I think this would be a good place to discuss everything about Tucker Max's first movie. I figure anything can go in here including reviews, box office discussion, and behind the scenes gossip. I saw this movie three times so far (once at the premier, once on opening weekend, and once a week later with more of my friends). This movie in the near future will be viewed as a classic. Not only did this movie reinvent the R rated comedy but the actual character development is unparalleled. I also thought the movie website was actually very revolutionary, despite what most people think. The fact that tucker had the guts to post all the positive and negative reviews for the movie is groundbreaking in itself. Since when do people promoting their movies post anything negative about them?
I wrote two reviews for the movie, one was really negative and the other was too positive. In hindsight I think it's obvious that Tucker is not a good screenwriter, and his marketing scheme was not nearly as effective or genius as he thought it would be. It's a shame because I did enjoy the movie, it just wasn't as amazing as he kept on pimping it to be.
I saw the movie during the premiere tour and then never bothered to go see it at the theater or tell any of my friends about it. This probably makes me a pussy, but the hotel lobby scene just grossed me out (in a bad way) and I wasn't really interested in seeing it again in the theaters and I knew none of my friends would want to see that either. I'm planning on buying it on DVD when it comes out so that I can just skip that scene like I do with all stupid gross-out scenes - the doughnut scene in Van Wilder comes to mind.
I saw the movie at the San Diego premiere, but I never wrote up a review for it. I watched it with my friend who had read the book , but knew nothing about the blog or messageboard or anything like that. We both came away not very impressed with it. From my first impression, I put it right around the middle of my comedy movie list. Not nearly as good as my top 10 or 15 favorite comedies, but also not nearly as bad as a lot other comedies, such as any National Lampoon's movies of the past decade. Drew's voice got annoying after awhile, but most of his lines were still pretty damn funny. But after letting it sink in for awhile, I think the movie was better than I originally thought. I probably went in with too high expectations, hoping for "genre-defying", and all the other stuff that Tucker had built it up to be. I still don't think it was that great, but the dialogue was much more realistic than most movies, it did just feel like a bunch of friends hanging out and doing stupid shit. I also thought Czuchry did a really good job as Tucker. He was pretty much an asshole the entire time, but the smile he had the whole time made him seem still pretty likeable to me. Also, I loved the shit scene, I was cracking up through that entire scene. So, overall, I would say it was a good, funny movie, and I definitely want to get the DVD once it comes out, which is more than I can say for most movies I see.
It finally came to theaters in my "bumfuck middle-of-nowhere Wisconsin town" (DRex quote) this past weekend. Planning on drinking Wednesday night, then going with a few friends. No class on Thursday, so it makes the most sense. I'll be sure to post a review afterwards. And edit the review after I sober up, to remove the excessive exclamation points, profanity, and ASCII art of boobs.
I went into the movie with low expectations, because I didn't think the movie would be as funny as Tucker claimed. I was pleasantly surprised and I genuinely thought the movie was funny as fuck in some parts. The only thing that really fell flat for me were a few of Drew's lines. Overall I enjoyed his character but some of his lines just felt over the top (the "carve you a new fuck hole" line comes to mind). However, it's a shame the movie didn't do better theatrically. I think the downfall was just that not enough people knew it was even out and word of mouth can only do so much, especially with such polarizing reviews.
I didn't write up a full review on the old site because it had been a while since I'd seen it at the distributors' screening, but I took my girlfriend to see it last week since we had discount coupons (carving $8 off the gross, I guess) and there was no telling how long it would remain in theaters. Background: I was privy to having read the script a long time ago. Tucker e-mailed it to me so I could forward it to my actor buddy, and I thought then that it was one of the funniest screenplays I'd read in a long time. When I saw it on film, I thought it came out even better than I had imagined it would have in my head and I told him this afterward. However, I had a nagging suspicion that he was overestimating the movie's crossover appeal and I guess there was something to that. I'm not trying to sound like an I-told-you-so because there is a lot about movie strategy and economics I don't understand. But I knew that when I was laughing at some of the humor I was doing so because it appealed to my demographic...namely, college-educated and semi-alcoholic. Tucker and Nils did a very admirable thing in keeping true to their vision (i.e. non-hijinksy humor) and no one should fault them for that. I don't take any pleasure in watching the movie struggle at the box office, but based on what I've heard there are a lot of people in Hollywood who are based on how he acted during this whole process.
Originally I wrote a very glowing review. I completely overshot the point I was trying to make, and a few of you called me on it. Thanks. Last time I make that mistake (I hope). I got caught up in my wanting it to be better than it was. It was good, and different, and had potential to be great. Nothing more, nothing less. I liked the jokes, if even they seemed a bit forced at times. I liked that it was all realistic, and I liked that I felt like the fourth member of the group... at parts. Having had a while to sit on it, and more importantly having been witness to Tucker's reactions on the forum after it failed, my opinions have altered a bit. I think the way he presented it, and the concept of allowing the viewer to follow along from the start, was rather neat. I liked that I felt invested in this film, that the entertainment value I got simply concluded with the film, but didn't begin with it. I hope that the whole movie-blog-shebang will be replicated, and I truly hope Tucker and Nils are able to learn lessons from this experience and produce better sequels. If nothing else, the failures with part 1 (if Tucker sees them) provide an even greater opportunity for success down the road. However, the manner in which Tucker behaved publicly, both before the movie was released (hype) and after (fuck you stupid!), left me with a bad taste. Obviously there was major drama on set (per Goose's interview, lack of cast premier appearances, Darko stuff, et al), and obviously Tucker made some huge mistakes -- but he kept talking about revealing the stories later. He should have had the stories ready to go before the movie, and he should have publicly owned up to his mistakes. If you publicly make an assertion, and you are wrong, publicly admit it. Part of me feels let down, and part of me feels embarrassed I rooted for such a jackass... but, that is more of a tangent about Tucker. In order for the Tucker Max movie brand to succeed, I believe, people need to separate the "real" Tucker from the character. Too often, like I fell into the trap of doing above, people were reviewing the screen writer instead of what was on screen. I believe much of that onus was on him, because he did it intentionally (e.g. he didn't have to name the character "Tucker"). Knowing that, Tucker would have been wise to alter his behavior accordingly, as it did reflect upon the movie. Hopefully, by the time it comes out on dvd, I'll be able to separate the two as well. And if I can, I'm excited as hell to see the sequel. If I can't, well, I'll take solace in knowing I'm not the only one with that problem.
I saw the movie about a week after it opened guessing (correctly) that I didn't have long to see it in the theater based on its box office numbers. I chose to not post in the RMMB about the movie because I was not that impressed with the overall movie and who the fuck am I to go into someone's home and piss over their work. It's one thing to critique something, but really, why am I going to critique it at the creator's internet site when I have never created something remotely like that. I wanted the movie to be good and a success. Obviously, it would have been an impressive feat to accomplish that given how hard it is to make any movie and especially with the self-imposed roadblocks they put up (such as making sure they kept the complete IP rights for future movies, which is a ballsy move that will one day pay off big for someone, but probably hurt them in who would distribute the flick). For a year, I kept reading about how not only was the movie itself revolutionary but so would be the marketing plan behind it. I assumed that the gawker shit a year ago, the movie tour, and some of the other protests were ways to get publicity on the cheap (or even free) but that more -- this revolutionary marketing plan -- would come. Outside of the RMMB, which was my only clue to others talking about the movie, I heard nothing about the movie and saw virtually no commercials. I definitely heard none of my friends or coworkers talking about it and still haven't (like, for example, people talking up the hangover a few weeks before it came out). But aside from those that stand to profit from the movie, who cares about the marketing campaign. As long as the movie was good, right? And to me, that was the real problem. I thought it was, ehh. Not bad, but really not all that great either. The Drew scenes and lines (which I went into expecting to be the highlights) were just flat to me. Just forced and pushed out. I did not buy the story or the ways the characters progressed and related to each other. Now, I don't go into comedies necessarily expecting that (for example, I think Old School, not a realistic or character driven movie, is one of the funniest movies of the last 10 years, I also know that this is one of the reasons Tucker and Nils think that movie sucks), but when this movie was billed with those specific attributes, I was expecting to see that. I mean, I get how they related to each other in certain scenes, but I did not buy the Drew/Lara story, the tucker speech barging into the wedding, the all is forgiven, and some other scenes. On the other hand, I loved the scene when Tucker picks up Drew and the cut-away to what Tucker imagined things to be like. I did not invite any of my friends to see it because I honestly had no idea how it would be. And to be frank, I think I would have been embarrassed dragging them to see this. There were probably about 20 people in the theater and I heard very little laughing, so I know I was not the only one not feeling it.
This was my review of the movie I posted elsewhere and now I'll copy it here. For starters this is not a great movie or an epic comedy. Anyone who said Tucker would fall short on his promises was right. There's a number of problems with this movie, but first I'm going to start with the good. I laughed out loud several times, and Dan's character definitely had his moments. The line where he makes his third call from jail had me rolling. He also had great chemistry with Kristy, and together they pulled off a convincing adult relationship with a hilarious family/friend background. Kristy played a limited role, but the part was well acted and she definitely fit the 'girl next door' type of role Tucker was looking for. The relationship between Drew and Lara had great moments as well. The dialogue with Lara's kid was some of the best in the movie, and it was a fun twist to see slingblade's character get outdone at his own game. Ok, on to the problems... and there was many. Firstly, the movie showed an interesting pattern. The jokes that were meant to be funny only for the third person were usually hilarious, but when the characters cracked a joke more directly it just didn't work. Here's the issue: no one talks like the characters in the movie do and for good reason, it's unebelievably annoying. It appeared that Tucker/Nils were trying too hard to make the characters come off as smart when in reality it fell flat and made them look like social outcasts. Some of the dialogue might have worked in a book, or been funny if you were there, but it just didn't translate into film. For this one aspect it isn't a knock on the actors, it was merely a poorly written script. The Tucker character in no way resmembled an alpha male(I personally find the entire dichotomy retarded, but this is what they were trying to accomplish). He seemed to be smiling 90% of the time (which is only the mark of an alpha if you believe in that idiotic PUA stuff) and he wasn't a loveable a-hole, he was just a jackass. If anyone walked up to people talking like that in real life no one would throw a punch at him, he'd just be laughed out of the bar. On top of that the conflict isn't very compelling. Dan never seems too angry at Tucker, and he wouldn't need to be anyway since Kristy immediately forgives him. Drew's character was painfully boring in the early parts of the movie. His lines about hating the female gender were far too repetitive and you need more than simply being crude to get a laugh from the audience. Something I wanted to add: I don't fucking care about how 'real' the movie was and I don't think many people who didn't read the blog care either. Hooking up with Tracy Lords and the way people react to the speech wasn't that realistic (although they could happen), but again I just don't care very much. I watch comedies to laugh my ass off. If some things happen that wouldn't happen in real life I can forgive it as long as it's funny. I really believe that one of the reasons the movie isn't being very successful has to do with the product itself.
I think, in a few small ways, Tucker writing this movie was kind of like when Marty tried to wail on guitar in Back to the Future, and nobody was ready for it. He is that overly ambitious pioneer whose belief that the sky is the limit landed him lost in outer fucking space. I'm not saying this movie is too good and too smart for people, but I think there were certain things about Hollywood that Tucker at least needed to touch on to make a successful big hit. He compared his movie to other huge hits, and then said stuff like "That just seems so mushy/typical" or "My movie is more real--that's the beauty of it!" Like Drew's relationship with the Lara. Why did they not live happily ever after? Why do you not know what happens to them? Well, according to Tucker, if you did, it would be too Hollywood. I agree with this, but at the same time I dont. It's definitely an alternative stance, and it's refreshing to go into a movie and not be able to predict every move that happens next. But I just didn't feel that, in the end, Tucker pulled all the loose ends together into a film. As for an actual review, I'm not going to type up a monster post, but I'll say a few things: As much as I laughed--which was a shitload--it's tough to say that Tucker fully transformed the script from Family Guy humor to Simpsons humor (he discussed this early on). I laughed because the lines were clever-as-fuck jokes. But was the entire situation some kind of gut-laughing chaos? Hardly. I think the Slingblade character was a tad overdone, too. You could've laid foundation that he was a troubled brainiac without so much of the Gilmore Girls dialogue. The "hooohohohoho here we go again" laughs were perfect, I liked those. But those long, drawn-out, unrealistic lines were awkward. And I don't care if "that's really the way Slingblade is; he's just that smart." That's irrelevant. This is a movie. The audience shouldn't be the ones adjusting and compromising. I liked it, I tried to spread the word about it, I'd definitely see it again, but it wasn't what Tucker said it would be. Perhaps Tucker is just a mad scientist whose ambitions just can't be put into reality. But then again, maybe he is just a fucking amateur screenwriter who needs to stick to telling stories on print.
I liked the movie, I laughed a lot, I reccomended it to friends, but come on guys, who the fuck takes the word of a narcissistic man child at face value? I remember him saying something about how IHTSBIH the book was "fucking legend, on its way to becoming part of the American canon". Give me a fucking break. Talk about the chickens coming home to roost. The shitty part is that he worked hard, made a pretty good product, and I wanted him to suceed. I honestly believed in (maybe not believed) his vision. Once again, arrogance loses out to humility.
I honestly wanted the movie to succeed, I actually enjoyed it even though I recognized that it definitely wasn't revolutionary. It's pretty sad the way Tucker reacted to the whole thing. I remember him talking about how he was going to do so much shit after the movie came out for his fans, how most celebrities lose touch with his fan base but he was going to ensure that he was always accessible and did whatever he could for his fans. Yeah, apparently that was all contingent on the movie becoming a huge success and "revolutionizing the movie industry". Apparently since his movie didn't do as well as his ridiculous expectations he doesn't give a shit about his fans anymore, throws a shit-fit and closes down the BB. Whatever, I tried to defend some of his stupid decisions but I just don't really care anymore.
I saw the move at the Cambridge, MA premier. I thought it was a reasonably funny movie. I'll probably buy the DVD when it comes out. I still can't believe the theater choices that were made. I told friends about the movie and how it was worth a watch, but who is going to drive an hour to see a movie they've never heard of?
I saw the movie twice, once at the premier and once again a week after it came out. Both times I took girls who heard of Tucker, had read some stories, but not really fans and essentially unbiased. Both girls, like myself, found the movie funny, nothing crazy, but a quality comedy. They both did say that they appreciated the fact that the movie felt real, but a little too indie for their tastes. I really think the movie was good enough to be successful, but his marketing plan was fucking garbage. I know people who are huge fans of his book and have bought multiple copies of the book, went to signings, etc and had no fucking clue the movie was being made, let alone coming out. I know people (granted they are morons) who thought he was a practicing lawyer. I get that word of mouth is important, but it still needs an original base to go see it that actually knows about the movie. Ultimately, I think that is where he failed the most. He assumed that because someone has read and/or purchased the book that they followed him and cared enough to find out if a movie was made.
I enjoyed the book. Saw the movie, it was o.k. Nothing to write home about, but I've seen worse. The fact that he even got to make it at all is impressive. The fact is that 99% of all artistic endeavors fail commercially (if they go the commercial route, that is). Something like 90% of all books published lose money. 80% of all movies lose money. Some ungodly percentage of music releases lose money. (And these are the ones that actually make it to a broad audience.) I could go on. So the fact that Tucker (or anyone) wrote a book that sold a million copies is amazing. I'm betting he's as surprised as anyone. But life is a series of mean-reverting events for 99% of the population. Consequently, it doesn't surprise me at all that the movie failed commercially. There just aren't too many Whashername Rowlands out there (the woman who writes the Harry Potter books). Tucker's likely had his day in the sun. Perhaps the next book sells pretty well also. But it's likely that eventually his sales will peter out... like most other authors. To hit commercial home run after commercial home run in the realm of the arts (books, film, etc.) is incredibly rare. Show me 100 outstanding high school football players and I'll bet against all 100 making the NFL one day. I might be wrong about 1 or 2. But the sensible bet is to bet against all of them. My suspicion is that the Tucker Max Brand has largely jumped the shark. We'll see how it plays out, though. The fact that he shut down his message board shortly after the dismal failure of his movie with no warning whatsoever is telling (his explanations notwithstanding).
I agree with you 100%. I am so confused about his marketing strategy. He wrote so many times about how his marketing strategy was going to be revolutionary, but he refused to ever explain it, and would only say, "It will make sense once it all comes together." Even Charlie Hoehn wrote on his blog early on that he thought the movie was going to become a huge hit specifically because Tucker had let him in on his marketing strategy. I was assuming it was going to be something like Tim Ferriss' marketing with his book; which was revolutionary marketing. But now that the movie came out, and failed, I still don't see anything revolutionary about his marketing. As far as I can tell his marketing strategy was to show the movie to a bunch of fans leading up to the release of the movie, and let word of mouth do its magic. How in the world is that revolutionary? His marketing strategy was word of mouth? Just like almost every other movie that doesn't have a $50 million marketing budget? I really hope he writes about his plan, and what was supposed to happen, and maybe this all will make more sense to me then.
I'm kind of curious about this as well. I don't know shit about marketing movies - so let me state that up front - but I've noticed a couple of things (which actually have little to do with marketing, actually). A movie can be successful if it has really bad reviews AND some "stars" involved. That is, a Tom Cruise movie can be successful despite getting hammered by the critics. Likewise, a movie can be successful if it has no stars, but has great reviews (think "Slumdog Millionaire"). It's very very unusual for a movie to be successful if it has BOTH bad reviews and no star power. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. You almost have to have at least one of the two - stars or good reviews. The exception might be horror movies, which get almost universally horrible reviews but tend to make money (and generally don't pack star power). But I ain't no expert.
That's what surprised me most of all. I respect Tucker and Charlie; both of them are extremely smart and well-read guys. I'll admit that I bought into the hype when they raved about the marketing for the movie. Now, I'm just left scratching my head. The premiere tour was really cool. I don't have any of their metrics so I have no idea how successful it was. But I have no clue what they were doing with the rest of their marketing. I never saw anything except for a few internet banner ads here and there. As for the movie itself, I really enjoyed it. It was easily one of the best comedies I've seen in recent years. I don't think it's an all-time classic by any means, but it definitely kicks the shit out of most of the comedies coming out of Hollywood these days. I see one of the big issues for people was how some of Drew's lines missed. I actually liked that. Tucker''s been preaching for awhile now about how realistic the movie is. He's missed the boat when it comes to other areas, but I think he's right on the money there. When it comes to Drew - the character was hilarious, but nobody is ALWAYS on. Even the funniest people make some terrible jokes. It's part of putting yourself out there. I liked that Drew wasn't some caricature whose role was "the funny guy" and whose EVERY line generated an enormous laugh. He had some lines that fell flat; that makes him a real person. Perhaps that's not how Tucker intended it (and it probably isn't), but I like how it worked out.
I asked this question a few times, but was always deleted or ignored. Correct me if my steps in logic or wrong or if any of my assumptions are incorrect. a) Tucker was relying on word of mouth from his core fan base to spread the word of the movie b) Tucker believed that his core fan base was too close to the source material and could not objectively critique or appreciate the movie Now, assuming "B" holds true, does that not mean "A" is, to say the least, an incredibly bad idea? Even if B doesn't hold true, I don't understand he can think it does and still choose option A. I know money was an issue, but still. Those were always 2 key ideas he presented.