MOVIE 43

[Rev. Powell]

Now, I'm probably not going to watch this--not my kind of "bad movie." But a heads up to people who actually like comedy bombs, the reviews are in, and they aren't pretty. Check out this collection of quotes from Empire:

http://www.empireonline.com/features/movie-43-critic-quotes/
(example: "If you mashed-up the worst bits of Howard The Duck, Gigli and Ishtar, it still wouldn't approach the soul-sucking badness of Movie 43... Being waterboarded might be more fun."-New York Post, Lou Lumenick)

Someone here should see this thing, just please God, not me...

[ulthar]

From the same page...

""A potpourri of off-color, politically incorrect and potentially offensive vignettes."
Stephen Holden, New York Times"

Hmmm.  So, are they not liking it because it's really bad, or are they not liking it because it offends some arbitrary sensibilties?

[Rev. Powell]

Hmmm.  So, are they not liking it because it's really bad, or are they not liking it because it offends some arbitrary sensibilties?

You should check it out and report back!

[ulthar]

You should check it out and report back!

I may, at that...but not at cinema.

I read the wikipedia page and some of the plot synopses for the various vignettes, and it does not really seem any more "offensive" as some of the more mainstream stuff that is accepted as "humor" these days.

Politically correct art...an interesting concept.

[bob]

Richard Roeper hated it to put it mildly.

""Movie 43" is the "Citizen Kane" of awful."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130123/REVIEWS/130129973

[Jack]

It would take something like a Gunnery Sergeant in the Marine Corps to have enough courage to see something like that.   

[Doc Daneeka]

From the same page...

""A potpourri of off-color, politically incorrect and potentially offensive vignettes."
Stephen Holden, New York Times"

Hmmm.  So, are they not liking it because it's really bad, or are they not liking it because it offends some arbitrary sensibilties?

Could be both. One of the most annoying things ever is a film trying to sloppily push the envelope just to say "LOOK AT ME, I'M ACTING OUT!!"

[Pilgermann]

From the same page...

""A potpourri of off-color, politically incorrect and potentially offensive vignettes."
Stephen Holden, New York Times"

Hmmm.  So, are they not liking it because it's really bad, or are they not liking it because it offends some arbitrary sensibilties?

Could be both. One of the most annoying things ever is a film trying to sloppily push the envelope just to say "LOOK AT ME, I'M ACTING OUT!!"

Which is probably what this film is.  It's one thing when a bunch of weirdos get together and make something extreme or trashy, but this film has all of these A-Lister types in it.  I'm sure they were having fun doing stupid stuff, but I doubt it came naturally.

[bob]

While it looks and sounds awful beyond belief someone needs to review it for the site.

I took the bullet for Bucky Larson and someone needs to step up to tackle Movie 43.

[Trevor]

While it looks and sounds awful beyond belief someone needs to review it for the site.
I took the bullet for Bucky Larson and someone needs to step up to tackle Movie 43.

I had this in my hand last year in a video store in Pretoria and I could have sworn I heard you say "TTRREEEEEVVVVVOOOOORRRRR.........don't rent this............." 

I put the DVD back on the shelf. 

[Mofo Rising]

Well, I'm not going to watch it, but it seems a prime example of how do you make offensiveness funny?

I watched the preview, and it does seem to be it's raison d'etre. I am actually all for this, as it's pretty much the way my brain thinks all the time. However, it is actually really difficult to make offensive humor funny and palatable.

For this reason, I wouldn't pay attention to any mainstream critic's review. This film is meant to be filth.

However, is it funny? If it's meant to be over the top and crude, great! But is it funny? I do not care what lines the movie crosses, but if it does not make me laugh, it's worthless.

Humor is subjective, and I will admit that what really makes me laugh is things other people find reprehensible.

Does it make me laugh? MOVIE 43 pretends to that throne, but I'll only care if I laugh out loud. If I do, great! If I don't, who cares?

[Trevor]

I read the Wikipedia description and I think I'll pass on seeing this.

[ulthar]

I watched the preview, and it does seem to be it's raison d'etre. I am actually all for this, as it's pretty much the way my brain thinks all the time.

Didn't we have a thread or two a couple of years ago where someone was specifically asking for offensive movie recommendations?  Didn't that person want "the more offensive to the most people, the better?"

Didn't a lot of people balk at the slasher craze when it first hit, and the counter argument was "well, it's a statement about society."  Ditto violent video games; when someone is offended, there is some defense along the lines of "justifiable art.'

I find it funny in itself the knee-jerk reactions and critical comments going for this movie when it does not seem any worse, in scope or content, than a LOT of other 'mainstream' stuff out there.  A dude with testicles on his chin?  How is that "worse" than what is in the SCARY MOVIE franchise?

The presence of the A-Listers in this movie is one of the reasons I am intrigued enough to see it.  I almost looks to me like a very well planned, totally over-the-top satire of the EPIC MOVIE, AMERICAN PIE, etc juvenile craze we've seen in movie making of late.

It almost appears to me to say, "Oh, so you want juvenile, offensive drivel?  Okay, that's what we'll give you."  I have not seen it yet, but I am totally serious when I say I want to.

However, it is actually really difficult to make offensive humor funny and palatable.

What if it is less to be funny and more to be "a statement?"  

THE GROOVE TUBE is insanely funny and quite offensive (even for its day); this movie is being compared to that one.  But, what if the better comparison is any one of the tiresome 'teen' movies of the last ten years.

This movie could be saying, "Look Ma, these characters are grown up now!"

For this reason, I wouldn't pay attention to any mainstream critic's review.

For that exact reason, I NEVER pay attention to critical reviews.  I pretty much don't read them until after I've seen a movie.  This makes reading the reviews a meta-enjoyment of the movie for me...I can "judge" the reviews, criticize them, if you will.

A good example of a movie that got 0 out of 5 stars from one "mainstream critic" and average of 21% on Rotten Tomatoes that I thoroughly enjoyed:  THE OH IN OHIO

0 out of 5; really?  That would make OH among the worst movies ever made; I can think of TONS of movies less enjoyable than OH.  This score is just laughable, and to put this in the lower quartile on RT is laughable as well; subjective taste aside...OH is well made technically, has good acting, interesting pacing; calling it 0 out of 5 is not just a joke, it's insulting....that critic could not find ONE thing of merit?

I can see why MOVIE 43 is getting panned, and it's not much different than the reasons Robert Mapplethorpe got blasted if you sit back and think about it.

[zombie no.one]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxSh8MScrB4

I usually agree with mark kermode's take on things... if he says it's "staggeringly unfunny" then it probably is!

[Criswell]

The trailer looked like the comedy equivalent of an edgy as f**k middle school boy making holocaust jokes to impress his friends.

While making fart sounds, because that's awesome