Why did this get such bad reviews?

I love this movie. I took it to college with me. I was watching it one night and my neighbor came in wondering why I was laughing. We went to her room and started over. The next night she wanted to know if we could watch it again. She grabbed the next girl down the hall and brought her in. During that week I watched the movie 5 times, each night with more people. By Sat, we had moved out of the dorm room in to the commons. Everyone loved the movie and was even inviting people from other floors and wings.

I got to see a local stage production this year. They did good, but I kept seeing the overlay with the movie characters. I like the movie better but that was what I first saw and what I'll always compare other takes to.

"lead, follow, or get out of the way" is supposed to embarrass you into leading, or at least following

One very serious problem is the HATERS. Just take a look at the moronic IMDb Mini Bio posted by a self-appointed "film historian" who literally hates Bogdanovich, and slants everything in his career to make him look bad. It is sad that people, especially in show business, are frequently built up and then torn down by critics, often out of jealousy, and Bogdanovich is a prime current example. His early success with films like LAST PICTURE SHOW and PAPER MOON set him up as a target. I wish people were more tolerant and even-handed, but sadly in the real world look how much hate's out there, so I'm not surprised it persists among critics and fans, too.

Mostly because the setting was taken from the UK to the US, and most critics slammed that, saying that there was no way a US film could capture the "British comedic farce" the right way.

Also because it was hard for those same critics to accept it was a film when it was previously on stage.

I love this movie, and the play as well. It's just the elitists who feel like transferring it to film is tarnishing the name.

"Does your friend know he's just climbed Lion Hill?"
"Do the lions know they're on Bob's hill?"

I did not like the film in spite of it being a Bogdanovich and having super comedian John Ritter in it. Plays do not naturally become films. Some great stage performers like Ethel Merman and Mary Martin rarely made it onto the screen. Conversely most films are not natural to become plays. Most, but not all people require plays to have huge audience actor interaction. They want films to have more lavish sets, lots of extras and far more scenes than are in a play. I just finished seeing the play Noises Off and loved it. It had very simple sets and the walls were pivoted back and forth between acts. It was hilarious watching this. To my sensibilities it just seems silly doing that in a movie. I understand not everyone feels that way. My guess is that the professional critics would say the film is too stagey. I would say the same thing.

South Pacific is the perfect example of how difficult it is to successfully transfer a play to a movie. Virtually all the actors were different, songs were changed and instead of a stage it was set on location in Hawaii. Yet both play and movie were sublime. Both in a very different way.

The movie is a great version of the play...probably the best they could have done given the material, but the true humor from this show comes from watching all the "organized chaos" being performed by the actors. Seeing it live is a truly unique theatre experience and some of that is lost in the film. It's certainly not the director's or actors' faults, but just the translation from stage to film.

Despite all the physical humor, this is a very intelligent show and parts are almost an inside joke for the "theatre crowd," which many going to this movie may not have been in on.

It's a good funny film. A Sex Farce. I saw the play years ago before the movie came out, and I think there's at least a half hour cut from the play (probably more) to accommodate the movie. The movie takes you to places that the play can't, and in that regard expands on the material.

In my opinion plays are hard to translate to screen even though both films and plays basically (not always) use the same screenplay format, but plays rely more heavily on actor being able to project themselves to an audience, and their timing for drama and comedy.

I thought the director captured the essence of the play onto the screen very well, and did so with high passing marks. Why anyone would really give this movie a negative review is beyond me.

Back to the OP.

I loved the movie, but I can imagine a critic feeling like they might as well have just taken a camera to a stage production and released the video. It does both look and feel like something that would be better as a play than a film, and as such I can imagine critics reviewing is as an entertaining time, but not an especially "good" movie, leading to some mediocre reviews.

A whole lot of fun though. No doubt about that.

I loved this movie. I remember going to my local video store (remember when there were video rental stores everywhere?) and I saw this on the shelf and said "What the hell..." and rented it. I'm glad I did. My gf (at the time) and I along with 2 of her female friends watched it and we were all laughing to the point of tears at times.

It's a little sad that 3 people who were in that movie are no longer with us. John Ritter, Christopher Reeve and Denholm Elliott were terrific in their roles.