To say that movie fans hate Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg comedies would be the understatement of the year. Actually, it would be the understatement of the decade. Actually, it would be the greatest understatement since the dawn of mankind. In fact if you look up the word understatement in the dictionary there is a picture of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer and a detailed explanation of how no feasible means of wording known to humans can encapsulate the hate movie fans feel towards these two men. Thus the word understatement received its understanding based on the unfathomable and indescribable hate that is displayed toward Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. Don’t Believe me. Check out some classic quotes films critics and bloggers about the duo.
“Friedberg and Seltzer…are not filmmakers. They are evildoers, charlatans, symbols of Western civilization’s decline…”
- Critic Josh Levin of Slate
“Writer/directors Friedberg and Seltzer are a scourge. They’re a plague on our cinematic landscape, a national shame, a danger to our culture, a typhoon-sized natural disaster disguised as a filmmaking team, a Hollywood monster wreaking havoc on the minds of America’s youth and setting civilization back thousands of years.”
- Josh Rosenblatt of the Austin Chronicle
“In the Adam Sandler vehicle Little Nicky, Hitler spends eternity in Hell in a frilly smock getting pineapples shoved up his butt. Compared to anyone watching Disaster Movie, he got off light. Rushed into production with no better drape for its threadbare gags than Cloverfield—unless you count such proud upholders of the Irwin Allen tradition as Juno, Enchanted, and High School Musical—this carpet-fouling mongrel of a movie no more deserves release than do anthrax spores.”
- Jim Ridley of The Village Voice
“If Judd Apatow is the Jesus of modern comedy, these two are the Anti-Christ – and sadly just as prolific.”
- Garth Franklin of Dark Horizons
From the way they’re described you would think they direct movies featuring hardcore child porn, bestiality, cross burning, necrophilia, hate crimes, incest, prison rape, and terrorist bombings all shown in an edifying light. Why else would they be called the “Anti-Christ” and a “plague upon the cinematic landscape”. Alas, they haven’t done anything that notorious and despicable yet. Their only crime for which they receive such hate and ill will is trying to make people laugh.
Now if you’re a critic and you don’t like their films that’s okay. You don’t have to like the movies that Friedberg and Seltzer make. If they have deficencies as directors point it out, label it, and perhaps they can learn from it. You don’t have to crucify them for it. Really, what is it about their technique that causes such strong hateful reactions? Most would say the problem is that they have no technique. Their films are seen as collections of cheap comedy sketches relying on an overabundance pop culture jokes held together by the tiniest whisper of what could deemed only under very generous circumstances as a plot.
Likewise their humor is seen as purely juvenile relying on an over-abundance of fart jokes and other forms of gross out humor to provoke cheap laughs in their audience. Not the most flattering characteristics but certainly these “shortcomings” aren’t so bad that Friedberg and Seltzer should be blamed for all societal ills. Other comedic directors have been accused of being juvenile (Farrelly Brothers, John Waters) but they get away without the vilification that is usually heaped on Friedberg and Seltzer. So what makes Friedberg and Seltzer such targets?
A lot of it has to do with success. Friedberg and Seltzer’s movies, despite their low critical pedigree, are almost always successful and often premiere number 1 at the box office. They find success using the low budget horror movie formula. This formula stipulates that a small budget will be spent sparingly on sets, actors, and special effects with the majority of ingenuity and funds focused on producing grandiose memorable kills. Replace kills with jokes and you’ve got the Friedberg Seltzer formula. They work the same successful formula as low budget horror filmmakers but sadly don’t get the same respect low budget horror films do.
Horror film freaks will sit up and defend the latest gore fest with impassioned arguments stressing the appeal and worth of good camp cinema and the cathartic release that horror films (even low budget ones) provide. The strange thing is their arguments are not only heard but generally accepted and seen as valid. However you won’t find that same kind of respect extended toward the low tier comedy of Friedberg and Seltzer. Yes their sets are cheap, the actors stock, and special effects abysmal, but the jokes (i.e. kills) can often be smart, scathing, and gut-bustingly funny. If people are willing to admit that Sally getting her head chopped off at least provides a tiny jolt of excitement, then they should be willing to admit that Friedberg and Seltzer are occasionally able to tickle their very fickle funny bone.
Sadly, in today’s overly sophisticated Apatow or bust comedic landscape there doesn’t seem to be room for anything else, which is sad, since it’s the Apatow formula for comedy that leaves a lot lacking. What is the Apatow formula? It involves getting a bunch of comedic actors together to crack jokes about everything under the sun, while remembering to throw in a cheap maudlin plot point (cancer, birth, growing old, virginity) to appease (fool) the critics into thinking something worth while is happening. If people were actually honest with themselves they would see that Friedberg and Seltzer are not all that different from Apatow.
Both gather a collection of comedians together and let them crack jokes on a bunch of scatter-shot topics with the illusion of a plot running underneath. The difference is Friedberg and Selzter have no pretensions about what they do, whereas Apatow, who is a less ambitious and talented version of James L. Brooks, is considered to be the Marx Brothers, Jack Benny, Richard Pryor, and the second coming all wrapped up in one. Neither filmmakers can produce a good plot but only Friedberg and Seltzer are persecuted for it. Apatow can afford the more expensive sets and cast more famous comedies so he gets more credit while Friedberg and Seltzer are stuck in the comedy ghetto.
I wonder if you could step outside of the Apatow box and open your mind. I going to present to you 10 of the funniest movie moments from Friedberg and Seltzer-directed films (Date Movie, Epic Movie, Meet the Spartans, Disaster Movie, Vampires Suck). Yes, there will be farting, dancing and pop culture jokes galore. If you feel that you are too much above this kind of material then I don’t think you’ll get much out of it. However, if you like to laugh and don’t care how that laughter is brought about then you should have a wonderful time. Hey, if Mel brooks can find the humour in farting, dancing and pop culture jokes, then you and I should be able to as well.
Here are 10 funny moments from Seltzer and Friedberg movies…
We are currently seeking Film contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Film contributor, click here.
21 Comments
Raymond, I’m guessing you are a younger man. Probably early 20′s? Saw these movies when you were a teenager?
I think the main problem with these two is not their crudeness. Blazing Saddles has a scene dedicated just to beans and farting. And it’s hysterical. The problem with Friedberg and Seltzer is their lazy writing. You say the cat on the toilet is hysterical, i say it’s extremely lazy and cheap. All they did was take a joke that was already used, and make it more crude. And they did this multiple times. And they constantly use whatever flavor on youtube is popular at the time. I would bet 1 million dollars on the fact that they incorporate Gangnam Style into their next “parody”. And the problem with that is that they won’t write a joke about it, they’ll just have people start dancing it out of the blue. Lazy writing
Thanks for the Reply Micheal.
I am still a young man, but with a very sophisticated palate. I can speak of john ford and cassevetes, de palma, and minnelli, hitchcock and john huston. I can also speak about the many delights to be had from watching a Friedberg and Seltzer comedy.
The cat joke was extremely cheap but it was undeniably funny. It took a popular joke, turned it on its head and exploited it for maximum laughs. Jinx has the runs….good stuff.
And tell me Micheal, whats wrong with topical comedy. So what if they parody stuff that is topical. That doesn’t mean it isn’t funny. “but will it last”? That’s the next generations problem. For now I laugh and laugh heartily.
The problem with topical comedy, is that it can become dated. Sometimes extremely fast. I know there’s a “Leave Britney alone” joke in one of their movies. I guarantee that if you watched that particular film when it came out and didn’t watch it for a few years, you’ll come back to it and instead of laughing, you’ll say “oh yeah, remember that guy?” It’s fine to use things like that. But my problem with these 2 guys is that they don’t write an actual joke around it. It’s just thrown in for a cheap giggle. And if you aren’t glued to youtube, you aren’t going to understand what they are talking about. I asked your age because these movies are geared towards kids who spend all day online. They know what the gags are and think it’s funny even though there’s no real joke written.
I’m sorry but you are completely wrong. They didn’t turn the joke on it’s head…they just ruined it. Why was it funny in Meet The Parents? Because it implied absurdity. Date Movie just lazily showed what we were all thinking when we watched Meet The Parents…it didn’t offer anything new but gross out gags on the screen.
It doesn’t require talent to write a movie where all the jokes are based around the absurdity of a pop culture reference popping up in the midst of an established setting.
In this article you say that we should appreciate Friedberg and Seltzer for what they are (cheap hacks who sometimes can incite a laugh or two)…but to avoid being hypocritical you cannot then go on to say they “turned [a joke] on it’s head” or that they used a “great bit of satire” when they exploited a joke from another movie by simply making it more gross.
“So what do you guys think? Is it time to give Friedberg and Seltzer their due, or should we get the pitchforks and torches and drive them out of Hollywood?”
I think there should be a tactical (writer’s) strike on the set of their latest film.
See that there? That simple Call of Duty joke was better than anything in their filmography. And that last gag? I didn’t laugh; therefore, I’m not dealing with it. Seltzer and Friedberg are the type of lazy reference comedians that dillute the pool of comedic talent, and make audiences lazier. “Hey, did you like ‘X’? How about we throw in some nutshots/gay jokes/profanity? YOU LAUGHING YET?!”?
You undertook the task of defending two of the worst comedians this side of Mencia, and for that you’ll probably be rewarded with page views. (Which, I’m starting to think, is the whole agenda behind this article. If so, be prepared to see my counter list “10 Reason Uwe Boll Was Robbed At This Year’s Oscars”.)
“You Laughing Yet.”
Yes Mike I am. We laughed at Jim Carrey biting someones crotch. We laughed at paging Dr. Fagg** in the Hangover. We laugh at every comedy now a days with an overabundance of Profanity. Why cant we laugh at Friedberg and Seltzer.
Whats wrong with being a reference comedian. Comedians reference things on stage all the time and its great. They do it in a movie and its somehow subpar.
I also think that Uwe Boll list would be a good read. We could use more articles online praising a director that doesn’t have the word Nolan in it.
Reference Comedy is good, so long as it’s not the only thing on display. In the case of Friedberg and Seltzer, they’re merely holding pop cultural flash cards in front of the audience and slightly altering them to make them more lewd and crude. At least Dr. Fa**ot or Jim Carrey’s crotch biting were either A.) set up before execution or B.) fresh at the time of execution. While they were crude, they were originally crude. I can see the F&S version of the scene now:
“Think of me as a younger Dr. House.”
“Psht. More like Dr. Ho-mooo.” (read in that annoying singsong tone you know they’ll use.)
Mr. Woods, I do not attack you personally, I merely attack the work of the artists in question. I hope you see that. (And Christopher Nolan’s earned his praise. Boll merely lives up to the toilet themed version of his namesake.)
Mike its all good man. I like when my colleagues challenge me. Simple concepts in comedy can work. It doesn’t matter if you’re merely holding up flashcards as long as they are funny flashcards. Not that I am advocating underachievement as far as comedy goes but why then do we persecute Seltzer and Friedberg for doing that same thing that Apatow does and gets away with.
As far as Christopher Nolan goes I tend to side with Mr. Armond White in his opinion of the young auteur.
Raymond, I really have to hand it to you again for writing this article. It’s never easy having the unpopular opinion, but at least your case is well stated and it’s more of a matter of personal taste as opposed to poor evidence that leads to disagreement. Anyone who can do that, and in front of the class, is good in my book.
I am pleased to be thought of highly in your book. Although I think that book would be a lot more fun if it had a chapter about the underrated Uwe Boll. Seriously, if you did a list like that you’d be a legend.
You see, none of these entries on this list are funny in the least bit. I’m actually shocked that you didn’t use anything from the first two Scary Movies (which were by far the only tolerable Seltzer & Friedberg movies to date). You keep using that word “funny”. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I don’t know what the word funny means? Inconceivable(slight lisp)
I credit the Wayans bros with most of the credit for the two scary movie films. You can see more evidence of their kind of comedy starting from back in I’m Gonna Get You Sucka all the way through In Living Color.
You see more evidence of Friedberg and Seltzers work in the Leslie Neilsen movie Spy Hard from 1996
I laughed. However, it wasn’t at number 1. The only parts that I found funny were Becca Crane and the Enchanted Princess. I still hate their movies, but I won’t deny that there is always at least one factor that can trigger a smile.
To quote Christopher Lambert playing Rayden off of the very underrated movie Mortal Kombat:
“Good. At last one of them has understood”
I just wanted someone to admit that Friedberg and Seltzer made them laugh.
Refreshing to see someone try to defend these two but I’m afraid I still and always will despise their work with a burning passion. The whole cat on the toilet thing was mildly amusing in Meet The Parents and Date Movie does nothing other than make it cruder and use it for a ridiculously period of time. And the sequence afterwards where the cat rapes the half-cremated corpse was just terrible. From both a taste perspective and a comedy one.
Defending Friedberg and Seltzer isn’t an easy task though so kudos to you for actually doing it.
As they say fortune favors the bold. Thanks for the input. Yes the cat poop scene is cruder and longer but that much more funnier as a result. It is really any worse than the foulest joke on There’s Something about Mary. A lot of those jokes were drawn out as well but were still funny.
Also the whole cat corpse thing was hilarious. I was completely taken off guard at how a decomposing old woman was being held in a vase over a fireplace. It was a sick and subversive take on urn scene in Meet the Parents that work brilliantly.
Yeah…. None of these made me laugh…. #1 was actually the least funny one…
There was only one funny scene and it was from Meet The Spartans but even that joke was ruined. It’s the part where that black chick says “Your momma’s so fat her pants size is “ahem, ahem, ahem…bitch lose some weight.” but again even they ruined that joke.
Hey Blake,
Just wondering, how did they ruin that joke.
Okay…so first of all, thanks for trying :) These guys do get a bad rap, but it’s mainly from supercilious critics who’ll praise The Hangover (which I found to be both racist and dreadfully unfunny) or Bridesmaids (which is basically a 2 hour homage to a desperately unfunny Kristen Wiig) I’m sure they are laughing all the way to the bank. Obviously, they’ve found an audience for their films.
They make parodies people. Look up the definition. It’s a piece of work that closely follows the style of the original work, except that it mocks, trivializes, and comments on it. They’re doing that. That makes them successful at it.
Ray, keep at it. Maybe include a definition for the less informed next time.
Black Doug is not amused. In all seriousness thank you for your post and your very bold opinion.