Review of The Ooglieloves movie

[CalMeacham]

"Oogie" is right. The troubling posters for this film have been haunting theaters for months, and now the damned thing is out. Somehow they managed to get talented people like Cloris Leachman, Cary Elwes, Chazz Palminteri, and Christopher Lloyd to appear in it. (How? Vast sums of money? Blackmail? Can they all be that down on their luck?)

Anyway, the reviews have been rolling in at Rotten Tomatoes:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_...oon_adventure/

But my favorite is the ones from the New York Times, which has the makings of a classic:

http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/08/29...semityn.seivom

[Typo Knig]

You think the poster is creepy? I've seen the trailer. :shudder:

[gaffa]

Originally Posted by Typo Knig

You think the poster is creepy? I've seen the trailer. :shudder:

I see a lot of movies, so I've seen the trailer multiple times.

I can hardly wait till it comes out...just so I never have to see that trailer again.

[Rubixcube]

*shudders* What hell have we unleashed upon the children of the world? The stars must be right because the only explanation for this...this thing is a particularly sadistic eldritch abomination. You'd think we'd have learned from the Teletubbies and the lasting trauma they've caused, but then...this gets made.

[iftheresaway]

I just saw the trailer last night (we rented a Will Ferrell movie), and I honest to god kept waiting for the punchline. I did not believe this thing could be a real movie.

[Dewey Finn]

I saw that review in the New York Times, and it was hilarious. I was trying to figure out if this show was based on an existing TV series or children's book, but apparently it's an original concept (although the Wikipedia article indicates that they tried unsuccessfully to get the rights to make a film version of the Teletubbies, so apparently they made this instead). The budget was "only" $12 million, and I wouldn't be surprised if they make back multiples of that in box office and home video sales.

[Voyager]

I read the Times review - one of Tony's Scott's best, right up there with Paul Rudnick's reviews for Premiere.

And I've never been so happy that my kids are grown up, so I don't have to even worry about being forced to see this thing.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by CalMeacham

But my favorite is the ones from the New York Times, which has the makings of a classic:

http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/08/29...semityn.seivom

I'm giving two thumbs up to this review!

[ZipperJJ]

Originally Posted by iftheresaway

I just saw the trailer last night (we rented a Will Ferrell movie), and I honest to god kept waiting for the punchline. I did not believe this thing could be a real movie.

Yeah it seemed like something made to be in another movie, like the Smoochy show in Death to Smoochy.

[friedo]

Originally Posted by Voyager

I read the Times review - one of Tony's Scott's best, right up there with Paul Rudnick's reviews for Premiere.

A.O. Scott. Tony Scott is the dead guy who directed the second-gayest Tom Cruise movie.

_{You can blame it on the jintonic.}

[Rollo Tomasi]

Originally Posted by friedo

A.O. Scott. Tony Scott is the dead guy who directed the second-gayest Tom Cruise movie.

_{You can blame it on the jintonic.}

The "A" in A.O. stands for Anthony. He is indeed usually called Tony Scott outside of a professional capacity.

[Dewey Finn]

Who the heck is talking about A. O. Scott in anything other than his professional capacity?

[Rollo Tomasi]

I meant outside of his byline. Like James Stewart was always credited as such, but people frequently called him Jimmy, even people who'd never met him.

[ftg]

On Wednesday it made $102,564 at 2,160 theaters for an average of $47 or about 6 tickets per site for the day. It may hit a new record low for weekend gross of a wide release movie.

It's not a truly cheapo knock off film: $20M rumored budget. And it has some respectable names like Cloris Leachman, Christopher Lloyd, Chazz Palminteri, and Cary Elwes.

[gaffa]

Do the people who work on movies like this know they are producing a piece of shit, or do they just think "Hey, I'm getting paid!"? Is the entire thing an exercise in cynicism? I don't know which is worse, the thought that every single person involved in this is a shameless whore, or that they really believe they are making something good.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn

Who the heck is talking about A. O. Scott in anything other than his professional capacity?

If you watched the version of At the Movies which he was one of the critics for the year, he was always called Tony, never A. O. except in the introduction. You know, the one where Ebert wouldn't allow them to put their thumbs up.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by ftg

On Wednesday it made $102,564 at 2,160 theaters for an average of $47 or about 6 tickets per site for the day. It may hit a new record low for weekend gross of a wide release movie.

It's not a truly cheapo knock off film: $20M rumored budget. And it has some respectable names like Cloris Leachman, Christopher Lloyd, Chazz Palminteri, and Cary Elwes.

Thank you for making me feel good about the intelligence level of my country again. It appears that you can go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public after all.

An article I read today said that this thing was not based on a popular book or TV series or type of toilet paper after all, but was made up to seem like it.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by gaffa

Do the people who work on movies like this know they are producing a piece of shit, or do they just think "Hey, I'm getting paid!"? Is the entire thing an exercise in cynicism? I don't know which is worse, the thought that every single person involved in this is a shameless whore, or that they really believe they are making something good.

If you've seen some of the people promoting movies on TDS, it is clear that sometimes they know it is crap. Blame the writers, the directors, and the producers. For everyone else, it is a job. And don't even blame the director if he uses a pseudonym.

I'd say blame the financial backers also, but they get theirs from the box office.

[installLSC]

Originally Posted by gaffa

Do the people who work on movies like this know they are producing a piece of shit, or do they just think "Hey, I'm getting paid!"? Is the entire thing an exercise in cynicism? I don't know which is worse, the thought that every single person involved in this is a shameless whore, or that they really believe they are making something good.

According to the review in my local paper, the copyright date on this movie is 2009. Which suggests they tried to fix a mortally wounded movie, and finally just gave up.

[Bryan Ekers]

Huh. I'd just assumed this was a film adaptation of an existing TV series. Colour me enlightened.

[ftg]

From Box Office Mojo:

"The movie earned an estimated $448,000 from 2,160 locations this weekend; that tops 2008's Delgo ($511,920) for the worst debut ever for a movie in more than 2,000 theaters. It also had the second-worst per-theater average for a movie in nationwide release at just $207. To put that in perspective, if each location played Oogieloves five times a day on one screen at an average ticket price of $7, that would translate to fewer than two people per showing."

It finished somewhere in the 20s in rank. The owners of those 2000 screens have got to be seriously unhappy. Even by Labor Day weekend standards this is horrible.

One thing I'm curious about: Apparently the film is "audience participation". That is, the audience is supposed to stand up, clap, wave, etc. along with the movie at certain times.

If it's just you and your kids in the theater, are you comfortable doing this? What if there are two families several rows apart? What is the embarrassment level here in being in a nearly empty theater and going thru the motions?

[Gagundathar]

From the Rotten Tomatoes site:

Although it may serve as a passing diversion for very young viewers, The Oogieloves fails to offer much more than several brightly colored examples of the worst stereotypes of modern children's entertainment.