So...Movie43.

[Lieju]

It's pretty much the way it goes for a lot of movies who focus on offensive, crude humor over story, setting, and plot.

The Jackass series, the Scary Movie franchise, and all of the mock comedies of other films created by the Scary Movie people (i.e. Meet the Spartans) are judged far too harshly for what they were made to do. These film exist to make you laugh, not think, and to have a good time without needing to think about plot or characterization. If some critics believe that laughing about a butt or offensive joke within the given context is beneath comedy and the makings of an entertaining film, then that is their loss.

People who came to watch Movie 43 got that they expected and would have been pleasantly surprised if they got more.

But should you be satisfied with that?

If you're satisfied with someone flinging poop around, fine, but why not demand a story and characterisation to accompany the poop-flinging?

I haven't seen this movie, so maybe the trailers (and the people who say it's funny) misrepresent it.
But I really hate the 'Meet the Spartans' and those kinds of movies, because I love parodies, but those aren't parodies. They don't even have jokes, they have references.

At least this movie seems to have somewhat higher goals.
But, still, humor is subjective. But I'm one of those people who need cleverness and characterization to find the movie funny.

 

[shogunblade]

I was crying from laughing so hard. I almost fell out of my chair. It was one of the funniest things I have ever seen.

sarcasm?, its hard to tell over text.

its not helping if the first relatively positive review is showered with doubt and the suspicion that someone is trying to be sarcastic.

you are indirectly implying that this movie is bad or you are just fucking with us.

also:
the mayans were right..

That was some of the 2 most painfully unfunny minutes of video I have ever seen. I'm never buying from the Shamwow guy again.

Oh... you think that's bad, sir? Do you really think that's bad? You should have seen his first movie, The Underground Comedy movie, which I watched almost in its entirety. I dare you to look up that movie. The trailer would disappoint you more then this one.

That trailer... I actually laughed at one joke. That's one more joke that I laughed at that I didn't at The Underground Comedy Movie. I'd watch it just for the Adrien Brody factor, and only for that, and I know it's better then UCM.

The only good thing about UCM was the fact that Michael Clarke Duncan (I miss him) was there to elevate the humor, even if only for a second (The Big Black Gay Virgin was offensively bad, but he did better then most actors would have)

EDIT: I realized I was never on topic. So, Movie 43.

I almost want to see the movie purely for the star power factor (Even the directors, to some degree. Just to see what they did and didn't do).

I probably won't watch it, though. I would have to have absolutely nothing on my hands to even consider it.

 

[BreakfastMan]

If I want to watch a movie with "dirty" or "edgy" humor, I am going to watch a Mel Brooks or Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker movie, thank you very much. You know, one with good direction and actual thought put into the jokes, not a cousin of Freddy Got Fingered.

 

[Darks63]

I was crying from laughing so hard. I almost fell out of my chair. It was one of the funniest things I have ever seen.

sarcasm?, its hard to tell over text.

its not helping if the first relatively positive review is showered with doubt and the suspicion that someone is trying to be sarcastic.

you are indirectly implying that this movie is bad or you are just fucking with us.

also:
the mayans were right..

You know whats sad i had a very similar idea for a movie when i was like 17 if you need to know what maturity level i was at when i thought it up.

OT: When i saw the trailer i was just shocked that they had so many actors i recognized usually that's not the case.

 

[Lieju]

but when shit like this can sell:
It becomes freakishly realistic.

'Vampires suck' is at least a parody. Whether it's good or not, it actually parodied Twilight. (And given how easy that is, it would be very sad if they weren't)
For example, in that scene, it makes fun of the 'I know what you are'-thing, and how you would not likely guess 'vampire' based on what Bella knew about Edward. And hoe he is telling her he's a killer, and her reaction is 'Yay, he's dreamy!'.
There is the random cameo from Alice, for no reason, but that wasn't as prominent in this movie as it has been in some other 'spoof' movies.

That being said, it missed some pretty easy marks, and analysis why Twilight is popular. (This is vital for a parody, in my opinion. It has to have something to say about the source material)

I say this, though. I actually cared about the main couple in 'vampires suck' and wanted them to end up together. A lot of it probably had to do with how comparing pretty much any couple to Edward and Bella makes them look like they have chemistry...

In short, I didn't think 'Vampires suck' was good, but it didn't make me angry, like most of this crap that thinks

copy of a scene + random cameos and references + fart jokes = parody