Rendered at 21:50:33 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
ggambetta 1 days ago [-]
Can't wait for the movie. I grew up on Roadrunner cartoons (among others, most notably Top Cat and Scooby Doo), and some of my earliest childhood drawings are elaborate diagrams of traps to catch the Roadrunner, with detailed if implausible Rube Goldberg mechanics. The Coyote might have nudged me towards engineering, not even joking.
mholt 1 days ago [-]
Reading these replies and you'd think HN'ers have no fun (or feelings) at all. The movie is funny, clever, clean (good for families/kids), emotional, and has important lessons and metacommentary that adults will enjoy. Not to mention the irony of the plot with what happened to the movie in real life. Go see the movie.
kemayo 1 days ago [-]
I saw it last night with my spouse. It was good, we laughed at a bunch of the visual gags.
It's not as good as Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which is the obvious comparison, but it's legitimately fun.
AceJohnny2 1 days ago [-]
Thanks for reminding me to watch Who Framed Roger Rabbit again. It's one of, like, 5 DVD/Blu-Rays I own, because of how excellent it is.
aidenn0 22 hours ago [-]
What are the other 4 movies you own?
AceJohnny2 20 hours ago [-]
Princess Mononoke & Spirited Away (and also Kiki's Delivery Service because it was a package. Not that it's bad, but not as important to me as the other two)
Into the Spider-Verse, for breaking away from the 3D animation movie style
aidenn0 18 hours ago [-]
I'll have to rewatch Princess Mononoke; I haven't seen it since it was in the theater in the US. I remember not liking it as much as the other Miyazaki I've seen, but I'm a different person today.
AceJohnny2 17 hours ago [-]
it was the first Miyazaki I saw, in college, and it blew me away. I still occasionally listen to Joe Hisaichi's soundtrack.
wolfi1 22 hours ago [-]
I hope one of them is Doctor Strangelove
AceJohnny2 20 hours ago [-]
ooh good call, I should fix that.
asdfasvea 1 days ago [-]
Agree. Seemed more like something that should go direct to streaming instead of big screen.
Decent, not amazing.
kemayo 23 hours ago [-]
I actually thought the big screen worked well for it. It was cramming a lot of background detail in that was fun to see.
sullivanmatt 1 days ago [-]
Completely agree. My wife and I absolutely loved it. Tons of fun, and unexpectedly quite intelligent.
hn_acc1 1 days ago [-]
I loved it too, and my daughters (who had access to several looney toons collections as kids) also seemed to enjoy it.
ChicagoDave 1 days ago [-]
And yet not one person laughed when I saw it.
It was not a good movie.
dekhn 1 days ago [-]
I watched it (I'm a big old school looney tunes fan) and I don't think I laughed even once in the entire movie.
sanderjd 1 days ago [-]
My 5 year old spent the whole time laughing. We have the expression "grow up!" that we tell kids. Sometimes I think we need the opposite expression for adults who are peeved when cartoons don't make them laugh.
dekhn 1 days ago [-]
I simply feel that it could have been 10X better. They had everything for it to be great, and it was just.... adequate.
To me, this seems to be an expectations issue. I thought it was going to suck. It's a live action and cartoon mix about looney tunes, itself a broad and very meh cultural artifact IMO. Compared to my expectations, it was funny and good. It seems that you had very high expectations for it to "elevate the genre", which ... I struggle to understand why.
onetokeoverthe 21 hours ago [-]
[dead]
FpUser 1 days ago [-]
Same here. It was really cheesy for my taste
rkuykendall-com 19 hours ago [-]
You missed some really good jokes.
dekhn 49 minutes ago [-]
Which ones? I have a copy of the movie and can go back and check.
But in my experience nearly all the jokes had already been done in the original show, or were duplicative of jokes from other "X vs Y" movies.
AnimalMuppet 45 minutes ago [-]
For me personally, the single funniest thing was "Based on a true story".
AceJohnny2 1 days ago [-]
As marketing goes, I appreciated the Reddit AMA [1] where "Coyote" responds in-character and only via signs.
Him responding to why he's freeballing it in the new movie is another gem. Very cute thread.
Insanity 1 days ago [-]
I watched it on release day because a friend wanted to go, I had no expectations and wasn't even aware of the film before.
But it was definitely one of the most fun films I've seen this year. Honestly if I had to choose a film to rewatch, I'd rewatch Coyote vs Acme instead of Nolan's The Odyssey.
mauvehaus 1 days ago [-]
Depending on just how uninclined to rewatch The Odyssey you are, you may enjoy the hell out of Emily Wilson's review. For a taste: "It lacks psychological, emotional, political and ethical depth. Its narrative structure is gimmicky. The writing is abysmal. None of the characters has convincing motivation for their actions or words. There are no sex scenes, and all the food looks horrible."
Did wonder about the review, it probably sold well in the news papers and part of me thinks that the Odyssey team might even agree with her, but IMHO it's mostly overblown?
The movie is good an wildly successful, and maybe I've gotten less jaded, but felt like her criticism did not land ( saying that as someone who loves to poke holes at things and reading a good polemic).
amiga386 7 hours ago [-]
She's entitled to her views, and others are entitled to think, like you, that her review is overblown.
My view is she has some good points about script and plot, given her expertise is in writing, but she's under-emphasising the importance of the visual arts.
Remember that Slashdot's review of the iPod was "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.". Not everybody has to like the popular thing.
I quite like watching Yahtzee's Fully Ramblomatic reviews. He's known for giving most games a kicking, but he does highlight what's good in a game as well as its bad points. I'd rather hear what he has to say than get a adverising puff-piece review from IGN. Even for games that I strongly enjoyed, he usually raises good points about them that I'd agree with.
majormajor 20 hours ago [-]
Not a huge fan of the movie (largely because I think the story is rather meh and played out, sometimes classics can stay in the academy and are no longer fresh enough to merit a big budget retelling), but it had one major redeeming factor of not being as un-fun as that review.
bthallplz 1 days ago [-]
Watching it in the theater was a fun experience. It seemed like most of the audience were containing their laughter, but me and one other guy were just belting out laughing. It'd be fun to go see again simply to get a sense for how many people will be less reserved with their laughter.
riffraff 1 days ago [-]
I expected the movie to be crap, but a friend went and enjoyed it a lot and I trust their judgement. He also shared with me the idea that Wile E. Coyote was basically what inspired him to get into engineering as a kid, and I think he's probably not the only one.
BloondAndDoom 1 days ago [-]
I went for the kids but enjoyed way more than I thought I would. So many references to childhood memories.
kraquepype 1 days ago [-]
The best times were chilling out with my grandmother watching Roadrunner and other looney tunes.
She always felt bad for the coyote... not in a root-for-the-bad-guy kind of way, but because it was always stacked against him.
I know the movie is about Acme selling him defective goods, but I wonder how they'll address the way that his entire world including it's physical properties seemed to conspire against him.
1 days ago [-]
qingcharles 1 days ago [-]
I really enjoyed the movie. Had some really, really funny moments. I was hoping for more of the legal aspects to be explored, but that doesn't happen :)
sanderjd 1 days ago [-]
I thought it was good! I had low expectations and they were well exceeded.
glimshe 1 days ago [-]
It's a bit disappointing, I'm sorry to say. It's just not as funny as it looks. I went to the movie with the whole family and, despite loving Road Runner, it felt repetitive and stale.
Not too bad, but not great either. If you lower your expectations you may enjoy it more than we did.
negzero7 1 days ago [-]
It was a good popcorn movie. My family and I loved it and thought it was funny. The story line itself was predictable and repetitive as you said but the throwbacks, cameos, and nostalgia was very fun.
pizza234 1 days ago [-]
I personally liked it a lot (although I don't think it's "great" either), because I find it very funny to see cartoon characters in roles that are far from their canon. I've even found moving the scene where Wiley shows the value of persistence.
jolt42 1 days ago [-]
The Looney Toons Show from 2011 - I thought the same about role changes, but the show is an absolute gem, at least the second season when they got the characters to gel.
dragonfax 1 days ago [-]
Loved it myself. Brought a friend that grew up on Looney Tunes and he had a blast. Couldn't stop laughing the whole time.
It's pretty much constant jokes except for a few emotional bits that actually work, surprisingly.
steve_gh 1 days ago [-]
Went to see it with family last night. We loved it.
laddershoe 1 days ago [-]
I'd love to take my kids (ages 7-11) but they didn't grow up with the cartoons. Will they still find it entertaining?
xrd 1 days ago [-]
My kids (9 yr old girl, 11 y/o girl, 13 y/o boy) said it was the best movie they have ever seen. They are not super familiar with Looney Tunes. It isn't uncommon that they would see something and immediately it becomes their favorite movie, but the discussions afterward were different.
I loved it (52 y/o dad). I've been fascinated by it since hearing a few years ago about the tax write off situation.
A bit of extra context: since seeing MacGruber, I want to see anything with Will Forte (I know that's misguided, but I can't help it).
wredcoll 1 days ago [-]
Wait, are you implying you enjoyed macgruber??
xrd 1 days ago [-]
I LOVE MacGruber. And, I'm not afraid to be public about it.
I know it is silly and the jokes are juvenile. But, he is so fully in the character for the entire movie, and it is a joy to watch.
wredcoll 1 days ago [-]
I loved macgyver growing up (unusual I know) and I found macgruber just incredibly mean spirited, like, it wasn't a parody that loved its source material and audience, it felt like it hated it.
xrd 23 hours ago [-]
I never really thought it was a parody of that show. The name is similar, but did not feel like it attempted to parody it in any other way.
wredcoll 5 hours ago [-]
I am so incredibly confused.
Literally the first line of wikipedia:
> MacGruber is a 2010 American action comedy film based on the Saturday Night Live sketch of the same name, which itself was a parody of action-adventure television series MacGyver.
How did you think this was some kind of independent original thing???
xrd 3 hours ago [-]
I want to have this debate. This might be the MOST important thing ever discussed here on HN. Let's get this SOLVED!
If you look at the name, sure. But, the ENTIRE premise of MacGyver was that Richard Dean Anderson would ALWAYS come up with some strange scientifically accurate combination to get out of a hairy situation. MacGruber is about an elite strike force guy whose wife is killed on their wedding day, and then this pain drives the entirety of the movie. The characters have no origin story in common, and no references to MacGruber can be derived from MacGyver.
From MacGyver: "Resourceful and possessing an encyclopedic knowledge of the physical sciences, he solves complex problems by making things out of ordinary objects, along with his ever-present Swiss Army knife, duct tape, and occasionally matches."
SPOILER ALERT: I suppose the carrot in the ass COULD be considered a clever approach to a problem. But, I just thought it was evidence of MacGruber doing somthing ridiculous. And, clearly he used this often in the past, and it is not an ad-hoc clever assessment of something in the moment. Maybe he could have picked weeds in one scene, stuck them in his butt, then Ryan Phillipe could have used fake flowers, or something. Otherwise, you get no points for that one.
MacGyver has none of the rage that is SO important to MacGruber. His origin story: "The show follows Angus MacGyver, played by Richard Dean Anderson, who works as a troubleshooter for the fictional Phoenix Foundation in Los Angeles and as an agent for a fictional United States government agency, the Department of External Services (DXS)." NOTHING in there to indicate he is using emotional pain to drive an episode.
The only real satire I see is this: "He favors non-violent resolutions and prefers not to handle firearms due to the accidental shooting death of one of his friends when he was 12." Clearly, MacGruber does not have any such qualms about violence, and he also hates guns. But, you can't parody one characteristic by taking the exact opposite (violence), and then parody another characteristic (guns) by making that characteristic identical to the original. It ISN'T RIGHT!
Also, let's talk about Jack Dalton. He's the womanizer, and his eye twitches. And, his get rich quick schemes. That could have been mined for gold in this "parody."
If it is a parody, then Will Forte is insanely lazy. I'm willing to accept that might be the case, but then you need to refer to it as a lazy parody.
Bring it on, wredcoll. I'm waiting like a ninja and wolverine combined.
My kid (9yo) had seen a couple of Roadrunner cartoons on Youtube, no more than that. e.g. I don't think he's ever seen a Sylvester-Tweety cartoon. It didn't matter, he enjoyed the movie a lot. Beyond the very basics of Coyote and Roadrunner, which everyone picks up very quickly- and if you don't they do a great modern version in the opening minutes to bring you up to speed- the movie doesn't need deep knowledge of the WB cartoon universe. It's not like the MCU that way.
And the fact that it reinforced a message his mom and I have been trying to teach him (about the importance of not letting failure keep you from trying again) was a bonus for us.
mapotofu 6 hours ago [-]
They will be entertained. I laughed harder than my 6 year old, he enjoyed it and probably also enjoyed seeing dad splitting sides. I think for your range they’ll understand and like it more. YMMV
hundt 1 days ago [-]
I took my 7- and 10-year old and they enjoyed it, especially the 10yo. We watched a couple hours of Looney Tunes compilations on YouTube the day before to introduce them to the characters.
sanderjd 9 hours ago [-]
My five year old who has never seen a Looney tunes cartoon thought it was hilarious. (It made me think he'd probably love actual Looney tunes cartoons!)
Doctor_Fegg 1 days ago [-]
My 10-year old loved it. I'd shown him a few Road Runner cartoons on YouTube beforehand.
close04 1 days ago [-]
> Will they still find it entertaining?
Only one way to find out.
fortyseven 1 days ago [-]
It's just might be the first negative word I've heard about it. I saw it opening weekend and it was a blast. Not groundbreaking, Roger Rabbit style, but a strangely wholesome, funny flick.
jolt42 1 days ago [-]
I didn't find the original R.R. particularly funny like the other Looney characters, I was more drawn in by the cleverness or "what is going to happen next?".
AnimalMuppet 1 days ago [-]
I thought it was reasonably good. A few moments were laugh-out-loud, a few were touching, a few surprise reveals, a few plot holes. Worth watching once, but not spectacular.
But not worth watching in a theater. The big turn-off to me wasn't the movie itself. (Yeah, this is going a bit off topic.) I got in the theater ten minutes early. Eight minutes before the start time, they started showing ads for popcorn and soda. Ad after ad after ad after ad. Those ads continued until twenty five minutes after the scheduled start time. Total ads: thirty three minutes. Attached to a movie that I paid for. If theaters wonder why people don't go to movies any more, that's why. Or at least, it's a big part.
mattmcal 1 days ago [-]
If you buy tickets online from AMC, they now show a disclaimer that tells you the movie starts around 25 minutes after the listed show time, though usually it starts 30+ minutes after.
PaulHoule 1 days ago [-]
I can't complain. I live near a small city that was showing this film at a small and intimate cinema downtown and and at a multiplex at the mall. So there's competition and at the downtown cinema I showed up at the start time saw a few trailers and enjoyed the feature.
tetris11 1 days ago [-]
Yep, reasonable film to stream. Wouldn't pay theatre money to go see it
mandevil 1 days ago [-]
Is it going to be streaming? On which platform? With the "HBO canceled it, wouldn't even release it to streaming" already in its history I am very unsure that it will even end up on streaming, and so decided to see it in the theater.
And I hit a Sunday matinee with my 9 year-old so it was $10.75/person, which felt worth it to me.
tetris11 5 hours ago [-]
When there's a will, there's a way...
cultofmetatron 1 days ago [-]
the price for movie tickets in america are insane too. I went to see the odyssey in malaysia. It was less than half the price for an equivalent experience.
Paul_Clayton 22 hours ago [-]
I wonder if ads (not 20+ minutes straight of ads!) would be less annoying if they were diverse and even moderately entertaining.
E.g., have a customer standing in front of the concession stand saying "Man, the popcorn costs an arm and a leg." followed by an alien with many arms and legs saying "Here, I'll pay." detaching an arm and a leg. The original speaker leaves with his popcorn and the alien buys itself some popcorn (another arm and leg taken off), takes a taste and says "Mmmm. Worth it!" (That might not be a great ad, but I am not that clever at advertising. However, I think that would at least make me smile if not laugh, and a professional should be able to find better concepts and execute them well.)
Having modestly different versions (like openings for The Simpsons) could be a cost effective way to made different versions that could actually draw attention by trying to see what is different and to see Easter eggs for movies for frequent theater goers (or those staying for a double feature).
With big time movies, the movie production company could provide one or two generic ads with various small variations (like a character from the movie being shown or being promoted with a earlier trailer sitting down next to someone in a theater "watching" a trailer who says "I clearly got here too early." to which the character says "That's why took the time to stop by the concession stand" and waves his box of Milk Duds (or other item from the concession stand) while holding a drink in the other hand.
I think there are so many ways to make advertising less annoying. However, even with no repeats and interspersing ads with trailers and shorts (possibly with some product placement, i.e., subtle advertisement), twenty five minutes sounds painful. Entertaining, or at least mildly interesting, advertisement also requires more effort and some appreciation of the audience. Why bother when one has a captive audience? Even with good targeting information, there is also the problem that those wanting to buy the movie goers time/attention may not be selling something of interest (though I could enjoy a clever car ad even though I do not drive and have a slight anti-car bias). With low effectiveness of ads (and so selling price), their number would be increased to compensate for individual ineffectiveness even if the theater is not especially greedy. Driving away movie goers with more ads, then means even more ads need to be shown to compensate for the reduction in eye count.
I have not gone to a movie for about a decade — Interstellar, which was released in 2014 — and I did not really enjoy the experience. Beside problematic aspects of the movie, the sound volume was not comfortable, the social environment was not comfortable, and I went because my host family urged me to go. However, there was not a long feed of ads, so that experience was relatively good. Anyway, I may not be the best person to ask about the contemporary movie going experience.:-)
ViktorRay 1 days ago [-]
For me I actually like seeing trailers before the movies. Personally I feel like the trailers are part of the experience and I can’t help but feel some disappointment when a movie starts with no trailers in front of it.
skeeter2020 1 days ago [-]
Trailers have been a big part of the movie-going experience as long as I've gone to theatres. Coca-cola, Ford and Government of Canada ads? Not so much.
Hugsbox 1 days ago [-]
Exactly this... when I was a kid it was all movie trailers, now they play the same fucking ads I get on youtube.
qingcharles 1 days ago [-]
It's not the trailers most people are mad about, but ads for products that they stick before the trailers even.
troupo 1 days ago [-]
I feel like all Looney Tunes movies are that: not too funny and drawn out.
A complete aside: nothing wrong with that. A forgettable afternoon entertainment is also fine. And it ahouldn't be delegated to Illumination near-monopoly on it.
EGreg 1 days ago [-]
Saw it the other evening and I have to agree. The plot is — lame and inconsistent? I would recommend “who framed Roger Rabbit” over this.
jimmySixDOF 1 days ago [-]
Years ago, I worked on some equipment from a company called Acme Packet that made Session Border Controllers for the telco IP voice space and was just trying to remember why they called it ACME and it's interesting to trace the history of the term from the classical Greek (Apex) to the pejorative "A Company Making Everything".
Acme is just a way of calling your company "Best Brand" or "Peak Product" while being just a tiny bit less pretentious about it (and, conveniently, getting yourself listed before "American Anything" in lexicographically sorted lists).
It was only a matter of time before company names like that would be mocked.
That said, Best Buy is still a thriving business / brand (as are American Apparel and AAA).
rbanffy 11 hours ago [-]
At this point in time, it's impossible to use the ACME brand and not think of Wile E. Coyote's engineering career.
And, quite frankly, it would make me chuckle a bit. Since whoever's doing it knows about the cartoon ACME, I am sure they take quality seriously.
GarnetFloride 21 hours ago [-]
We saw it over the weekend and had a blast. There were a lot of easter eggs and cameos that we saw but we know we missed a fair number of them. Not enough to see it in theaters again but at home with freeze frame.
You could tell the people who made this movie really loved doing it. That's the real thing about it.
Its also commentary on corporate media, that the execs tried to kill it only tells on them.
rbanffy 11 hours ago [-]
> You could tell the people who made this movie really loved doing it. That's the real thing about it.
Who wouldn't? I'd PAY to help with it.
gorgoiler 1 days ago [-]
1. Re: complaint (1) the court should be aware of clear video evidence that, contrary to the claimant’s statement that a “rocket sled” was delivered via parcel post, that in fact the delivery was twofold: one 33” acme jet motor and a set of acme handlebars.
2. That the claimant used these to construct their own “rocket sled” is clearly outside any realms of liability for the defendant, who has not ever warranted that these two products be safely combined into a makeshift vehicle on the grounds that it would patently unsafe to use an acme jet engine for anything other than its intended purpose.
Technically the 2023 film. It's delayed release to theaters was an interesting debacle of Hollywood Accounting. Given it claims to be "Based on a True Story" the biggest implication is that Discovery did not want you to see this film.
21 hours ago [-]
hurtbaseball 1 days ago [-]
I can't recommend the movie enough. Saw it over the weekend and it's very funny and entertaining.
flint 1 days ago [-]
How big a miss in not turning production and direction over to Bob Odenkirk?
imglorp 1 days ago [-]
Bob is a genius, sure, and has a little voice acting, and yes dark comedy, but why would he have been especially fitting for Looney Tunes style silliness?
Rooster61 1 days ago [-]
His voice acting in Tim & Eric regarding the Cinco line of products seems to go right along with the humor of the iconic Acme brand. I think he'd be great at this.
SilentM68 20 hours ago [-]
Excellent Movie. Wish it had more publicity.
ubermonkey 1 days ago [-]
Ha! I remember reading this in print.
In other news, I am old.
itomato 1 days ago [-]
Yes, it's like an seeing an issue of "Space Jam" from the original treatment
AdmiralAsshat 1 days ago [-]
> Yes, it's like an seeing an issue of "Space Jam" from the original treatment
> It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic. More here.
Jtsummers 1 days ago [-]
You've been complaining about this for years now, have you still not read the FAQ for this site?
zahlman 1 days ago [-]
Sometimes people join a community and believe the rules are wrong and that they can convince others of it. (And sometimes they believe they shouldn't have to do the work to convince others.)
doodpants 1 days ago [-]
Is it paywalled? Not sure why I can access the article, then. (Firefox, Windows, uBlock Origin)
latexr 1 days ago [-]
Do you have JavaScript off? That also works, as the article is hidden after it’s shown.
etc-hosts 1 days ago [-]
Some of us regretfully pay for the New Yorker.
mcmcmc 1 days ago [-]
The virtue of HN is depriving journalists of income? Or paying for everything with data and attention?
hombre_fatal 1 days ago [-]
No, I don’t only want personal blogs and content that’s supported by ads. And you should know how to bypass paywalls by now.
lstodd 1 days ago [-]
Doesn't matter. They're instututionally incapable to rising back to the art of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit", so it's all water under the bridge.
Jtariiiii 1 days ago [-]
I'm not sure how people asking to be paid for their labour is against the virtue of a board run by a venture capitalist entity.
nearlyepic 1 days ago [-]
Not sure what you mean - capitalists famously hate paying for labor.
bryanrasmussen 1 days ago [-]
it sounds like we can't all agree, but frankly I also think the writing on the wall is that there won't be much out there that isn't paywalled, and much of that will have a bunch of ads.
It's not as good as Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which is the obvious comparison, but it's legitimately fun.
Into the Spider-Verse, for breaking away from the 3D animation movie style
Decent, not amazing.
It was not a good movie.
Here's an example of Looney Tunes elevating the genre: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_Opera,_Doc%3F
But in my experience nearly all the jokes had already been done in the original show, or were duplicative of jokes from other "X vs Y" movies.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1w58qjb/hi_reddit_i...
My favourite is his answer to being compared to an actual coyote catching an actual road-runner: https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1w58qjb/comment/p7d...
But it was definitely one of the most fun films I've seen this year. Honestly if I had to choose a film to rewatch, I'd rewatch Coyote vs Acme instead of Nolan's The Odyssey.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n14/emily-wilson/an-unco...
My view is she has some good points about script and plot, given her expertise is in writing, but she's under-emphasising the importance of the visual arts.
Remember that Slashdot's review of the iPod was "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.". Not everybody has to like the popular thing.
I quite like watching Yahtzee's Fully Ramblomatic reviews. He's known for giving most games a kicking, but he does highlight what's good in a game as well as its bad points. I'd rather hear what he has to say than get a adverising puff-piece review from IGN. Even for games that I strongly enjoyed, he usually raises good points about them that I'd agree with.
She always felt bad for the coyote... not in a root-for-the-bad-guy kind of way, but because it was always stacked against him.
I know the movie is about Acme selling him defective goods, but I wonder how they'll address the way that his entire world including it's physical properties seemed to conspire against him.
Not too bad, but not great either. If you lower your expectations you may enjoy it more than we did.
It's pretty much constant jokes except for a few emotional bits that actually work, surprisingly.
I loved it (52 y/o dad). I've been fascinated by it since hearing a few years ago about the tax write off situation.
A bit of extra context: since seeing MacGruber, I want to see anything with Will Forte (I know that's misguided, but I can't help it).
I know it is silly and the jokes are juvenile. But, he is so fully in the character for the entire movie, and it is a joy to watch.
Literally the first line of wikipedia:
> MacGruber is a 2010 American action comedy film based on the Saturday Night Live sketch of the same name, which itself was a parody of action-adventure television series MacGyver.
How did you think this was some kind of independent original thing???
If you look at the name, sure. But, the ENTIRE premise of MacGyver was that Richard Dean Anderson would ALWAYS come up with some strange scientifically accurate combination to get out of a hairy situation. MacGruber is about an elite strike force guy whose wife is killed on their wedding day, and then this pain drives the entirety of the movie. The characters have no origin story in common, and no references to MacGruber can be derived from MacGyver.
From MacGyver: "Resourceful and possessing an encyclopedic knowledge of the physical sciences, he solves complex problems by making things out of ordinary objects, along with his ever-present Swiss Army knife, duct tape, and occasionally matches."
SPOILER ALERT: I suppose the carrot in the ass COULD be considered a clever approach to a problem. But, I just thought it was evidence of MacGruber doing somthing ridiculous. And, clearly he used this often in the past, and it is not an ad-hoc clever assessment of something in the moment. Maybe he could have picked weeds in one scene, stuck them in his butt, then Ryan Phillipe could have used fake flowers, or something. Otherwise, you get no points for that one.
MacGyver has none of the rage that is SO important to MacGruber. His origin story: "The show follows Angus MacGyver, played by Richard Dean Anderson, who works as a troubleshooter for the fictional Phoenix Foundation in Los Angeles and as an agent for a fictional United States government agency, the Department of External Services (DXS)." NOTHING in there to indicate he is using emotional pain to drive an episode.
The only real satire I see is this: "He favors non-violent resolutions and prefers not to handle firearms due to the accidental shooting death of one of his friends when he was 12." Clearly, MacGruber does not have any such qualms about violence, and he also hates guns. But, you can't parody one characteristic by taking the exact opposite (violence), and then parody another characteristic (guns) by making that characteristic identical to the original. It ISN'T RIGHT!
Also, let's talk about Jack Dalton. He's the womanizer, and his eye twitches. And, his get rich quick schemes. That could have been mined for gold in this "parody."
If it is a parody, then Will Forte is insanely lazy. I'm willing to accept that might be the case, but then you need to refer to it as a lazy parody.
Bring it on, wredcoll. I'm waiting like a ninja and wolverine combined.
And the fact that it reinforced a message his mom and I have been trying to teach him (about the importance of not letting failure keep you from trying again) was a bonus for us.
Only one way to find out.
But not worth watching in a theater. The big turn-off to me wasn't the movie itself. (Yeah, this is going a bit off topic.) I got in the theater ten minutes early. Eight minutes before the start time, they started showing ads for popcorn and soda. Ad after ad after ad after ad. Those ads continued until twenty five minutes after the scheduled start time. Total ads: thirty three minutes. Attached to a movie that I paid for. If theaters wonder why people don't go to movies any more, that's why. Or at least, it's a big part.
And I hit a Sunday matinee with my 9 year-old so it was $10.75/person, which felt worth it to me.
E.g., have a customer standing in front of the concession stand saying "Man, the popcorn costs an arm and a leg." followed by an alien with many arms and legs saying "Here, I'll pay." detaching an arm and a leg. The original speaker leaves with his popcorn and the alien buys itself some popcorn (another arm and leg taken off), takes a taste and says "Mmmm. Worth it!" (That might not be a great ad, but I am not that clever at advertising. However, I think that would at least make me smile if not laugh, and a professional should be able to find better concepts and execute them well.)
Having modestly different versions (like openings for The Simpsons) could be a cost effective way to made different versions that could actually draw attention by trying to see what is different and to see Easter eggs for movies for frequent theater goers (or those staying for a double feature).
With big time movies, the movie production company could provide one or two generic ads with various small variations (like a character from the movie being shown or being promoted with a earlier trailer sitting down next to someone in a theater "watching" a trailer who says "I clearly got here too early." to which the character says "That's why took the time to stop by the concession stand" and waves his box of Milk Duds (or other item from the concession stand) while holding a drink in the other hand.
I think there are so many ways to make advertising less annoying. However, even with no repeats and interspersing ads with trailers and shorts (possibly with some product placement, i.e., subtle advertisement), twenty five minutes sounds painful. Entertaining, or at least mildly interesting, advertisement also requires more effort and some appreciation of the audience. Why bother when one has a captive audience? Even with good targeting information, there is also the problem that those wanting to buy the movie goers time/attention may not be selling something of interest (though I could enjoy a clever car ad even though I do not drive and have a slight anti-car bias). With low effectiveness of ads (and so selling price), their number would be increased to compensate for individual ineffectiveness even if the theater is not especially greedy. Driving away movie goers with more ads, then means even more ads need to be shown to compensate for the reduction in eye count.
I have not gone to a movie for about a decade — Interstellar, which was released in 2014 — and I did not really enjoy the experience. Beside problematic aspects of the movie, the sound volume was not comfortable, the social environment was not comfortable, and I went because my host family urged me to go. However, there was not a long feed of ads, so that experience was relatively good. Anyway, I may not be the best person to ask about the contemporary movie going experience.:-)
A complete aside: nothing wrong with that. A forgettable afternoon entertainment is also fine. And it ahouldn't be delegated to Illumination near-monopoly on it.
https://remosince1988.com/blogs/stories/acme
It was only a matter of time before company names like that would be mocked.
That said, Best Buy is still a thriving business / brand (as are American Apparel and AAA).
And, quite frankly, it would make me chuckle a bit. Since whoever's doing it knows about the cartoon ACME, I am sure they take quality seriously.
You could tell the people who made this movie really loved doing it. That's the real thing about it.
Its also commentary on corporate media, that the execs tried to kill it only tells on them.
Who wouldn't? I'd PAY to help with it.
2. That the claimant used these to construct their own “rocket sled” is clearly outside any realms of liability for the defendant, who has not ever warranted that these two products be safely combined into a makeshift vehicle on the grounds that it would patently unsafe to use an acme jet engine for anything other than its intended purpose.
3. On this material inaccuracy alone we move that the claim be immediately struck out. See https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8JuVMoGj6fE&t=180
New Yorker magazine article the 2026 film Coyote vs. Acme is based on. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_vs._Acme)
In other news, I am old.
Here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QeG-noRMPs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsQZ9_NPWww
> Are paywalls ok?
> It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic. More here.