Skip

It’s as if Movie 43 was itself a feature-length F*** You to Hollywood
January 27, 2013 10:13 AM   Subscribe

It's not even February yet and we seem to have our worst movie of the year.

"Movie 43" is the "Citizen Kane" of awful.
(Richard Roeper - Chicago Sun-Times)

"Deadly dull, unfunny, offensive, and stultifyingly clumsy."
(Richard Brody - New Yorker)

"A punishing exercise in brain cell annihilation that shoots for edgy but mostly settles for inane petulance."
(Shaun Munro - What Culture)

"Dismal and witless, the worst picture I've seen in many, many years."
(Susan Granger - SSG Syndicate)

"Just no."
(Kim Newman - Empire Magazine)

and so on ...
posted by philip-random (227 comments total) 14 users marked this as a favorite

 
The Aristocrats!
posted by localroger at 10:22 AM on January 27, 2013 [19 favorites]


Here's Richard Roeper's full review on Roger Ebert's blog.
posted by NoMich at 10:23 AM on January 27, 2013 [3 favorites]


The Big Red Letters Rule strikes again.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:23 AM on January 27, 2013 [10 favorites]


It’s as if Movie 43 was itself a feature-length F*** You to Hollywood

Now I'm interested.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:24 AM on January 27, 2013 [13 favorites]


"Corey Brewer, LARRY SANDERS!, and Jared Dudley."
(acidic - Metafilter)
posted by acidic at 10:24 AM on January 27, 2013


I just can't believe that a movie with Anna Feris as a corprophiliac is entirely not worth seeing.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 10:26 AM on January 27, 2013 [4 favorites]


When I went to see Django Unchained for some reason - maybe because it was a "black" movie and yards yards yards Wayan Brothers, maybe out of a sincere hatred of the audience - the trailer reel consisted of trailers for about a half dozen of this type of thing. Movie 43 easily looked the worst.
posted by Artw at 10:26 AM on January 27, 2013 [2 favorites]


The Farrelly Brothers continue to make me wonder why M. Night Syamalan is the only person who gets shit. Is it because making fun of his name is easier?

Honestly, as someone who in a distant bizarre past sought a career in the film industry, how in god's name do the Farrellys get work? They made a successful film 15 years ago that was considered "groundbreaking comedy" because, to the best of my knowledge, they showed semen on-camera, and then have been given millions of dollars to make nothing but pointless crap ever since. They're the Sarah Palin of Hollywood.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:26 AM on January 27, 2013 [30 favorites]


My favorite line from David Edelstein's review: "I need to say at this point that I love everything about Movie 43 except the movie."
posted by bakerina at 10:27 AM on January 27, 2013 [3 favorites]


But at least you didn't have to see the other 42.
posted by Nomyte at 10:28 AM on January 27, 2013 [8 favorites]


So whenever a Gerard Butler or a Johnny Knoxville or a Jason Sudeikis or an Uma Thurman became available and/or were blackmailed, Farrelly would bring in a director, and they'd shoot a scene. Unfortunately, the shooting was never fatal.

Ouch.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:28 AM on January 27, 2013 [5 favorites]


It’s as if Movie 43 was itself a feature-length F*** You to Hollywood

Adding: oh for fuck's sake. Twenty or thirty multi-millionaires whose faint shred of validity for their income is that they are there to entertain you as a profession saying poop and pee on camera that you just wasted eleven bucks on is a "fuck you" to only one god damned person and you'll see that person in the mirror if you can bear to look in it after falling for that line.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:29 AM on January 27, 2013 [52 favorites]


Between RT and Metacritic, I saw one positive critical review, from the Washington Post's Michael O'Sullivan.
posted by box at 10:33 AM on January 27, 2013 [2 favorites]


I'm surprised to see that Armond White hasn't given this movie a Fresh rating yet.
posted by Sandor Clegane at 10:37 AM on January 27, 2013 [14 favorites]


Knowing my luck with airlines, this will be the only movie showing the next time I fly the red eye across the Atlantic.
posted by Wordshore at 10:38 AM on January 27, 2013 [5 favorites]


...but yet another post-credits short starring (and directed by) Elizabeth Banks. She gets pissed on by a cartoon cat.

Hey man! Spoiler Warning!
posted by matt_od at 10:39 AM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


The first section, with Jackman (playing a man who has testicles hanging off his chin)

Now this I gotta see
posted by KokuRyu at 10:40 AM on January 27, 2013


No, you don't. You really don't.
posted by Pendragon at 10:42 AM on January 27, 2013 [5 favorites]


My rule this kind of movie is to just watch the trailer as they will have pulled every funny bit from the movie for it.

My faith in the rule is confirmed in this case as they ran out of funny bits before they even finished the trailer.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:44 AM on January 27, 2013 [10 favorites]


Ooh, 5% on Rotten Tomatoes. That's gotta hurt.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:46 AM on January 27, 2013


The Canyons looks almost Oscar-worthy in comparison.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 10:46 AM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


The LA Times said it looks like Movie 43 made $5 million this weekend.
posted by birdherder at 10:46 AM on January 27, 2013


I had to sit through a screening of this abomination two years ago for work. It had a different frame story then -- something about two kids looking for an online clip that had Ringu-like powers to warp reality.

If you're going to see it, make sure they're paying you.
posted by roger ackroyd at 10:56 AM on January 27, 2013 [10 favorites]


WHY ARE WE EVEN DIGNIFYING THIS MOVIE BY DISCUSSING IT
posted by blue t-shirt at 10:58 AM on January 27, 2013 [9 favorites]


It had a different frame story then

I haven't seen this (thank Christ), but in all the reviews I've read, what sticks out for me is that the framing sequence is actually a pretty funny premise...which means that, as originally conceived, this apparently horrid movie was somehow actually even worse.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:59 AM on January 27, 2013 [2 favorites]


The Farrelly Brothers continue to make me wonder why M. Night Syamalan is the only person who gets shit. Is it because making fun of his name is easier?

I personally believe he gets the hostility because his first movie's "twist" ending overshadowed a movie that was already terrific in its own right, and brilliantly so...and from that point forward, people watched his movies -- especially critics -- looking for and thus inevitably being disappointed by the "twist", even if there wasn't really one, which to me is sort of like being disappointed because Whose Line Is It Anyway doesn't actually award prizes at the end.

Which is not to say he hasn't made mediocre movies, but if you go in deciding to take things at face value (sincerely, not ironically) there is a lot of fun to be had. In particular, there are moments in The Happening that are genuinely chilling and powerful (certainly moreso than, say, the War Of The Worlds with Cruise et al), and Unbreakable remains one of my favorite movies (even though I have no interest in Comic books per se.)
posted by davejay at 11:00 AM on January 27, 2013 [3 favorites]


It’s as if Movie 43 was itself a feature-length F*** You to FROM Hollywood

FTFY, Richard Brody of The New Yorker.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:00 AM on January 27, 2013 [4 favorites]


and as long as I'm going on about underappreciated movies: The Truman Show gets lambasted for Jim Carey's acting, but arguably it was the only role ever perfect for him and he was one of very few who could have pulled it off accurately, because his "always on" style (I feel) is how a person would inevitably grow up to behave if his every move were being observed, even if he didn't know it, because he'd spent his entire life around insincere actors playing roles, every single human interaction, so he would certainly behave as a reflection of that. Anyway, back to the show.
posted by davejay at 11:05 AM on January 27, 2013 [60 favorites]


This sounds like an A-list version of Crazy People, only executed horribly.

What a wasted opportunity, I mean, you have Hugh Jackman and your million dollar idea is putting testicles on his chin? Come on, son, SNL gets a lot of shit but even their lamer sketches of late look better than anything this review or the trailer promised.
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 11:07 AM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


"[I]f you mashed-up the worst parts of the infamous 'Howard the Duck,' 'Gigli,' 'Ishtar' and every other awful movie I’ve seen since I started reviewing professionally in 1981, it wouldn’t begin to approach the sheer soul-sucking badness of the cringe-inducing 'Movie 43,' which has been dumped on an unsuspecting public without advance press screenings." -- Lou Lumenick, New York Post

What a painfully middle of the road list of "worst" movies. That makes me kinda sorta (not really) want to see the film.

Tell Me No Lies: "My rule this kind of movie is to just watch the trailer as they will have pulled every funny bit from the movie for it.

My faith in the rule is confirmed in this case as they ran out of funny bits before they even finished the trailer.
"

My impression is that the movie is spectacularly raunchy and crude, so they may not have had many jokes they could include in trailers. I haven't seen a red band trailer if there is one.

That said, while I was mildly interested when I heard about James Gunn's involvement, I'm not at all a fan of gross out comedy, so yeah... it's getting a pass from me.
posted by brundlefly at 11:09 AM on January 27, 2013


Heh... I love that we're talking about a movie none of us have seen. Of course, I often think that happens with professional film critics as well.
posted by HuronBob at 11:10 AM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


Richard Brody of The New Yorker.

I thought David Denby and Anthony Lane were the only two main film critics there.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:10 AM on January 27, 2013


The Farrelly Brothers continue to make me wonder why M. Night Syamalan is the only person who gets shit. Is it because making fun of his name is easier?

The Farrelly brothers make no pretense at anything above "funny shit, sometimes disgustingly so" -- like the Friedberg-Setzer "Disaster Movie" shitshows, when you go into one, you know what you're getting it, and you're going to get it good and hard.

Shyamalan, on the other hand, makes Films that aspire to Something More. When you have an earnest message in every movie, then you get shit when you're still relying on cheap twists in the last reel (especially since, when you become The Guy With The Twists, everyone's looking for it and a nonzero percentage are going to figure it out early and then spend the rest of the movie noticing how hollow your style can be).
posted by Etrigan at 11:11 AM on January 27, 2013 [2 favorites]


The first section, with Jackman (playing a man who has testicles hanging off his chin)

Now this I gotta see


You could always see the decade-old South Park episode they stole the idea from instead.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:11 AM on January 27, 2013 [9 favorites]


Like, think of all the struggling directors, actors, VFX and editors that never get a shot in hollywood. And somehow a move like this gets greenlit because of the names attached to the project. Nevermind any conceptual merits, it just gets named because Director X and Producer Y have a relationship with Studio Q and whatever movie gets made will make N amount no matter what because Celebrities Foo, Bar, and Biz are attached to it.

I can ignore this all I want to, but thanks to the Hollywood Promotion Machine trailers and ads for this dreck are shoveled into my eyeballs upon every surface and every screen like so much Evil Dead. It'll occupy shelf space as a DVD and continue to be another chunk of cultural detritus that has no atristic right to exist but does so because it makes money.
posted by hellojed at 11:22 AM on January 27, 2013 [3 favorites]


Judging from the reviews, the misogyny of this film is staggering in its awfulness. Poor Halle Berry.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 11:25 AM on January 27, 2013 [7 favorites]


Bloom County was ahead of its time.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:25 AM on January 27, 2013 [7 favorites]


They're the Sarah Palin of Hollywood.

Not at all. Sarah is no longer useful in under 5 years.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:26 AM on January 27, 2013


how in god's name do the Farrellys get work? They made a successful film 15 years ago that was considered "groundbreaking comedy"

When There's Something About Mary came out, they were already well-known for Dumb and Dumber, which, whatever you think of it, is warmly and widely remembered; even now I can use a still shot of Jim Carrey from that movie and everybody knows who it is and what it means, including college kids who were toddlers when the movie came out.

I'm not gonna lie, I like Kingpin, too.

And as for Mary: the experience of being in a packed movie theater where everybody, including you, is laughing uncontrollably, to the point of hardly being able to see or hear, is rare, precious, and impossible to plan in advance. I have had that experience twice in my life: at There's Something About Mary, and Borat. There are other movies, obviously, that are better written, deeper, richer in ideas, more worthy of sustained reflection -- I mean, I certainly never watched either of those movies again -- but the Farrelly brothers succeeded in doing something that almost every moviemaker, even the greatest, fails at, and as far as I'm concerned that earns them a lifetime pass.

Which is not to say I've seen anything they've made since There's Something About Mary, nor am I going to see this new piece of crap.
posted by escabeche at 11:28 AM on January 27, 2013 [32 favorites]


Wasn't the fact that Anna Faris is in it a dead giveaway that this movie sucks? (I don't know if she should fire her agent or pay them more for making her filthy rich off of this stream of horrible, horrible movies)
posted by Yowser at 11:34 AM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


ads for this dreck are shoveled into my eyeballs upon every surface and every screen

Next up: Take the phd paper that has to exist to show spending on advertising and how it relates to the movie review, crowd source where, how often and when advertising for a movie happens via cell phones taking QR codes along with audio matching and thus be able to predict how sucky the movie will be.

The only question - how to make money on such an effort.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:36 AM on January 27, 2013


the experience of being in a packed movie theater where everybody, including you, is laughing uncontrollably

I saw There's Something about Mary in a theater, and didn't think it was that funny. Just not my thing. The only time I remember having the experience you describe was during a sneak preview of Home Alone.

Humor is horribly subjective. I know people who think Jeff Dunham is hilarious.
posted by and for no one at 11:38 AM on January 27, 2013


The Truman Show gets lambasted for Jim Carey's acting
Why Carey's? He was quite good in a film which contained at least two people giving the shittiest performance of their careers.
posted by fullerine at 11:47 AM on January 27, 2013


The first section, with Jackman (playing a man who has testicles hanging off his chin)
I thought that was the Goblin King in The Hobbit. Or are there several movies where people have testicles hanging off their chin. Is that a trend?
posted by elgilito at 11:49 AM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


worth pointing out. Apparently Peter Farrelly is a big fan of Kentucky Fried Movie, and in fact, Movie 43 was his effort to rekindle its spirit.

Problem is, Kentucky Fried Movie just isn't that good. I recall seeing it in my late teens and loving in a raunchy sort of way. But then I caught it a few years later (a mature adult now) and found it at best spotty, batting maybe .150 in terms of itw so-called "jokes" actually getting laughs out of me. Mostly, I felt embarrassed for my former self.

So yeah, like and-for-no-one just said, humor is horribly subjective. To which I would add, ephemeral.
posted by philip-random at 11:55 AM on January 27, 2013 [3 favorites]


I would rather see Movie 43 than sit through The Hobbit again. And I say that as someone who thinks Jackson pulling off LOTR is one of the most impressive feats in the history of cinema.
posted by nathancaswell at 11:57 AM on January 27, 2013 [5 favorites]


nathancaswell - I haven't even seen the Hobbit, yet suspect I agree with you. And yes, LOTR - definitely one for the ages.
posted by philip-random at 12:04 PM on January 27, 2013


I saw this trailer last night before the feature, and it was egregiously bad--I mean mind-blowingly awful. Everyone in our group wondered who had blackmailed all those actors. I am still undecided on what sum of money I would need to be paid before it'd be worth my while to sit through it.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 12:10 PM on January 27, 2013


The moment I saw the first commercial for this I knew it was going to suck.

It wasn't (just) the fact it was obviously a dumb comedy along the lines of the depressingly long Scary Movie, and then Other Things Movie series. It was the fact that they couldn't even come up with a good title for it. Maybe it's supposed to be an X Movie movie, but they couldn't come up with even a unifying theme, so they effectively called it Movie.

The only redeeming thing about it that I can tell is that it causes me to imagine amusingly dystopian scenes among people considering seeing it (best read with Conehead voices):

WORKER-PLEEB 16930: "Worker-Pleeb 21880! You are female. Perhaps you would like to accompany me to Cinema-Drome 17, ingest cheese-laden salt-and-corn substrate and observe a projection of Movie 43?"
WORKER-PLEEB 21880: "I am unsure. It is six-cycle, the parent-bots have set an early curfew, and as of late the patrol-drones on the civic travel-lanes have been harsh in their vigil for errant vehicles."
posted by JHarris at 12:14 PM on January 27, 2013 [17 favorites]


From the NY Post article:
Judging from the trailer, it’s not hard to see why most of the cast is keeping their distance. A loose assemblage of self-contained comedy sketches, “Movie 43” features Anna Faris as a young woman asking her boyfriend “Will you poop on me?”; Berry shoving her breasts in a bowl of guacamole; Jackman and Winslet on a first date, with Winslet distracted by the balls hanging from Jackman’s chin; Stone and Kieran Culkin fighting over who gave whom STDs; Gerard Butler as a leprechaun who threatens to cut off Johnny Knoxville’s “balls and feed ’em to ya!”

“I just want to reinforce that the movie wasn’t an attempt to shock,” says producer John Penotti. They did, after all, cut a sketch about necrophilia.

posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 12:15 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


Wasn't the fact that Anna Faris is in it a dead giveaway that this movie sucks? (I don't know if she should fire her agent or pay them more for making her filthy rich off of this stream of horrible, horrible movies)

No? Anna Faris has done a lot of bad movies, but she's also been really really good in some really really good movies. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, or Observe and Report, come to mind. I wasn't a fan of Lost In Translation, but people seem to have loved that, too.
posted by kafziel at 12:17 PM on January 27, 2013


It really says something that the only reason I became aware of this film before today was because a 'trailer' (loosest sense of the word - 'collection of incomprehensibly linked images and actor names' is more accurate) for it popped up before a video... on youporn.com.

No, I'm not joking.
posted by FatherDagon at 12:18 PM on January 27, 2013 [9 favorites]


Anna Faris has done a lot of bad movies, but she's also been really really good in some really really good movies.

See also: May.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 12:20 PM on January 27, 2013 [8 favorites]


Wait, so it's a sketch movie, like Kentucky Fried Movie and Tunnel Vision? That could be okay, theoretically, I love Kentucky Friend Movie overall, but hurdy gurdy girl's description makes it clear they're trying to be way too transgressive.
posted by JHarris at 12:20 PM on January 27, 2013


I couldn't even get halfway through the trailer.
posted by cazoo at 12:21 PM on January 27, 2013


I would rather see Movie 43 than sit through The Hobbit again.

Wow, really? From everything I've heard and the trailer I've seen, Movie 43 seems like such an astonishing piece of crap that I can't imagine you hold The Hobbit in such low regard. Was it the ideal translation of that book to film? Probably not. I don't know if you're speaking as a Tolkien purist or if your dislike springs from something else. But I enjoyed most of it and would see it again.

To the point of the original posting, Movie 43 seems like such a puerile attempt to be edgy, but like a 14-year-old's idea of "edgy." I can't imagine how the stars involved thought it would be in any way advantageous to be associated with it. At all. Especially given that some of them walk the line between box office poison and very occasional triumph *cough*HalleBerry*cough*.
posted by the sobsister at 12:26 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


Well, the imdb parents guide entry for this movie is kind of entertaining. "In that way, Movie 43 has something in common with Andrei Rublev," is how I like to think about it.
posted by flechsig at 12:27 PM on January 27, 2013 [2 favorites]


Wow. Ebert's review, he gives it ZERO stars, users give it four. There's got to be some vote tempering going on there.
posted by JHarris at 12:28 PM on January 27, 2013


I look forward to demanding my $8 back from Netflix on the basis of these reviews.
posted by arcticseal at 12:30 PM on January 27, 2013


Reading more of that review (it's hilarious):
Farrelly was going for a 21st century version of "The Groove Tube" and "Kentucky Fried Movie," two very funny, very raunchy and very influential sketch-comedy flicks of the mid-1970s.

1970s raunch seems almost charming now. Current-day raunch tries waaay too hard. I'd pay money (if I had it) to see a 1970s-level raunch sketch comedy movie now.
posted by JHarris at 12:32 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


They made There's Something About Mary? Everybody i went with thought it was hilarious and i was sooo bored and had to pretend i liked it. The joke where he goes to the loo during the posh dinner and gets his pecker caught in his zipper was the only joke that made me laugh, because i could sympathise with the social-embarrassment and it was unexpected.
posted by maiamaia at 12:32 PM on January 27, 2013 [2 favorites]


It’s as if Movie 43 was itself a feature-length F*** You to Hollywood
> Adding: oh for fuck's sake. Twenty or thirty multi-millionaires whose faint shred of validity for their income is that they are there to entertain you as a profession saying poop and pee on camera that you just wasted eleven bucks on is a "fuck you" to only one god damned person and you'll see that person in the mirror if you can bear to look in it after falling for that line.

To be fair, the full quote is:

"It’s as if 'Movie 43' was itself a feature-length f--k-you to Hollywood, a movie made simply to show how bad a movie a studio could be induced to make and actors could be persuaded to act in."

I think the idea is that it's the Farrelly Brothers' f--k you to Hollywood. But to your point, I agree that it's pretty much a giant 'f--k you' to everyone.
posted by Brak at 12:35 PM on January 27, 2013


Armond White strangely quiet on the matter.
posted by Artw at 12:35 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


If people were disappointed in LOtR because it left too much out, the problem with The Hobbit is that they put so much in -- much of which wasn't even in the book -- that it drags and drags and drags interminably. If you aren't a Shire Furry captivated by the Shire Porn, it takes far too long to get the journey started, and then when enemies show up and battles commence, it is so far over the top that your ability to suspend disblief is likely to be discovered by the Mars Curiosity Rover.

As for Movie 43 I feel pretty find all movies of this type as boring as maiamaia found There's Something about Mary, probably for the same reasons.
posted by localroger at 12:39 PM on January 27, 2013 [4 favorites]


KokoRyu: Denby and Lane write for the print edition of The New Yorker, Richard Brody blogs for them.

And regarding Anna Farris being awesome, I give you Smiley Face.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 12:41 PM on January 27, 2013 [5 favorites]


The popularity of the Farrelly Bros. makes me despair for the future of humanity. The only funny bit in Mary was everything with Matt Dillon.
posted by Mister_A at 12:42 PM on January 27, 2013


Bob Odenkirk of Mr Show fame is one of the credited directors. Wonder if his segment is any better than the others.
posted by Clustercuss at 12:45 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


A part of me believes this movie was created solely for the horrified critical reaction to it. And a part of me admires that.

Anyone can make a shitty movie, but to make a HUGE shitty movie with big name stars and a wide release into theaters is impressive. I'm sure it'll be a cult following based on this notoriety, like only the worst movies can attain.
posted by Down10 at 12:45 PM on January 27, 2013 [3 favorites]


I dunno, Gigli and Ishtar are widely acclaimed high profile 'worst movie in recent memory' flops, and NO ONE I know seeks those out because they don't offer the delirious unintentional joy of Waterworld or The Room.
posted by Mister_A at 12:47 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


Observe and Report

Uh, what. A movie that thinks drunken drugged up date rape is something that should be played for laughs gets categorized as a "really really good movie"? Okay. Please tell me I am missing a giant fucking hamburger in your comment.
posted by elizardbits at 12:49 PM on January 27, 2013 [5 favorites]


After reading the comments here and a few reviews, the sneaking thought was "Perhaps there is an element of snobbery going on here, with comfort in declaring 'I'm above this kind of thing' and it's not actually that bad".

So, found the trailer and it's 2 and a half minutes long. Low risk. If it's that bad, then I've lost just 2 and a half minutes; so what. And I'll make up my own mind and come at it open-minded, rather than "I'll try not to like this so I can be a bit culturally elitist when I write about it." Will scribble down reactions while it's playing.

(Context: I'm English, 44, male, with a pretty broad taste. Rewatched American Pie recently and found it seriously funny/cute, though my favorite comedy film is, and probably always will be, Annie Hall.)

Watches trailer.

Reactions:

1. This is a very long 2 and a half minutes.

2. Not laughing.

3. Still not laughing. Nor come anywhere close to laughing. Increasingly puzzled by the unfunny-ness of this as the 150 seconds drag on.

4. Every few seconds: "Oh, that's him or her."

5. This seems to be built around a series of "shock value" sketches. Though from the clips, each is ... just ... boring?

6. Perhaps the writers and directors are playing some kind of ironic joke on film audiences? "Hah, we knew you'd see a crap movie."

7. A few years ago, we had the phrase "Straight to video" for bad movies. This one is perhaps best labeled "Straight to torrent".

8. Oh, that's the guy from the Daily Show. He's funny on that. What a shame.

9. Why are all these famous people doing this? They don't need the money; do they? This will hurt their credibility; won't it? I really don't understand the movie world.

10. It's over. Why did I do that? I really want those 2 and a half minutes of my life back. What a waste.
posted by Wordshore at 12:49 PM on January 27, 2013 [11 favorites]


If you aren't a Shire Furry captivated by the Shire Porn, it takes far too long to get the journey started, and then when enemies show up and battles commence, it is so far over the top that your ability to suspend disblief is likely to be discovered by the Mars Curiosity Rover.

Wow, it's like they hired the director of that horribly overblown, overlong, overLOUD, overEVERYTHING remake of King Kong to make the Hobbit. Bad call.
posted by philip-random at 12:51 PM on January 27, 2013 [3 favorites]


Clustercuss: "Bob Odenkirk of Mr Show fame is one of the credited directors. Wonder if his segment is any better than the others."

"Alright guys, your movie looks like crap, but I have an idea for how to save it. Two words: Laser Tag!"
posted by mannequito at 12:51 PM on January 27, 2013 [20 favorites]


Yeah that King Kong was really terrible. The most telling thing is that I don't remember a bit of it. I remember the Jessica Lange one, I remember the original, but this turd... sonar pings aren't showing anything.
posted by Mister_A at 12:52 PM on January 27, 2013


Problem is, Kentucky Fried Movie just isn't that good

What was that?

This is not a chawade.

We need total concentwation!
posted by ShutterBun at 12:55 PM on January 27, 2013 [2 favorites]


The trailers do look pretty dire, but the whole raunchy sketch comedy movie genre has been deep in the shits for a while now. Can this thing possibly be worse than The 41-Year-Old Virgin Who Knocked Up Sarah Marshall and Felt Superbad About It?

I saw someplace (and a quick Googling seems to support it) that in this movie Kate Winslet plays Juliet Hulme, the same name as the person she played in Peter Jackson's Heavenly Creatures. Can anybody confirm if that's the case? Is she just playing a new character with the same name, or do they have her running around as a middle-aged murderess in a schoolgirl outfit?
posted by Ursula Hitler at 12:55 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


Mister_A, do you remember... the Bug Scene? I wish I could forget the Bug Scene. Remembering the scene with the Hobbits hiding from the Ringwraith in FOTR, Peter Jackson must have a thing for bugs.
posted by JHarris at 12:58 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


Hey, Bob Odenkirk's no stranger to movies that should never have been made!
posted by Brak at 1:01 PM on January 27, 2013 [3 favorites]


Obviously, now I must watch this just to witness quite how bad it is.
posted by jaduncan at 1:03 PM on January 27, 2013


This looks like one of those terrible "parody" movies that come out every year (Scary Movie, Disaster Movie, etc.), except with a lot of star power. I have absolutely no idea what to make of it after seeing the trailer, but the reviews do make it sound pretty awful.
posted by asnider at 1:04 PM on January 27, 2013


I saw someplace (and a quick Googling seems to support it) that in this movie Kate Winslet plays Juliet Hulme, the same name as the person she played in Peter Jackson's Heavenly Creatures. Can anybody confirm if that's the case?

I have no idea if it's true for this movie but given Juliet Hulme is an actual still-living person that strikes me as rather insensitive if it is.

I've seen quotes from Farrelly saying he doesn't expect it to be a critical hit (oh, here: It’s not going to get good reviews, but it’s going to be a huge thing for college kids) so at least he seems to have got that part correct.
posted by shelleycat at 1:04 PM on January 27, 2013


Amazingly, I did not remember that scene. I just watched it on YouTube — maybe I was playing Tetris or something when that was on. It's a pretty cool scene, pretty good monster animation action there, but the thing is I don't really care about any of the "characters"; let the bugs have 'em!
posted by Mister_A at 1:05 PM on January 27, 2013


For comparison: the trailer for Howard the Duck, one of the defining films of my childhood.
posted by Nomyte at 1:09 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


It’s not going to get good reviews, but it’s going to be a huge thing for college kids

It's not just familiarity that breeds contempt, apparently.
posted by jaduncan at 1:10 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


There's Something About Mary was shockingly crude back when it was possible to be shockingly crude, instead of just run-of-the-mill crude, and there's an underlining sweetness to it. Ben Stiller's character is a nice guy who can't get a break. More importantly, it's got Jonathan Richman throughout.
posted by hydrophonic at 1:17 PM on January 27, 2013 [5 favorites]


It's not even February yet and we seem to have our worst movie of the year

"Hah, we knew you'd see a crap movie."


Gangster Squad
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:19 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


It’s not going to get good reviews, but it’s going to be a huge thing for college kids

I was a college kid not long ago and I loathed movies like this, although some other people I knew would like it. I think it's not college kids that Farrelly means but frat bros.

I remember a time back at GSU when I found stapled to bulletin boards in several classrooms ads for Van Wilder. In the English department! I can't think those pieces of cardboard did anything to help that film's fortunes.
posted by JHarris at 1:20 PM on January 27, 2013 [4 favorites]


I've been reading some of the snarkier reviews out to my husband and we've had three or four mild laughs at them. That's more than we had when watching There's Something About Mary so I guess chalk one up to this movie (which we're not going to watch but that was a given anyway).
posted by shelleycat at 1:20 PM on January 27, 2013


I'm with JHarris. I graduated two years ago, but I hated this kind of trash even six years ago. On the other hand, college dorms aren't necessarily the bastions of good taste that genre distinctions like "college rock" would suggest.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:39 PM on January 27, 2013


The trailer contains the phrase "You can't unsee." How long has the internet been around, and haven't you learned that "You can't unsee" means this is a must-skip?

Or did you find tubgirl and goatse inspirational?
posted by hexatron at 1:43 PM on January 27, 2013 [4 favorites]


Uh, what. A movie that thinks drunken drugged up date rape is something that should be played for laughs gets categorized as a "really really good movie"? Okay. Please tell me I am missing a giant fucking hamburger in your comment.

I'm sorry you completely missed the point of that scene. If you even saw it. Which I kinda doubt, given the context surrounding it makes perfectly clear that this is not something being "played for laughs". Do you also think Travis Bickle is an action hero?
posted by kafziel at 1:43 PM on January 27, 2013 [4 favorites]


hexatron: ...Or did you find tubgirl and goatse inspirational?

What, in the name of Cthulhu, is "goatse"?

{does Google search}

I hate you.
posted by Wordshore at 1:50 PM on January 27, 2013 [23 favorites]


I'm still miffed that Something About Mary got nominated for a Golden Globe while BASEketball -- a movie where Bob Costas asks Al Michaels to feel his nipples -- was universally panned by critics in the same year.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 1:52 PM on January 27, 2013 [10 favorites]


and as long as I'm going on about underappreciated movies: The Truman Show gets lambasted for Jim Carey's acting, but arguably it was the only role ever perfect for him and he was one of very few who could have pulled it off accurately, because his "always on" style (I feel) is how a person would inevitably grow up to behave if his every move were being observed, even if he didn't know it, because he'd spent his entire life around insincere actors playing roles, every single human interaction, so he would certainly behave as a reflection of that. Anyway, back to the show.

Who didn't like Truman Show? That movie was great.

This movie isn't my thing, but critics hated Speed Racer too and that was amazing.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 2:20 PM on January 27, 2013 [2 favorites]


What, in the name of Cthulhu, is "goatse"?

Basically a Cthulhu.
posted by Artw at 2:23 PM on January 27, 2013 [6 favorites]


I think I'm going to write a parody of those 'Scary Movie' type parody movies - I will actually murder the principals on camera!
posted by Mister_A at 2:28 PM on January 27, 2013 [2 favorites]


critics hated Speed Racer too and that was amazing.

My God! I'm not alone!
posted by localroger at 2:31 PM on January 27, 2013 [3 favorites]


I had a feeling this was going to suck when I realised that none of the trailers reveal anything about the movie's plot. It's just three-second long non-sequitur clips followed by the title.
posted by anaximander at 2:33 PM on January 27, 2013


I had a feeling this was going to suck when I realised that none of the trailers reveal anything about the movie's plot.

It doesn't have a plot so much as a series of sketches.
posted by axiom at 2:38 PM on January 27, 2013


BUT the trailer did have breasts, and black people! How can this not be funny? The jokes write themselves!
posted by Mister_A at 2:39 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


1. All I remember about Peter Jackson's King Kong was Naomi Watts's incredible cloches.

2. Overheard in a diner, ca. May 2008: "Speed Racer was like watching jellybeans have sex."
posted by pxe2000 at 2:41 PM on January 27, 2013 [9 favorites]


derail: Carrey won the Golden Globe for Best Actor for his performance in The Truman Show. Yeah herp derp golden globes, but that's not "panned by critics" by any reasonable definition.
posted by mek at 2:42 PM on January 27, 2013 [3 favorites]


I thought Jim Carrey was great in that role. And I LOVE Naomi Watts's cloches.
posted by Mister_A at 2:44 PM on January 27, 2013 [2 favorites]


The Truman Show gets lambasted for Jim Carey's acting, but arguably it was the only role ever perfect for him

He was outstanding in The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Strongly recommended.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 2:44 PM on January 27, 2013 [11 favorites]


Yeah Jim Carrey ain't a bad actor when he's not doing cartoons or that penguin abomination (which my kids enjoyed on HBO so whatevs, no real animus there, just not my cup o' tea).
posted by Mister_A at 2:45 PM on January 27, 2013


If you're going to see it, make sure they're paying you.

You better be careful -- this is so close to praise compared to any other reviews it might end up used in promotional materials.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:45 PM on January 27, 2013 [4 favorites]


There was a story a few years ago about how porn in hotel room movie services basically had ten minutes viewed and then off again.

When this abomination in the eyes of both God and man migrates to the hotel room movie services, smart money is on it being insanely profitable there, as people watch two minutes and then ditch it fast.

I haven't seen a bit of, I skip the trailers as much as I can, and all I know is that I don't want to know more about it than I have read in this thread.
posted by mephron at 2:47 PM on January 27, 2013


I can total envision how the casting for this must have gone. They get like 2 or 3 big names on board who are friends or who they sell by putting them in the best skits. Then everyone is like hey that big star is doing it so it must be good! And it'll only take like 20 minutes to shoot on some set in the Valley so no commitment needed and with all these big stars it's a guaranteed hit and I can be part of it for basically no effort. Oh yeah this will be a great way to show off my yet unrealized comedic skills!
posted by whoaali at 2:48 PM on January 27, 2013


I thought that was the worst bit:
Academy Award winner Halle Berry no longer can cite "Catwoman" as the low point of her career.
Ouch.
posted by ersatz at 2:55 PM on January 27, 2013 [8 favorites]


It's as if the movie studio heard about what happened to Guy Fieri's restaurant and the lights went on and they finally figured out how they could pitch the flick.

> ...but critics hated Speed Racer too and that was amazing.

I liked it too. It succeeded at what it was trying to do, which was to be a live-action anime, bright colors and exaggerated gestures and all everything. I thought it was better than the cartoon I used to watch as a child, which in retrospect was horribly stiff and slow-moving and stupidly self-important. As opposed to exciting and loud and high-energy and stupid in a self-aware way.

That said, a lot of times the critics and I, we agree. More often than not, maybe.
posted by ardgedee at 2:55 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


and as long as I'm going on about underappreciated movies: The Truman Show

What the hell? It has an 8/10 on IMDB and a 95% percent on Rotten Tomatoes. I'm not sure what it would take to be an "appreciated" movie, but I look forward to seeing one.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 2:56 PM on January 27, 2013 [5 favorites]


"Speed Racer was like watching jellybeans have sex."

Agreed. It's that good.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 3:03 PM on January 27, 2013 [7 favorites]


I'm surprised by the Farrellys hating here. Many of their movies combine gross-out comedy (indeed) with characters who happen to actually care for each other about in some unexpected ways. There's always an underlying sweetness there, particularly towards people not well-liked by the rest of the society, the non-pretty, the non-smart, the non-fully abled etc. It's not just about bodily fluids.
posted by elgilito at 3:05 PM on January 27, 2013 [4 favorites]


All this controversy and contempt makes me positive that the Farrellys have created art. Its art in the sense that wow... you guys are livid about how bad a movie most of you have stated you haven't seen.

It is as artful as this solid Goodwin.
posted by Nanukthedog at 3:06 PM on January 27, 2013


Suspicious rave review from Rottentomatoes Top Critic, Michael O'Sullivan for The Washington Post: "The only reason I’m giving it 3  1/2 stars instead of four [out of maximum of four] is because I don’t want to go to hell for loving it."
posted by Bwithh at 3:14 PM on January 27, 2013


Problem is, Kentucky Fried Movie just isn't that good

Take him...to Detroit!
posted by MrBadExample at 3:15 PM on January 27, 2013 [3 favorites]


Problem is, Kentucky Fried Movie just isn't that good


TAKE HIM TO DETWOIT!
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 3:16 PM on January 27, 2013


Dammit!
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 3:16 PM on January 27, 2013 [3 favorites]


"The Truman Show gets lambasted for Jim Carrey's acting, but arguably it was the only role ever perfect for him."

"He was outstanding in The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Strongly recommended."


I completely agree, and I love both those movies. He's also excellent in Man on the Moon, where Carrey plays the famously bizarre comedian/performance artist Andy Kaufman. No a perfect movie, but he absolutely inhabits the character.
posted by Green Winnebago at 3:17 PM on January 27, 2013 [4 favorites]


Stephen Merchant's a long way from home
posted by Bwithh at 3:18 PM on January 27, 2013 [3 favorites]


All this controversy and contempt makes me positive that the Farrellys have created art. Its art in the sense that wow... you guys are livid about how bad a movie most of you have stated you haven't seen.

It is as artful as this solid Goodwin.
--Nanukthedog

Either it is art, or it is just a really bad movie.

Surprisingly, we haven't all rushed out to spend $12 to go the movie so we can 'properly' comment and instead are relying on universally and resoundingly poor reviews and terrible trailers.

So it is your job to do so and tell us what you think!
posted by eye of newt at 3:19 PM on January 27, 2013 [5 favorites]


FatherDagon: "It really says something that the only reason I became aware of this film before today was because a 'trailer' (loosest sense of the word - 'collection of incomprehensibly linked images and actor names' is more accurate) for it popped up before a video... on youporn.com.

No, I'm not joking.
"

's got scat references, right? Tie in!
posted by Samizdata at 3:21 PM on January 27, 2013


Wordshore:
What, in the name of Cthulhu, is "goatse"?
{does Google search}
I hate you.


Oh lord, we have another one. Try to hang in there. You might not believe this now, but while the memory will never go away, with time, it will fade.

This might help. (<<< kittens - not a mystery link - not lemon party or anything like that - entirely safe)
posted by JHarris at 3:25 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


What's a-?

No, wait, never mind.
posted by Artw at 3:27 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


DO NOT INQUIRE ABOUT LEMON PARTY
posted by JHarris at 3:29 PM on January 27, 2013 [7 favorites]




Don't worry, TheWhiteSkull. In the event of getting sniped on the Doctor Klahn reference, this thread comes equipped with BIG JIM SLADE!

"Movie 43" may very well be the comedic equivalent of the Faces of Death series. I'll probably never know. But I like knowing the Farrellys are out there doing their thing. (In fact, I quite enjoyed their Three Stooges.) The alternative is the sappy High Fructose Comedy Syrup from the Apatow factory, so it's nice to know there's somebody out there carrying the torch for pure-D STOOPID.
posted by MrBadExample at 3:39 PM on January 27, 2013 [4 favorites]


A toy robot!
posted by Artw at 3:41 PM on January 27, 2013


Mister_A: "Yeah Jim Carrey ain't a bad actor when he's not doing cartoons or that penguin abomination (which my kids enjoyed on HBO so whatevs, no real animus there, just not my cup o' tea)."

This one?
posted by mannequito at 3:41 PM on January 27, 2013


A movie that is this hated almost has to be good.
posted by gjc at 3:46 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


I absolutely HAVE to see this movie now. It can't be worse than "Holy Rollers".
posted by newfers at 3:50 PM on January 27, 2013


I have yet to see Revolver.
posted by Artw at 3:52 PM on January 27, 2013



A movie that is this hated almost has to be good.


I can see this on a poster.
posted by philip-random at 4:19 PM on January 27, 2013 [2 favorites]


A movie that is this hated almost has to be good.

The key word is "almost."
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 4:20 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


Juliet Hulme is an actual living person whose legal name is now Anne Perry, btw. Good historical mystery writer. Isn't likely to sue for right of exploitation of her long-discarded birth name.
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:49 PM on January 27, 2013


"...make sure...you're going to see it!" -- roger ackroyd
posted by LURK at 4:51 PM on January 27, 2013 [3 favorites]


Let's hold right there. gjc and newfers, I am something of a connoisseur of bad movies. Speaking as such: you might not want to test those assumptions.

Roeper's review mentions movies that are camp-bad, and movies that are fun-bad, and movies that are awful, and it identifies this as the Citizen Kane of awful. There are warnings that should be heeded.

Mystery Science Theater 3000 got a lot of material out of bad movies, but it's an oft-neglected fact that that choose their movies carefully, and there were plenty of films they refused to do, because there wasn't enough for their writers to get into, or the movie was sickening.

There's bad as in incompetent, which is what MST, Rifftrax and Cinematic Titanic deal with. Then there's bad as in reprehensible, cynical, appealing to the worst in man, the kind of movie that makes drunk bros go "Whoooo" at the screen. These movies often have good budgets, surprising star power, and excellent production values, all these things subverted to the purposes of the Beastmaster*. We have no shortage of this newer kind of movie, and there is nothing laudable even interesting about them, other than raw profitability. They're the worst possible thing that makes money, skillfully excised of any other expense. You can't even laugh at the people who made it.

* Marc Singer
posted by JHarris at 4:54 PM on January 27, 2013 [12 favorites]


Some things:

1. Yeah, I've never heard of anyone complain about Jim Carrey in either The Truman Show or Eternal Sunshine, almost universally agreed-upon to be his two best roles/films.

2. Anna Faris is like Dakota Fanning to me in that they are both understood to be very good actresses despite (at least in Fanning's case) never once being in an even passably decent movie. I haven't seen Observe and Report yet, but after elizardbits' comment I'm very, very curious how that scene in question can work at all without sinking the film.

3. I remember liking Kentucky Fried Movie and Amazon Women on the Moon when I was a kid. I get the desire for 1970's-style raunch comedy. But we forget something important about that era: it was way, way happier to swim in the cesspools of racism, sexism and other prejudices that wouldn't fly today. Gross-out humor doesn't generally make me laugh, but I'm happy that society is making that trade off, bit by little bit.

4. There are writers/directors that could have pulled this off. Parker & Stone, perhaps, who love some scatology and envelope-pushing but also know how to make it smart. Or any of the people behind the great FX comedies like Archer, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia or The League. All raunchy and extreme, all actually creative and clever with where they take those instincts.

5. All of this criticism makes me actually curious to see this. I doubt very much that I'd like it or even laugh very much, but it's such an oddity that I can imagine turning it on at the wrong side of midnight one night with a few drinks in me and at least finding it comfortably bizarre.
posted by Navelgazer at 5:01 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


A toy robot!

"Eat lead, sucker."
posted by kirkaracha at 5:06 PM on January 27, 2013 [2 favorites]


Rating Every Sketch in Kentucky Fried Movie, The Film Movie 43 Wanted to Be

There are writers/directors that could have pulled this off. Parker & Stone, perhaps, who love some scatology and envelope-pushing but also know how to make it smart

"Initially, Trey Parker and Matt Stone — creators of “South Park” and “The Book of Mormon” — were involved, but they dropped out. So did the famed Zucker brothers (“Kentucky Fried Movie,” “Airplane!”)." -- New York Post
posted by kirkaracha at 5:11 PM on January 27, 2013 [2 favorites]


Sketch: "Catholic High School Girls In Trouble."
Premise: A movie trailer features the most over-the-top exploitation film of all time.
Modern-Day Offensiveness: It's pretty rare to see an extreme closeup of a woman fondling her breasts for 25 seconds in the theater anymore.

posted by Artw at 5:19 PM on January 27, 2013


Problem is, Kentucky Fried Movie just isn't that good.

This rebuttal might seem weak, but luckily it comes equipped with BIG JIM SLADE!! Big Jim, former tight end for the Kansas City Chiefs, is outfitted with various whips, chains, and a sexual appetite that will knock your socks off, and the capital of Nebraska is Lincoln!
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:23 PM on January 27, 2013 [6 favorites]


2. Anna Faris is like Dakota Fanning to me in that they are both understood to be very good actresses despite (at least in Fanning's case) never once being in an even passably decent movie. I haven't seen Observe and Report yet, but after elizardbits' comment I'm very, very curious how that scene in question can work at all without sinking the film.

It is a point of Ronnie's character - that is, the main character - that after handing an eager Brandi his clonazepam prescription to get her to like him, and watching her chase pill after pill with shot after shot all night until she is borderline-comatose and literally vomiting, that Ronnie believes this to be True Love Vindicated, and that she truly loves him as much as he's convinced he loves her. The viewer is to be intellectually and emotionally disgusted with him, that he is such a miserable and broken person that he thinks this is High Romance, just as we are physically disgusted by his passionately kissing a limp Brandi less than a minute after we watched her noisily vomit in her driveway - and equally physically disgusted by the smash cut to him having sex with her insensate form, repeating "I love you! I love you!" while she just lays there and drools.

Like I said. If you thought that scene conveys "haha, date rape!" in any way, sense, or form, then you just flat didn't watch the movie. You heard about it thirdhand, got pissed without knowing what you're pissed about, and started repeating the same horseshit without bothering to check whether you're remotely on-base. The comedy's black as pitch, and the movie is and was about the continued deterioration of Ronnie's mental state and life both before and after that scene, and ... well, there's a reason it keeps being compared to Taxi Driver. I don't think you can genuinely watch Taxi Driver and think that Travis Bickle is a badass action superstar who brings justice to the streets in an awesome gun battle, and I don't think you can genuinely watch Observe and Report and think that it's in any way making light of date rape.
posted by kafziel at 5:28 PM on January 27, 2013 [7 favorites]


And now, back to the movie at hand ... this thing might indeed be incredibly awful - some of these sketches sound funny, some sound like the whole joke is in the premise, and some don't sound funny at all - but "the Citizen Kane of awful movies"? Come the fuck on. This is not gonna be more of a joyless death march than Master of Disguise.
posted by kafziel at 5:30 PM on January 27, 2013


Well, I wasn't pissed at the movie, I just wasn't clear how that scene could work. Thanks for explaining the context.
posted by Navelgazer at 5:37 PM on January 27, 2013


kirkaracha, that recap doesn't contain the best bit in the movie,
That's Armageddon
!
posted by JHarris at 5:44 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


This is not gonna be more of a joyless death march than Master of Disguise.

Tell me, have you ever seen Manos?

I would rather watch Manos.
posted by JHarris at 5:45 PM on January 27, 2013 [3 favorites]


Anna Faris is like Dakota Fanning to me in that they are both understood to be very good actresses despite (at least in Fanning's case) never once being in an even passably decent movie.

I understand not liking War of the Worlds, Coraline, or Charlotte's Web, but I think just about anyone would call them passably decent. They all got pretty good reviews, as did a few of her other films. She's definitely been in some drek, though.
posted by Huck500 at 5:49 PM on January 27, 2013


kafziel:
The comedy ('Observe And Report') (i)s black as pitch, and the movie is and was about the continued deterioration of Ronnie's mental state and life both before and after that scene, and ... well, there's a reason it keeps being compared to Taxi Driver.

I like to describe 'Observe and Report' as 'Paul Blart: Mall Cop' directed by Lars Von Trier.

navelgazer:
I've never heard of anyone complain about Jim Carrey in... The Truman Show...

After watching The Truman Show I overheard a group of college kids leaving the theatre, grumbing and calling the movie "gay". One of them said he thought it would be more like Ace Ventura. And yes: this is the exact same audience who will fund whatever profit Movie 43 over the next few weeks.
posted by spoobnooble II: electric bugaboo at 6:05 PM on January 27, 2013 [2 favorites]


Nice to see the name Alan Smithee!
posted by kenko at 6:58 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


Anna Faris is like Dakota Fanning to me in that they are both understood to be very good actresses despite (at least in Fanning's case) never once being in an even passably decent movie.

The Runaways. Kristen Stewart is also very good in it. (Disclaimer: I've been a big Joan Jett fan for over three decades.)
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:06 PM on January 27, 2013 [3 favorites]


The movie made $5 million over the weekend, but its budget was $6 million. Yeah, marketing costs money too, but all told this thing will probably make money.

It's a shame, because I like the idea of a Kentucky Fried Movie-style flick, but obviously this wasn't it.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:07 PM on January 27, 2013


Yeah, Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, I loved Carey in that as well, but I didn't want to distract from the point. And I'm sorry to say...

Who didn't like Truman Show?

Just about everyone I've ever met to whom I've suggested "hey, how about watching The Truman Show?" Which is just about everyone I've ever met and created more than an acquaintanceship with, sadly. I might be hanging with the wrong people.
posted by davejay at 7:40 PM on January 27, 2013


The movie made $5 million over the weekend, but its budget was $6 million. Yeah, marketing costs money too, but all told this thing will probably make money.

Those same people I just mentioned in my last comment? They go out of their way to get together in a large group and pay to see the worst, absolute worst, we-know-it-will-be-bad worst movies they can on opening weekend. Human Centipede got them all very excited (not in a sexual way, at least I hope to god not) and I am certain I would have gotten invited to the Movie 43 outing if I hadn't removed myself from Facebook.
posted by davejay at 7:42 PM on January 27, 2013


Just about everyone I've ever met to whom I've suggested "hey, how about watching The Truman Show?" Which is just about everyone I've ever met and created more than an acquaintanceship with, sadly.

maybe they're doing it en masse so as to record your reactions
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:48 PM on January 27, 2013 [5 favorites]


I just listened to Peter Farrelly on Nerdist this week. Towards the end of the interview he said Movie 43 will be universally panned by all the critics and to please not judge it by MetaCritic. I haven't seen it but it sounded as though he was expecting this response from critics.
posted by SarahElizaP at 7:53 PM on January 27, 2013


its budget was $6 million.

That's mind-blowing. Even if all the stars were working for scale, it's hard to imagine putting together a feature film for under $10 million these days. ("The Room" cost $6 million, fer chrissakes, although that was mostly due to some really odd choices by its creator)
posted by ShutterBun at 8:00 PM on January 27, 2013


The movie made $5 million over the weekend, but its budget was $6 million.

Six million? For taking four years? Having all those stars? And the crew didn't work for free I'm sure. Something is screwy with that figure.
posted by JHarris at 8:09 PM on January 27, 2013


I watched a teaser for the Anna Faris coprophilia scene and thought it was the funniest sketch idea I'd seen in years. I love gloriously tasteless humour and to be honest I'm sort of dumbfounded that everyone except me and that guy at the WaPo is being a crusty old disapproving grandpa about this.

You don't like it? No-one's forcing you to buy a ticket. God knows Hollywood is churning out a hundred other tasteful middle-class romantic comedies about widows getting their groove back in Tuscany or Jaipur or the Caribbean that you guys can watch at the multiplex.
posted by dontjumplarry at 8:10 PM on January 27, 2013 [3 favorites]


I'm sort of dumbfounded that everyone except me and that guy at the WaPo is being a crusty old disapproving grandpa about this.

Well, if we're going to apply labels, we're all surprised you're being a tasteless crass Budweiser-swilling frat boy about this. (Really, not cool to call names.)
posted by JHarris at 8:12 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


Apologies. I'm just frustrated that "tasteful/tasteless" seems to be central and meaningful axis of judgement for many people here (and almost every single mainstream critic).

Taste is a silly social construction, a tool for the powerful to reinforce privilege. It shouldn't play any role in our aesthetic judgements.
posted by dontjumplarry at 8:19 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


I look forward to Nathan Rabin praising this in a year, like he did with Freddie Got Fingered.

And there are lots of pearl-clutching moralists on this site.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 8:20 PM on January 27, 2013


Taste is a silly social construction, a tool for the powerful to reinforce privilege. It shouldn't play any role in our aesthetic judgements.

You seem to be working a definition of "taste" and a definition of "aesthetic judgement" that are mutually exclusive. My experience is that this isn't the case for most folks.
posted by philip-random at 8:28 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


You don't like it? No-one's forcing you to buy a ticket. God knows Hollywood is churning out a hundred other tasteful middle-class romantic comedies about widows getting their groove back in Tuscany or Jaipur or the Caribbean that you guys can watch at the multiplex.

Yes these are the only two options
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 8:32 PM on January 27, 2013 [9 favorites]


I think I would have rather watched this than the completely cynical, grossly offensive and brain-dead Hansel and Gretel, which I was ready to walk out of after 10 minutes.
posted by empath at 8:34 PM on January 27, 2013


There's really no reason to see either Movie 43 or Hansel & Gretel. Just say 'no' to Hollywood.

As for matters of taste, well, objectively movies are just sequences of lights and sounds. To enjoy anything you must interpret it, and that means taste.

Believe it or not, the bad taste in Movie 43 is not the ultimate bottom -- there is no such thing. You can smile roguelishly at Peter Farrelly and say "you loveable scamp," but it's only because it's in accordance to your level of taste. There's nothing to say that Peter Farrelly Plus One won't sink to deeper depths. There's always something worse than what one expects; we established that up above, when goatse came up.

Transgressive themes have their place. The problem isn't that, in Movie 43, a guy poops on his wife. The problem is that there's precious little else in the movie than that. It's a movie made to make certain people say dude did you see that. If you're not one of those people, you're not going to get a lot out of it.
posted by JHarris at 9:31 PM on January 27, 2013 [2 favorites]




From crossoverman's link:
It’s a terrible movie, and everyone involved in Movie 43 seems to understand that it’s terrible, and yet it is still made, almost as a dare, as though some studio executive said: If we cast recognizable actors, will audiences still turn out for a bad movie?

A lot of Hollywood constantly banks on the answer being yes. While the answer is yes, movies are just going to get worse.

(It should be noted though that, despite what a lot of reviewers have said, the movie is not completely devoid of marketing. I've seen dozens of commercials for this thing on Adult Swim and Cartoon Network, they're pushing it pretty hard on those channels.)
posted by JHarris at 9:57 PM on January 27, 2013


Weirdly, however, this movie is now making me try to figure out exactly when I became the guy who wouldn't say dude, did you see that to poop-on-wife "humor." Because that fact is true but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the realization.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:00 PM on January 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


I figured out I wasn't the target audience for the Farrelly brothers' movies many years ago; watching Dumb and Dumber as a preteen, I got to the scene where they sell the dead bird to the blind child, and instead of laughing, I started to cry hysterically, because a blind child stroking a dead bird's head was, I felt, one of the saddest things I had ever seen. It's burned into my brain, and therefore I refuse to see Farrelly brothers movies in general; thankfully, I have apparently not missed much.

(Thank you for letting me air my Farrelly-related childhood trauma. As per this thread, however, yes, The Truman Show is awesome.)
posted by ilana at 10:05 PM on January 27, 2013 [3 favorites]


I'm thinking of creating a crowd funding campaign for people to pay me to sit through this film. I'm just trying to figure out what rewards to give to supporters and how much I want to get paid for sitting through this one movie.
posted by crossoverman at 10:14 PM on January 27, 2013


It’s a terrible movie, and everyone involved in Movie 43 seems to understand that it’s terrible, and yet it is still made, almost as a dare, as though some studio executive said: If we cast recognizable actors, will audiences still turn out for a bad movie?

In my darker moments (and I'm not convinced I'm wrong), I think terrible is precisely Hollywood's uber-goal these days -- utter terribleness. Because then they won't need to work with talented people anymore, they won't need to work with artists, people who actually care, who are infected with dangerous afflictions like integrity, self-respect. Then the Hollywood movie is finally on the level of something like ... a plastic shovel that can't even shovel, because the design is so awful, and the materials used, the overall manufacture. It's useless, garbage by design. And yet if people buy it, it's damned good business.
posted by philip-random at 10:25 PM on January 27, 2013


16. Uma Thurman plays Lois Lane, who talks about what a stalker Superman (Bobby Cannavale) is, describing Superman as a guy who floats outside of her window, masturbates, and shoots his superhuman spunk through her window (also, the grease in his hair is not grease).

Why did they remake Superman Returns?
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 10:34 PM on January 27, 2013 [4 favorites]


18. Chloë Moretz plays a 7th grader who experience her first period while making out with her boyfriend, leaving a pool of blood on the couch and a trail of it across a wall.


This was funnier in Misfits. The homeschooling sketch sounds good though.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 10:36 PM on January 27, 2013


No marketing? I've been watching hulu and TDS and Colbert online and this has been, like, the only thing they've been advertising for the past month or so.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:34 PM on January 27, 2013


Is there any way this film could have been made as a legal dodge of some kind?
posted by dunkadunc at 11:34 PM on January 27, 2013


Saw the preview for this today while waiting for Django Unchained to start.
Full cinema, no laughter.
posted by Mezentian at 3:45 AM on January 28, 2013 [1 favorite]


Wait? Did I see someone criticising Hansel and Gretel? Say it ain't so.
I want cheese like Speed Racer and Dredd and Punisher War Zone.
posted by Mezentian at 3:57 AM on January 28, 2013


Speed Racer isn't cheese. It's a gorgeous action packed cartoon, a tribute to anime and Sega Blue Skies. Dredd isn't cheese. It's a tight as hell action movie with no fat and a bit of satire. I hope Hansel & Gretel is at least half as good.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 4:01 AM on January 28, 2013 [2 favorites]


25. Halle Berry sticks a turkey baster full of hot sauce into her vagina.

I cannot imagine any context where that makes sense.

30. The cartoon cat gives Elizabeth Banks a piss shower.

I believe the film review needs to do some research.
The preferred phrase is "golden shower".
posted by Mezentian at 4:10 AM on January 28, 2013


I just saw an ad for this while watching Bad Boys 2 (so I deserved it). I laughed at the line about 'having sex with a hobo for magic beans'.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 4:27 AM on January 28, 2013


Halle Berry sticks a turkey baster full of hot sauce into her vagina.

I was present when a woman surprisingly did this as a dare (not into Halle Berry). Apparently it's a bad idea, painful, and the resultant frantic scooping to try and get it out can be embarrassing.

Clarifying edit: I was at a party, and alerted by the screaming.
posted by jaduncan at 4:52 AM on January 28, 2013


The world no longer makes sense.
Have people never cut chillies and wiped their eyes? (Much less urinated?)
posted by Mezentian at 4:57 AM on January 28, 2013


I agree. It was apparently a full large bottle of neat red Tabasco.

On the upside, maybe it put her off dares before the hitherto-inevitable Darwin Award.
posted by jaduncan at 5:06 AM on January 28, 2013


...wait, someone actually bought a ticket to Hansel and Gretel? For reals? I'm still not over my shock that this is a real movie and not just a pisstake on the whole dark, twisted fairy tale subgenre.
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:23 AM on January 28, 2013


I have my money set aside for Hansel and Gretel
posted by Mezentian at 5:31 AM on January 28, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'm still not over my shock that this is a real movie and not just a pisstake on the whole dark, twisted fairy tale subgenre.

"I gave him the elevator pitch deadpan but he didn't even laugh! He greenlighted it!"
"Eh, take the money."
posted by jaduncan at 5:47 AM on January 28, 2013 [3 favorites]


I've been reading some of the snarkier reviews out to my husband and we've had three or four mild laughs at them. That's more than we had when watching There's Something About Mary

Yeah, about fifteen years ago I realized that I was ever more out-of touch with pop culture comedies. A lot of what was playing was gratuitous sequels to things that were barely entertaining in the first place (Addams Family Values, Grumpier Old Men, Police Academy: Mission to Moscow, Father of the Bride Part II) or putatively original stories starring deeply marginal talents like David Spade or Pauly Shore. I figured the ever-sloppier "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks" approach that was getting big was a long way from carefully-constructed things from the previous decade like Withnail and I or A Fish Called Wanda.

However, I reckoned that maybe I was prejudging these things and that I really ought to see more examples. I found There's Something About Mary playing as a double bill with The Waterboy at a local rep house, so I hied myself off there. It was a pretty joyless evening.

The frustrating thing is that there is a single brilliant scene in TSAM: Ben Stiller's character, Ted, has picked up a hitchhiker in the full knowledge that it is illegal in the state he is visiting. The hitchhiker is a murderer who has a corpse in his luggage. At a rest stop, Ted winds up in a police trap designed to combat prostitution, but the hitchhiker flees the scene on foot, leaving his bag in Ted's car.
INT. SOUTH CAROLINA PRISON - DAY

Ted is sitting alone at a table in a small interrogation room.

PULLBACK to reveal that he is being observed through a two-way
mirror by two detectives, FRANEK and CAVALLO.

DETECTIVE FRANEK
Man, they never look like you'd expect.

DETECTIVE CAVALLO
That's probably how he got the victim to
drop his guard.

DETECTIVE FRANEK
Where'd they find the body?

DETECTIVE CAVALLO
In a big red bag on the front passenger
seat. All hacked up--fucking gruesome--a
real psycho, this one.

The Detectives ENTER the room.

INT. INTERROGATION ROOM - DAY

Ted stands as the Detectives take a seat across from him.


TED
(agitated)
I'm telling you, I did not solicit sex! I
was just stopping to go the bathroom, next
thing I know I tripped over something--well
someone--and, POOF, there's cops and
lights and--

DETECTIVE FRANEK
Okay, calm down, Ted, we believe you.
(beat)
The problem is we found your friend in
the car.

As Ted sits back down the Detectives just stare at him. Finally
Ted thinks he gets it.

TED
Oh. The hitchhiker.
(CHUCKLES)
That's what this is all about.

Ted puts his head in his hands and smiles.

TED (cont'd)
Isn't that just my luck--I get caught for
everything.

DETECTIVE CAVALLO
So you admit it?

TED
Guilty as charged. I'm not gonna play games
with you. I could give you a song and dance
but what's the point? I did it and we all
know it.
(laughs)
The hitcher himself told me it's
illegal. The irony!

The Detectives are surprised by his forthrightness.

DETECTIVE CAVALLO
Well, uh, can you tell us his name?

TED
Jeez, I didn't catch it.

The Detectives flinch at his glib demeanor.

DETECTIVE FRANEK
So he was a stranger? It was totally
random?

TED
(confused)
He was the first hitcher I saw, what can I
tell you? Now cut to the chase, how much
trouble am I in?

The Detectives look at one another.

DETECTIVE FRANEK
First tell us why you did it.

TED
Why I did it?
(scoffs)
I don't know. Boredom? I thought I was
doing the guy a favor.

The Detectives look at each other.

DETECTIVE CAVALLO
This wasn't your first time, was it, Ted?
How many we talking?

TED
Hitchhikers? I don't know--fifty...a
hundred maybe--Who keeps track?

Finally Detective Cavallo EXPLODES across the table and starts
WAILING on a shocked Ted.
For two minutes, this is a fucking hilarious movie, then it discards all the comedy and rushes back to whatever they were using in place of comedy for the rest of the movie. I mean, I can sort of see where the idea comes from: Zucker-Abraham-Zucker were pretty influential, but a lot of their imitators were taking a cargo cult approach to this, figuring if they aped the format, the comedy would follow naturally.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:21 AM on January 28, 2013 [4 favorites]


Which Hansel and Gretel film is everyone talking about? This one, or this one?
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 7:05 AM on January 28, 2013


Also a timely reminder: If the movie stinks, just don't go.
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 7:08 AM on January 28, 2013 [2 favorites]


wait, someone actually bought a ticket to Hansel and Gretel?

eh, it was in 3d Imax and I hadn't seen any previews. You win some, you lose some.
posted by empath at 7:16 AM on January 28, 2013


...wait, someone actually bought a ticket to Hansel and Gretel?

A couple of twenty-something guys at the bar the other day were talking (more or less seriously) about how they couldn't wait to see Hansel and Gretel. And I said "I can't wait for Hansel and Gretel vs. Alien," and the response was "Oh, hell, yeah! Awesome! I'd watch that." But a lot of the twenty-something guys these movies seem to made for don't pay to see them, anyway; they just torrent them. So the studios churn out crap based on what they think a demographic wants to see and that demographic takes it freely as soon as they can. Dunno, maybe the execs figure foreign sales will provide the profits to pay the lawyers to sue their target market but it seems like a hell of a way to run a railroad.

Taste is a silly social construction, a tool for the powerful to reinforce privilege. It shouldn't play any role in our aesthetic judgements.

Even given that "taste" is a social construction, I'm puzzled by what should play a role in our aesthetic judgement here if appeals to taste are prohibited. An appeal to truth? To harmony? To beauty? To the maximization of poop jokes?
posted by octobersurprise at 7:17 AM on January 28, 2013 [3 favorites]


I hope Hansel & Gretel is at least half as good.

It's not. There was not a single redeeming moment in the entire film. It was a complete and utter waste of time.
posted by empath at 7:19 AM on January 28, 2013 [1 favorite]


wait, someone actually bought a ticket to Hansel and Gretel?

I assume it's a bunch of people who just don't remember Van Helsing from the last time the studios said, "Hey, let's take an old public-domain property and make it a big overblown action movie, with the latest guy from an ensemble superhero movie that we're trying to push as a viable action star on his own."
posted by Etrigan at 7:23 AM on January 28, 2013 [1 favorite]


All this talk of Kentucky Fried Movie reminds of the sketch called "Sneaking into the Movies" in Hollywood Shuffle : "We give it...the finger!!"
posted by wenestvedt at 7:59 AM on January 28, 2013


Well, I guess nobody is interested in seeing the prequel, 42, that's coming out this spring.
posted by FJT at 8:19 AM on January 28, 2013 [1 favorite]


But a lot of the twenty-something guys these movies seem to made for don't pay to see them, anyway; they just torrent them.

As a twenty something in my 'winter' years, I can attest to that. Most of the guys at work here just trade movies through USB, external HDs, or use the company network drive. I don't even bother, these movies aren't worth torrenting. These days, I seem to mostly torrent two kinds of movies: old movies from my childhood in the 80s/90s or foreign/indy/classic hits I can't get anywhere else. And both of these movies I would have rented from the local college town video store 20 years ago. It kind of sucks because with each evolution of the video rental industry (blockbuster, torrenting, Redbox, Netflix), it successfully kills more and more video stores or forces them to carry mainstream recent releases to stay afloat. But it's a losing game.

I had a video store down the block, the one that sits next to a liquor store and carries a porn section in the back. I once went browsing in there (the regular section) and found it only contained stuff from the last 10 years or so, which I'm not really interested in. The video store had to close down last month and I saw the poster for 'Real Steel' get taken from it's window shortly after.

I enjoy watching movies in the theater and try to watch good or at least interesting movies (saw The Master this weekend, for example), but I have to admit I watch a lot of crap in theater too, and it's mostly because of friends or dates. But at the very least, I'm learning. I waited until Bourne Legacy came out on DVD to watch it, and it sucked. But at least I didn't spend 4-10 bucks on it.
posted by FJT at 8:47 AM on January 28, 2013 [1 favorite]


There was not a single redeeming moment in the entire film.

Drop some words, drop an "e" and add a "y" and you get:

A singly redeeming film.

Marketing's the real art these days.
posted by philip-random at 9:08 AM on January 28, 2013


It had a different frame story then

Apparently, there are different frame stories in the US and UK versions.
posted by zjacreman at 10:22 AM on January 28, 2013


My little bro, who saw Legion and Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (which I heard is good) will probably see Hansel & Gretel. If its a decent Supernatural-lite genre flick I might catch it on TV. I'm easy with genre movies.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 11:22 AM on January 28, 2013


They were advertising this film on YouPorn, which gave some indication of what we're dealing with. I'm not proud that I know that.
posted by mike_bling at 12:05 PM on January 28, 2013 [2 favorites]


Charlemagne In Sweatpants: "Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (which I heard is good)"

One of the only movies that really shocked me recently. I added to queue for camp factor, thinking that it looked absolutely horrible, but I ended up loving it. The story line seemed almost, gasp, plausible.
posted by Big_B at 12:32 PM on January 28, 2013 [1 favorite]


Ooh, 5% on Rotten Tomatoes. That's gotta hurt.

A Haunted House is at 6% on Rotten Tomatoes, so apparently it's a strong contender for the title.
posted by e1c at 1:52 PM on January 28, 2013


Which Hansel and Gretel film is everyone talking about? This one, or this one?

HOLY SHIT

HOLY SHIT YOU GUYS YOU GUYS

THERES A HANSEL AND GRETEL FLICK WITH CHERIE CURRIE IN IT

SOOOOOOOOOOOOO CONFLICTED
posted by Halloween Jack at 2:11 PM on January 28, 2013


My little bro, who saw Legion and Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (which I heard is good) will probably see Hansel & Gretel.

Saw it in theaters.
1. The most surprising thing about this movie about Abraham Lincoln isn't that he fights vampires, but that there's so little screen time for black people. His black friend, and the slaves in two scenes, and as far as I can remember that was it.
2. It was a bold move for the filmmakers to imply that at the end of the movie that Lincoln avoided the grave by willingly having his friend turn him into a blood-sucking monster.
posted by JHarris at 2:13 PM on January 28, 2013


And about the two different framing stories, we could call them Movie 43A and Movie 43B.
posted by JHarris at 2:15 PM on January 28, 2013


2. It was a bold move for the filmmakers to imply that at the end of the movie that Lincoln avoided the grave by willingly having his friend turn him into a blood-sucking monster.

Did they?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:18 PM on January 28, 2013


Did they?

Well he did spawn the modern Republican Party.
posted by localroger at 2:35 PM on January 28, 2013 [1 favorite]


Did they?

This is all from memory, and contains SPOILERS (which admittedly I should have mentioned in that previous comment):

1. Lincoln is on his death bed.
2. His friend, who we had seen halfway through is a vampire, although a friendly one, although he still killed a guy partway to sate his inhuman bloodlust, says something like "I can make you immortal, you know."
3. Shift to another scene, a lot like the bar at the beginning of the film, with friend-vamp-guy telling someone whose face we can't see the stuff from the beginning (which I don't remember, but it's really bookendish), then he and the guy whose face we can't see go outside to fight vampires, and the shot reveals a helicopter, we're in the present day.

We don't know the unseen guy is Lincoln, but why have the shot if it isn't? We don't know absolutely for sure that he was made immortal by becoming a vampire, but nowhere else in the movie was a different route to immortality mentioned. Upshot, Lincoln's a vampire, and although a friendly one, still one who has to go out and kill people for sustenance sometimes as his friend did halfway through.
posted by JHarris at 3:21 PM on January 28, 2013


Etrigan: "I assume it's a bunch of people who just don't remember Van Helsing"

I remember Van Helsing well. As a fan of Sommers' Mummy (the first one) and Deep Rising, I was actually kind of excited for it. Boy what a steaming turd that was.

Anyway, as a fan of that type of film, I'm willing to give Hansel & Gretel a chance. Hope springs eternal, I suppose. Also, this CHUD review makes it sound kinda fun.
posted by brundlefly at 4:15 PM on January 28, 2013


Also, Famke Janssen is in it. And rawr!
posted by brundlefly at 4:16 PM on January 28, 2013


Thanks for spoiling the ending of a movie I'm planning on seeing, Jharris!
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 5:24 PM on January 28, 2013 [2 favorites]


It was a sled.
posted by JHarris at 6:26 PM on January 28, 2013


John G. is long dead.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:32 PM on January 28, 2013


Well he did spawn the modern Republican Party.

The confederacy was the blood- sucking monster. So maybe the story here is how the confederacy ultimately turned the Party of Lincoln into a zombified, blood-sucking replica of itself.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:40 PM on January 28, 2013


I was about halfway through the trailer before I realized that it was a compilation movie. I only caught two of the director's names when they all flashed on screen and, while I was excited to see Rusty Cundeiff, Brett Ratner cancelled out that excitement.

I would love to see a compilation like this built around people who know how to do short form humor, instead of just featuring a couple (Sorry, Mr. Odenkirk). I think a few long-form feature directors could pull it off (Richard Linklatter and Mike Judge spring to mind, definitely masters-of-the-genre the Zuckers, and the aforementioned Parker and Stone) but this really should have been the Lonely Island x Robert Smigel x Adult Swim x Stella-and-The-State x Funny or Die x Upright Citizens Brigade all stars movie. Someone make that happen!
posted by elr at 9:51 PM on January 28, 2013 [1 favorite]


The "cinematic equivalent of herpes" - Mark Kermode.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 2:23 PM on January 29, 2013


I keep seeing ads for this before and during Red Letter Media Plinkett Reviews. I like to think its unintentional foreshadowing.

Hansel & Gretel 3D just got a red carpet premiere, but I somehow avoided seeing Jeremy Renner.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 8:09 PM on January 29, 2013


The critics of Movie 43 should "lighten up" says Peter Farrelly, as he defends the film from the reaction it got...

According to that it cost $5 million to make, and made that back on its opening weekend.
Sequel?
posted by Mezentian at 12:49 AM on January 31, 2013




They're small?
posted by Mezentian at 3:10 AM on January 31, 2013


The next one is just titled "Ow, my balls: the movie".
posted by jaduncan at 5:20 PM on January 31, 2013 [5 favorites]


I also can't believe nobody has mentioned The Producers thus far.

They're ruined, it's a hit!
posted by jaduncan at 8:41 AM on February 1, 2013




From crossoverman's link comes a tweet from Peter Farrelly:

Movie 43 is not the end of the world. It's just a $6 million movie where we tried to do something different. Now back off

Oooh, feeling a bit defensive there, Mr. Big-Time Director Man?
posted by JHarris at 7:57 PM on February 2, 2013




Bag. Half in the Bag.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:20 PM on February 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


« Older Pack 442   |   Christ, What an Asshole: an... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post