hawktwo I had no idea what this was about -- I was just going with a group of friends to a movie a couple of them wanted to see. I love stand up comedy, improv, skits etc. But this isn't a comedy. It's a capture of a piece of history. If they did a movie about the history of stripping, you'd expect to see good and bad stripping scenes, but you wouldn't have the expectation that you'd be seeing porn. Very similar with this movie. It's not comedy. It's the history of a joke (The Aristocrats) and the seeming fact that every comedian knows the joke and has their version to tell. The documentary was cut as well as it could be to hold interest -- after all, we're sitting through a huge number of variations of the same joke. Personally I would have liked to see each comedian identified each time they appeared on the screen.

moviesleuth2 Many documentaries have fascinating concepts, sometimes because the subject is not well known, or it is an interesting subject, or it is a familiar one presented in a new way.To be sure, having a bunch of great comedians tell why a classic joke is so funny is a great concept (something that Hollywood needs to learn). Therefore it's no surprise that this documentary was green-lighted, especially with all the star comedians who agreed to take part. Unfortunately what came out of this was a complete mess."The Aristocrats" suffers from many problems, many of them by themselves could have tanked the project. First off, having 100 top comedians telling a joke and explaining why its funny may seem like a good idea, but to give each comedian complete attention to do both would make the film run for days on end. On top of that, the statement that 100 comedians were interviewed for this project is a gross over-calculation. There's barely even a quarter of that amount. Even so, giving them all would take too much time, so obviously a lot had to be cut out. This isn't so much the problem, as is how they did it.That leads me to my second point. While the directors may have had good intentions, but they are completely incompetent at making this kind of a documentary. Everything about the editing process is a complete disaster. First off, the clips were cut at more or less random, which makes the film seem incoherent. Second, each of the clips is so short that we don't have a good grasp of what they were saying. Third, most aren't there to even tell the joke, which is supposed to be the most important part of the movie. Those who do are cut off after only a sentence or two, which doesn't even give the audience enough time to get into the joke, and its ten minutes before someone continues with another part of the joke, which makes it incoherent (even if the filmmakers were even able to keep the flow going, which they are not). One of the people interviewed said that the best versions of this joke can go on for hours. Maybe so, but given the qualifications for the joke (which are few), I think at least one person should have been able to tell it from start to finish in an amount of time that could be put into the film uncut.Finally, you'd think that these first class comedians would be able to make anything funny, even a 10 second clip of them explaining why it's funny in the first place. Apparently not. Either that or they were all caught on their bad days. There isn't a laugh to be had in this film. In order for there to be a successful joke, the audience has to be drawn in in some way. But the way this film is put together doesn't allow that.This joke is about being as gross and offensive as possible, and presenting it in a way that's funny. I can get that, but even the comedians that I find funny normally (such as John Stewart or Drew Carey), aren't able to make it funny for some reason (I admit this is partly due to the editing). But there's no momentum, and there is no ability for the viewer to connect with the joke-teller.Trust me, if you want good stand-up, pay the money to see it live. Even the worst comedians are bound to be loads more successful than this turkey.

[email protected] The Marguess De Sade talked about eating excrement as a sexual experiment, at least he had genuine philosophical curiosity. This film is utterly pretentious excess. It is about two tricksters fooling egoistical comics into believing the movie about a inane joke has merit. It is the worst of all films because it does not justify the money it cost to make. It is akin to the Kings New Clothes, if you can convince people that they might seem foolish if they disagree with a stupid proposition, then they are likely to accept it. The real joke of this piece of trash is that the comedians agreed to take part. No doubt to there later regret. You time is better spent reading TV listings.

alex-crisp It's not a funny movie, it's a waste of your time, and the worlds funniest joke is $hit.If you like to laugh, don't watch this, you never hear anything amusing, it's terrible. If you like to be bored, then this is the movie for you, the KKK enjoyed Boyz In The Hood and Juice more than I enjoyed this, i'm shocked that anyone like this movie, its $hit! Only w@nk£rs will disagree with me.Q :Please can someone tell me why this movie is funny? A :It's funny because the viewer has to waste 90 minutes of their time watching it.