Peter Farrelly addresses Movie 43 critics

News Simon Brew 30 Jan 2013 - 07:12

The critics of Movie 43 should "lighten up" says Peter Farrelly, as he defends the film from the reaction it got...

With no press screenings in the UK or US that we know of, Movie 43 arrived in cinemas last weekend, and promptly got savaged by the critics. Furthermore, the box office returns were similarly poor, with the US take for the film being just shy of $5m (it took £800,000 in the UK). The film's Rotten Tomatoes score stands at just 4%.

Peter Farrelly, one of those behind the film, has now taken to Twitter to defend it though. Specifically, he's got a message for the film critics who have been having their say about the film over the past few days. "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.", he Tweeted. He then added that "You always complain that Hollywood never gives you new stuff, and then when you get it, you flip out. Lighten up".

They're words that are likely to fall on deaf ears, if the feedback from both critics and moviegoers is anything to go by so far. We've yet to meet anyway who warmed to Movie 43, with the general consensus being that one or two sketches hit, the rest miss, and miss hard.

But Farrelly may well have the last laugh here. The film's small budget is likely to mean Movie 43 turns a profit, and it can hardly be described as the box office bomb some are calling it, even if the takings have been below expectations. At this rate, there may yet be scope for a similar project in the future.

For now though, Peter Farrelly's Twitter feed can be found here.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

If it really only cost $6M, they can't lose. The only thing that makes me suspicious is how did they get so many well known faces in there for $6M? I guess they're getting a cut of the profits? That could kill the movie financially.

I liked it. Granted, I thought it would be funnier, but almost all the sketches got at least a giggle and others -- like the Kieran Culkin/Emma Stone sketch -- had me hunched over with laughter and I am not exaggerating.

So much for this starting a new trend... oh thee well.

The problem, Peter, is that it *isn't* anything new… Amazon Women on the Moon came out over 25 years ago, and it was only slightly better than crap then.

granted I've yet to see this movie, but I thought the trailer was pretty funny. Did I think it looked like one of the greatest comedies of all time? No, it looked like a stupid sketch comedy akin to Kentucky Fried Movie or Amazon Women on the Moon but for the 21st century. I don't think they thought they were making Casablanca here, hell, I don't even think they thought they were making The 40 Year Old Virgin, they made a fun dumb movie and I think there is a place for that. Now, I might see this, not laugh once and totally renounce this post, but I doubt it, I liked the trailer and am not going to go in expecting a smart comedy, I going to expect a dumb, raunchy lowbrow comedy.

Critics say its rubbish?? Must be good then, might go and see it.

To Paul, they're able to use all those known actors because they got paid scale (read: pennies). Also, they shot it over something like 3 yrs when actors schedules were open ( so the film didn't shoot on a time-budget either)

Farrelly can't seem to take criticism. So the majority seem to not like his movie... simple as that. If he's proud of it, good for him, but Farrelly telling everyone to "lighten up" sounds like a sore loser.

Farrelly said he begged people to be in it, and had to felate Richard Gere. I've seen the film and it has a few laughs. The cast had clearly had fun doing it(Halle Berry in particular). Trouble is the framing device of the wretched teens looking for 'movie 43' reminds us that anyone over the age of 14 is probably too old and not nearly stoned enough to find it funny. The sketches go on too long, at half their length they may have been a lot better.

No one walked out though. Two walkouts happened in Lincoln when I saw that yesterday. Take from that what you will.

You should watch the documentary heckler. The critic is the most useless person on the planet.

I have neither seen nor have any interest in seeing this film, but it seems to me that this Movie 43 is not aimed at the under 14 crowd, framing device or no. And i don't know who you know that "indulges", but to say that no one over the age of 14 gets stoned enough to find this movie, or any movie for that matter, funny, obviously doesn't get out much.

Farrelly doesn't understand the audience's priorities. It's not the $6m budget cinema goers (or critics) should concern themselves with, but the £8 or so ticket price, and the time taken to see the movie. It's up to us to work out whether the reviews sway our judgement on whether it's worth that cost.

You've never seen a 15 year old stoner? Perhaps you need to get out more instead of commenting on things you've neither seen or claim to have any interest in.

Kentucky Fried Movie is a classic, and the brilliance of most of the sketches (A Fistful of Yen in particular is genius) far outweighs the the one or two clunkers. And it doesn't hurt that it's so quotable, which my friends and i did constantly throughout the the latter half of high school. Amazon Women On the Moon is less successful, but still gets by on it's flashes of inspiration (again, it's the movie parody that's the stand-out), and it wins me over in the end. I saw both of these movies in my later high school/early college years, so i have a bit of a soft spot for these sorts of movies. These movies aren't great because they're sketch movies, and they're not funny because they're "dumb, raunchy lowbrow comedies" (which they are). They're great and funny because they're well observed, smartly written, sharply directed comedies.

I've not seen Movie 43, but it looks like it is none of those things. It's not the sketch format, which i'm obviously open to, or the "offensive" humor, which i'm equally open to, that makes it look terrible. It's that it looks unfunny, with nothing to offer other than a few "well established" actors doing and saying supposedly shocking things. I'll eventually see it, probably on cable in the next year or so, and hopefully i'm wrong. But judging by what i've seen so far, this one's definitely a pass.

But a 15 rear old isn't under 14 so aren't you agreeing with notteddansen? He was arguing that plenty of people over the age of 14 do get stoned enough to enjoy movies like this...

Yeah, that would make sense. If that's the model they used, they're going to turn a good profit on this.

Maybe that's the joke though, throwing in A-list stars to make a profit regardless of the quality of the movie? After all, isn't that what Hollywood does?

Farrelly already said he expected 5% on Rotten Tomatoes when he was on The Nerdist, long before the premiere, so he really shouldn't be all that surprised.

Ummm... that was the point of my reply to your original post. Perhaps you should re-read both of them again? And, i am commenting on things i have an interest in-- stoners and movies, (supposed) comedies in this case.

" . . . there may yet be scope for a similar project in the future." Noooooo . . . .

If he had produced a film that involved an animated elephant dressed as Hitler emptying its bowels all over the Queen, that would've been something different.

Different is not necessarily good, Peter Farrelly.

If he can't handle criticism then why is he in the film industry?

Pete, don't get defensive with the critics - they are just doing their job. The fact of the matter is that you made a shitty film. This release is not on par with 'Dumb and Dumber', 'Outside Providence','There's Something about Mary', or 'Me, Myself, & Irene' - and you know it.

And, as far as chalking it up to a negative response to your 'different' idea.......that just doesn't hold water. The sketch format was recycled from past films like 'Kentucky Fried Movie' (which was actually funny).

Read More About:

Sponsored Links