MOVIE REVIEW: 3 THINGS I HATE ABOUT MOVIE 43 (BECAUSE 10 ISN'T WORTH MY TIME)

Let me preface by saying this might be the most difficult movie review I write, mostly because I don't consider "Movie 43" a movie. I'd consider it more a heap of dull, unfunny sketches, with lots of A-list actors, that is screaming to be considered funny. But, like the movie itself, I will begin on a high note and then scale down into the insurmountable crevasse that is the other 84 minutes of the film.

The film's opening vignette involves Kate Winslet's character eager to be going  on a first date with a rich, handsome businessman (Hugh Jackman). They arrive at the restaurant and are checking their coats when Jackman takes off his scarf... and there are a pair of testicles hanging from his neck. Winslet is of course horrified by this, but he acts like everything's fine, and so does everyone else in the restaurant. The comedy revolves around the behavior of the sack (Jackman feels a breeze and they shrink up into his neck, etc.) and Winslet's attempt at getting someone else to be shocked with her. It sounds infantile and grotesque, and it was. But I laughed, and laughed hard. I wasn't proud in that moment, I'd like to think I have some semblance of a refined taste in humor, but in the end, I guess anatomy where it doesn't belong can bring me to tears. The rest of the audience was in stitches too, so I forgave myself quickly. And, in retrospect, if the rest of the movie were cheap, visual gags that produced laughs like the first one did, I might have been somewhat satisfied. But no laughs followed. The one way in which the movie succeeds is putting the best (by far) skit first. The only reason I stayed the whole time (half the audience didn't) was hoping that one of these short skits would reach the level of the first one. No such luck, which leads to the 3 reasons (3 is all I need) I hate Movie 43:

1. I spent 9 dollars to see it. That could've gone toward a 12-pack... which is what I bought and consumed at a vigorous rate after seeing the movie to wash away the "entertainment" I just absorbed.

2. It's 95 minutes long and feels longer than The Hobbit.

3. The offensiveness. Not just the content, which ranges from the bullying of a girl getting her first period to a street paved with fecal matter to an animated dog masturbating to a photo album of his owner, but more importantly the offensiveness of its lack of comedy. Its shocking images and gutter palette of language, violence, and nudity are so in-your-face demanding a chuckle, and none of it is enjoyable. Even more offensive yet is why so many great actors would sign up for such a train-wreck of a project. There's roughly 15 A-listers in the cast, and the budget was around 6 million, so I know it's not for the paycheck. I'm baffled. I don't know if the filmmakers were going for actual comedy, or for camp (so-bad-it's-good), but either way they failed miserably.

My brother and I saw it together, and we can usually hash out some interesting discussion points after a viewing, but after going through the Jackman/Winslet bit and laughing again, the car ride home was silent. I think it was an unspoken agreement that to bring up the rest of the film would be a waste of oxygen. And perhaps reviewing it here is a waste of my finger muscles, but at least I've warned the rest of you. If you don't mind spending 9-11 bucks to see the first ten minutes, then by all means go have a good laugh, otherwise steer clear.

0.5 out of 4 stars

Thanks for reading. Hopefully more cheerful reviews to come!

Follow me on Twitter @arm2001

-Rex