David Zucker's An American Carol (2008)

[gbeenie]

Hey, at least give the poor fellas a chance. 

[Tripe]

Or at least a semi-decent set of falsies each 

[Jonathan_Short_Torso]

It looks better than Disaster movie, at least it doesn't look like a poor amalgamation of 84 different movie parodies that have no possible connection and therefore can't connect cohesively to make decent comedy.

[ninjacat11]

It looks better than Disaster movie, at least it doesn't look like a poor amalgamation of 84 different movie parodies that have no possible connection and therefore can't connect cohesively to make decent comedy.

As horrible as I think this movie will be, I'll have to agree with you there.

If I were forced at gunpoint to see either AAC or Disaster Movie, I would go with An American Carol.

Then again, that's like comparing getting shot to getting your eyes gouged out.

[Jonathan_Short_Torso]

It looks better than Disaster movie, at least it doesn't look like a poor amalgamation of 84 different movie parodies that have no possible connection and therefore can't connect cohesively to make decent comedy.

As horrible as I think this movie will be, I'll have to agree with you there.
If I were forced at gunpoint to see either AAC or Disaster Movie, I would go with An American Carol.
Then again, that's like comparing getting shot to getting your eyes gouged out.

Well, my eyes have already been gouged out, so I think i'll take the eyes gouged out option, I mean what's the harm?

[Natureboy]

Quote from: ScottH on September 08, 2008, 06:07:47 AM
King approved movies almost always suck, possibly because King is a self-important hack.

I am confused with the Stephen King comments.  The Shawshank Redemption sucked?  That was authorized by King. 

I will say that if a movie from King's books that include his name in the title (Stephen King's Thinner, Stephen King's Graveyard Shift, etc.) are pretty bad, but Misery, Stand By Me, 1408, and The Green Mile were very good.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

The reviews are in!

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0578854/

Last week writer-director David Zucker told the Los Angeles Times that Vivendi Entertainment, which is distributing his anti-liberal spoof An American Carol, had decided not to screen the movie for critics because "most reviewers don't agree with the politics, which put the movie at risk." Well, the critics got a look at the film over the weekend and demonstrated that the studio had good reason to be concerned, although politics may not have been the only factor driving the film's largely negative notices. Gary Goldstein's review in the Los Angeles Times runs just 207 words. "If An American Carol contained any real bite or intelligence, those so inclined could've legitimately griped about its shallow anti-liberalism," Goldstein comments, "But given that this supremely silly satire ... plays more like something slapped together to beat an expiration date, it's hard to get too worked up about it." Rafer Guzmán in Newsday does get worked up about the movie, writing, "With this hamfisted, haranguing film, Zucker joins the ranks of those who are so convinced of their own correctness, so full of hatred for anyone with other views, that they've crossed the line from humorists to dogmatists." And Steven Rea in the Philadelphia Inquirer concludes that the movie "is about as not-funny as a comedy can get."

It's official! Worst comedy of the year!

Weekend gross: $3.66M

[Darth Geek]

So does this mean it is as un-funny as the trailer made it out to be? We finally get truth in advertizing and it's for THIS steaming pile?

[Steve-O]

Rafer Guzmán in Newsday does get worked up about the movie, writing, "With this hamfisted, haranguing film, Zucker joins the ranks of those who are so convinced of their own correctness, so full of hatred for anyone with other views, that they've crossed the line from humorists to dogmatists."

So he turned himself into a Democrat?

[Natureboy]

Personally, I can't stand Michael Moore, but I have no interest in seeing this movie.  It looks awful.

[ScottotD]

How does one review make it ''official"?

[mearnest]

If a studio does not allow critics to see it in advance, the movie sucks.  Studios do not withhold a film from reviewers unless they know that it eats.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

wow so all a movie has to do to NOT suck is let random over payed idiots to ramble about it before hand?  boy thats an easy mistake to avoid.  Good thing beverly hills chihuahhua and babylon AD got reviewed first that way they didnt suck. 

[kodiakthejuggler]

If a studio does not allow critics to see it in advance, the movie sucks.  Studios do not withhold a film from reviewers unless they know that it eats.

Agreed. They know it will get pounded by the critical press and they don't want any negative criticisms destroying what little money-making chances they have. Though they'll probably use a lot of "glowing" quotes from critics you've never heard of, or TV personalities no one but the 5 people in their sleepy little hometown knows.

[Mr.Nobody]

The thing that confuses me about the movie is that its 4 years too late.  Moore's popularity peaked in 2004 with Fahrenheit 9/11 and he's pretty much dropped off the radar since then.  Sicko didn't even generate half the publicity of Fahrenheit.