Is it really a surprise? I mean, wasn't the movie just an extended version of the show? I don't know why it would seem odd that it would be more of the same junk.
Entourage - Shallow Dudebro Movie With Awkward Celebrity Cameos
- Thread starter Marter
- Start date
yeah the only reason I would go see this is to see more of Ari and lloyd (and the occasional bit of johny drama).
I liked the show for purely those reasons, and I'm not surprised at all that it pretty much hinges on you having seen the tv show before, the movie is entirely for fans of the show, so anyone else basically walks in already at a disadvantage.
Still, this movie is made for a specific kind of person, if you don't enjoy over the top/blunt sexist/homophobic/racist jokes, then you certainly won't enjoy this movie.
I liked the show for purely those reasons, and I'm not surprised at all that it pretty much hinges on you having seen the tv show before, the movie is entirely for fans of the show, so anyone else basically walks in already at a disadvantage.
Still, this movie is made for a specific kind of person, if you don't enjoy over the top/blunt sexist/homophobic/racist jokes, then you certainly won't enjoy this movie.
This is the movie that had Bob going "Why? Why would you do that? Why would anyone do that? What did I do to deserve this? What did anyone do to deserve this? Dear God, WHY?!!?" when he heard it would be coming out, isn't it? Well at least he was spared from having to watch it. Amusing that the guy they brought in to replace him would hate it about as much as Bob expected to.
That doesn't excuse writing poor reviews. If he doesn't have the time to do it right, he just shouldn't do them. Honestly, I was surprised to find a review of the movie here. I would have guessed the fan bases of the Escapist and Entourage don't overlap much.Spot1990 said:
Bias is bad, but liking the series does not make one biased. Do you honestly think everyone who enjoyed The Fellowship of the Ring is somehow too biased to review The Two Towers?Spot1990 said:
A major difference between this movie and the things you mention is things like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings both tell the complete story start to finish. So do comic book movies. Even Serenity, which you mention below, only had thirteen episodes of backstory, and Joss Whedon explicitly stated he assumed no one had seen the TV series when he made the movie. The closest comparison I can think of it Star Trek Generations. I wouldn't recommend anyone go see that who hadn't at least seen a few episodes of The Next Generation. Film-goers would be wondering why that Data guy doesn't understand humor and what happened to Worf to mess up his forehead.Spot1990 said:
Given that I'm not a writer, it is quite kind of you to say so. The only reason I bothered to write it is because of how unbelievably poor I felt the original review was. The were multiple factual mistakes almost from the start. The movie is a ensemble piece, so there isn't any sort of a "lead actor" in this any more than there was in something like "Friends". If I was forced at gunpoint to pick one, I would have at least gone with Kevin Connolly's character Eric (actually the character is commonly referred to as E), given that he was actually given top billing in the opening sequence. The claim that the main characters go around making racist, sexist, or homophobic statements is simply untrue (only the character of Ari was ever known for making sexist or homophobic statements, but never anything racist - again, research would have helped here - and it was very toned down, for reasoned explained in the movie). Finally, claims that none of the actors can act I can't describe as anything other than complete bullshit. Jeremy Piven, Kevin Dillon, and Kevin Connolly were either nominated for or won awards for acting during its HBO run, including Emmys and Golden Globes. Heck, two of the main characters go by E and Drama, not Eric and Johnny! To me, the entire thing reads like the reviewer watched the first five minutes of it, left, and then wrote the article based on whatever information he could find on Wikipedia and the Internet.Spot1990 said:
The really sad thing is, there are plenty of perfectly valid criticisms of the movie. The running time of the movie versus a season of the TV show compressed all the plots and was a major detriment for the movie. It probably would have been a good idea to just dump Turtle's plot altogether in favor of beefing up the Hollywood plot. Vince's plot is pretty superficial, which is unfortunate given his plot in the second to last season. For fans, E had a decent plot, and Drama's plot was great. Ari had some great scenes too. As much as I appreciated them, there were quite simply too many cameos and quick scenes of former recurring characters. Doug Ellin needed three movies to really let the characters and story shine like I know they can. The trailers could have done more to make it obvious this movie *is* a direct sequel to the HBO show. I came away from the movie with many great moments, but I would probably suggest people go see it at a matinee showing, or even wait for it to show up on HBO. (It pains me to say that, because I would love for it to make enough money to justify more Entourage.)
EDIT: As a quick follow-on, the original article is a perfect example of a non-objective review. It doesn't do anything to actually consider what the movie is attempting to be, and rather is a review against what the reviewer would have preferred to see.
This is one weird movie. I haven't seen it yet, but it grabs scores from 1 to full 10s. Most of the movie critics seems to hate it, while most normal audience seems to dig it (example: rotten tomatoes rates it 30% from critics and 84% from audience). Can't help but wonder if this is one of those "it's a completely ok movie but critics are too snobby to like it" type of movies.
Will have to watch it before I can know for sure, but I dig the hell out of the series though, so I'm pretty biased already.
Will have to watch it before I can know for sure, but I dig the hell out of the series though, so I'm pretty biased already.
Marter isn't wrong in the title. Entourage, even as a show, was a shallow dudebro extravaganza (with the exceptions of Ari and Lloyd and to an extent Johnny Drama). Critics were bound to hate the hell out of it.Excludos said:
Obviously the dudebros liked it, but the interesting thing is the amount of nondudebros that liked it most likely attributed to just how awful the show treats its dudebros. Johnny Drama is an alpha male who constantly fails because of his alpha maleism. Vince is the quintessential pretty boy who gives 0 fucks and because of that he continually shits the bed due to his lack of fuck giving. Mike is...there? He's there! And Turtle is totally inept at everything to the point the other characters point out how he's useless.
If you didn't get it you're not goin to like it (unless you're a dudebro, in which case the show is shallow enough to appeal to you). If you did get it, there's still a pretty decent chance you wont like it because they're all fairly horrible human beings. However there's a lot of people who still do love it.
Did anyone even expect anything else considering that it's based on the show Entourage which is as bad, if now worse considering that there is far more episodes?
Well, the reason you're going to get that is because it's based on an existing TV show, so most of the public who are actually going to pay money to see it are already fans of the show and want more of what they already enjoy; movie critics have to go see it and review it regardless of their feelings towards the show.Excludos said:
It's like audience reviews of "Fast and Furious" movies: the people who are going to pay money to see it are probably already huge fans, and thus are more likely to enjoy more of the same.