Chris Rock's Death at a Funeral Urban Remake Trailer Debut
Okay, I'm admittedly a little bias. Death at a Funeral, the original Frank Oz version, is one of my favorite comedies. I was one of the first people to see it at its world premiere and supported it all the way through its release. Somehow, Chris Rock got his hands on the remake rights, and in no time whipped out a terrible remake. So here we have the "urban" version of Death at a Funeral starring Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence, Tracy Morgan, Danny Glover, James Marsden, Luke Wilson, and the beautiful Zoe Saldana. The only funny part about this is that they re-used Peter Dinklage, who starred in the original, in the same exact role again.
Watch the official trailer for Chris Rock's Death at a Funeral:
You can also watch the Death at a Funeral trailer in High Definition on Yahoo
A small funeral ceremony turns into a comedic debacle of exposed family secrets and misplaced cadavers.
Death at a Funeral is directed by Neil LaBute, of In the Company of Men, The Shape of Things, The Wicker Man, and Lakeview Terrace previously. The screenplay was written by Dean Craig, of Dirty Little Secrets, Caffeine, and the original Death at a Funeral was well. This is a remake of Frank Oz's film from 2007 of the same name. Sony is now bringing Death at a Funeral to theaters everywhere starting on April 16th, 2010.
Aw shucks. I really did like the original.
Will Dearborn on Dec 4, 2009
i think this look mildly funny.
douglas paul on Dec 4, 2009
this looks funny
OCP on Dec 4, 2009
I loved the original and I really like the cast of the remake so I'm looking forward to it.
Black Jesus on Dec 4, 2009
This is wrong on SO MANY LEVELS! It may be mildly amusing, but the original FROM TWO YEARS AGO was hysterical. Sigh.
LizzieJ on Dec 4, 2009
hahahahaha WHAT THE FU*&K!! It's pretty much exactly the same, but worse. PLEASE if you haven't seen the REAL death at funeral watch that instead of this. Chris Rock must be running out of the funny or something....sad indeed.
rblitz7 on Dec 4, 2009
This looks funny as shit. Whatever man.
Tristan on Dec 4, 2009
I can't believe Peter Dinklage gets to reprise his own role for the remake... this just feels incestuous.
Opiated Sherpa on Dec 4, 2009
Damn, that's unfortunate. I will see it, cause the original was one of my favorite comedies, too. But damn... There really isn't much else there beside an increase in slapstick humor.
Mark on Dec 4, 2009
Possibly one of the most unfunny trailers i've seen in years. I'm not the biggest fan of the original but jesus this just takes the p**s.
spect8re on Dec 4, 2009
okay pros: Luke Wilson, Zoe Saldana, James Marsden, Danny Glover, Peter Dinklage, Columbus Short and Kevin Hart. Cons: All the other cast. re-did a good story and highly unfunny.
Xerxex on Dec 4, 2009
I laughed... a little.
K on Dec 4, 2009
One reason I would watch and one reason only. Zoe Saldana. That's it. Cyclops on drugs. Now that's funny!
Typhoon on Dec 4, 2009
....wait a second...I thought this was funny...but I also relieved that's because it is EXACTLY what happened in the original!!!!
Lolly on Dec 4, 2009
I want Hollywood to start making remakes of trailers of films that haven't even came out yet, then they can get all the trailers together on a tv show and the public can vote for which version of the remake/reboot should be made. If your listening Hollywood, it was a joke, get off the phone to Simon Cowell. Saying that, I'd watch this nonsense, I haven't seen the original, but still 2 years, what thaaaaa faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack.
Crapola on Dec 4, 2009
i prefer the british. but ill watch this.... when it leaks on the web
mrmr on Dec 4, 2009
Seems kinda funny. I'll watch it on HBO
Brian on Dec 4, 2009
This is the same exact thing as the original, only not as funny. I love Tracey Morgan though.
Al on Dec 4, 2009
So Alex has a problem with a remake that's "urban"...
Dude on Dec 4, 2009
I'm not going to lie, I laughed at Tracy Morgan and Chris Rock didn't seem THAT bad. But it seems like they're just re-doing the exact same thing just with a different cast (kind of...) I thought the original was good as is. I can say this though, At least Tyler Perry isn't in it.
Jesse Gouldsbury on Dec 4, 2009
Uh, wow, I guess you can give them credit for one thing. When they said "remake", they really took it to heart and literally "remade" the entire film shot per shot it looks like. I guess the question is "If they are going to make a remake, would you rather them purposefully change stuff for the sake of changing stuff, or stay true to the original?"
Marty Martin on Dec 4, 2009
What the fuck?! I like how the only thing they did to remake this amazing comedy was change the language of the script to have black vernacular and slang. Maybe they'll make a latino version with George Lopez, Cheech and Chong, and Paul Rodriguez if Chris Rock's movie makes money.
Hien on Dec 4, 2009
The only good thing I see about this film is Peter Dinklage who is just awesome.
Derek on Dec 4, 2009
This Was Remade Even In Hindi Also India As "Daddy Cool" You Can See The Picture http://mimg.sulekha.com/hindi/daddy-cool/Wallpaper/1024-768/daddy-cool-wallpapers03.jpg The Film Was Dud As Expected Because You Guys Know. So I Dont Think This One Make A Good Remake As Well 🙁
Ben on Dec 4, 2009
For everyone who thinks this looks even mildly funny, you must not have seen the original. The original was one of the best comedies of the past 10 years, and this move rips it off it just about every way. Some of the lines are EXACTLY the same and aren't nearly as funny. Is Chris Rock/Martin Lawrence/Tracy Morgan that bad or are the British actors from the original just that good? I think it's a combo of both. Please boycott this trash and watch the original. Sadly, this will probably make double what the British version made. Ugh. The worst part is James Marsden trying to take on Alan Tudyk's role. Tudyk was brilliant, you can't replicate his performance. Not saying James Marsden isn't a good actor, but it's just sad seeing him try and be as funny.
Steven on Dec 4, 2009
Why do people remake good movies? It's one thing to redo good films from the fifties that require some special effects, which still are hated, but remaking a film made two years ago? Why can't good films be left alone? I hate Chris Rock for this. I liked him once but I can't look at him the same after this monstrosity.
David on Dec 4, 2009
WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF Come on Chris Rock, seriously..... Unless your goal is to get people to watch the original this is way off base. The original was fine and this one will not be half as funny. UUUGGGHHHHHH. Disgrace!
Matthew Hansen on Dec 5, 2009
This is really the exact same thing as the original, it is just stupid to make a remake right now. wait ten or twenty years then make an exact remake.
Dave on Dec 5, 2009
"I was one of the first people to see it at its world premiere" I bet that impresses the girls.
loci on Dec 5, 2009
This looks like shit. The original was OK, but not super and I "was not one of the first people to see it at its world premiere"
ryderup on Dec 5, 2009
To # 22 ,There is always ''one '' for racialized the debat, anyway this looks good, I 'm in...
melv on Dec 5, 2009
oh look, another crappy remake. this (like all remakes) shouldn't have been done. they're never as good as the original movies.
beavis on Dec 5, 2009
Shocking. Shockingly shit. The original was GREAT. Cant believe they just took the original trailer, added more slapstick, and chucked in the racist jokes.
Marcus on Dec 5, 2009
I hate slapstick and I hate Chris Rock. The trailer, undoubtedly, holds the funniest moments in the film.
Collin on Dec 5, 2009
i love "death at a funeral" (the original)..there was no need for a remake
frantzy on Dec 5, 2009
Seriously? Let's remake Friday with Jonah Hill and Michael Cera. What the fuck.
Brian Ricci on Dec 5, 2009
I stopped reading at Wicker Man...If the guy who created that has anything to do with this than we know it will be awful.
peloquin on Dec 5, 2009
Y'know, I might understand the need to remake "Death at a Funeral" if they were going to add something to it. They haven't. Like, nothing at all. Even the preview looks almost identical to the trailer for the original. I wonder if they'll start shooting movies with casts of different ethnicities soon. So when a movie comes out, you'll have the choice of seeing the black version, the white version, the asian version, the latino version....
Gill on Dec 5, 2009
some of you people make me laugh the original is always will be there this movie wont effect the original at all. also Death at a funeral been remake before with a whole Indian casted. it was called "Daddy Cool" starring Sunil Shetty, Aashish Chaudhary and Rajpal Yadav. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daddy_Cool_%282009_Hindi_film%29 Alex what you mean "Urban" i guess you linking Urban for "African-American" version of Death at a Funeral. i wonder what you call the Indian version of Death at a Funeral known as Daddy Cool.
Tony_D on Dec 5, 2009
@Gill Death at a Funeral - they had different ethnic casting for Death at a Funeral. - Death at a Funeral (2007 Original): White British actors - Daddy Cool (2009 Bollywood remake of Death at a funeral): Indian (Asian) actors - Death at a Funeral (2009 Remake): African American actors
tazz on Dec 5, 2009
some of you people make me laugh the original is always will be there this movie wont effect the original at all. also Death at a funeral been remake before with a whole Indian casted. it was called "Daddy Cool" starring Sunil Shetty, Aashish Chaudhary and Rajpal Yadav. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daddy_Cool_%282009_Hindi_film%29
Tony_D on Dec 5, 2009
OMG. I don't care what anyone else says, I'm seeing this, cause I was on the verge of tears with Jimmy on drugs. XDD
Lar on Dec 5, 2009
I do like this it funny with Chris Rock, Martin Lawrance, Danny Glover... Death at a Funeral just be a laugh. 🙂
Cineprog on Dec 5, 2009
@Tazz I know they've done "Death at a Funeral" three times already, each time with a different cast. What I meant was that, at this rate, we might soon see the same movie being released with many differeny cast ethnicities all at the same time. Kind of like what they did with the 1931 version of Dracula: the shot it twice on the same sets, once with Bela Lugosi and the english cast, and once with a Spanish cast. Two versions of the same movie came out at the same time. With "Death at a Funeral" being only three years old, soon there won't be any time at all between remakes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8txyRhZ-o9c
Gill on Dec 5, 2009
I honestly don't think this version will "taint" the original at all. What confuses me most is that it just seems so needless. Nothing has been added except some slapstick and some racial jokes. In fact, isn't it odd that this version seems to have more race-based jokes than the original? Making the body in the coffin at the beginning Asian totally kills the joke of the bodies being switched. I mean, who would really think that the Asian guy in the coffin was Chris Rock's dad?
Gill on Dec 5, 2009
There aren't any words to adequatley describe what I'm feeling right now other than WHAT THE F%#@
risk on Dec 5, 2009
@Gill the dead Asian guy in the coffin at the beginning does not totally kills the joke of the bodies being switched. its still funny seeing Chris Rock a black man just found out that his father body been switched. the racial jokes is part of the humor for this movie it tackles the interacial relationship, homosexuality in the black community, etc. your reading into this too much cause you like original if you watch the movie it might be a bit different. if the movie does sucks at least you can go back to the original and be happy they did not ruin the original. anyway you should not be shocked cause Hollywood always take a British show or movie and remake it i.e. original version of The Office is British and now we get a America remake version of The Office. im not a big fan of remakes to be honest i like reboots but not remake. but what can we do Hollywood aint going to stop no matter what we say. if all these remakes fail big time that will make the film studio bosses will learn that the general public had enough of these remake. but then again remakes been going on for years. you know True Lies was a remake of French movie La Totale! and The Departed is remake of Infernal Affairs.
tazz on Dec 5, 2009
This is fuckin tragic.
tterb on Dec 5, 2009
I think the author pointed out his racism with the statement "here we have the urban version" instead of the movie being viewed just as it is which is a movie that has been remade, it's given a significant classification of it being an urban film. No one ever called The Ring a "suburban" remake of the japanese original.
Dude on Dec 6, 2009
If you think that is racist, u must be white.
tterb on Dec 6, 2009
Blasphemy. The original was amazing. This... SHIT... is horrible. What's nice is this version copied the outline from Frank Oz's so closely that making the comparison between the two is all too easy to do. All the heart felt moments that made Oz's version so good was mutilated or otherwise removed altogether. Instead they inserted slapstick and sex. Oz's version was also made in 2007. And 2 years later we get this? I love it. I'm honestly debating on blacklisting any and all individuals involved in this film. Actors, directors, producers... all their stuff is now up for debate. If they can give us this, then I can assume they don't care about their craft. No... really.
Dan the Fan on Dec 6, 2009
To be fair, it's easy to understand why this film is being remade. There's huge swathes of moviegoers that will have avoided the original simply because it was essentially a British film and despite it being an excellent comedy, probably never gave it a chance. Can't really follow the hysterical over-reaction people are having to this being made, though. The original will not cease to exist. It doesn't 'degrade' simply by the remake coming out. Try to get a grip, people.
Chris on Dec 6, 2009
its the same fucking movie. : / scene by scene just like when i saw Rec than Quarantine. i could predict every single thing. dumb.
erikkeating on Dec 6, 2009
I'm puzzled as to why the author called the movie "urban". Is it because the cast is most black, or is it because the target audience is mostly black? I happen to remember watching The Best Man years ago, and the crown was mostly white. Since The Best Man cast was all black, was it a "urban" movie
Mike on Dec 6, 2009
#54 it seems its abit of both from looking at it black actors and the target audience is mostly black. Mike even on slashfilm they said about this remake "in an effort to attract a more Urban audience". people on the site complain saying why you calling it Urban. now they changed it saying "in an effort to attract a more black audience" (and to clarify: this comment is a statement on Hollywood chooses to treat ticket-buying African-Americans, and not a statement on the intelligence of that audience). it seems like if the cast was mostly with it would suburban lol.
mark on Dec 6, 2009
Remaking a film for the US when the original was in, for example, Swedish or Japanese is one thing. But the original movie was in English, and was directed by an American. That, and the fact that they started shooting this something like only a year after the original came out, is what makes it all seem so monumentally pointless and an example of how creatively barren Hollywood has become in the last five or ten years. Very sad. Still, despite the presence of Chris Rock - a gifted comic but lousy actor - this might be watchable thanks to Tracy Morgan and the always-excellent Keith David. But what the hell has happened to Neil LaBute's career? First The Wicker Man remake and now this?!
Phoenix on Dec 6, 2009
everything's so fucking green
twispious on Dec 6, 2009
The original version of this film is my absolute favorite comedy. I don't know how it didn't reach a wider audience in this country and it's pathetic if they have to dumb it down like this in order for the concept to be a hit. Nothing against Rock or Martin, but their Schtick has gotten a little old with me, their comedy style is also a little out dated (compared to the newer and probably on it's way out as well style of Apatow's crew). I think they're both funny, but the thing that made the original version of this film work was that the concept of the film was so over the top....not the actors. The actors in this film are known for being over the top so it's very possible this will seem contrived in a lot of ways. Also I don't think Marsden can pull off the role of the guy on drugs as well as whoever that british guy was that did it in the original. He was by far the best part and it was because he looked so goofy. Marsden is just too good looking too pull off a goofy high guy. He's just going to come across like an obnoxious frat guy at a funeral. I'll check this out just because I liked the original so much.....but so disappointed they're even attempting a remake of this film...especially so soon!
ImaginaryVisionary on Dec 6, 2009
Son of a bitch, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Although Tracy Morgan's hilarious. I'll catch it on DVD, most likely under the influence of some mind altering substances myself to make it more entertaining than it actually is.
Dan on Dec 7, 2009
# 55 Thanks for clarifying
Mike on Dec 7, 2009
tzarinna on Dec 7, 2009
Looks like a toned down version of all those Clumps and Big Mama's House type movies. Not appealing to me at all. The only good part was James Marsden who is a great actor and can actually be funny as shit when he's not a semi-emo Cyclops in an X-Men movie. (He was the only reason I watched Sexdrive) The stereotypical portrayal of African Americans ("Daaayum!"), stupid fart jokes ("Lulz, he liek had his hnad still in teh toilet!!1!!1!1") really annoys me. This movie is no exception. On the plus side, Chris Rock's acting looks nice and subtle and not so much IN YOUR FACE as usual.
SuicidalOptimist on Dec 7, 2009
Fisherr on Dec 7, 2009
@58 The "British Guy" in the original was Texas born Alan Tudyk from "I, Robot" (he played the main freakin robot Sonny), "Firely" and "V" the series. @62... if you didn't see the original... the hand in the toilet thing was perpetrated by white Brits with really ghastly results. And I believe non-Black Kevin Smith is the current king of dick and fart jokes.... but point taken. And I agree with #8. Dinklage playing the same damned role from the original? Wow.
Duane on Dec 7, 2009
by urban do you mean Black?
Slashbreast on Dec 7, 2009
I just don't think Chris Rock has been funny in say, oh about 15 years? I do like Martin Lawrence but I still won't watch this.
arjones on Dec 8, 2009
i haven't seen the original i'll have to watch it before i decide how blasphemous this is
neonblue120 on Dec 10, 2009
Just saw the trailer @ http://trailers-watch.com/ and it's hilarious. Can't wait for this comedy to open...
Abigail on Dec 12, 2009
good for Dinklage, at least! more exposure, getting paid for doing the same role twice. he won't have to work as hard (knows the lines, character, etc).. haha
kenji on Dec 14, 2009
this is the most racist thing ive ever seen. god forbid it was the other way around and some white producers got together and literally remade a black movie- that would be racist huh? this pisses me off and just promotes more racism by black people continuing to segregate themselves. its the same concept as having a black and latino month but no white month- someone please get rid of all these "cultural" remakes and lets just make some f'in movies. damnnnn
brandon on Mar 18, 2010
When you say urban, do you mean black?.... Yes ..I like the original. When I saw this trailer on tv i couldnt believe this shit.
dirty sanchez on Apr 13, 2010
I loved the original and I am shocked that they are remaking it so quickly. I cannot fathom Neil LaBute as a comedy director...I plan on watching and comparing.
Rachel on Apr 14, 2010
I loved the original and I am shocked that they are remaking it so quickly. I cannot fathom Neil LaBute as a comedy director…I plan on watching and comparing.
dresses1 on Apr 20, 2010
this better than the original which i tried laughing at, the fact is that we that live a fast life cant just stand slow jokes like brit humour so the remake was for us if you dont mind. scene by scene comparison, the remake put more life into the scenes and more dramw for example where ryan was talking about first class and plane crash, the brit guy just went through, it wasnt even funny. anyway, hats my take on it. whatever man.
del on Oct 22, 2010
Word to the wise, just because you see African-American people in a movie trailer doesn't make it an "Urban" film. It's a funny film about normal middle class Americans (who just happend to be Af-Am), like the normal Brits in the original. When are you going to see the Af-Am race as normal people - miK3
miK3 on Apr 30, 2011
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.