By Matt Singer | Criticwire March 6, 2012 at 3:31PM
Here's a nice counterpoint to Roger Ebert's half-star nega-rave of "Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie." At Box Office Magazine, Todd Gilchrist penned a three star review of the film that gives it a bit more consideration than many other critic. Gilchrist moves beyond the simple is-it-funny-or-not rubric to observe that "B$M"'s Hollywood satire extends well past the early scenes where writer/director/stars Tim Heidecker and Eric Wareheim premiere their 3-minute, $1 billion-budgeted disaster "Diamond Jim," starring a Johnny Depp lookalike. He writes:
"What's really interesting about 'Billion Dollar Movie,' however, is the way it satirizes the ongoing deluge of feel-good movies released about characters making dramatic changes in their life-seeking new ambitions, undertaking new challenges, assuming responsibilities they never faced before. (The most immediate point of comparison is 'We Bought a Zoo,' although technically most of Cameron Crowe's movies from the past two decades would fit the bill.) ...The blind faith with which they leap into running the mall is emblematic of a kind of wish-fulfillment that's both inspiring and irresponsible, and this film indulges the former but exposes the latter, especially when it cops out and provides Tim and Eric a macabre but technically 'happy' ending."
Look it's not "Certified Copy" -- although now I'm thinking about a version of "Certified Copy" starring Heidecker and Wareheim, and I'm kind of loving it -- but you're starting to see some interesting writing bubbling up around "Tim and Eric" (see also Nick Pinkerton's interesting examination of the film's apoco-capitalistic overtones in The Village Voice). A lot of it is vitriolic, some of it is mean (some of that is funny), but a few are well-reasoned and measured like Gilchrist's. I must say the idea of a "Tim and Eric" double feature with "We Bought a Zoo" sounds really intriguing. Man-eating wolves followed by mopey, medicated tigers. I dig it.