There is a sub-genre of film called “* the Jennifier Love-Hewitt movie*”, not always containing the said actor. Rather, the defining character is that the marketing makes a promise, subtle or otherwise, that uncovered breasts will feature prominently on screen. The promise is never realised.
I think those films count for the purpose of this discussion. Refer to any of the actor’s resume for examples. But as I say, the sub-genre is in no way limited to one actor’s work.
It’s what’s called a personal opinion; neither true nor untrue in an absolute sense, but clearly it’s true for Charlie Tan. Glad to help. I liked the novel too, although not quite that much.
The recent movie Bug was marketed as if it were a gruesome horror movie, but I understand it’s actually an intense psychological drama, adapted from a minimalist play.
I respectfully disagree. Yes, it was about a profoundly dysfunctional family, but it was also hilarious. I loved it.
I thought Star Wars was going to be about Hollywood’s elite vying for the best seats in restaurants, the fastest cars, front-row tickets to red-carpet premieres and so on, but boy was I wrong.
And I thought Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix would actually be about, y’know, the Order of the Phoenix. My mistake.
I just watched this yesterday, and I agree. It left me feeling more sad than anything, although the final scene was sort of uplifting.
I will definitely agree that it’s not a “fun, whacky road movie.” I still thought it was hilarious. I like the dark humor.
Stupid Andie MacDowell. Crush was also marketed as a comedy with people laughing on the cover, like it was a feel-good friend comedy. Noooo.
Little Black Book also was not what I was expecting. It broke the conventions of a romantic comedy, and not in a bad way.
You’re right. It’s the book by Patrick Süskind–only one “s.”
“Bug” is a good one–I saw that recently, expecting another “Exorcist”-esque movie. I.e., a horror movie, but an intelligent one…not quite what I received.
See also Jennifer Aniston and Jessica Alba.
Lost in Translation - the trailers made out that it was a hilarious comedy featuring Bill Murray’s comedic persona in zany slapstick situations. It was nothing of the sort, and there was only one relatively slapstick moment, which wasn’t really funny anyway. I loved the movie, but I can tell why a lot of people would have been sorely disappointed
Hart’s War. From what I remembered, I thought it’d be a war movie on par of Saving Private Ryan, but in a POW camp, not some sort of quisi legal boring film, or whatever.
Another one The Good Shepard, oh boy that thing stunk. I was expecting a badass spy thriller that was also realistic, well it was a bit too realistic…Watch in amazement as he finishes reviewing his classified documents!
hehe. I rented the DVD based on great things I’d heard about the book. Again.
Not so much misleading marketing, as switches within the movie: Million Dollar Baby and Barton Fink. Neither really about what they start out being about [Any further spoilers omitted]
For reaons I don’t understand the Harry Potter books mostly have little to do with the actual “and the such-and-such” listed on the cover. The first three do, but after that the such-and-such is mostly a minor plot point of little importance overall, or a ttoal macguffin.
Arachnaphobia was initially marketed as a black comedy … I guess because it had John Goodman in a minor role. Shortly after opening weekend, though, I seem to recall them changing that to a straight horror marketing campaign. I bet they got a fair amount of feedback on that one.
Last Action Hero was marketed as an action movie (IIRC), but was actually more of a comedy/sad commentary on the state of Hollywood. I actually thought it was a great movie.
But then again, also put me in the category of people who thought Little Miss Sunshine was really funny. 
If I recall The Mexican was supposed to be a romantic comedy with the pairing of Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts.
However they spent the majority of the movie seperated and shared little if any screen time together.
Jim Carrey had just come off a run of The Mask, Dumb & Dumber, and Ace Ventura and was known as the slapstick comedy wacky guy that was likeable and really fun.
People were expecting to see more of the same in The Cable Guy and instead got a very dark comedy with Carrey playing an unlikeable and tragic character.
I had gotten the impression the Election was supposed to be a comedy. I found it to be an interesting story, but funny? Not at all.
Windtalkers. It was billed as a story of the Navajo(American) indians who used their native language as a code to foil the Japanese interception in WW2. This was a wonderful premise, and I was anxious to see what had gone down with this particular phase of history. I had known of the Navajo code from my husband, who is an Air Force veteran.
Well, kick my shins, because when I saw the movie I got no insight into any of the code talkers. It seems the whole dang bulk of the movie was dedicated to Nicolas Cage’s character, who was not an indian, yet he was a ww2 soldier “responsible” for our heroes. Some blah blah he lost a gal, muckety muck, he was shell shocked, boohoo Nicky is just so damn depressed.
I. Don’t. Care. I went into this movie looking to find out some things about the Navajo code talkers. They were little more than window dressing. It really left me ranting about false advertising. Look, if I want to see Nic Cage all depressed and weepy I’ll rent “Leaving Las Vegas”. I wanted to see a movie about American Indians using a native tongue to thwart the enemy. Hollywood, sheesh.