I might actually go see it...maybe(I don't "go see" many movies), but I'll at least Netflix it.. I bought the BD of Meet the Spartans. Aristotle it isn't...but it is funny...Mike Frezon said:As an aside, HTF Member Lou Lumenick (of the NY Post) has joined the chorus and awarded Movie 43 "Minus 4 Stars." I guess we won't be discussing it in next year's Oscar thread...
You must have seen a different version of "Meet the Spartans" than I - that was one of the most awful films ever created:
I actually went to see it because I read three "No Star" reviews. Obviously, critics are often full of themselves and as someone who writes reviews, it's quite often fun getting to attack something even if it doesn't deserve that much hatred. I mean, does anyone here really expect Ebert, Roeper or Reed to walk into HALLOWEEN III, SCARY MOVIE 5 or various other movies and give them a good review? I love critics and reading other opinions but from every review I've read, I think people need to man up or at least admit that a movie wasn't meant for them. There's no question that comedy is subjective and I can see why people are going to be offended by a mother teaching her son about making out by making out with him or a man who has balls on his neck. Or hostage situations that are played for laughs or a cat who masturbates to his male owner. The trailer made it clear that this was nothing more than a bunch of shorts with A-list talent trying to be offensive and I think on that level it worked. It was incredibly uneven but most anthology films suffer from this so a movie with 10+ shorts is going to suffer from this. Again, the film won't be mentioned next year but I think those who are actually watching it are finding it funny. Certainly a cult movie will come of it. Which gets me to something else. Last Saturday I was bored out of my mind at work so I went through just about every Siskel and Ebert on Letterman/Leno/Conan that I could find on Youtube. Quite often they would appear of these shows before or after the Oscars and it was funny hearing them talk about how most voters don't see the films and how they think films are voted on. Of course, a lot of times it turns out to be who they would like to see win, who they feel would make a good story or they would just vote for someone they'd like to work with. Back to the other movie, I think there are times when critics hate to say they were wrong and for a complete year they were talking up LES MIS but when it hit, many thought it was a loud thud. The S&E comments really made me think that perhaps this got so much love not because people saw it and loved it but they had just heard that all year it was going to be great. It's funny but people are mostly avoiding MOVIE 43 because of the horrid reviews but these horrid reviews is what's going to make it a success in the long run by people having to check it out for themselves. Something like BEASTS was a success because it's the perfect type of film for the "arthouse" crowd. Now that the film has gone mainstream others who normally wouldn't have seen it are checking it out and HATING it with a passion. Message boards are filling up with people calling it a horrid POS and these comments are starting to carry weight where others are deciding that they don't want to check the movie out. I think the entire word of mouth is interesting with these two movies and how critics, fans and voters probably need to know what the target of a film was. With 43, it was trash meant to be seen as trash and not to be taken serious. With BEASTS it was an arthouse film that should have stayed in the small venues but the hype and Oscar-nominations have a pack of wolves killing it who shouldn't really have watched it in the first place. Of course, I reckon drama is subjective as well but that arguement rarely comes up with the merits of of drama, action or thriller are being discussed.Mike Frezon said:As an aside, HTF Member Lou Lumenick (of the NY Post) has joined the chorus and awarded Movie 43 "Minus 4 Stars." I guess we won't be discussing it in next year's Oscar thread...
Really? Going to mock ownership of a purposely bad movie? What about...(which I own...DVD or BD) Disaster movie Date movie Hot Fuzz Walk Hard: Dewey Cox Scott Pilgrim Johnny English 2001:A Space Travesty Austin Powers(all of them) Plump Fiction SpaceBalls Monty Python: The Meaning of Life Flesh GordonColin Jacobson said:
I admit, I haven't met anyone I recommended Beasts of the Southern Wild to that hated it. Then again, I have known people who hated Children of Men, which I consider to be the best SyFy in years and my basic response is to just say: well, it's not your taste.
I love Cox.schan1269 said:
I fail to see how you can argue "Meet the Spartans" was intentionally bad. Are you claiming it was supposed to be utterly, totally without any cinematic merit? Are you saying the filmmakers wanted it to be completely unfunny?
Oh, since you asked my opinions of those movies:
Personally, I could not classify the great Hot Fuzz as a spoof of its genre or, to that end, a purposely bad movie in that regard. It may have carried its various genres to a certain extreme here and there but it was, imo, all at once one of the best buddy movies, best action movies, best mystery/thrillers, and best comedies of the past decade or more. I never got a sense that it was making fun of itself, goofing on its genre or winking at the audience through the fourth wall. Unfortunately, the title does sound like one of those kinds of movies and, imo, also accounts for why it wasn't a bigger hit and didn't capture a wider audience.schan1269 said:
"Borat" and "Bruno" had a few laughs but were generally weak. "Dictator" is actually fairly good, and "Talladega Nights" is very good. Never saw "Black Adder".
I have to agree. Everyone's got their own opinions, and you can't be wrong about an opinion. But I have never heard anyone compare poorly-made, desperately unfunny anti-spoofs like Date Movie and Meet the Spartans to Hot Fuzz (an exceptionally well-crafted, tongue-in-cheek homage) and Scott Pilgrim (one of the most original genre mashups in years). Maybe I'm just an Edgar Wright fan. Anyway, back to the OscarsColin Jacobson said:
I still need to see Silver Linings Playbook and Amour. My BP pick is Lincoln (both for what should win and what I think will win); there's nothing unexpected about it, but it really is that good.
Like I said, if you like "Spartans", "Date Movie" and the like, go for it - fine with me. I just didn't - and still don't - understand the way in which you defended them as "intentionally bad"...
Where did I ever say that I only will watch or like "Oscar-worthy" movies? I can accept that you like "Spartans" and the like - why can't you accept that I don't without somehow finding fault?
And some of us are fans of the style of parodies Seltzer and Friedburg ran into the ground. They are lazy. Even the weakest moments of Mel Brooks, Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker and even pre-Annie Hall Woody Allen were superior to what S&F are doing: recreating stuff practically verbatim. Even Seth MacFarlane, who has reduced himself to just recreating 80s movies, at least does the research (and can at least draw on a musical theater background). Sometimes, S&F just spoofs the trailers, not whole movies.
