Upcoming
Youth in Revolt
January 15
January 22
Drool
The Girl on the Train
Minority Man
Big frowns on N.Y. Post critic Kyle Smith for giving a one-star review to the extremely ingratiating and perfectly acted Humpday -- far and away a better film that Bruno or anything else opening this weekend. Humpday currently has an 88% positive rating from Rotten Tomatoes and a 74% positive from Metacritc.
The only other major critic in Smith's corner is the Hollywood Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt, whom Humpday's Mark Duplass and Josh Leonard refer to in this 7.6 Movieline chat with Kyle Buchanan:
Duplass: To me, [the response to Humpday] was pretty similar to the way that The Puffy Chair came out for us. It was a very little movie and there weren't a lot of expectations about the film going in, so it was able to be a surprise hit, which is just the best place you can be: [The critics are] either going to give you a good review if they liked it, or if they didn't like it, they won't say anything because you're just a little movie. No one's gonna go out of their way to bash a $20,000 movie.
Leonard: Well, one guy at the Hollywood Reporter, he did.
Buchanan: He gave you a bad review?
Leonard: He eviscerated us.
Duplass That's just 'cause I wouldn't have sex with him in the bathroom.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 10, 2009 at 9:49 AM
comment #1
roquentin
says ...
Shouldn't we welcome a divergent opinion, even if it seems "wrong"? Especially in the face of overwhelming critical consensus? The implicit assumption in your post is that Smith and Honeycutt should fall in line because the Rottentomatoes average is so high.
I get that you are stumping for Humpday because you genuinely like the movie and you'd like to see it succeed. But what's the worry - that the average NY Post reader, eager to see Humpday, is now going to be dissuaded by a single review? Whether or not I agree with the dissenters - and I haven't seen Humpday so I can't argue - I welcome them.
Posted by roquentin
at July 10, 2009 10:21 AM
comment #2
TulseLuper
says ...
Kyle Smith is entitled to his opinion but I'd be lying if I said I respected it. If Roger Ebert slams a film that I like, I can still appreciate his reaction because he knows his stuff (I feel the same about Wells, actually, who I disagree with quite a bit.) I've seen no evidence that Smith is any better than Ben Lyons.
Posted by TulseLuper
at July 10, 2009 10:31 AM
comment #3
George Prager
says ...
Kyle Smith is a wingnut. His review of "An Inconvenient Truth" is one of the dumbest things ever written
Posted by George Prager
at July 10, 2009 10:38 AM
comment #4
mrmystery
says ...
The press notes say writer-director Lynn Shelton, who talks a lot like her characters, calls this film "the culmination of my quest to find a deeply collaborative and organic way of making movies."
Case closed.
Posted by mrmystery
at July 10, 2009 10:58 AM
comment #5
BurmaShave
says ...
If Duplass' punchline in that interview is indicative of the humor in this film, no thanks.
Posted by BurmaShave
at July 10, 2009 11:20 AM
comment #6
George Prager
says ...
Don't worry Burm, the multiplex at your Edge City won't be getting this one.
Posted by George Prager
at July 10, 2009 11:31 AM
comment #7
BurmaShave
says ...
38 Years Without Affection: Life on the New Frontier, by George Prager.
Posted by BurmaShave
at July 10, 2009 11:35 AM
comment #8
George Prager
says ...
Twix or Skittles...My Life in Data Entry by Burma Shave
Posted by George Prager
at July 10, 2009 11:42 AM
comment #9
bmcintire
says ...
I know Jeff has already brought up his beef with the poster inconsistencies (vs. how these guys appear in real life/the actual movie), but Jesus I am sick of seeing this banner ad! Josh Leonard's "Kate + 8" haircut is just about enough to keep me away from this thing. The on-the-nose pink wallpaper and the fact that this is part of the whole Mumblecore movement aren't helping any, either.
And I am guessing The Gay are going to have a bigger problem with the ending of this than just about anything in BRUNO.
Posted by bmcintire
at July 10, 2009 12:53 PM
comment #10
BurmaShave
says ...
Prager you are imagining a life for me with a lot more decision making than I am able or likely ever going to have to handle.
Posted by BurmaShave
at July 10, 2009 1:02 PM
comment #11
roquentin
says ...
Oh, so the implication now is that one shouldn't eviscerate an independent movie on the grounds of...well, what? Protecting the viability of independent film? The pluckiness of humble indie filmmaking? I don't buy the logic. A critic shouldn't, under the guise of advocacy, reserve his sharper claws for tentpole goliaths. And if he does, he should be wary of giving in to the clean delineation of independent movies vs. studio films, or of assuming his opinion has the power to single-handedly take down an otherwise promising movie. It's a slippery slope.
A movie like Humpday won't achieve more than a modest success because of its subject matter (crossover hits like L. M. Sunshine and Greek Wedding tend to refract studio tropes and characters), and the notion that one critic, despite the consensus, needs to get in line or shut up is ridiculous. A movie is a movie is a movie, and if you put a film on the market, it deserves whatever genuine criticism or praise comes its way. I wouldn't want Jeff to be quiet about I Hate Valentine's Day just because it could be the next little train that could.
And this isn't a debate about the merits of individual critics. I don't read Scott or Honeycutt, nor do I find them particularly insightful. But I defend their right to vigorously and honestly engage with their readership. Jeff is putting forth a thesis that critics need to protect independent films regardless of the their merits. The playing field isn't even for smaller films, but considering the landscape of the past twenty years, can't we put any patronizing notion of critical protection to bed??
Posted by roquentin
at July 10, 2009 1:07 PM
comment #12
mizerock
says ...
Watching movies can be a very personal thing, and reviewers are going to have their reactions shaped by their experiences and emotions. So here we're assuming that he thinks any movie that treats the subject of male homoeroticism as anything other than "an abomination in the eyes of the Lord" is automatically a movie not worth watching. Sounds plausible. Given that information, we can make our own judgement as to whether we will have a similar experience if we choose to watch this film.
Posted by mizerock
at July 10, 2009 2:21 PM
comment #13
Glenn Kenny
says ...
Oh, har de har har, if you give "Humpday" a bad review Mark Duplass will make a homophobic joke about you. This picture and its claque absolutely deserve each other.
Posted by Glenn Kenny
at July 10, 2009 2:23 PM
comment #14
Anonymous
says ...
Mr. Wells will NOT tolerate dissent from his party line!
Posted by Anonymous
at July 10, 2009 2:37 PM
comment #15
Anonymous
says ...
especially when they piss on his advertisers!
Posted by Anonymous
at July 10, 2009 2:39 PM
comment #16
Webster
says ...
This is a B-minus movie at best. Starts off funny, but collapses in the third act when it;s apparent that the filmmakers had no better idea than the characters how to pull off a decent ending.
Posted by Webster
at July 10, 2009 9:26 PM
comment #17
btwnproductions
says ...
There's no way a frat boy conservative like Smith would ever embrace Humpday.
Posted by btwnproductions
at July 11, 2009 8:08 AM
comment #18
adayoung
says ...
Here is a very interesting place
------------------ Tallfinder com ------------It's where Tall singles looking for someone to enjoy their lifestyle with.You are just seconds away from taking that first step towards the life you have been longing for. welcome to join us and hope you have fun..
Posted by adayoung
at July 13, 2009 9:07 PM
Post a comment