The reviews are starting to come in and evidence is contradictory. On the positive side, Lisa Schwarzbaum from Entertainment Weekly gives it a B and says it's, "cinematically dazzling, to be sure, 
 enhanced by an meticulously chosen retro soundtrack." In New York David Edelstein gushes.

Even more than his other genre mash-ups, this is a switchback journey through Tarantino's twisted inner landscape, where cinema and history, misogyny and feminism, sadism and romanticism collide and split and re-bond in bizarre new hybrids. The movie is an ungainly pastiche, yet on some wacked-out Jungian level it's all of a piece.

Oh, but his fellow Gothamite David Denby couldn't disagree more, and rails against it.

Like all the director's work after Jackie Brown, the movie is pure sensation. It's disconnected from feeling, and an eerie blankness-it's too shallow to be called nihilism-undermines even the best scenes.

Even the trades are split. Variety comes out in favor:

By turns surprising, nutty, windy, audacious and a bit caught up in its own cleverness, the picture is a completely distinctive piece of American pop art with a strong Euro flavor that's new for the director.

And The Hollywood Reporter against:

Otherwise the film lacks not only tension but those juicy sequences where actors deliver lines loaded with subtext and characters drip menace with icy wit. Tarantino never finds a way to introduce his vivid sense of pulp fiction within the context of a war movie. He is not kidding B movies as he was with Grindhouse nor riffing on cinema as with Pulp Fiction and the Kill Bill films.

The only people who can come to a consensus are the British where both the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph hated it.

Damn, now it looks like we're going to have to save Harvey Weinstein from bankruptcy and pay our $12.50 to try to figure out for ourselves whether or not it's good. God, critics are even worse than Nazis.

Wordy but fun, overreaching yet accurate, Variety's Todd but McCarthy - who gives great analysis with sometimes decent box office projections - has mixed, yet succinct, feelings, to put it lightly. His lede, emphasis mine:

Candid but long-winded, well observed but undisciplined, "Funny People" feels like Judd Apatow's diploma picture marking his move from high school to college as a filmmaker. Amusing and engaging yet lacking in snap and cohesion, this insider's look at the world of standup comics in contempo Los Angeles rings true in its view of the variously warped, stunted and narrow lives of its mostly male denizens. Adam Sandler's central performance as some version of himself is notable for its revelation of callowness and ambivalent self-regard, which will fascinate some fans and turn off others. Curiosity should spur a healthy opening, with likely widely divergent reactions suggesting questionable staying power.

Could've guessed that one, though: Apatow's making a movie with a big heart where the endgame is more than just some great dick jokes and a moral, and that's evident by the premise. How about that third act, when the movie inevitably gets all serious on us to show what an aueteur Apatow is?

While it has its moments, this long latter stretch drains the picture of what little momentum it had and switches the focus to [Leslie Mann's] Laura and her own marital problems, which are annoying and not entirely convincing.

Eegh. McCarthy goes on to slam Leslie Mann, and take us away from the Apatow and Sandler we want to see (like, incidentally, the last third of Funny People, apparently). But what'd the other trade in town think? Silly wittle Hollywood Reporter, show us what you've got:

Bottom Line: A more mature but still funny Judd Apatow comedy whose move into serious human relation issues nearly scuttles the third act...there is a serious side to this film that makes the second half go awry....George's [Adam Sandler's] disease goes into remission — and the air comes out of the movie.

Finally, what do the bloggahs have to say? Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere, Keyboard Cat us out of here:

It's not a "great" film but for me it's a stunningly brave (by which I mean exceptionally candid and self-revealing) one. And funny as shit.

And we have a consensus! While it's funny and great and well, Apatow's noble attempts at painting deep, murky moral colors at the end of his film aren't as good as Apatow's skill at directing a good dick joke. And this is the problem I always had with people who would shove a boxed set of Freaks and Geeks DVDs in my face like it was the second coming of good television that I'd never seen: sure, it has its moments, but I can't see beyond the non-revelatory revelatory moments to understand why it's the best thing in dramedy since Edward Albee.

That being said, I'm willing to give Sandler and Apatow the chance, probably sometime in the next week. The 40 Year-Old Virgin was one of the best sad-clown comedies ever made, and Sandler's done this well, before (Punchdrunk Love). Will you? No? Uh...

Update: Peter Travers of Rolling Stone reviewed it as well, though the review isn't online yet. A point for the Ha-Ha camp, but Travers is known for his studio-happy reviews. He gave it a 3.5/4. Typical Travers, watch the kicker. Emphasis mine, again:

But no worries about this perceptive, deeply entertaining boundary-pusher. It's the work of a major talent. Apatow scores by crafting the film equivalent of a stand-up routine that encompasses the joy, pain, anger, loneliness and aching doubt that go into making an audience laugh. For his people, that really is a matter of life and death.

3:2 on at least one of those being clipped for an ad later this week. Takers? Talk about some awkward turtle.

Funny People Review [Variety]
Funny People Review [The Hollywood Reporter]
Apatow's Big Surge [Ed. WTF?] [Hollywood Elsewhere]

Awkward Turtle Wikipedia Entry [Wikipedia]

Word has it that THR publisher Eric Mika has "'burned through the company's cash flying back and forth to Asia' where he has a close personal friend." The paper's reps declined to comment, even as the money drought that resulted in editorial layoffs two weeks ago now threatens the remaining staff's critical coverage of Sundance. Their expense accounts reportedly have been frozen, they can't book rooms, and their paper may not even have a publisher by the time the fest begins next month — Mika himself is expected to be out of a job when his contract expires at the end of the year.

But! We digress. Who out there knows who's enticing the guy to Asia? Just how back-and-forth is "back-and-forth"? And can we get a little more specific with the location, too? It's a largish continent, last we checked. Operators are standing by.

• H'WOOD REPORTER FREEZE-UP [NYP]

—-—Original Message—-—
From: [redacted]
Sent: Thu 12/4/2008 6:02 PM
Subject: Staff update

To the staff:

I wanted to let you all know that People editorial has completed the staff reductions spelled out in my Nov. 11 memo. I want to thank everyone for their cooperation.

Please join me in wishing our friends and colleagues the best, and celebrating their contributions to the People brand.

###