MovieChat Forums > The Moguls (2006) Discussion > this movie was horrible

this movie was horrible


this movie was horrible, bad acting and bad writing.

those who loved it must be easily amused.

reply

Either a) the several thousand people who voted this movie as a 6 1/2 out of 10 (obviously not a score you give a movie you hate) are the weird exception and are easily amused. Or
b) You're very hard to amuse.

Either way the score proves you wrong, horrible movies don't get 6 1/2 out of 10.

"By the time i turned all my clocks back, my ass had turned to jello!" - TourettesGuy

reply

#1 it never reached the screen. (so what it went to some independence festival)

#2) It didnt make it's money back No investor wanted to foot the bill for advertising and I wouldnt put my name on this film at ALL. HORRIBLE!! Those who liked this movie probably are the same people thinks 1000 maniacs is oscar material!!!

reply

So you judge the quality of movies on income and if they see a big screen?

"By the time i turned all my clocks back, my ass had turned to jello!" - TourettesGuy

reply

[deleted]

He's right though. This movie is very bad. The first ten minutes are cut like a preview. Its really weird. There is one line in the movie where Jeff Bridges says something about how movies are supposed to show not tell. This is funny because almost half of the script is inner monologue of Jeff Bridges explaining all of the characters and their weirdness. Really really stupid stuff.

reply

I don't agree - I think the film is quite good: funny, well-written and acted; a great ensemble. I don't think the producer's could have attracted the talent they did without a strong character-driven script.

It's really a shame Some Idiot's first film has had distribution problems, but that's typical for quirky small films .

Prospective viewers: don't pay attention to the adolescent comments above. If you like films that are different and low-key, and you get a chance to see this little gem, watch it.

reply

Look, you may not agree with me m-madel, but I'm going to make a pretty strong case here:

It's lazily scripted, the jokes are really terrible (Exhibits A and B: Mo-Ron and Some Idiot), the voice over is enough to show any budding screenwriter why not to use a voice over unless absolutely necessary, the acting is as limited as the characters they play, all of whom are caricatures not even as lightly disguised as in Poseidon, so by the numbers are they that all they needed was a few seconds of he Bridges voice over to tell us their name and their quirk. Great, really character driven. Now compare this to Knocked Up. That was funny. Especially in terms of the euphamisms used. In this film, they are everywhere, but none of them, absolutely NONE caused me to crack a smile. American Beauty's chafing the carrot, saying hi to my monster had me on the floor. This had nothing on it.

The predictability of the whole thing makes it pointless to watch. Ted Danson plays a guy who's gay. Everyone knows it, but he thinks he has everyone fooled even though he has this terrible stereotypical gay routine that doesn't even begin to be funny.

Here's another problem: why do filmmakers, the so-called professionals, find it so hard to depict filmmaking accurately? If all the crew left the camera rolling during the sex scenes and turned their backs, where did all those pans and alternate angles come from? Extraordinary. Add to that the fact that the writer-director thinks the audience are stupid and feels the need to point out events with a neon sign using Bridges inane voice-over, and freeze the film every time he wants to say something in the most unnatural way possible. Or how about so called laugh out loud scenes where Bridges says "d*ck" very loudly in a cafe which isn't particularly funny, feels like it's trying too hard (like the rest of it) and actually has no bearing on the rest of the film whatsoever. Mr. Traeger, ever heard of 'murder your darlings'? That was one of them.

Look, it's just a dud. How it attracted so much talent is beyond me, but I can tell you this, the problems they've had thus far selling the damn thing speak volumes.

How's that for a slice of fried gold?

reply

[deleted]

agree completely. i love how in the special features Bridges talks about how he read the script and thought it was terrible but his family(i believe) talked him into going further with it. Then he sat down with his actor buddies to read it expecting it to read terribly even with an ideal cast and they ended up having a ton of fun reading it and interacting as the characters. And, like, thats all well and good for a bunch of actor friends to read a cheesy script and let their hair down together, but boy did that go too far. And the acting, due to the writing, seemed less ensemble and more extreme cameo. I guess at the very least it can stand as an inspiration to the worst of potential screen writers. And regarding the imdb rating determining its value i really dont think a lot of people grasp the 1-10 concept. It seems the vast majority of voters voter on a scale of 5-10, while after that votes are either 1 or[not thru] 10 depending on the polarity of the opinion. Point being, i think 6 is far from a rave review on imdb.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I'm sorry, something must have gotten lost in the translation. I really do like this film. You're completely right, I'm wrong. The film was great. Thank you for helping me see the light. I was only watching the film I wanted to see after all...

My goodness, dreckula. You seem to be incapable of accepting the fact that I didn't like this film, despite the fact that I laid out a plethora of reasons why. You seem to be more in critique of the critique than of the actual evidence. I mention that 'tired' cliché simply because it's true. This was a terrible voice over. Are you saying I shouldn't mention that as a reason because film critics mention it a great deal? Perhaps that's because a lot of films have bad voice overs. Nevertheless, it's here and it's a valid criticism. American Beauty's voice over worked because it was clever and amusing as was the rest of Alan Ball's script, but, more to the point, functional. It had a purpose. In this movie, Jeff Bridges' voice over was a way of covering up the flaws in characterisation. By the way, that's so-and-so and here are a few words on who they are why you should find them funny. Oh, and that's a park bench in case you can't see for yourself. The 'show don't tell' rule that Jeff Bridges points out in this film is crucially ignored, and not in a self referential intentional way. Did you see Cloverfield? No voice over, barely anything in fact, just a few scraps of info to piece together along with old footage that the current footage was taping over popping up occaisionally. And guess what? The characters in a monster movie were more well rounded than in this so-called character driven comedy.

what you call really terrible jokes struck me as intentionally terrible. plenty of intelligence sprinkled throughout to support that.

Where? Can you give me an example? Was it the genius setup of the brother returning home (remember this, it'll be important later!) or the part with Jeff Bridges shouting the word dick in a coffee shop? Perhaps it was the completely original and clever observational comedy in which white men assume that all black men are incredibly well hung? Or perhaps the intelligent way the filmmakers managed to pan the camera without touching it? Maybe the multi layered unrequited love angle in which love is erm, unrequited? Perhaps Ted Danson's beautiful portrayal of a homosexual? Or the conga line at the end?

Again, my point with American Beauty was that it's euphamisms had a spontaneity and humour whereas the same was attempted desperately in this film which resulted in a resounding thud. The main point of 'on-the-floorness' was the commentary track on American Beauty's DVD in which Sam Mendes lists all the euphamisms Spacey came up with on the day, which are much funnier than anything here.

How can you dare to presume that my reasons for disliking this trash were brought on by anything that what I stated clearly in my review? A bad day? Not paying attention? Movie overhyped (despite being withdrawn and hardly advertised?). The movie I *wanted* to see? What crap. What in the hell does that even mean anyway? Why would I take the time to sit down to watch a movie with a desire to hate it? Pull your head out of your be-hind 'hoss'. You make little sense. How can you even praise Glenne Headly's performance when she hardly even appears in the film at all, only then to glower at Tim Blake Nelson. Do you really think that this is anywhere close to her best work? Reality check, mate.

It seems to me that you delight in taking apart my opinions yet can't seem to offer up any valid rebuttals of your own. My 'film school douche' routine is preferable to me than sounding like the director himself, desperately trying to defend his own failure. I agree with the guy above me. I wanted to like this film but I didn't. It's flat, badly written and sorely unfunny. The talent did the best they could but could only do so much with so little. You can take it or leave it. No-one says you have to agree with me, but I made my points honestly and articulately and I have yet to see any reason why I should feel otherwise.

How's that for a slice of fried gold?

reply

I agree. This film was excellent...excellent...excellent and excellent. I love movies like this and Ghost World and small indie films. It showed a great deal of creativity and range. It also showed what it takes to get a small movie off the ground and the set backs that comes with filmmaking. Trust me, I know. This film will be in my collection alone side of Ed Wood, X-Rated and Kane just to name a few of over 300 + films.


San Diego Ca, Indie Filmmaker

reply

1000 maniacs? What? That movie doesn't exist! It's 2000 Maniacs, dude. It's either 2000 Maniacs you're referring to, or Multiple Maniacs. Neither of which are Oscar award winning material, of course...but overall, reaching the screen and making money SO doesn't make a film a good film.

And for the record, in my opinion, Multiple Maniacs AND 2000 maniacs kick ass. John Waters and Herchell Gordon Lewis are probably the biggest examples ever that a movie doesn't have to be commercially successful to be good. But, then again, most people don't agree that H.G. Lewis and John Waters are two of the best directors of all-time. Haha!

reply

I'm surprised this movie's getting all the polarization that it is. Did anyone find it to be good but not great? The acting wasn't Oscar worthy for sure but I think everyone fit their part pretty well. Most of the characters were a little cliche and I felt like I was watching another bad movie from the 80's again with how linear and predictable the plot was but they were fine. Mo, Ron, and Some Idiot sound like jokes I'd here in the town I grew up in so I think the names do fit well with the movie. In my opinion it's a fun popcorn movie, it's not anything I'd add to my collection or tell all of my friend's to go watch but I'm glad I rented it, it was a good way to kill an hour and a half.

reply

Did anyone find it to be good but not great?


Yep. Just saw this knowing absolutely nothing about it...had never even heard of it. Maybe that's the way to see it. Thought it was a pleasant, funny diversion. Entertaining.

I love this internet. It's part fantasy, part community, and you get to pay your bills naked.

reply

yeah i thought this movie was pretty bad too. i rented it thinking it would be big lebowski-ish, which is my bad but it was just like boring and predictable i thought. even when the girl from gilmore girls became the dude's love interest even though she never had a line in the movie until that point was just weird. i dont know, it just wasnt funny at all in my opinion.

reply

Something was truly missing with this film. I really wanted it to be good but it was just flat. This film had a ton of voice-over and I think that killed it - no character delevoped because we had this voice from nowhere telling us what the character was. I don't know how you could have made this movie any better. Bridges should have gone with his gut on this one (he hated it at first) and passed on the project.

reply

I disagree somewhat. I'd heard a lot of good things about this film from a few friends of mine but I saw it and merely thought it to be OK. It was enjoyable overall, but not fantastic. I think the individual performances were amazing, but the script was just shaky overall.

I think my favorite scene was the "black penis" diner scene. Me and my wife were just roaring at that scene. The movie actually played out very well toward the beginning and the middle but the final third of the movie just started to lose us.

bradpittsbodyguard, it's your right to criticize a movie but I hate hate hate it when someone who doesn't like a movie attacks the character of someone who does. Why bother? It just makes you look bad and invalidates your credibility.

reply

I saw this movie on DVD (with the name 'The Amateurs') and I really didn't expect much. I don't like 'ensemble' movies to begin with. But after a somewhat slow beginning (maybe too many introductions to the characters but I think that was probably necessary to get out of the way), I ended up absolutely LOVING this movie. I wanted to take notes because some of the lines were so funny, they had me laughing out loud and God knows, there aren't too many good movies that acoomplish that these days.
I caught myself saying many times 'Now THIS is a mistake' (Jeff Bridges in a Big Liebowski role again, too little time spent on the L. Graham romance, not much interest generated for the son-with-new-rich-stepdad plot, etc.. but then the movie just took over and I was laughing my head off at the silliness. And I was very surprised at how the loose ends were gathered up at the end of the movie. It worked somehow!
This is a funny, charming movie. Just goes to show you can take a chance and end up really having an enjoyable few hours (as the viewers found out who ended up watching the non-porn porn movie produced in the movie).
I have seen much bigger budget movies with more effects and trickier plot twists and not enjoyed myself so much as watching this.

reply

I can no emphasize enough how appaling this film is. I'm coveed by other posters, but eally, of the myriad of films that are about film making this has to take the crown for most unoriginal, stupifyingly inane garbage I've seen.

myspace.com/bankrupteuropeans

Coz lifes too short to listen to Madlib

reply

[deleted]

What a comedown for Jeff Bridges, whom I used to think was a decent actor.

reply

Yep, it was awful. Been awhile since I was so disappointed in a film. The plot is staid, the execution worse. For a comedy, it was painful to watch, I only chuckled once in the first 40 mins (at the executive producer joke, which felt like it took 4-5 mins of screen time to pull off). I shut it off shortly thereafter.

I can't believe anyone took this movie as a serious effort. The Moe-Ron duo, OK you might put that off to unsophisticated small-town humor. But naming a character Some Idiot, I just don't think the makers tried too hard on this one. In fact, the whole business came off as something of a joke itself. Was this supposed to be a real movie, or just some rich Hollywood's guy of idea of a prank?

reply

[deleted]

I'm not easily amused at all, and yet I really liked this movie. Why?
Because the acting is fantastic, the story is original and funny, the dialogues are hilarious, the end is great, and the movie is overall clever, pleasant and not vulgar at all.

Also, just because a movie is indipendent and "never reached the screens" it doesn't mean it's horrible. Being non-mainstream only makes it more awesome. :-P

"There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel."

reply