For old timers, its closest analog is Kentucky Fried Movie, except even more juvenile and stupid.
He admits that the movie itself is terrible but he thinks that it was all a big, surreal joke and he finds that funny. More evidence of my theory that many unwatchable movies get great reviews because film critics don’t like to admit that they didn’t get it.
They’ve said all along that KFM and The Groove Tube were the originals that they were trying to bring back.
I’m always mystified that supposedly intelligent people (that is, people who participate here) support movies like this. The OP DOES state that he/she was partially sedated at the time so at least he/she sort of has an excuse. Maybe he/she got the movie titles at the cineplex mixed up.
Unless you are a masochist who enjoys being subjected to bad movies, why not choose a good film to spend a couple hours of your life with? I understand why teenagers do it. They’ll line up like lemmings every weekend to see whatever has been advertised on television the most heavily the week before. It’s more of a social thing for them. But grown-ups who should know better? I just don’t get it.
The Emperor’s New Clothes. I agree.
Except for the OP I see no evidence that anyone posting here actually saw the movie. We’re all going by references to reviews and articles and what other people said.
My pet peeve is people who post to a thread without bothering to read it. We all have things that annoy us.
I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t referring to people posting in this thread specifically. We frequently see people on this board starting a thread to complain about a terrible movie they have subjected themselves too.
Even if, as one poster above states, you don’t read reviews because you want to know little going into the film, one can look at the critical and audience consensus’ on either Rotten Tomatoes or MetaCritic and get a good idea where, among all the movie choices you have, each film falls.
I liked Kentucky Fried Movie and Amazon Women on the Moon. Too bad this movie is so bad. I don’t think I’ll be seeing this one.
Because I have plenty of spare hours, and gift certificates to the movies. I go to good movies too but sometimes I just want to veg out to a goofy movie. I love all the stupid parody movies just for the sheer ridiculousness.
That said, I don’t know if I will see this one. But Stephen Merchant is a draw.
Oh, I’ll cop to seeing the movie. In my defense, at the time I made the decision it had a rating on IMDb of 6.3, and my girlfriend and I were looking for something lighthearted after all the heavy Oscar-bait movies we’ve been seeing lately. The all-star cast also helped to fool us.
My mistake was not checking professional reviews first. (I should have looked at rottentomatoes.com)
The IMDb rating is now at 5.4 and dropping like a stone, leading me to believe someone was stuffing the ballot box in the lead-up to the movie’s opening weekend. I gave the movie one star myself.
A coworker was nice enough to pick me up at the hospital after a procedure in which you have to promise that someone will watch you the rest of the afternoon. I refused her offer to babysit but she outsmarted me with the suggestion of a movie. She wasn’t interested in The Hobbit so Movie 43 was the only other choice. Neither of us had seen the trailer and the ticket taker had no idea what it was about so we took a chance. I started this thread so that the intelligent people who posted here might want to avoid taking a similar chance, sedated or not, and to express how mystified I am that such dreck could end up on the big screen. Hope this helps you not be so mystified.
Also, my coworker won’t even consider discussing it but we did get a laugh out of the fact that of the 24 hours of my life that included gastroscopy/colonoscopy, the prep that goes along with it, and Movie 43, Movie 43 was the worst of it. I’m with Ebert, there are parts I would really like to get out of my head.
Thanks for that. Funny. Hope your health is good.
This thread is making me want to see it even more.
Surprisingly, all those big stars in the movie were working for scale.
You read that right. They did it for art! :smack:
Box Office Mojo says the production budget was only $6 million.
Interestingly, IMDb describes the “plot” this way:
Actually, there are no three kids. I guess the producers abandoned that idea for tying the shorts together. Instead, the shorts are presented as scenes from a movie being pitched by a crazed Dennis Quaid.
Guess we’ll have to buy the DVD to find out what happened!
I have to admit it does have something of a dare thing going on, as in “Come on, just how awful can it be?”. I’ll probably catch it on cable, though.
How were the reviews for Kentucky Fried Movie when it first came out?
Is that a fancy way of saying Randy Quaid?
This is the kind of movie that could be a cult favorite, if you only allow 12-year-old boys into your cult.