Movie 43

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I was wondering why this was getting such awful reviews until I read the summaries of most of the skits on Wikipedia. Uh.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_43

So now have to ask: How the hell did this obvious piece of sh!t get that cast? Reviews are great fun btw: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/movie_43/

[Boris]

Yeah, I was wondering how it got cast too (especially b/c the previews looked awful and it's January). Peter Farrelly did an AMA and describes the casting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/175hso/iam_peter_farrelly_creator_of_comedies_such_as/

[dead0man]

Apparently friends working on it would call in other friends and had everybody work for scale to keep costs really really low.  It's going to be a horrible movie, but I love horrible movies.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The synopsis I've read makes it sound a lot like the Shamwow guy's direct to DVD movie, which apparently is just awful with no redeeming value whatsoever. Like Friedberg/Seltzer level. Imagine if Friedberg and Seltzer managed to cast that many Oscar winners/nominees.

[dead0man]

The synopsis I've read makes it sound a lot like the Shamwow guy's direct to DVD movie, which apparently is just awful with no redeeming value whatsoever.

That movie was horrible.  Still, I'd rather watch it again over the Matrix or whatever artsy fartsy movie won Best Picture last year (looks it up, laughs that the name of the movie is "The Artist"....a silent black and white movie....perfect).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Uh, take a look at the Best Picture winners prior to that:

2010: The King's Speech
2009: The Hurt Locker
2008: Slumdog Millionaire
2007: No Country For Old Men
2006: The Departed

Those are all good films. The Academy has some awful taste in many ways and some very awful snubs, but lately they haven't picked the stereotypical films for Best Picture. There's no way anyone can argue that those five movies above are worse than this, or the Shamwow movie, or the works of Friedberg and Seltzer.

[dead0man]

I've seen three of those, but only really paid any attention to the Departed.  Very good movie.  I halfassed watched No Country and Slumdog, the former was ok, but I had other sh**t going on for a lot of it and I should give it another go.  Slumdog was just boring.  And I think the King's Speech will be boring too.  I haven't gotten around to The Hurt Locker yet.

But I agree with you, other than The Artist, the Academy has been fairly good the last few years picking non-artsty fartsy movies.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

A star-studded piece of [Inks] is still a piece of [Inks].

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I was hoping it would be universally panned.  I've been exposed to the trailers for this turd over and over and all I ever get out of it is, "what the [Inks] is supposed to be going on in this movie?"

[Paul Kemp]

The Artist was fine and deserving of Best Picture. What is wrong with black and white or silent films?

[Eraserhead]

The Artist was fine and deserving of Best Picture. What is wrong with black and white or silent films?

Yeah, I like The Artist. Very well done. Hugo and Midnight in Paris were better though.

[Paul Kemp]

The Artist was fine and deserving of Best Picture. What is wrong with black and white or silent films?

Yeah, I like The Artist. Very well done. Hugo and Midnight in Paris were better though.

I didn't see Hugo but Midnight in Paris was good stuff too.

But any way, this Movie 43 huh?

[Keystone Phil]

You couldn't pay me to see this. I get ill when I see previews.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

When I saw the ads on TV, I knew right that that was the worst title I had ever heard for a movie, especially because it makes no sense for the film (or any film for that matter).  The movie itself is probably not much better either.