I just remembered the scene I really liked in 40 YO Virgin - the “You know how I know you’re gay?” scene. That scene was very real and very funny, two guys just sitting around playing video games and talking smack to each other, in a way they would never talk to a girl. IIRC a lot of that scene was ad-libbed, which makes sense why it came off so well.
ETA: Aargh! First on the 3rd page? Do not want!
I’m 100% positive that you don’t understand how Rotten Tomatoes actually works. They just compile reviews. “They” have no actual opinion on the matter. “They” don’t lean in any direction.
The ridicule is really no more than what good friends do with each other when they get together. Its not done maliciously
Exactly. They compile the reviews across the country. Art house movies tend to skew higher because they have a lot few reviewers to average out.
It was made with an outsiders’ misunderstanding of fanboy culture (whence I myself spring), and the smug ridicule from a standpoint of ignorance made it annoying to me. The moral–that if you just stop being what you are, and listen to the normally normal, you, too, can become as normally normal as wonderful they–is perfect for an LCD audience.
Also, fanboy culture was actually a veritable band camp once all those lonely misfits found themselves fitting at sci-fi conventions and the like!
The 40-Year-Old Virgin is funny. Its just how your sense of humor is around comedies. Example
Most my friends have said The Hangover wasnt as funny as Hot Tub Time Machine. :eek: IMO theyre crazy cause The Hangover was/is funnier then Hot Tub Time Machine. Its all about your sense of humor.
“LCD audience.” Yeah, and they were smug!
Anyway, I disagree. It wasn’t that Andy was getting rid of his collections to be “normal” – besides, all of his friends were abnormal in some way. He was selling what he had in order to become independent rather than a 40-year-old shlub working for obnoxious Jane Lynch with a bunch of other unhappy shlubs.
Plus I’m pretty sure he kept the Aquaman [del]doll[/del] action figure. (Or possibly the Steve Austin or Oscar action figure from Six Million Dollar Man, I don’t remember which one he took out of the box and kept.) He’s still Andy the geek by the end of the movie, he’s just Andy the geek who’s married and happier.
No no, I realize this, but I’m saying the overall effect of their method. It is just a lot easier to indicate then to say that every time.
And since reviews were a lot more positive when movies first came out (as they had nothing to compare to) older movies receive a bit of a bias as well.
You aren’t claiming that 40 Year Old Virgin is an “older movie” in terms of critical review, are you?
I think he means classic movies, which are often the arthouse movies he was talking about, or are movies that have stood the test of time enough that they still get reviewed occasionally now.
Precisely.
As to why “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” got positive reviews? I suppose if the majority of people watching it found it favorable the critics are somewhat pressured in saying that same. In retrospect the movie won’t even be mentioned, perhaps. Also, though the movie had its moments, I don’t think Steve Carell made the moments funny, he was just the puppet placed in that role.
You really don’t know how movie criticism works. I’ve never seen a movie garner postitive reviews because the movie going public “demands” it. In fact, normally quite the opposite. If you bother reading the reviews on RT for the movie, you can see for yourself what the critics liked (or didn’t like) about the film.
And don’t critics review the movie before most of the general movie going public CAN see it? I think that’s the point - so people can know what critics think before they spend their $10.
You didn’t laugh when the old Indian guy said to the young black guy, “Are you people born with criminal records?”
Maybe politically incorrect humor is not your cup of tea.
Yep, which is why when you hear a movie was made unavailable to critics before release date you know it’s going to be a stinker.
Also, the critic rating on RT is 85% and audience reviews is 80%, completely negating **AnthonyElite’s **theory above. The critics liked it a touch better than the average viewer, but not by much.
A sampling of positive reviews listed on RT from “Top Critics” (meaning they work for a major publication, I believe).
What’s the point?
No, I know how it…ah, fuck it. The movie sucked, Steve Carell sucks
I enjoyed it. I worked at Circuit City and ran an eBay drop-off business around that time. And although my virginity did not survive my late teens, I have severe social anxiety disorder and all sexual activity has occurred during 2 long term relationships and a marriage that I did not initiate. I am not yet 40, but I very well could have been a 40 year-old virgin if not for just a few lucky interactions.
Oh so it was a joke or something? Because it really seemed like you have no idea.
I was basically saying that when big names come together for a movie it would be tough for a critic to negatively review it. Also that there is a bias towards already-established actors.
Obviously I have an understanding of how critics work, but some critics see it before the audience, some after. Also there is build up - if there is a lot of hype about a movie - well known actors, based on a book, remake, etc etc - the critic’s opinion might be biased. Also there might exist a bias based on the time period. For example the recent Super-Hero craze. A decade from now we will probably look back and think a grand majority of those Super-Hero movies were B quality at best. Dressed up nicely, of course, but of no real substance.
The real joke is the idea of someone so witty charming and handsome as Steve Carell being a virgin at 40. Amirite? 