-
Survey: Best on the Big Screen -
Blockbusters Into Darkness -
'Candelabra' First Reviews -
Mel Brooks' Schemes -
'Rainer on Film' Excerpt
-
'Llewyn Davis' First Reviews -
'Into Darkness'' Mystery Villain -
The Marky Mark Workout -
Weird Pull Quote Theater! -
VODetails: 'American Mary'
-
James Franco, Film Critic -
Cannes Reviews: 'Bling Ring' -
Cannes Critics to Follow on Twitter -
Survey: Childhood Favorites -
'Dead' and Loving It
-
Ebert Series at Cinematheque -
Favorite Underrated Comedies -
Uwe Boll Got Better (and Worse) -
AP Critics Resign -
Shots That Should Be Retired
-
Best Indiewire Criticism -
Review Report -
Weird Pull Quote Theater! -
Ebert Honored by Sundance -
Zacharek on Criticism
-
Survey: Best Young Directors -
McConaughey on Critics -
Baldwin on Critics -
Watching 'Star Wars' For 1st Time -
The State of Movie Projection
-
VODetails: 'Norman' -
Defending the Mandarin -
Marlon Wayans on Critics -
French Announces Retirement -
Defending John Ford
The Week's Best Indiewire Criticism
Survey: Comic Book Movies
Early 'Star Trek' Reviews
Watch 'Not Fade Away'
The Internet Troll of Filmmakers
A Tribute to Roger Ebert
The Richest Woman in TownPeter Farrelly to Critics: "Back Off" 'Movie 43'
Critics weren't kind to "Hansel and Gretel," and with good reason; it's as crummy as gingerbread (these are the jokes, people). But they hated "Movie 43," which is currently clocking a 5% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. That translates to just two fans out of more than 40 critics. For symmetry's sake, I wish I could tell you it had 43 negative reviews but, alas, it's not quite there yet.
A quick scan of IMDb reveals "Movie 43" as the work of a dozen different directors -- including talents like Bob Odenkirk and James Gunn -- but if it's the brain child of anyone (if I can be momentarily permitted to use "Movie 43" and "brain" in the same sentence), it's Peter Farrelly, one half of the famed comedy filmmaking team The Farrelly Brothers. After "Movie 43"'s brutal drubbing by critics and near the end of a pretty brutal weekend at the box office (just $5.0 million in estimated ticket sales, well behind "Hansel and Gretel" and the one decent movie this week, "Parker"), Farrelly took to his Twitter account to defend his work:
To the critics: Movie 43 is not the end of the world. It's just a $6-million movie where we tried to do something different. Now back off. P
— Farrelly Brothers (@farrellybros) January 27, 2013
To the critics: You always complain that Hollywood never gives you new stuff, and then when you get it, you flip out. Lighten up.P
— Farrelly Brothers (@farrellybros) January 27, 2013
At first I thought Farrelly was sticking his tongue out at critics eletronically; then I realized that's just his signature. Nonetheless, he is sticking it to critics for bashing "Movie 43." This is not an uncommon refrain, especially among comedy directors, who tend to defend their work by reminding people it's "just a dumb movie" or "it wasn't trying to be anything but a fun time at the theater." In this case, Farrelly explains that this was at least an attempt, successful or not, to do something different -- which, he adds, critics always complain they want Hollywood to give them. So be careful what you wish for guys! Sometimes "different" looks like Hugh Jackman playing a guy whose testicles dangle from a scrotum on his neck. (Hashtag "comedy")
The Farrellys are an interesting case critically, because at the start of their career they actually got consistently good reviews -- particularly for the sort of movie (43) that they tend to make (dumb, gross, juvenile, funny, etc.). They followed up their directorial debut, "Dumb and Dumber," with the bowling comedy "Kingpin," which earned a big endorsement from both halves of "Siskel & Ebert," with Ebert saying that it was a reminder that "every once in a while a movie comedy can slam dunk one big laugh after another." Then came "There's Something About Mary," one of the best reviewed mainstream comedies of the last 25 years.
From there, things started to go down hill for the Farrellys, critically if not creatively, although I would not put up much of an argument if you said the two were connected. They've had a few modest creative hits ("Fever Pitch" is listed as "Fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes), and they still have a small but devoted group of auteurists (and "Three Stooges" fans) who support most of their work. But the support was certainly not there for "Movie 43."
Were the critics too harsh? I will leave you with a sample of their reviews and let you decide for yourself. Either way, I don't think there will be a "Movie 44" -- although according to IMDb, the Farrellys do have "Dumb and Dumber To" is in the works. That title already made me laugh harder than the entirety of "Hall Pass."
Richard Roeper, Chicago Sun-Times:
"We've been hearing about this movie for some four years, as producer Peter Farrelly somehow coaxed more than a dozen A-list stars and talented character actors into appearing in a series of aggressively tasteless scenes loosely strung together as proposed elements of a movie that Dennis Quaid is pitching to Greg Kinnear. So whenever a Gerard Butler or a Johnny Knoxville or a Jason Sudeikis or an Uma Thurman became available and/or were blackmailed, Farrelly would bring in a director, and they'd shoot a scene. Unfortunately, the shooting was never fatal."
Richard Brody, The New Yorker:
"Deadly dull, unfunny, offensive, and stultifyingly clumsy."
"If this is 'Movie 43,' I’d hate to see the previous 42 attempts at pronounced stupidity the production didn’t want to release."
"This is the biggest waste of talent in cinema history."
"Just no."
Read more tweets from The Farrelly Brothers.
6 Comments
Lilly | February 2, 2013 7:35 PM
I just don't understand why everyone hated it so much. I went with a group of friends, and we didn't stop laughing the entire time!
Sure, it was complete base humor rife with poop and dick jokes, but so what? Are you too good for that now? Monty Python did the same damn thing in their day. Even Shakespeare pulled these jokes, and you all loved those guys so much.
My point is, just because they were "raunchy" or "dirty" or "naughty" jokes doesn't make them automatically awful. They were well placed, weren't dragged on too long, and managed to keep the attention of a group of jaded, uppity uni students who generally only like "obscure" and "sophisticated" jokes, and it made us laugh for a full hour and a half. And that's a pretty big feat right there.
The only reasons I see for anyone to hate this movie so much is either because they're old folks with high standards, or they're tight asses who want everyone to think that they're too good for "easy" humor.
Arch | January 29, 2013 4:10 AM
I have a soft spot for "Irene" myself, but this one ? It seems like an obvious variation on the Funny Or Die syndrome (A-listers doing raunchy sketches to gain street cred or whatever).
Nothing I would call "new" really. What's original is that Lindsay Loahn is not involved.
PS: R. Brody writes an interesting piece... and (completely OT) his previous one on art-house consensus is really great.
maynard | January 28, 2013 3:40 PM
"Unfortunately, the shooting was never fatal." Roeper
That's whats wrong with film critics.
Jordan Hoffman | January 28, 2013 1:02 PM
Stuck On You (2003) is terrific. Seriously.