MovieChat Forums > Complete Guide to Guys (2005) Discussion > Starting to believe that every positive ...

Starting to believe that every positive review of this is a plant


Besides Andrew Nixon's review and comments here, every review has been triumphing this film. I saw it the same night as everyone else and it was clearly a terrible film. The three friends that I viewed it with all agreed, yet suspiciously good comments show up on this board. Plants by the filmmakers? I believe so. Let me explain...

Firstly, we have the fact that the makers of this movie posted on this board answering questions and such, until the film gets released. Suddenly, they are replaced by by a bunch of first time posters--people who have never voted or commented before. They turn to the Dave Barry page and all write "perfect" reviews. Now I can almost see how if you are a Dave Barry fan, you may think this movie was close to a "decent" flick (I love Barry and certainly did not). But I cannot honestly believe that these first time posters are all different people who actually believe that this film was "comic gold", "brilliant" or "for the intellectuals" in the audience. Nobody in their right minds (I believe) would think that a cliched, completely predictable, lame excuse for a 70 minute SNL skit would actually be for the "intellectuals" in the audience.
So I would like to ask you guys, if you would be so kind, could you stop writing reviews for your own film and please please stop making movies? I know you are reading this and please take the advice to heart and spare us all.

reply

Do you have nothing better to do than come up with conspiracies about a movie that people can't see even if they wanted to because it's hardly playing anywhere? Why don't you spend more time working on your reviews. I get sick of seeing people trashing movies and not giving any reasons. You say this movie was a bunch of junk but you give absolutely no detail on why. But given the fact that you think watching any given movie at all is worse than physical torture, I'd say you're pretty screwed up and your opinions aren't worth anything anyway. Or wait, maybe I'm Dave Barry so you shouldn't listen to me. And I swear I'm not making this up. ;)

reply

Well first of all, this movie is not "hardly playing anywhere"--it is not playing anywhere. It premiered at the SBIFF once. Apparently it is going to get distributed, and then when you can finally see it (along with other IMDb members) you will probably see why I believe that the reviews on this page are fake--and I would hardly call that a conspiracy theory; filmmakers have been known to "plant" fake reviews on the internet before...read AICN for yourself sometime.

And if you really believe that I think physical torture to be more enjoyable than seeing a movie, YOU may be the moron, not me--as the title of your post indicates. It was used for dramatic and comedic effect. Lighten up.

Now the reason why I've been trashing this movie is because I want to save the money of people like YOU! I spent nearly 20 bucks to watch this garbage and I don't want anyone to have to spend even 7.50 on it. Seriously though, I was going to stop raggin' on this flick, but since you called me out on wanting some evidence, I'll give it to you...


When the film opened up, my friends and I quickly realized that we were in trouble. The movie looked like it was filmed for TV, and the opening credits even looked like a television opening. The music in the background sounded like it came from my friend's high school band, and trust me: they sucked.
I'm pretty sure the entire sound design was created by a college student, using the mic from his computer.
The basic concept of the flick was to have loosely arranged sketches of typical guy cliches. They were all pretty stupid and painfully predictable and centered on men being completely dumbasses. One dude's girlfriend tries to break up
with him, only he doesn't care because he is distracted by the latest sports news on ESPN. Another guy buys a toy tank for his baby son, instead of a
rattle. Real comic gold. John Cleese is interjected between some scenes to give his medical advice (he plays a doctor). I really adore Cleese, and he was completely wasted in this flick. A poor waste of talent if you ask me.

I could go into more details but I really have wasted all the time I want on the movie. If I haven't steered you away, go see it for yourself when it comes out and make up your own mind.

reply

Okay, thanks for the details. That's all I wanted. When someone rags on a movie, I just think they should say why. It's good practice in organizing thoughts and expressing them in a clear, understandable way. It does sound a bit lacking. Of course, it's not like they were under Universal or something. It sounds kind of like Dave and his friends got together and made a stupid movie. Nothing wrong with that, I guess, other than you paying $20 for it. By the way, why did you pay $20 for it? I wouldn't pay $20 to see any movie let alone Dave talking about guys being stupid (as much as I love Dave). As for the torture, I figured you were kidding, but it's not really something to joke about. You know, you might offend a reader who has been tortured before or something. As for your conspiracy theory, I will give it some credit in the fact that I investigated the people who posted anything good about the movie and it appears none of them have ever posted before. Interesting, I do say. On the other hand, this is the only movie you've ever reviewed, and as for posts, you've only put up a few other than stating your negative views on this film. So, I don't know, maybe you're Dave's wife or something? Is that you, honey? ;)

reply

I was right. Proof-http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407680/board/thread/16114676. And I am not Dave's wife. ;)

reply

If there's such a thing as "plants," and they are so well known, then I am not the first person to ever do it. And if so, then maybe everyone who does it is "sleazy," although I doubt it - they are probably people who worked really hard on something, are proud of their work and don't want to see it trashed beyond reason. I did it this time, it was probably a stupid thing to do, so sue me. Still I wonder which is worse - defending a piece of work that took me and a lot of other people the better part of a year to create? Or coming on to a chat board time after time to keep spouting opinions as facts and playing self-appointed defender of the faith - as if you and your friends are the sole judges of what is good and what isn't. Or assuming out of hand that anyone who could possibly say something positive that doesn't agree with your assessment is a plant, instead of someone who might have actually just liked the movie - or at least enough parts of it not to think it was the most horrible and wretched thing they ever saw. I do not know and did not meet the person who wrote that wonderful review for filmfestivals.com - just as I do not know and did not meet the reviewer from Variety who didn't like it, or the ones from other outlets who have written things somewhere in between. I do know that in the two weeks after the screening on Feb 2, our website got thousands of new hits, our merchandise store received dozens of new orders, the number of pre-orders for the DVD shot up dramatically, the number of complimentary emails we have received individually and to the company have been seriously hard to keep up with, and that three distributors who have already received screeners have seen the movie and have made appointments to talk to us about getting us into homes and theaters - that way people can decide for themselves, and tell their own friends whether they liked it or not.

I also have to wonder about someone who monitors this site even more frequently than I do, someone who can't miss an opportunity to say something damaging, and who actually saves copies of old postings to prove his point - whether this isn't somehow someone who had been hurt or angered somehow, either by me or by someone else connected with the film. You are clearly not acting in good faith, although you would have all of us believe you are. And by the way, for anyone reading this, you should know that over a week ago I contacted Frosteey privately via this board, shared some thoughts with him that were kinder than any he has shared with you, and gave him my email address in case he wanted to respond and have some kind of a dialog. And don't be surprised when I tell you I haven't heard a peep from him, except the times he comes on here to play traffic cop and act out his overinflated sense of self-importance.

I will give my email here again - [email protected] - for anyone who wants to say something to me personally - ask a question, air a gripe, anything but asking me to read your screenplay which I honestly don't have the time and the situation to do. Anyone who knows me in this community or beyond, also knows that I have been extremely accessible and have spoken to countless groups and organizations here in town, as well as at writing conferences and film festivals all over the USA and the world - and that I have been invited back to the same conferences year after year. I don't know if that fits the profile of someone Frosteey is describing, but if I'm as bad as he says, I wonder why people keep inviting me to be a speaker or a panelist, why I have hundreds of letters and emails from attendees who say I've inspired them, why authors of three different screenwriting books have asked me to write their forewords, why I am quoted in other books like the "Chicken Soup" series, for one example, why I have been able to provide employment for hundreds of people over the years, including dozens of actors who got their first breaks because I gave them a chance and often fought for them, or why people of the caliber of Dave Barry and John Cleese and Dan Marino and Carlos Ponce would have made a movie with me in the first place. Or, in the case of other works of mine, where people like Tom Hanks, Meg Ryan, Michael J. Fox, Madeleine Stowe, Bruce Greenwood, John Stamos, Annabeth Gish, Kevin Spacey, the rock band Chicago and God knows how many other actors, directors and prime technicians who have seen enough character and sensitivity in my work and my personality to sign onto projects I have written and created.

So I'll stand by the credentials and the friends I have, and the honest feedback from well-meaning people, whether positive or negative. And now that I've done what you said to, Frosteey, it's time for you to keep your word too, and leave the board like you said you would. To do any different, would be - well - how's a word like "sleazy..."

Jeff Arch

reply

Frostee went silent. I wonder why?

reply

It appreciate that a director takes the time to post regarding his work. I personally did not like the film. My father said he had a few laughs. My wife fell asleep. I know you had nothing to do with it, but I wish there were subtitles on the DVD.

The book was really great, but the material did not lend itself to a film. Maybe you could use this film as pilot and re-release it as a sitcom. I think I would like it better tightly edited and in 30 minute doses. Also, although Barry is a funny writer he is not that appealing on film. Sorry your film did not get wider release, but I am sure you will make a buck on the DVD.

All the best,

Steven

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

> I saw it the same night as everyone else and it was clearly a terrible film.

Actually, I enjoyed it quite a lot and I am not a plant. Yes, it was not a highly-polished movie, but for what they were trying to do, it was pretty good. The jokes were exactly what we'd expect from a stereotypical look at guys, but they were done with a brilliant sense of timing and grammer.

This wouldn't be a movie that you hold up as the best comedy ever, but it is quite enjoyable as an evening's entertainment.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

reply