User Reviews

For a film about getting laughs, this Sally Field, Tom Hanks vehicle gets too few. The film is essentially a drama about stand up comedy, it must be said. Family drama, social drama and relationship drama are all covered, yet in its attempt to roll you in the aisles, "Punchline" lacks exactly that….the killer instinct.

With its failure to focus on a single issue, "Punchline" loses power. Coupled with Tom Hanks terribly unfunny routines, and you have a floundering feature. The two actors do reasonably well I must admit, putting two solid performances together. Sally Field's housewife come comedienne even manages to grab a laugh. None of these positives can manage to rescue "Punchline" from the mediocre though.

John Goodman is most enjoyable in his support role.

Sunday, November 15, 1998 - Video

First of all, it was a main reason of my failure at one exam during my college days. Yes, at the night of the exam, I wasn't that ready to tell you the truth, however instead of reviewing the curriculum, I sat to watch this movie, then I burned all the midnight oil reviewing it, asking what was it about? And the result was pernicious.

Well, it's one way to say that I loved it!

After 11 years, I ran into it again. Ohh, I felt like meeting an old friend who I've been missing for a long time. I was so happy out of re-watching it, contemplating every second, being dazzled. But despite feeling how magical, it got me confused, to ask anew: What was it about?

Maybe it's about how we meet in our dreams, yet not in our goals. That makes a perfect "impossible love story". However, (Punchline) wanted another thing, which was being a movie about the stand-up comedians and their world. And when it came to that, it didn't achieve. I believe someone like (Scorsese) would have made it with the 2 issues but in a longer movie.

Its magic comes basically from its characters, and its simple way of showing them. (Steven Gold), played by (Tom Hanks), is so dramatically attractive. He's talented, lonely and complicated since his childhood. He's afraid of love, but when he thinks that he found it, he loses it. It can be a portrayal of the Sad Clown who makes the smile in the people's life the most, however doesn't have it in his own. And, again, we could dream together, but we might not get together. The movie's melancholy remains in the way (Gold)'s storyline concludes, since he finds success, but not love; meaning that success can be enough love.

Another character. (Lilah Krytsick), played by (Sally Field). This woman just wants to know is she funny or not? She has everything but the assurance that she can make laughs. So she lives her victory the moment her husband knows that she can. Hence her winning at last meant nothing, and her giving up the award was natural since she didn't need it, as she already won what she originally dreamed of. So while (Gold) wanted the recognition of the world, (Krytsick) wanted the recognition of just her husband. As you see, success was his love, and love was her success.

One last character, the club's owner. This guy, played smartly by (Mark Rydell), has no dream but investing other people's dreams as long as they bring him money. He meets with the successful ones, since they're successful, then throws them down afterwards if they lost their glamour. He's so practical. Success for him is money, not real love that he gives or takes. So, sarcastically, his name was (Romeo)!

I loved some feelings and meanings that it gives along the way. For instance, the desire to be something else the image which has been forced on you (Hanks wants to be a stand-up comedian instead of a doctor), unnoticing that the most expensive love is the free one around us (Goodman makes his wife feel good about her hair), the over pressing craving to succeed (Aren't all we? ALL THE TIME?!), and losing love yet nobly (We all have pain because of it, and have respect for it).

But there was a reason for my confusion. Because you may say it's about chasing different dreams in the same track; (Lilah) wanted her self-confidence and her family, (Steven) wanted the breakthrough that his talent needed, (Romeo) wanted the money, and (Emperato), the comedian played by (Taylor Negron), wanted the recognition of (Steven), or something higher than it. Or it's about the comedy clubs' life. Or it's about the agony of the funny guys (did you see Hanks dancing, slaughtered, in the rain?!). Many issues huh?! Frankly, this non-concentrated condition was the movie's big shortcoming!

Furthermore, the jam of many interesting characters (the various comedians, especially the old one), so unused in the background, causes the feel of a deficiency of something good, or an excessiveness of something undone. And to make matters worse, I believe the persona of (Hanks) as a comic star at the moment, plus the publicity of the movie as a comedy, destroyed the latter utterly. It can be wholly misunderstood whether as a comedy without a punchline, or a disappointing romance. While it isn't both.

Actually, it's a drama about the recognition; it has many faces that differ according to the one who dreams of it, and every face clarifies its dreamer's goal, hence self. And as every joke has its very own punchline, every one has a goal that uncovers their marrow in the end.

Anyway, despite any problems that (Punchlibe) has, it still holds up as a good watchable movie. It got deep and hot characters. It got such a smooth and warm feel. And it got me thinking and amused. It achieves entertaining time like any comedy yet more touching. And ends happily like any usual romance yet in its own way.

The 1980s was magical itself. And it's a rare time to feel that one movie is your friend. Well, dear friend is the word.

Spoilers herein.

Filmmakers like to tinker with genres. That's the most direct and easy path to cleverness. One template is to make two genres into characters, then to embody them in people. When the people interact, you have a battle of film genres. When the people are alone, you have the genre in its normal form. Lynch took this to extremes with "Blue Velvet" of the year or two before. Although the craft is far less here, the ambition is equally advanced.

On the one hand, we have a simple date movie: charming Sally (with her charming girls) has a marriage dilemma. There's some charming humor with making dinner. There's some minor threat to all this sweetness (the threat represented by the big, bad Church), even (gasp!!!) a bad hairdo. But loving husband comes through in the end. Sally is perfect for this, our prototype of absolute earnestness, moving through Lucille redheadedness.

On the other hand we have a genre that has exploded in the past decade: the reflexive film where the performances are about performances, the skits are about skits, the character is schizoid because the position of the actor is also, simultaneously playing the performed and the performer. Here it is a standup comedian whose life and performance are confused. Sally is an archetype but she is also a performer so she finds herself sharing the stage, even contesting the stage with Hanks. Naturally she doesn't need to win, and her genre resolves as planned.

Hanks does need to win. He lives in two layers: the madness of the performer and the madness of the performance: a commonly sought situation for intelligent actors. I call this folding. The whole film is constructed around one scene, the scene in the diner where Sally distances her genre from Hanks; genre and (because he is layered) his character. Watch him try the inside-outside acting shifts that Jack Nicholson invented. Watch him quote one of the most influential films in the folded films movement (for Hollywood), "Singing in the Rain." Watch him even try a few Brando mannerisms.

Its a pretty brilliant idea. And it is pretty inspired and risky acting. Hanks has since become a joke, When he says he made only three good movies, I am certain he has this one in mind. Actually, his thread is bungled by the writer/director. There?s a bad decision in introducing his character with an anatomy test. And his material doesn't match his character: when comedy is a defense against life it is different than lots of what he does, excepting the "hate stylist" notion.

But he really does try here, and it is an intelligent notion.

Ted?s Evaluation -- 2 of 4: Has some interesting elements.

I'm not surprised that this film didn't perform well at the box office in 1988. Tom Hanks was cast against type and this must have left the public feeling bemused. While it is a change of pace for Hanks to play an unlikable character, he doesn't quite pull make it work but still delivers a very good performance. The scene where he has a meltdown is a big highlight and proof that Tom Hanks was destined for dramatic roles. Sally Fields is great as the character who struggles to keep her family together, whilst attempting to hit the big time on the stand up comedy scene. Her attempts at performing the comedy skits are not bad but her delivery was off base. Her best acting comes with the drama in the screenplay. The biggest problem for me with the movie, is the running time. 117 minutes is simply too long and the plot becomes stretched long before the end. 90 to 100 minutes would have been preferable. For those who think "Punchline" made the mistake of taking its subject seriously, they are missing the point of comedy. Any typical comedian, will say that trying to create new material is about as unfunny as it gets. A more obscure Tom Hanks movie but well worth a look.

Right off the bat, I'll admit that maybe I would have liked this had I been in a different mood when I watched it. It seems to me that this happens often. A movie might look good on one viewing and not so good at another time.

Basically, the comedy just didn't hit me and the serious bits didn't seem real. The ending seemed condescending and just not satisfying.

Even the "Singing In The Rain" sequence didn't hit me. I saw it as a well contrived bit of comedy,but it just didn't reach me.

Bottom line is that in the case of this movie, don't really go by my review or by anyone's review be it good or bad. See it for yourself. You might like it. And you might not.

And is my review helpful to you??? NOPE!!!

One of the best and also most overlooked films of Tom Hanks'career was the 1988 comedy PUNCHLINE, in which Hanks plays Steven Gold, a struggling stand up comedian who uses his comedy to work out his own inner demons, a lot of which stem from his childhood and his twisted and unresolved relationship with his father. Hanks walks the fine line of comedy and tragedy so effectively in this movie. One scene where he is excited to perform because a big agent is in the audience and is shattered when he learns it's really his father out there and he literally has a breakdown onstage is absolutely heartbreaking. He is also laugh out loud funny when he performs a stand up routine for a group of patients at a Brooklyn hospital and then two minutes later is looking at the chart of a terminally ill child. Steven Gold is a character so desperate to be loved that he thinks himself into believing that he is in love with a married woman (Sally Field) who also wants to do stand-up. Another great scene is when he pours his heart out to her and when she rejects him, he storms out in the rain and starts out doing Gene Kelly, but the dance in the rain turns into a brief descent into madness. Standup comics, for the most part, are not happy people, and Hanks conveys this so beautifully in this film. His final set at the film's climax reeks of his brilliance and he gets strong support from Field and John Goodman as Field's husband. If you somehow missed this early sleeper in Hanks' career, check it out.. definitely worth renting and repeated viewings.

I wish, for a film about comedians it could have been funnier, in my chronological watching of Tom Hanks' films this is my least favourite one so far, not because it's bad, it isn't I just found it to be depressing, the character we end up rooting for begins the story as someone foolish enough to spend five hundred big ones to buy some jokes, how sad is that. Surely nobody in real life would ever do that. I find it more likely that a long time ago in a galaxy far far away there were some wars in the stars than someone would ever buy jokes in order to become a comedian that's like a painter asking someone else to paint for them... The film contained mostly scenes in the rain and made for a glum two hours, Hanks' character was so willing to sin it was quite unreasonable!