark comedy film that is likely to continue to have a cult following for years to come.
The Coen Brothers show up on this list twice, and probably could have twice more. “Barton Fink” is a fantastic dark comedy that spoofs Hollywood and all types of writers alike, from the “Hollywood Hacks” to the “Eastern Intellectuals.” Barton Fink is a successful New York playwright who moves to Hollywood to become a screenwriter, but is hired to write a wrestling movie, which is too “base” for his style.
Along the way he meets a friendly neighbor who turns out to be a serial killing Nazi, two crazed detectives, and falls in love with a woman who meets an unfortunate fate. This is such a delicately scathing film, and often takes more than one viewing to understand just how stunningly wrong and disturbing the final scene (which appears serene) is.
“Four Rooms” is a great study in dark comedy. Few people have ever had as terrible and disturbing a night as the bell hop working the hotel on New Year’s Eve (the night all four scenes of this movie take place), yet the movie remains funny. From a bet with a penalty of a cut off finger, to a dead prostitute, to a crazed gun man, this film is continuously hilarious while the bell hop is surrounded by people and situations that should not be funny at all. This movie is an “anthology movie,” as the four sections are only vaguely connected, but they come together to make a fantastic dark comedy that aspiring writers should study.
This is the dark comedy that causes so many fights because a lot of people argue that it isn’t a comedy (or isn’t meant to be). Others indicate that the blend of odd music, juxtaposition of scenes, and odd bits of humor in dark moments make it one of the best dark comedies out there. This is a film that somehow makes cannibalism and murder hilarious. This movie is also has a “love it or hate it” effect. Viewers tend to absolutely adore this movie, or hate it with a fiery passion. There’s not much middle ground on this one, and part of the reason might be that as far as dark comedies go, this one is extremely heavy on the darkness, and the humor in this film is dark and twisted even by dark comedy standards.
This is a movie that definitely flew under the radar. Starring David Schwimmer (and don’t let that scare you off from this movie) this 2006 dark comedy introduces Charlie, a man whose brain is slowly erasing. This will eventually take his memories, personality, and ability to function away, so he memorizes facts and statistics in an attempt to slow the process. When he gets a chance to blackmail a priest with a work buddy and his girlfriend, Charlie agrees, thinking of his wife and daughter.
A couple major mistakes and a few strange discoveries take what should have been a simple blackmail job and spirals the entire situation completely out of control. The incredible pace of this movie keeps viewers engrossed and laughing even as sad and dark moments occur. This is a very intelligent movie and a hidden gem of cinema.
This classic dark comedy by Stanley Kubrick will be at the top of many viewers’ lists. This is a very odd and dark movie famous for the almost “care free” feeling on screen while the nuclear apocalypse is taking place. The scene with a pilot riding the atomic bomb down to Earth is one of the most famous scenes in movie history and is commonly spoofed. “Dr. Strangelove,” is full of weird people, weirder logic, and darkly comedic scenes that make this black and white film one of the all time classic dark comedies.
“Fargo” is not only one of the best dark comedies ever made, but it is widely considered one of the 100 greatest movies ever. Even from the very beginning of “Fargo,” before things get bad, viewers already have the sense that everything is going to go horribly wrong. Two kidnappers, one psychotic, a cruel father in law and a wishy-washy used car salesman in over his head are just a few of the characters who help set the scene. The heroine of this film is a pregnant small town police chief, whose folksy accent and laid back Midwestern manner help highlight the humor in this film, and who herself represents an unlikely hero.
The strange humor from this movie sprouts from all the little things and subtle nuances in this movie. The little actions, the interactions as nice people talk about the weather, joke around, and do nice neighborly things; all these are juxtaposed against the backdrop of psychopaths, kidnapping, and murder. “Fargo” is a one of a kind film, and is one of a kind dark comedy that won multiple awards and made the Coen Brothers household names.
You thought we forgot this one huh? No list of black comedies would be complete without the Big Lebowski. If you haven’t seen it, a piece of your life is missing! Jeffrey “The Dude” Lebowski is the ultimate LA slacker, until one day his house is broken into and his rug is peed on by two angry gangsters who have mistaken him for Jeffrey Lebowski, the LA millionaire, whose wife owes some bad people some big money. The Dude becomes entangled in the plot when he goes to visit the real Lebowski in order to get some retribution for his soiled rug, and is recruited to be the liason between Lebowski and the captors of his now “kidnapped” wife.
This film really epitomizes the genre and therefore deserves to stand alone on this list. It is a perfect blend of all that makes a comedy dark and it definitely ranks in the top (maybe even equal with Fargo) of the work by the Coen Brothers.
Contributor: Shane Dayton
2001 ASO has an AMAZING storyline. I didn’t like it the first time I saw it.. when I was 15. Then I saw it again at age 20 or so and I loved it! The scenes with the AI actually manage to be really stressful although its just a static red laser! I mean how does a director actually manage that?! Its just brilliant! “what do you think you’re doing Dave?” :p
And the ending with the starchild thing… Even I hardly understand it but its still so eerie and unique, I love it. The last time I watched it I realized that I was making a really stupid face : eyes and mouth wide open, and I don’t move an inch.
But I understand the difference in opinions. Only I do suggest that those who didn’t like it the first time give it another try… and not while eating diner or something. Sit down and watch it seriously.
Another black comedy that I loved (but that many people didn’t… I guess you either love it or hate it) is Teeth. It extremely bad taste yet I laughed my ass off from start to finish.
Very bad things is terrible, Lock Stock would go much better, or even Raising Arizona.
Kreachure, (117),
Thanks as per to Blogball above for your efforts on my behalf. Same verdict, I fear. Apart from plot dissimilarities, ‘Concrete’ is a 2005 movie and a short at that. Ours was a feature and is certainly well over a decade old (I’m allowing that we must have seen it not later than about 1996, and since it was on open TV, it had to have been released not much later than a couple of years before that). I can’t believe it isn’t known to someone here. If not, why not?
I’ve added a little bit more in comment 120 of what we seem to recall. I’ve also tried pasting such key points as I can remember together and googling, but without luck. Surely there can’t be that many feature flicks of a couple driving around trying to dispose of a middle-aged lady’s body?????
Goat,
I completely understand that you are entitled to your own opinion, and I can’t argue with your first statement about it being a terrible movie to YOU. But that doesn’t make it a terrible movie and it doesn’t make Kubrick a hack, but it does show that you don’t understand what truly makes a great movie.
First of all, I never said it was the greatest movie ever made, I said it was ONE of the greatest SCI FI movies ever made. And of course you want reasons. Well basically every sci fi movie made up until them was idiots running around in silver suits with their plastic ray guns battling blobs of aliens or mad scientists sequestered away on distant planets. In short, they were a joke, poorly made, sets that could have been made from leftover scraps from the lumber yard and filmed with kindergarten toys.
You contradict yourself by countering my statement that a ‘slew of sci fi movies would have never been made’(if not for 2001) by saying most sci fi movies do borrow things from it. The film is groundbreaking because it treated the material in a serious way. It’s groundbreaking because it used new technology and photographic techniques to create a more realistic environment. Granted, it was the late 60′s, but the set looked like a real spaceship, inside and out.
Hollywood would have just continued to make *****ty robot and ‘guy in an alien suit’ sci fi had Kubrick not come along and paved the way for a serious treatment of the subject.
The subject matter of human evolution, to my knowledge had not had any screen time, and tackling it was a daunting task to say the least. It could have very easliy ended up a corn ball lunatic mess. Instead, Kubrick delivered a statement about where we’ve been and endless possibilities of where we are headed.
The photography was just breathtaking. Instead of a styrofoam ball covered in green and blue paint, Kubrick showed us a different, more realistic view of planets in space. The film as all kinds of style dripping from scene to scene. Some of it, yes, trippy ’60′s but most of it seemed possible in a scientific way. Realistic apes battling each other for domination of the water hole and survival.
The soundtrack was hard to beat too.
You might call the pacing boring and tedious, but to serious film students, the pacing was absolutely pitch perfect. It takes its time telling the story. That might not appeal to today’s MTV ADHD crowd where ***** needs to blow up now, but in order to tell this story, it’s got to be done with care. Kubrick is a master at this. We have to have a certain patience. I can most certainly understand how that wouldn’t appeal to today’s audiences.
More clues to 2001′s greatness lies in it’s influence, which can be clearly seen in just about every movie about space since it hit the big screen. It’s undeniable. Filmakers now had to treat not only the physics, but the subject matter with gravitas and make every effort to match Kubrick’s vision. Now that audiences have seen what a movie in space could be, they would expect ALL of them to be made better.
In the end, it is an undeniable fact that 2001 is ONE of the greatest and most influential films ever made. It’s true it didn’t exactly set the box office on fire, but I can quote several major and serious film critics who would say the same thing.
Saying Kubrick sucks is like saying Mozart was a hack or Picasso sucks or that Michaelagelo couldn’t sculpt. You’re not saying anything intelligent, because you can’t back it up. You can say it’s your opinion all you want, but you can say that about anything. C’mon man, open your mind a little bit and watch it again with a new appreciation.
bucslim – Technically, yes you’re right. Kubrick is an unriveled genius. However, all the groundbreaking technology does not a great movie make. For me, story does. And the plot behind 2001 (IMHO) was adequate but not end-all-be-all.
I can think of a couple of movies that fall into this category… TRON for starters. Visually, yes it was amazing.
The story put me to sleep though. Same with Titanic…
The title is an oxymoron.
does no one love Clay Pigeons as much as I do…..the worst day can end happy when watching this movie
Cool List! And one of my favortie film genres. 4 rooms seems to get overlooked at times but I really enjoyed that film and am happy to see it on this list.
As far as personal additions go I would like to add: Heathers, Brazil and Lock, stock 2 smoking barrels
Anon:
That sounds VERY familiar, but I can’t place it. I’ll think it over. Maybe it’ll come to me.
Felix: I just watched “In Bruges” last night. Effin’ awesome movie. Also, where the hell is “Cannibal: The Musical”? Completely over-the-top, retarded, ridiculous? Yes. Awesome? Another yes.
I say again, what the hell?
Aww, I was hoping to see Heathers.
i heart huckabees??? im kiding, im kiding
Fargo is my favourite film of all time.
Secretary, anyone? For a chick flick, thats pretty dark and very funny.
I would like to nominate a film that probably very few readers have seen — “The Ruling Class” (1972) starring Peter O’Toole.
It’s the story of Jack Arnold Alexander Tancred Gurney, 14th Earl of Gurney, a mentally unbalanced man who suddenly inherits the family title and estates. For the first half of this three-hour film, he thinks he’s Jesus Christ. After the rest of the family, concerned about the family reputation and fortune, attempts to “cure” him of his delusion, he spends the second half of the film convinced he’s Jack the Ripper (with predictable consequences).
Oh, and it’s a musical.
A savage and hilarious satire and one of my favorite two movies of all time.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069198/
bucslim
“Saying Kubrick sucks is like saying Mozart was a hack or Picasso sucks or that Michaelagelo couldn’t sculpt.”
Ok, calm down. What I said is 2001 sucks. Kubrick was overrated, not that he sucked. Get your facts straight.
But see comment #119 and even my previous comments where I did mention there were things that I like about the movie. Overall entertainment value is bad. Now that I have seen that movie I have no reason ever to watch it again. I might fall asleep. I mentioned to you before, yeah I get it. His filming special affects, all that stuff were great. But look at a movie like Star Wars, the same could be said for that, yet there are a ton of people who hate it. Everone is entitled to like what they want, and just because this film is a great piece of movie art doesn’t make it good is my point. We gotta be on the same wavelength in defining that my friend. I’m agreeing art wise is was good a good movie, but the entertainment value SUCKS. And that’s why I watch movies. If I really want to think I go to work or school. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind a cliffhanger ending movie, or something with a deep plot, or whatever. If it flows well and keeps my attention great. If not it sucks. Period.
“You calling what is widely regarded as the best science fiction movie”
“First of all, I never said it was the greatest movie ever made, I said it was ONE of the greatest SCI FI movies ever made.”
These are your quotes not mine. You contradict yourself.
“You contradict yourself by countering my statement that a ’slew of sci fi movies would have never been made’(if not for 2001) by saying most sci fi movies do borrow things from it.”
How? I added a “but” at the end there and said just because it was first does not make it one of the best SCI-FI movies ever. Go back and read that again.
“Filmakers now had to treat not only the physics, but the subject matter with gravitas and make every effort to match Kubrick’s vision.”
Really? So, Star Wars, Alien, Event Horizon, and nearly every other SCI-FI movie out there has real physics? In Space? Really?……? OOOOOOK.
“technical realism, about relative near term space exploration of our solar system” – This is not my quote is from a web site about this movie
http://www.hobbyspace.com/Movies/index.html,
but again, this whole time even when I bashed Kubrick and this movie I said that. The movie is technically real and groundbreaking in that sense.
“You’re not saying anything intelligent, because you can’t back it up. You can say it’s your opinion all you want, but you can say that about anything.”
Ok, I did back it up and it can only be backed up with opinion because it’s a f-in movie. You back up what you said by saying:
“You might call the pacing boring and tedious, but to serious film students, the pacing was absolutely pitch perfect. It takes its time telling the story. That might not appeal to today’s MTV ADHD crowd where ***** needs to blow up now, but in order to tell this story, it’s got to be done with care. Kubrick is a master at this. We have to have a certain patience. I can most certainly understand how that wouldn’t appeal to today’s audiences.”
Ok, so in your opion only serious film students understand the “GREATNESS” of this movie and anyone who does not like the pacing of it is an MTV reject with ADHD? Man seriously
FU. Your right, I’m not a film student nor do I claim to be, but just because you seem to be one or are backing them for whatever reason, does not mean your own opinion takes weight over mine. And hell yes it takes it’s time…..I sat there for almost 20 minutes until realizing I was in a trance from the music and slowness. I mean seriously, I thought I was high for a minute. You can take your time telling a story but that’s pushing it. And it goes to show you how film making has evolved as well. In the early days complex plots were not mainstream, it was ok to have long drawn out scenes with little or no dialouge. But that’s no reason to bash my generation as stupid or unwilling to pay attention, and if you know anything you’ll think about that for a moment.
And at least I can admit to things I do or don’t like about the movie instead of trying to blindly back something that is said by YOU and supposedly many other people as “ONE OF THE GREATEST MOST INFLUENTIAL FILMS EVER” when I peosonally don’t ever want to sit through that movie again. Yeah, I’m glad I watched it, and I see the cool parts of it, but as a whole I didn’t like it and don’t ever need to watch it again. And I can say what I want about it casue I have seen it, it would be different if I hadn’t and simply had facts out of my ass.
And to say Kubrick is overrated, I have not seen all of his films which I’m willing to admit but I have seen a few: The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, and Spartacus. Some were better than others, but I don’t always see this amazing “Vision” that everyone seems to have about his movies.
The Grey Goat:
Okay, look… I’m not fully with you on this, but I have some small sympathy for your position. Let’s forget about the Coen brothers—I’ve already said I think they’re good, very good–but overrated. Kubrick is another matter.
To begin with, 2001 was VASTLY heralded in its day. I take it you were not with us then. I was a little kid at the time, but I remember the hype. Particularly since it continued for several years after—until, basically, Star Wars came along and blew everyone away in an entirely different, though I don’t think at all a better, way.
You’re correct—it WAS more “groundbreaking” than great in a purely objective cinematic sense. Particularly if you could put yourself back into that time–1968–and realize that there had never been a truly serious, adult, cerebral science fiction film ever before. The closest we had come was Forbidden Planet in 1958. A great film, yes, and one of my all-time faves–but hardly adult. A few others had come sort of close. But nothing of the scale–which was near epic–and mind-expanding quality of 2001.
Okay. But on the other hand… was it all that truly “great?” Well, I think it was, and I’ll tell you why in a second. But was it overrated? Sure. It was 1968. We were in fact lucky the film was as good and intelligible as it was. Think about the ending, from the moment Dave Bowman leaves the Discovery and heads for the monolith floating in space. It’s an amazing cinematic 15 minutes or whatever it is—but does it make any sense? No, not much. It’s a beautiful light show that gets very intense–with some truly jarring, horrific quick still shots thrown in, of Bowman’s face doing VERY weird and frightening things. THAT affected me when I saw it and still does. But the “light show” overall? It gets a bit indulgent. The kind of thing that hippies, at the time, probably thought was very “mind blowing” and “deep.” Uh huh. Sure.
And the ending, of Bowman wandering around the strange rooms, and moving (apparently) in time from youth to old age, and then becoming some kind of “star child”? Again, affecting, weird, and even horrific. But the meaning? I have to shrug.
BUT… do all narratives have to BE narratives? Do all films have to have “meaning” in such a conventional sense? I think Kubrick was saying “no.” Because this is a film about mankind’s first contact with a VASTLY superior intelligence. What WOULD that be like? Would it be like Star Trek, or would it be like this bit of cinematic weirdness? I’m betting it’ll be more like the weirdness. And for all its hippie-dippy affectation, it leaves you with that feeling of something vastly removed from human experience, that’s going on here.
In a sense this is akin to the original Russian version of “Solaris,” which was also a bit of truly bizarre, affecting weirdness. And an equally serious, adult, cerebral film.
Stanley Kubrick was no slouch, Goat. Was he always on the money? No, nobody is. But it’s the general consensus amongst critics and film historians that he was one of the greatest directors ever, in a league with Fellini, Kurosawa, Bergman, Hitchcock, Truffaut, Herzog, etc.
So you take a film like 2001… what makes it great? The visuals and the atmosphere it creates, mainly. But what else IS a film? Story and character–in these 2001 is perhaps lacking. It’s cold in the way that many sci-fi films are cold. Who’s to blame for that? Kubrick or Arthur C. Clarke? Maybe Clarke. But Kubrick is the auteur here, and I would lay it more at his feet. But on the other hand–would 2001 really have been better if it had been emotional and “thrilling” like Star Wars? I doubt it. The simple fact is that it presents everything in its “story” as straightforward reality. Everying is mundane. Even the trip to the moon is mundane, with people nodding off, and crap sandwiches and bored stewardesses. That’s real. But behind all this created reality is a gigantic weirdness and otherworldliness, like a dream or a nightmare. And THAT is the mark of a great film in this genre—that 2001 pitches us OUT of ourselves and into an eerie “otherworld” of reality mixed with the bizarre. Very few films accomplish that as well as 2001 does.
Now… I sense that the problem for you, since you mention the pacing and how you think 2001 is “boring” is that you are (I’m guessing) young. And what I’ve observed is that people who have grown up in the last, oh… twenty years or so… have ridiculously short attention spans. They require constant stimulation or else they get bored and look away. They require simplified and sometimes ultra-simplified story lines, and lots of action. And if they don’t get it, they feel they’ve been cheated.
But in this you’re wrong, Goat. It IS a matter where a little growing up has to be done. I’ve got my criticisms of “Fargo” too, but the last thing it is is “boring.” What you may not understand is that tension, suspense, and even just that quality of dreamlike eerieness or affecting weirdness is created and built in the quiet, long moments in a film. Silence and consistent emptiness can do a great deal to the psyche. Check an old Bergman film called “The Silence” to see what I mean—or another called “Winterlight.” Or, check Kubrick’s “The Shining,” which between Nicholson’s awful and over-the-top mugging (I’ve grown to dislike Nicholson over the years… I used to think he was ultra cool, but no longer… as I’ve grown up I’ve seen him as a less-than-stellar actor who goes for the cheap shot more often than subtlely and genuine emotion) creates long moments of terrifying weirdness and horror. And it’s mostly done with still shots of emptiness punctuated with sudden, jarring visual punches—even when things are moving, these sudden “stops” hit the film and build the horror. Remember, for instance, as the wife is running through the corridors and up the stairs… and in the distance—she sees, in one of the rooms—two figures–one apparently in some sort of twisted, bizarre costume… and that figure is apparently… apparently… giving head to a man in a tuxedo, who is sitting on a bed. And the two turn and look at her…
And all that is done in a moment, and from a *distance,* and in silence (except of course for the jarring score blaring over it, if I recall) and it’s like seeing someone else’s godawful nightmare.
Do you follow me? 2001 does that kind of thing time and time again, except instead of horror being its medium, its doing it with cold, jarring emptiness and subdued silence. For me it creates the terror of the idea of being stuck on board a vast spaceship with a homicidal computer, all out of near nothingness… and it does it with a cinematic sense of designed forcefulness, in total quiet–that would have nowhere near the same affect if it had been shot in some more conventional manner.
Was 2001 overrated? As I said, sure. But is it boring and pointless and crap? God no.
#121 Metalwrath
“But I understand the difference in opinions. Only I do suggest that those who didn’t like it the first time give it another try… and not while eating diner or something. Sit down and watch it seriously.”
Hehe, I did watch it seriously.
Err, well to be honest…the very 1st time I tried to watch this movie, I put it on late one night after drinking at a friends house. You can imagine how far I got into it
But the 2nd time I watched it beginning to end and still no dice.
No Friday? Still I’m glad to see tyler perry not on there. I hate Tyler Perry.
War of the Roses! That should’ve been on there. ^_^
Very nice list, but you couldn`t find room for Pulp Fiction ? You guy`s are now offically beating a dead horse !
About 2001 that is.Sorry
very bad things=awesome!….the 1st film i saw in the cinema when i turned 18
Great list Shane. I’ve actually only seen Harold and Maude – looks like I’ve let my love of film slip a bit. I too would like to have seen ‘Lock, Stock’ on there, as well as ‘Snatch’. And of the oldies, ‘Arsenic and Old Lace’ and Hitchcocks ‘The Trouble with Harry’. But I imagine it was difficult enough to cull the list to 10 with so many to choose from. Good job.
Love the list. Another great dark comedy is “The Last Supper”, also with Cameron Diaz. A group of liberal friends invite their enemies to a dinner party and murder them if they don’t have their same political views. Cynical hilarity… is hilarity a word? I’m glad Fargo was number 1…
Heather…Heathers…Heathers
Wild Things
That is all…
good list!
i lovveeee Big Nothing.
one of the best movies ever in my opinion.
Anon, I know I’ve seen the movie, but the name escapes me.
A simple plan was a great book, I haven’t seen the movie, but if they stayed true to the book at all, it would be a wonderful dark comedy.
There is another wonderful black comedy, again I can’t recall the name, where the protagonists have robbed a bank or something, and have tons of money which they hide under the floor. Hilarity ensues.
Death at a Funeral
As for very bad things…
I prefer Kobé Tai …er “Other Films”.
They are far superior.
The grey GOAT:
You didn’t watch 2001 seriously. You said you if you wanted to think you’d go to school or work. 2001 isn’t offering what your are looking for. You have to take an active role in viewing it. It sounds like you’re not willing to do this, instead you prefer movies that require a passive role – movies that hold your hand, where a director guides you through a story and shows you what he or she wanted you to take from the movie. 2001, along with some of the others you mentioned, are more objective. Offering up prophetic or philosophical possibility, to which you can surmise your own implications. In a sense a less guided journey.
I think both types of film (guided and unguided are my two *****ogies) are legitimate art, and of course there is middle ground between the two. 2001 is an example that offers only a very small amount of guidance (before and after the intermission, while Fargo would be somewhere in the middle, and most Richie films are on the almost entirely guided side of the spectrum.
I want to make it clear that I’m not insulting you in the least, the “direct” kind of storytelling you prefer is every bit as respectable as the “open” style I’ve been talking about. The problem is you will never enjoy the latter if you are watching from the perspective required by the former. And to be perfectly honest I feel like the people who have been defending Kubrick are a little off base. What makes him so important to film and such a legend, is using- almost exclusively -shapes, sounds, colors, and implied meaning (rather than explicit meaning) to push a narrative. As far as I’m concerned no one has really come close to doing so as well as he did and thats what makes him one of the greats, among other things.
So GOAT, if you’re willing to watch it again, next time you watch 2001 (which I greatly suggest, I find a different side to the movie every time I watch it – and thats a lot of viewings) or any other film that seems to be dull and… hmm… maybe is just “not doing anything for you,” try to not think of it as and end to itself. Its more of a means of presenting an idea or a set of ideas that, once understood, are very profound. In other words, if you put in the patience, the payoff can be very high.
I suppose also, you may not be interested in profound ideas; in which case you shouldn’t watch it again or try any others. If indeed this is the case you should also know that people who appreciate these films don’t give a ***** how boring it was for you to see a rock floating through space.
Randall, (129) and segue, (147),
Thanks for your responses.
If no one among all the buffs here remembers, I suppose various conclusions can be drawn. To begin with, very likely it’s a *****poor film and we were just perfectly tuned to get the best out of it at that moment: tinged by the rosy (black???) memory of hindsight, as it were. Secondly, the search for it has become as much obsessive as anything. That aching sense of incompleteness when something cannot be found and you have to keep on and on searching. Which probably means it will disappoint deeply when and if we do run it to earth and view. Finally: can’t give up at this stage. So it will mean reverting to Plan A; i.e. reading through all the synopses of Maltin in spare moments until it turns up, with the risk of missing it by a lapse in concentration or turning over two pages in one! Got some way through letter C so far, but at least Plan A throws up loads of others to mark that one hasn’t seen but should!
Nobody *****s with the Jesus!
Just another longass reply:
Where’s commentor Heatherrr to say “What no Heathers?” …
naw, just foolin.
I’ve never seen “heathers” and i never wanted toooo… saw christian slater on the street a few months ago. cant tell ya’ll how many times i’ve locked eyes among the famous (or in C.Slater’s case-the rich acting lot that musta been created from the same clay as—hhhmmm,say, george hamilton..(( not sayin nothin, in fact I recently found that I adore ole Jorge Ham and really C.S, nothin personally.))– in anycase , a miliseconds passing apon the path. I am always trudging in the opposite way–away, not sayin nothin and we carry on all the same.
perhaps it is my bedraggled appearence or attire, or maybe it’s the posturing that alerts the hair trigger senses.
ah, wha? nevermind-
yeh, ok…so, allrite.
Your movie list writing is getting better S.Dayton. or so it seems to me. i suppose i have felt kinda stingy with my acceptance in the pop choices that you make, but whatever. who cares.
this dark matter of cinema has much more recesses to offer and although there are the 2 “staples of black comedies yore” (#whatever and #whatever) that hold this paper together, the imagery within has a contempory flare which at best, shows that there may be a link, but the gloss isn’t the same as the patina. I’m sayin it makes me wonder.
ahhhh, the wonder.
yup, so.–
It might be nice to have the otherside of the mirror and diffuse the in between.
nuther thought. genres. what the hell?
is a horror comedy
is a black comedy
is a dark comedy
is violence with a smile
or stone faced hero within chaos
is visceral repeated (like Ballard’s JFK)
blah blah blah
what do “dark comedy connoisseurs” taste like anyway?
a few in the cuboards(sp?); a few under the rug. some in the closet. others get high on helium.
does everything have a niche?
I know I could spout off whatabouts till my ego is full-just like the “Three top ten lists could have thirty different movies “, as you state up thar, but again I climb back in the “who cares boat”.
what interests me, in a round-bout-way, is just this disdiguishing(sp?) factor brought up. How public has allways been privatepublicprivate with media and when quirkiness or dark subjects or the bizarre hit “the stage”, a variant spectrum is splayed out, yet pop acceptances of “the strange” once vogue, now oscar worthy, now pop.. it can all be tossed in the shake(blender).
I guess when something bends too much one way other the other, it has the off-shoot of becoming something else. new buds glistening pretty for consumption.
Dark comedies still have the compacity(sp?) for edgyness, and the spectrum may still have tight bands that cant be seen by “general audiances”.
To me “black/dark humor(in movies)” has someting to do with death or cultural taboos, (such as cultural pychological deficiancies) or –as the U.S. had a bad bout in the mid to late 90′s–political correctness(but this example is borderline). My quick thought on the PC thing has to do with the “changing of the gaurd” — the yuggins footprints getting bigger. So this is a movie list and it takes a story and a way to tell and show and act it and if it is in any way successful then it takes an audience that gets it in some way, whether it be instinctually,intellectually,culturally,or cult-likely, ect,ect,blah blah.
ok enough,bye bye. its not like i’m talkin to anyone, just preachin to the choir.what choir?. where, wha, ho?!
toodle loo.
Anon, I feel your pain. And your obsession. Good luck on your quest.
so is it a distinct stink from afar
close enough to pick up and avoid?
a virility mechanism that attracts and repels through it’s own containment.
a contraption that lures like richard gere’s jeweled jaws,
salivating for julia robert’s ***** with a heart?
I don’t know
so Anon,
this has turned into a game now.
more clues please.
search that brain of yours.
such as:
actors?nationality? b&w,color? specific scenes, aside from the overview already given?
mid 90′s? You think it was made around then?
it’s not “Enid is Sleeping”? or Head above Water? they dont fit the profile (two guys trying to get rid of a dead middle aged woman-killed by accident.)
At first I thought Enid is Sleeping, but I have never seen it and IMDB watchers compared it Weekend at Bernies ,and in at least one case mentioned , it was not quite as good as Weekend at B’s (of which I am utterly surprised that I might be the first fool to mention this title herewithin) . Not to say that you wouldn’t really be into a movie considered -not quite up to par with W.A.B.
Cause it takes special minds to let loose on such “draggin around the dead” films/shanagins… and you have obviously shown that you have a special mind.
A black comedy I really like is Tanpopo. Its a japanese movie about noodles, very funny, definitely worth watching
Diogenes-You need to pass that thing man.
this is a bit recent for this list but another good one by the coen brothers is burn after reading. watch it!
bigski-
There’s-ah small lifesize wooden carving of the once fav “jester”, which today stands by the base of the largest wine cask of the world ( The top of which lays the worn slats of a silent dancing floor). This lil’ jolly fellow down below is galliantly erect for all to honor, and, if you ever find yourself on the tour(or on the floor), a guide might tell allwithin earshot that the drunken jester’s motto became, when asked if he’d like another douse of the spirits ,
“Wine Not.”
Segue #147 is thinking about Shallow Grave, an excellent black comedy from Danny Boyle, starring Ewan McGregor in one of his first roles.
Without having seen segue’s 147, I have been thinking of Shallow Grave all morning, looked at the wiki article just before lunch and was going to mention that now. YogiB beat me to it. I saw it way back but don’t remember much about it. I don’t remember it being funny in the lol sense. The money came from a druggie housemate.
Otherwise, black comedies are obviously not my thing, as I’ve seen only two of these.
A few more I didn’t notice in the comments: The Last Supper, M*A*S*H, The Matador, To Die For, Gates of Heaven, Serial Mom, and The House of Yes.
Bother! I was thinking of To Die For, as well. I’ve got to get in before YogiB does. That was listed as a comedy (at least Nic won her Golden Globe in the “comedy or musical” category) but I remember it as being particularly unfunny.
hey, where’s Kiss Kiss Bang Bang? it should be in this list. it was funny as hell.
Randall,
“… the more difficult to comprehend a film is, the less understandable for the masses, then the more it is surely a Great Work of Art.
Sure.
The funny thing is, film is nothing but ephemeral. It’s flickering images on celluloid. And while it can be beautiful and moving and all that, as an art form it’s at best severely hampered by the fact that no matter how intellectual, it’s still just commercial product. It’s almost never the vision of a single “artist” but is by its nature a media product designed and executed by committee (or a crowd). And we pay ten buck to go see it in a dark room in uncomfortable seats, munching popcorn. And no matter how artsy it is, right next to it as its bastard brothers are every cheesy old piece of trash flick ever made, or the latest dumb blockbuster or moronic action film. You can’t EVER forget that when you’re watching something that’s supposed to be “arty,” because either in the theater next door, or next on the bill, or in your DVD collection next to it at home is “Saw IV” or “Ernest Saves Christmas” or “Billy Madison.” ”
All that comment, or its equivalent, applies to a degree to anything we dignify with the word ‘Art’. Celluloid (or its digital equivalent) is, after all, no more than the medium on which can be expressed everything from the sublime to pure sewer trash, no less than paper serves for drawn or painted images, words or musical notation of every quality.
The commercial aspect surely isn’t necessarily corrupting per se either. It has to be unavoidable in the production of something ambitiously expensive. I would suppose the vision, motivation and attitude of those directly responsible for the creative process, and the artistic freedom they are given or manage to negotiate are what ultimately tell.
Opera involves social co-operation, both in conception and performance. Renaissance artists used to show the way with a few critical brush-strokes and then leave their apprentices to fill in by numbers much of the work we happily call Great Art. Music is surely just as much ephemeral sound waves as film is ephemeral images. Recorded music is also repetition of the same performance over and over, in much the same way as a film. None of this really stands in the way of serious Art evolving from these media.
And surely finding a CD of a Beethoven quartet lodged between a load of (c)rap in a record shop, or Keats among the pulp fiction of a booksellers, or the same juxtaposition on our home shelves, hardly negates them as high art!
As for your opening sentence: The Emperor’s Invisible New Clothes syndrome, yes? By no means confined to films, and nothing new in the Art world either. All my reading of professional and private critical comments makes clear the difficulty we have collectively in deciding what is phoney and what is profound. On top of that, the newer, the more difficult. By the way, if this aspect ever crops up in connection with Greenaway on LV you can include me out. I have my very definite strong personal reaction, but no way am I going to get embroiled in public shout-outs out over him, of all directors. I’m much too cautious an intellectual coward for that!
Bunch of great movies. I would add Prizzi’s Honor.
Haha, I love Ravenous and Dr. Strangelove. A few of these were already on my to-watch list, and now I’ve added to it. Thanks, as always.
Diogenes, (156),
Reading a couple of synopses, sounds like you may have hit the bull’s eye with ‘Enid is Sleeping’. The only difference I recall is two people trying to dispose of the body, which the synopses don’t make clear. The flick gets a mixed reception from my sources. One absolutely loves it. The other finds it inferior to Hitchcock’s ‘The Trouble with Harry’ (not seen by y.t.), which also from its synopses sounds a worthy entry for this thread. Anyone have first-hand comments?
Anyway, thanks a 1,000,000 Diogenes. As soon as we can we’ll try to lay mits on ‘Enid’ (not easy, living in Chile, but might try through daughters in UK) and see if that puts us out of our agony.
So unless anyone comes up with something even closer to my vague outline, inquiry closed. Thanks to all who helped.
How about Sleeping Dogs Lie? It’s subject matter (bestiality) and writer/director (Bob Goldthwait) may have brought it down in the eyes of many, but I think it ranks right up there with the tops of the darkest!
97. Anon:
I cannibalized your question and posted it to IMDB’s “I Need to Know” board. Here is the link:
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000001/thread/125522795?d=125522795&p=1#125522795
The best contender so far seems to be “Enid is Sleeping”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099506/
I just hope you read this comment, since yours was a while ago…
I would also like to add that I have seen all but two of these films (own most of them, in fact), and have added the two I’m missing to my netflix queue (plus a few more along the way… damned addicting netflix, I only have 47 in queue, that’s not bad, is it?). I do like a list that gives me ideas for new movies, since I tend to respect the opinions of *most* of the listverse regulars more than other sites…
Still didn’t like Very Bad Things, though. I’m in the “loathe it” camp, but what can you do?
Just checked out on Amazon.
‘Enid is Sleeping’ is known alternatively as ‘Over Her Dead Body’, which, confusingly, is the title of a recent, different film. The original story is offered as a bargain DVD double with ‘Personal Services’ (Julie Walters).
Also there’s “No Man’s Land.”
flibbertigibbet, (171),
I’m still here and posting. Don’t usually give up when contributing and my part of the thread is still spinning out!
Many thanks. You appear to have confirmed what was already hardening pretty solidly via Diogenes. See my replies to him. For some reason the first of those was/is being moderated, so it may not have appeared before you posted.
I know people have said it already, but I would have liked Kind Hearts and Coronets to appear on this list. It’s dark humour at its most delectably subtle – a blackly sharp wit worthy of Oscar Wilde and no less than eight performances by the great Alec Guinness. Truly, a film for the ages.
val, (176),
Yes, and to think six years later on we got the great Alec Guinness AND the great Peter Sellers together in ‘The Ladykillers’ as well!
I’ll throw one out into left field:
Cruel Intentions
NOT the sequels, but the original with that title. A true WTF? movie.
I don’t think you have to actually laugh at a dark comedy, anymore than you have to laugh at a well-placed pun (your eyes open wide in the former; you groan at the latter).
Cruel Intentions is simply twisted 90 degrees to the perpendicular of the fabric of human existence. Decent cast and superb direction/vision. Non-explicit yet highly *****ual situations handled in a way such things have never been handled before.
There’s an overlay of surrealness that simply has to be experienced, and that’s what places the movie into the pantheon of dark comedies.
If you like WTF movies, you’ll enjoy this one.
I thought the big lebowski to be the most stupid and dull movie I have ever seen, a complete waste of time of my watching it, as well as it being made.
All the rest are good though.
Um, actually, Charlie Meadows/Mundt (in Barton Fink) is not a Nazi. You’re probably referring to the line “Heil Hitler” when he’s killing detective Deutsch. He’s saying that line sarcastically because he’s killing *Deutsch*!
Although..authors deny any kind of symbolism there, so it might not mean anything at all.