If there's one thing I've learned from reading the other reviews around here, it's definitely that "Funny Man" is the type of film that you either praise into the heavens or hate with a passion; there doesn't appear to be a middle way. Personally I'm tempted to unite with the hate crew, but that is preeminently because the fan-boys are exaggeratedly enthusiast without using real arguments. They merely just claim that "Funny Man" is awesomely hilarious; period. I even encountered some reviews where people dreadfully stated that the adversaries of this movie simply "don't get" the type of humor. See, I really hate that
What exactly is there to "get"? It's a cheesy and low-budgeted 90's horror movie about an ugly jester killing off uninteresting characters whilst firing off lousy and wannabe clever one-liners, so it's fairly safe to say there's absolutely nothing specific "to get" here. I'll be the first to admit that "Funny Man" also contains a handful of ingenious elements and mildly amusing gags. The main problem, however, are the bad ratios. For every brief flash of inventiveness, there's an intolerably large amount of tedious sequences. For every effective joke, there's literally a truckload of embarrassingly lame and painfully misplaced farces. After approximately 50 minutes of running time, you've pretty much seen and heard about as much as any normal person can take and the last half hour is practically unendurable to sit through. "Funny Man" is probably the most atypical British horror movie I've seen. Traditionally speaking, British genre movies implement a distinct and easy recognizable sense of humor, but this one is as vulgar and insipid as any random amateur US trash production. Most likely more than half of the entire budget was spent on convincing the almighty Christopher Lee to make a cameo appearance among an extended cast of untalented nobodies. Lee briefly pops up at the beginning of the film and portrays a sinister guy in a white suit who gambles his ancestral house in a game of poker and loses it to a sleazy drug-addicted record producer. The joke's on him literally because Christopher forgot to mention anything about the psychopathic buffoon living there. The Funny Man quickly disposes of the producer's family and eagerly awaits the next shipment of brainless victims to waste. They arrive in the form of a van filled with dimwits looking like runaways from a canceled Scooby-Doo episode. Some of the killing scenes are amusing and imaginatively repellent (like the duck hunting and puppet theater), but the majority of them are plain dull and overlong. The Jester may sound like a potentially cool new horror icon, but he's actually rather uninspired and boring. His appearance seems to be based on Jack Nicholson in "Batman" mixed with a "Killer Klown from Outer Space", with the stand-up comedian talents of Chucky the Good Guy Doll or maybe even Freddy Kruger in the later installments of "Nightmare on Elm Street". He has no bizarre background or occult myth attached to him and even the house he operates in doesn't have a morbid history. Well, there we have the problem
"Funny Man" is a movie without depth. Get that?
59 Reviews
British Slasher Supposed to be Funny...But It is not
claudio_carvalho4 July 2022
The lucky music producer and gambler Max Taylor (Benny Young) wins a manor from Callum Chance (Christopher Lee) in poker game, he travels with his wife and two children to the house. Meanwhile, his loser brother Johnny Taylor (Matthew Devitt) travels in a van to deliver Max's belonging to the family in the house and gives a ride to three hitchhikers. What they do not know is that the jester demon The Funny Man (Tim James) lives in the manor and is thirsty for blood.
"Funny Man" is a British slasher supposed to be funny...but it is not. Indeed, it is boring and outrageous, with an evil demon killing people in a funny way. But there is no storyline and only the senseless killing spree. Maybe the humor satisfies British people. My vote is three.
Title (Brazil): "Funny Man"
"Funny Man" is a British slasher supposed to be funny...but it is not. Indeed, it is boring and outrageous, with an evil demon killing people in a funny way. But there is no storyline and only the senseless killing spree. Maybe the humor satisfies British people. My vote is three.
Title (Brazil): "Funny Man"
Bo' Selecta meets Rent-a-Ghost
RogueMonkey2 February 2005
If your mansion house needs haunting, just call... the Funnyman. Undecided about whether it's a comedy or a horror, it tries to be both and ends up neither.
The Jester would scare the pants off you if you were eight years old. However, you're not eight any more. Freddy Kruger dressed as Mr Claypole is less scary than Mr Claypole dressed as... er... Mr Claypole.
There is some witty banter, a few funny exchanges of dialogue and some top-drawer 'just nodding' acting. The Club Sexy sequence (up until 'Hardman' meets his end) is the highlight of the film.
With the Jesters big rubber head, I'm reminded of Bo' Selecta Series 3. Just like Bo' Selecta Series 3 it could've been good but it's not.
The Jester would scare the pants off you if you were eight years old. However, you're not eight any more. Freddy Kruger dressed as Mr Claypole is less scary than Mr Claypole dressed as... er... Mr Claypole.
There is some witty banter, a few funny exchanges of dialogue and some top-drawer 'just nodding' acting. The Club Sexy sequence (up until 'Hardman' meets his end) is the highlight of the film.
With the Jesters big rubber head, I'm reminded of Bo' Selecta Series 3. Just like Bo' Selecta Series 3 it could've been good but it's not.
Dismayingly bad
Erewhon25 June 2001
The makers of FUNNY MAN seem to have wanted to create a 100% English version of such wisecracking horror figures as Freddy Krueger, and the figure they've chosen seems on the mark: he's a living embodiment of a joker from a deck of cards. Other joker/jester images are scattered throughout the film.
But the problems overwhelm the movie: to begin with, there's no story. A guy wins a house in a card game (why is the card game in the U.S.?) and moves into it. The Funny Man promptly erupts from the floor and starts killing the new arrivals, including some others who show up later on. But at no point is there even the slightest hint as to WHY this is going on. We never have any idea as to the Funny Man's motives, or the failings (if any) of the people he kills. There's a slight hint that all this is the delusions of an insane Christopher Lee -- but the madhouse scene is in exactly the same style as the rest of the film.
The Funny Man isn't funny (though the makeup is impressive), and isn't even intelligible to most Americans much of the time. Effects are minimal (although there's one bit with a hand spreading wide that's unnerving -- and meaningless), but the photography and use of color are actually quite impressive. It's impossible to judge most of the performances, since the characters (if that's the word) are drawn so broadly that they're repellent caricatures from the moment we meet them. We not only don't give a damn if they die, we don't even know who the heck they ARE (or why they're dying).
Reportedly, the movie was made as an effort to revive English horror, but this ponderous, pretentious mess, unfunny, confusing and inconclusive, wouldn't have revived anything. Some praise is due Christopher Lee for cooperating with this effort; it was an act of courage and generosity. Too bad it was for such a sorry end product.
But the problems overwhelm the movie: to begin with, there's no story. A guy wins a house in a card game (why is the card game in the U.S.?) and moves into it. The Funny Man promptly erupts from the floor and starts killing the new arrivals, including some others who show up later on. But at no point is there even the slightest hint as to WHY this is going on. We never have any idea as to the Funny Man's motives, or the failings (if any) of the people he kills. There's a slight hint that all this is the delusions of an insane Christopher Lee -- but the madhouse scene is in exactly the same style as the rest of the film.
The Funny Man isn't funny (though the makeup is impressive), and isn't even intelligible to most Americans much of the time. Effects are minimal (although there's one bit with a hand spreading wide that's unnerving -- and meaningless), but the photography and use of color are actually quite impressive. It's impossible to judge most of the performances, since the characters (if that's the word) are drawn so broadly that they're repellent caricatures from the moment we meet them. We not only don't give a damn if they die, we don't even know who the heck they ARE (or why they're dying).
Reportedly, the movie was made as an effort to revive English horror, but this ponderous, pretentious mess, unfunny, confusing and inconclusive, wouldn't have revived anything. Some praise is due Christopher Lee for cooperating with this effort; it was an act of courage and generosity. Too bad it was for such a sorry end product.
Interesting at least. . .
Lovecraft-Fan25 November 2003
I didn't know what to expect from this film when I watched it, but I was vastly amused. If you like the Monty Python variety of British comedy, and the Nightmare on Elm Street type of horror, you should check this movie out. It doesn't really make sense or have any sort of real plot, but hey, what the hell does? Overall, an amusing horror film, made me laugh more than a few times.
Unwatchable
semprini-22 July 2000
Without a doubt the worst film I have ever seen. Deeply unpleasant to watch, not because it is brutal or shocking, but just because the characters don't fail to annoy at any time in the film, particularly the Funny Man himself and it just drags on and on. A reasonably poor idea for a film, but the filmmakers and cast have really dragged it through the dirt.
In a word, unwatchable.
In a word, unwatchable.
Worst Piece of CRAP ever.
No_Nonsense22 February 2008
I can't for the life of me understand what the heck the users who posted about this movie before me were on when they commented it. I bought this movie at a supermarket wholesale at about $1.50 (bundled with another crappy horror movie) and it was still one of the biggest waste of money I ever got tricked into! And to even think for a second that it was actually NOMINATED for any other award than "crappier film of the decade"...
The story gives cliché a bad name. The dialog is so poor and so boring that "less worse" lines sound almost fine. The movie had such a low budget that they used the same room for most of the scenes, and I am pretty sure they decided to give all the money to hire actors to Christopher Lee, so that they had to ask the technicians to play the other parts. Furthermore, aside from the wife at the very beginning, all women roles are played by transvestites, which adds to the real ridicule of the film. The quality is overall very poor, and obviously they did not think of buying a few spots to make scenes clear for the viewer. The costumes look like they've been stolen from some poor bums, except from the black lady (???) who comes straight from "Hair".
If you ever had the weird idea to watch this movie, just stop right now. This is for your own sake.
The story gives cliché a bad name. The dialog is so poor and so boring that "less worse" lines sound almost fine. The movie had such a low budget that they used the same room for most of the scenes, and I am pretty sure they decided to give all the money to hire actors to Christopher Lee, so that they had to ask the technicians to play the other parts. Furthermore, aside from the wife at the very beginning, all women roles are played by transvestites, which adds to the real ridicule of the film. The quality is overall very poor, and obviously they did not think of buying a few spots to make scenes clear for the viewer. The costumes look like they've been stolen from some poor bums, except from the black lady (???) who comes straight from "Hair".
If you ever had the weird idea to watch this movie, just stop right now. This is for your own sake.
Takes lowbrow comedy to new levels of idiocy
Leofwine_draca20 July 2016
Not in the least bit funny, this comedy horror was, although it breaks my heart to say it, made in Britain, and, although it pains my very soul to admit it, stars Christopher Lee. Oh how the mighty have fallen. Poor old Lee, we can't blame him for appearing in these things though; everyone needs to make a living, after all.
The "plot" is a retread of a typical American slasher film of the 1980s, with a group of people in a mansion being bumped off by a psycho killer dressed as 'Punch' from Punch and Judy who offers us the worst one-liners you will ever hear in the history of comedy. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger's wince-inducing puns in BATMAN AND ROBIN come nowhere close to the obnoxious stupidity of the material on offer here.
For me, the film falls flat in every sense. The characters are all ridiculously unfunny, the deaths are simply stupid, the comedy doesn't work and there is no horror. Luckily Christopher Lee doesn't have much screen time to embarrass himself. The film does try, but it's just all downhill from the start. The opening scene is actually quite good, where Lee is engaged in a card game and loses everything to a joker in the pack ("You're a funny man, but I've met funnier" is his simple reply). But switch off straight after it finishes, or you're in for one of the worst times of your life.
The "plot" is a retread of a typical American slasher film of the 1980s, with a group of people in a mansion being bumped off by a psycho killer dressed as 'Punch' from Punch and Judy who offers us the worst one-liners you will ever hear in the history of comedy. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger's wince-inducing puns in BATMAN AND ROBIN come nowhere close to the obnoxious stupidity of the material on offer here.
For me, the film falls flat in every sense. The characters are all ridiculously unfunny, the deaths are simply stupid, the comedy doesn't work and there is no horror. Luckily Christopher Lee doesn't have much screen time to embarrass himself. The film does try, but it's just all downhill from the start. The opening scene is actually quite good, where Lee is engaged in a card game and loses everything to a joker in the pack ("You're a funny man, but I've met funnier" is his simple reply). But switch off straight after it finishes, or you're in for one of the worst times of your life.
Monstrously bad, so goddamn bad it's bad!!
Foreverisacastironmess1235 February 2021
Are the people that actually claim to love this piece of Schmidt having a laugh? It's painfully awkward and amateur garbage to sit through right from the beginning, I found it so very bad it was embarrassing to watch! It was just amateur hour, the scenes didn't even feel like movie scenes that connected and led up to something, just shoddily done interactions and lame overly-stretched out deaths scenes, it was just so bad I can't believe it, how?! And I totally get the point it's meant to be bad right? Well newsflash even that crutch has its limits. Do you have to be in a state of heavy inebriation or in the thrall of hard drugs to 'get' and actually love this monstrosity?? The jester was beyond terrible, he was just annoying, he was like a drunk entertainer at a wedding just putting everyone on edge, the most irritating person in the movie by far, just an idiot in a decent costume mugging his way through his scenes, and the dull broadness of his accent clashed horribly with his getup, and I'm British and I understood every word spoken and in my book this movie and it's use of 'British humour', is an insult of all brits everywhere! Oh my Lord the late Christopher Lee must have really needed whatever little money he got from his role, you can see the contempt in his weathered old reptile eyes in his few scenes where he's the only real thespian on display effortlessly outshining everyone else in the room just by his stately hard eyed stare alone and he knows it. I never so much as heard of this and I'm so glad that I was spared knowledge of such a reject until now, because it's definitely one of the most hardcore bad movies I've seen recently, it's a lesion, a screaming boil of oozing cinematic pestilence that is deservedly largely forgotten by most and is most assuredly never going to be any kind of classic. Relentlessly terrible, painful to sit through, awkward and a disgraceful inept display of woefully bad filmmaking that is definitely not fun and not Funny! Pukesome!!
An outrageous English horror film with a difference
Afracious4 October 2000
Disregard the many negative reviews of this film below. It is actually an odd little hidden gem. The story is about a man who wins a card game against Christopher Lee, who then gives him his large old house. The man moves into the house with his family, and they soon discover a sinister jester who resides there, the Funnyman.
This pesky little guy kills people in different ways; some of them are outrageously gory and over the top, and a little bit like Sam Raimi's The Evil Dead. The joker also speaks in a variety of British accents, and takes on different personas, such as a club owner, a footballer, and a few other weird guises.
The film is low budget and very English, and may not appeal to overseas audiences; but it's a worthy effort considering its budget. If you want a horror film with comical gory scenes, dark humour, sprinkles of English silliness, and something different, check out the Funnyman. You might like it.
This pesky little guy kills people in different ways; some of them are outrageously gory and over the top, and a little bit like Sam Raimi's The Evil Dead. The joker also speaks in a variety of British accents, and takes on different personas, such as a club owner, a footballer, and a few other weird guises.
The film is low budget and very English, and may not appeal to overseas audiences; but it's a worthy effort considering its budget. If you want a horror film with comical gory scenes, dark humour, sprinkles of English silliness, and something different, check out the Funnyman. You might like it.
Painfully bad
Skutter-223 April 2005
An awful, nearly impossible to watch and deservedly obscure piece of excrement. There us nothing more tedious and hard to sit through than bad comedy and this film is a perfect example of that. The whole victims die by some ironic means of death somehow appropriate to whatever personality traits they have displayed (Usually just the one, as with most movies of this ilk the characters are completely one dimensional) shtick was old a long time before this film was made. Still, it trots out that routine without any real originality, skill, wit or aplomb as the various annoying characters are killed one by one. The funny man the films half arsed British attempt at a Freddy Kruger type character is pretty lame and none of his jokes are remotely funny.
With type of movie the individual scenes can sometimes be amusing even if there is only enough plot to provide a pretext for a series of killings (This film doesn't even go that far, stuff just happens) but they are all so badly staged, nonsensical and at times incoherent that they are hard to sit through. Most the scenes are needlessly protracted and are like a long, rambling joke with a bad punch line that would have been disappointing if the joke had been a quarter the length. Some of the stuff in the movie, like the bits with the Jamaican voodoo woman, or whatever the hell she was supposed to be, going underneath he house were almost entertaining in a WTF kind of way but again it was all so tediously protracted and badly staged that I was just waiting for it to end.
I like to watch bad horror movies and whimsical over the top humour, which I gather this movie was trying for but this movie was a train wreck. Just because something isn't meant to be taken seriously doesn't mean it can't be crap.
With type of movie the individual scenes can sometimes be amusing even if there is only enough plot to provide a pretext for a series of killings (This film doesn't even go that far, stuff just happens) but they are all so badly staged, nonsensical and at times incoherent that they are hard to sit through. Most the scenes are needlessly protracted and are like a long, rambling joke with a bad punch line that would have been disappointing if the joke had been a quarter the length. Some of the stuff in the movie, like the bits with the Jamaican voodoo woman, or whatever the hell she was supposed to be, going underneath he house were almost entertaining in a WTF kind of way but again it was all so tediously protracted and badly staged that I was just waiting for it to end.
I like to watch bad horror movies and whimsical over the top humour, which I gather this movie was trying for but this movie was a train wreck. Just because something isn't meant to be taken seriously doesn't mean it can't be crap.
Ignore the bad reviews- They're missing the point!
kasimpeter-128 May 2006
The heavy-handed criticism levelled at this film by certain reviewers is mostly irrelevant. This film has merit far-beyond being a simple Freddy Krueger rip-off and is not , i suspect, intended to be that scary. It's British humour of the highest order, and along with this comes the sad inevitability that it will alienate many international viewers. The direction and acting is, for the most part, spot-on, don't confuse this with the crude and meaningless no-talent b-movie drivel that has come to typify the genre. Sure, it's low budget, and it's certainly shallow in the plot department, but the film is all the more charming for such "shortcomings", with a brilliantly hilarious and understated script and production values which clearly display a labour of love on the filmmaker's part. I sincerely urge anyone who has a taste for British humour to investigate. If, like many of the critics here, you don't "get it", then you simply won't, but if you do, you will absolutely adore this film.
Brilliant and Underated
Fenris Fil26 January 2004
I was suprised to see how low this film has rated. I guess it's been watched by a lot of people that either don't like horror at all or are too caught up in a particular genre to get this.
It's very tounge in cheek, which many simple people won't get. However it has the distinction of being one of the few horror comedies around that is both funny and eerie/disturbing.
The Thelma (from scoobie doo) character was hilarious, especially when she died, and I couldn't help but think of that when that awful Scoobie doo film came out. They should have hired the woman from funny man.
The relation between Christopher Lee's character and the fates of those in the house reminded me a lot of Hammer Horror. But then you can probably drop Chris Lee into any cheap horror and immediately raise the standard. His minor involvement worked for me. Tim James was brilliant as the killer. His Yorkshire accent along with some of his lines had me convinved it was Shawn Bean right up until the end credits. He is the kind of movie bad guy that you could see spawning endless sequels, and while he may not be on the level of a Fred Krueger he's way above the level of a Chucky.
The effects, the set and the sound track are all quite cheap, but you don't need a big budget to make a good movie and this demonstrates that.
It's very tounge in cheek, which many simple people won't get. However it has the distinction of being one of the few horror comedies around that is both funny and eerie/disturbing.
The Thelma (from scoobie doo) character was hilarious, especially when she died, and I couldn't help but think of that when that awful Scoobie doo film came out. They should have hired the woman from funny man.
The relation between Christopher Lee's character and the fates of those in the house reminded me a lot of Hammer Horror. But then you can probably drop Chris Lee into any cheap horror and immediately raise the standard. His minor involvement worked for me. Tim James was brilliant as the killer. His Yorkshire accent along with some of his lines had me convinved it was Shawn Bean right up until the end credits. He is the kind of movie bad guy that you could see spawning endless sequels, and while he may not be on the level of a Fred Krueger he's way above the level of a Chucky.
The effects, the set and the sound track are all quite cheap, but you don't need a big budget to make a good movie and this demonstrates that.
Less is gore.
archer758 October 2006
This film needed polishing. It just never seems to get going. although maybe that is the point. I would have preferred to have some deeper explanation than Christopher Lee playing cards in an asylum.
The victims are so stupid, it could have been set in Troma land. I would have hoped that the victims would at least put up a fight and not just sit / stand there and take it. We don't care about the victims (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Unfortunately, there is little encouragement to side with the Jester and we are merely observers in someone's wandering vision.
In 10 years time, maybe someone will remake it and put more emphasis behind the ideas and give the film some impetus.
The victims are so stupid, it could have been set in Troma land. I would have hoped that the victims would at least put up a fight and not just sit / stand there and take it. We don't care about the victims (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Unfortunately, there is little encouragement to side with the Jester and we are merely observers in someone's wandering vision.
In 10 years time, maybe someone will remake it and put more emphasis behind the ideas and give the film some impetus.
Praise for the movie. Rating of movie.
Steve-20511 October 1998
Run, don't walk, away from this one!
Bobo-4317 May 1999
A little prelude, some friends and I were wandering around the video store, spotted this movie, and picked it up, thinking it would be one of the "so bad it's funny" sort of movies that the horror genre is famous for. It's not. The plot is so flimsy that it's evident that it was added as an afterthought to justify all of the killing. That's fine, pretty common, in fact. However, they don't get away with it because, as a british film, all of the actors have very thick british accents. It's made worse by the fact that the actors are also mumbling about half their lines, making the whole thing utterly incomprehensible to non-UK viewers. All in all, this one really qualifies in the "I can't believe I threw away irreplacable hours of my life for this" category.
The worst!
jaibo19 April 2000
This is probably the worst film I have ever seen - an insultingly unfunny, atrociously acted, incompetently made mess which is by turns irritating, boring and offensive. The Funny Man himself is simply the most pathetic "monster" in the history of the movies - not frightening but eminently punchable. Steer well clear!
yes
dreweaston12 August 2017
I was good enough to give Simon and his motley crew a grounding at Tollcross Community Centre in Edinburgh to make the trailer for a spoof Bond movie, "A view to a Shandy", in the 1980s, which turned out to be a load of rubbish like this film. Simon has admirable leadership skills but fails to realise that his writing and directing abilities fall far short of what is required to be successful in the film industry.
Barry Norman was right. And if Simon had not annoyed Barry so much at the Cannes Film Festival, he may have been less acerbic regarding what he described as one of the worse film.
Typical Simon. Suicidal anti-critical baloney. The film was crap, Simon. The Police Sergeant in "Doctors" actually got a line from another character, "You are a 'funny man'". That, perhaps, was the closest you got to success. And you never said thanks, Drew.
And Pauline still owes me a tenner. If she is still with you and still worried about you cutting your scrotum until it bleeds (and she held tightly onto me as you did that in public at night club "gastallweekendo") , tell her she still owes me £6.45, plus interest. ie a tenner.
Funny Man is a load of rubbish.
Simon, I wish you had allowed your real strengths to trust others to decide what was best. You lost sight of your own abilities and became confused. You were never a creative person. You were a leader. Like your father.
Sorry to say all that. I really liked you Simon but you never really liked yourself. That was clear.
Barry Norman was right. And if Simon had not annoyed Barry so much at the Cannes Film Festival, he may have been less acerbic regarding what he described as one of the worse film.
Typical Simon. Suicidal anti-critical baloney. The film was crap, Simon. The Police Sergeant in "Doctors" actually got a line from another character, "You are a 'funny man'". That, perhaps, was the closest you got to success. And you never said thanks, Drew.
And Pauline still owes me a tenner. If she is still with you and still worried about you cutting your scrotum until it bleeds (and she held tightly onto me as you did that in public at night club "gastallweekendo") , tell her she still owes me £6.45, plus interest. ie a tenner.
Funny Man is a load of rubbish.
Simon, I wish you had allowed your real strengths to trust others to decide what was best. You lost sight of your own abilities and became confused. You were never a creative person. You were a leader. Like your father.
Sorry to say all that. I really liked you Simon but you never really liked yourself. That was clear.
Not particularly funny or memorable.
planktonrules24 April 2024
If you like seeing people brutally murdered, then this film is for you. Otherwise...avoid it.
The story begins with a high stakes poker game. Callum seems so certain he'll win a hand that he offers his British mansion. His bid is accepted...and Callum soon loses. Considering he only had a pair of 7s, it sure seems as if he was trying to lose...and through the course of the movie, this appears to be the case.
Soon all sorts of jerks show up at this mansion and one by one, they are murdered brutally by a guy who looks like a live joker from a deck of cards. Some of it is mildly amusing...but considering you are supposed to laugh at people being mutilated, after a while I felt dirty watching it and just turned it off. Life is too short to watch violent AND horribly made films.
About the only positives I can say about the film is the joker costume and makeup are very good for a super low budgeted movie. Otherwise, it's artless and cruel.
By the way, although he received second billing, Christopher Lee apparently did all his filming in one day. Perhaps this is why he agreed to be in this sort of production.
The story begins with a high stakes poker game. Callum seems so certain he'll win a hand that he offers his British mansion. His bid is accepted...and Callum soon loses. Considering he only had a pair of 7s, it sure seems as if he was trying to lose...and through the course of the movie, this appears to be the case.
Soon all sorts of jerks show up at this mansion and one by one, they are murdered brutally by a guy who looks like a live joker from a deck of cards. Some of it is mildly amusing...but considering you are supposed to laugh at people being mutilated, after a while I felt dirty watching it and just turned it off. Life is too short to watch violent AND horribly made films.
About the only positives I can say about the film is the joker costume and makeup are very good for a super low budgeted movie. Otherwise, it's artless and cruel.
By the way, although he received second billing, Christopher Lee apparently did all his filming in one day. Perhaps this is why he agreed to be in this sort of production.
Wild!
BandSAboutMovies19 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Max Taylor wins the ancestral home of Callum Chance (Christopher Lee!) in a game of poker, the multiple games of chance are just beginning. Chance - yes, I realize the punny here - tells him not to move into the home, so of course he ignores it and spins a wheel that unlocks the Funny Man, a demon that somehow can break the fourth wall and address us, the audience, which may be something out of British theater but is definitely something out of the book of Freddy.
That said - this movie looks and feels wild. It's like director and writer Simon Sprackling (who has directed documentaries on Linda Hayden, Judy Geeson and The Blood On Satan's Claw) somehow wanted to answer the question, "What if David Lynch directed a slasher?"
I mean, this movie is just wild. The Funny Man can show up at any moment, break the actual reality of the movie, do a music number and then kill a child by offering them a Game Boy before hooking her head up to jumper cables. Also, one character is obviously dressed as Velma from Scooby -Doo and to hammer that point home is also named Velma.
Supposedly, this movie was made under the influence and gradually became improvised. It shows, but that shouldn't make you avoid it. I really haven't seen a movie just go for it in awhile like this one. Hunt it down and be surprised.
That said - this movie looks and feels wild. It's like director and writer Simon Sprackling (who has directed documentaries on Linda Hayden, Judy Geeson and The Blood On Satan's Claw) somehow wanted to answer the question, "What if David Lynch directed a slasher?"
I mean, this movie is just wild. The Funny Man can show up at any moment, break the actual reality of the movie, do a music number and then kill a child by offering them a Game Boy before hooking her head up to jumper cables. Also, one character is obviously dressed as Velma from Scooby -Doo and to hammer that point home is also named Velma.
Supposedly, this movie was made under the influence and gradually became improvised. It shows, but that shouldn't make you avoid it. I really haven't seen a movie just go for it in awhile like this one. Hunt it down and be surprised.
"I've seen amputees with better hands than this." I quite liked it actually.
poolandrews11 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Funny Man starts as Max Taylor (Benny young) & his mates are playing poker, serious poker for serious stakes. One of the other players Callum Chance (Christopher Lee) runs out of cash so puts up his English ancestral home worth about £1 million & promptly loses it. Max, his wife Tina (Ingrid Lacey) & children Harry (Harry Heard) & Jammie (Jamie Heard) pitch up there one night to check it out & wait for his brother Johnny (Matthew Devitt) who is driving there along with a load of weird hitchhikers to drop some of Max's stuff off to store there. However once there Max & his family are terrorised by a strange demonic Jester known as the Funny Man (co-producer Tim James) who comes from a place called Sod's Law, the Funny Man twists the things that people say & use it to come up with cruel & unusual ways to kill them. I have no idea why though...
This English production (this is the sort of thing which makes me proud to call myself an Englishman...) was written & directed by Simon Sprackling & without quite knowing why I rather liked it for what it was. I should also say that according to the IMDb's 'Alternate Versions' section Funny Man was cut for a US 'R' rating & that I definitely watched the longer uncut version complete with the brains shooting out of the girls head, so bear that in mind. The script for Funny Man is a strange one & I don't quite know what to make of it, there's little in the way of story & it has a habit of switching tone from straight horror to comedy to slapstick to deadpan humour to downright crudeness & it's frankly weird at times & there's even enough time for it to be a musical as well but I thought it all came together rather well to create an enjoyable comedy horror that never takes itself seriously, it moves along like a rocket so it's never dull or boring & I actually found it quietly amusing at times although I think you will need a slightly twisted sense of humour to get the most out of it, I'm not sure what that says about me... The best way I can describe Funny Man is to liken it to a comedy sketch show where the Funny Man creates little mini films within the overall film to dispatch his victims in a ironic & gory way, yeah I'd call it the first horror orientated comedy sketch film that I've seen & for what it is & what it tries to be I found it good fun & good entertainment.
Director Sprackling does a good job, I don't think I've seen another film quite like it. The Funny Man (who lives in a place called Sod's Law, nice touch) looks like an ugly Jester although he occasionally changes outfits & he regularly turns to the camera & 'talks' to the audience a bit like a stand up comedian. I have no idea why there is a character in this who is obviously modelled on Velma from Scooby-Doo, here called Thelma. I'd imagine the gore is probably restrained in the cut American version but here in the UK it's always been uncut with such delights as decapitated heads, brains blown out, the top of some guys head is blown off & there's a nice shot of him on the floor twitching with the top half of his head missing spurting blood, the Funny Man burrows through someones stomach, he sticks a stiletto heel in someones eye, someone is battered to death with a baseball bat & more.
With a supposed budget of about £1,000,000 Funny Man is well made with good production values although the film takes place almost entirely with the confines of one house. Some of the special effects aren't that great but they'll do considering. The acting is OK & there are one or two pretty funny performances here, while looking at the credits list on the IMDb I noticed one listed for 'Crap Puppeteer' & I must admit I'm struggling to know who this refers too... Arsenal football club fans should note that ex-striker Ian Wright makes a voice cameo. For about two lines of dialogue.
I was surprised about how much I liked Funny Man, it has a certain style & originality. This definitely isn't just another boring slasher & the attempted start of a soulless franchise, I personally think there's more to Funny Man than that. Not everything works, not everything is funny in it but it certainly gets points for effort & enthusiasm, not bad at all & if you like your horror light & mixed with laughs then you could do a hell of a lot worse than Funny Man you really could...
This English production (this is the sort of thing which makes me proud to call myself an Englishman...) was written & directed by Simon Sprackling & without quite knowing why I rather liked it for what it was. I should also say that according to the IMDb's 'Alternate Versions' section Funny Man was cut for a US 'R' rating & that I definitely watched the longer uncut version complete with the brains shooting out of the girls head, so bear that in mind. The script for Funny Man is a strange one & I don't quite know what to make of it, there's little in the way of story & it has a habit of switching tone from straight horror to comedy to slapstick to deadpan humour to downright crudeness & it's frankly weird at times & there's even enough time for it to be a musical as well but I thought it all came together rather well to create an enjoyable comedy horror that never takes itself seriously, it moves along like a rocket so it's never dull or boring & I actually found it quietly amusing at times although I think you will need a slightly twisted sense of humour to get the most out of it, I'm not sure what that says about me... The best way I can describe Funny Man is to liken it to a comedy sketch show where the Funny Man creates little mini films within the overall film to dispatch his victims in a ironic & gory way, yeah I'd call it the first horror orientated comedy sketch film that I've seen & for what it is & what it tries to be I found it good fun & good entertainment.
Director Sprackling does a good job, I don't think I've seen another film quite like it. The Funny Man (who lives in a place called Sod's Law, nice touch) looks like an ugly Jester although he occasionally changes outfits & he regularly turns to the camera & 'talks' to the audience a bit like a stand up comedian. I have no idea why there is a character in this who is obviously modelled on Velma from Scooby-Doo, here called Thelma. I'd imagine the gore is probably restrained in the cut American version but here in the UK it's always been uncut with such delights as decapitated heads, brains blown out, the top of some guys head is blown off & there's a nice shot of him on the floor twitching with the top half of his head missing spurting blood, the Funny Man burrows through someones stomach, he sticks a stiletto heel in someones eye, someone is battered to death with a baseball bat & more.
With a supposed budget of about £1,000,000 Funny Man is well made with good production values although the film takes place almost entirely with the confines of one house. Some of the special effects aren't that great but they'll do considering. The acting is OK & there are one or two pretty funny performances here, while looking at the credits list on the IMDb I noticed one listed for 'Crap Puppeteer' & I must admit I'm struggling to know who this refers too... Arsenal football club fans should note that ex-striker Ian Wright makes a voice cameo. For about two lines of dialogue.
I was surprised about how much I liked Funny Man, it has a certain style & originality. This definitely isn't just another boring slasher & the attempted start of a soulless franchise, I personally think there's more to Funny Man than that. Not everything works, not everything is funny in it but it certainly gets points for effort & enthusiasm, not bad at all & if you like your horror light & mixed with laughs then you could do a hell of a lot worse than Funny Man you really could...
Self-indulgent tripe
shill-7760011 December 2021
Being very generous, this movie has its moments, but that's all they are - moments - and they don't really work that well here. In a different film, yes, but this is too much of an incoherent mess with no discernible narrative. Each scene is basically a stand-alone vignette with no purpose in the overall scheme.
The humour is something akin to 'Viz does Tales From the Dark Side' and, again, has its moments but personally I didn't find any of it funny. This is the kind of film to watch when you're in your teens or twenties with mates, after a heavy night at the pub, just for a drunken laugh. Certainly not one a serious cinephile (or humourist) should watch expecting to find anything of any interest.
According to the Trivia below, the crew were basically off their heads when they made this, and it shows. What they created was self-indulgent rubbish which would have seemed good to them at the time but has absolutely nothing for most of the rest of us, although it's probably a very good example for film students of how NOT to make a movie.
The humour is something akin to 'Viz does Tales From the Dark Side' and, again, has its moments but personally I didn't find any of it funny. This is the kind of film to watch when you're in your teens or twenties with mates, after a heavy night at the pub, just for a drunken laugh. Certainly not one a serious cinephile (or humourist) should watch expecting to find anything of any interest.
According to the Trivia below, the crew were basically off their heads when they made this, and it shows. What they created was self-indulgent rubbish which would have seemed good to them at the time but has absolutely nothing for most of the rest of us, although it's probably a very good example for film students of how NOT to make a movie.
Great film, rather strange, but worth watching
rhoaste1 July 2004
After winning the huge mansion and family air loom from Callum Chance, Max has a new 'friend' to deal with in his life. The Funny Man is the Joker from the pack, a demon out to get Max, his family and friends once and for all
it's payback time.
This movie is a tongue in cheek cult horror/comedy made on a shoe-string budget. Despite this constraint, Simon Sprackling (director and producer), has done some excellent work. The story line is whacky, the special effects a little to be desired, and the characters are extremely strange. Some of the scenes are very surreal, and there are a number of class one liners in this film, which will only really gel if you have a British sense of humour.
The result is well worth watching, particularly if you have a strange film fetish, as I do.
This movie is a tongue in cheek cult horror/comedy made on a shoe-string budget. Despite this constraint, Simon Sprackling (director and producer), has done some excellent work. The story line is whacky, the special effects a little to be desired, and the characters are extremely strange. Some of the scenes are very surreal, and there are a number of class one liners in this film, which will only really gel if you have a British sense of humour.
The result is well worth watching, particularly if you have a strange film fetish, as I do.
An agreeable mess!!
rocknrelics1 May 2020
Looking like an elongated music video, Funnyman has a fair bit going for it, but then there are elements that drag it right down. It's not coherent, things happen for seemingly no reason, but you can't help but love it, especially if you like the British sense of humour, if you don't you'll wonder what on earth Funny Man is going on about. The gore is done in a comedic fashion, not an offensive way, and there are some genuinely funny scenes. Maybe it's one of those films that makes more sense with a little ermmm...assistance?? I recommend you see it at least once to make your own mind up, you might hate it, but equally you might love it.
Interesting Background Note
ian_powell13 January 2002
I met the producer of this film, just before it was shot. Interestingly a ten minute version was shot with a slightly different cast in order to raise money for the feature and was (in my humble opinion) much better. it contained a number of ideas that were dropped for the feature length version. originally this first ten minutes was to be incorporated into the final film, but because it was shot in a different format it couldn't be.
I think the film makers heart was in the right place. The film was always intended as a horror movie that celebrated laddish humour and it is maybe this that undid it. It has to be said a large amount of effort was put into this on a low budget.
To those who talk about a British Horror revival....I think it will only happen when someone comes along who treats horror seriously. It is interesting that practically the only good Brit horror since The Wicker Man and Don't Look Now is Hellraiser (now some 15 years old) + the work of Phillip Ridley
I think the film makers heart was in the right place. The film was always intended as a horror movie that celebrated laddish humour and it is maybe this that undid it. It has to be said a large amount of effort was put into this on a low budget.
To those who talk about a British Horror revival....I think it will only happen when someone comes along who treats horror seriously. It is interesting that practically the only good Brit horror since The Wicker Man and Don't Look Now is Hellraiser (now some 15 years old) + the work of Phillip Ridley
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
