Meet the Parents opened big last weekend. Really big. roughcut.com critic Susannah Breslin was less than impressed with the film and gave it a pretty scathing review. Tim O. thinks she was way off the mark...

I just finished reading roughcut.com critic Susannah Breslin's review of Meet the Parents.  Did she grow up in a closet (or maybe even Utah) only to enter a nunnery immediately following puberty?  Or maybe she eloped with her husband-to-be and never had to worry about the tremendously testing experience of meeting one's potential in-laws. What ever she did, she missed the point. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but the fact that she not only found nothing amusing about the movie, but that she felt it was a disaster through and through, astounds me.  I can understand problems with some of the gags. I mean, maybe the use of the Focker joke got a tad overused.  I guess maybe you could say that all the big Something About Mary jokes were given away in the trailer.  Hell, you could even say that Teri Polo is stiff and miscast or that DeNiro's tough-guy-played-for-laughs schtick is getting tiresome.  But I simply cannot see how she fails to find anything at least a tiny bit amusing in at least some of Jay Roach's film. And why does Susannah so unfairly blast Jay Roach anyway?  It's as if being the director of the Austin Powers movies was a liability.  Was she up getting a refill on her soda during some of the film's great awkward silences? Scenes which might have fallen into sloppy, ugly excess without the subtle direction of Roach. Could she at least have mentioned the marked anti-chemistry between DeNiro and Stiller?  Or, at the very least, didn't she notice the simple, embarassingly funny backstory emerging to the suface in Stiller's nursing career and Jewishness in contrast to the swank, upper-middle class conservativeness of seemingly everyone else present in the film.  It's not everyday that such subtle character issues are skewered in a mainstream, studio comedy. It's as though Susannah got so excited in presenting her thesis of "how such talented thespians are wasted in such a sad sack of a movie", that she forgot to look at Meet the Parents for what it was supposed to be--a silly slice of life, amplified for comedic effect.  Meet the Parents may be over the top and "Home Aloneish" to some, but is a film that, nbeknownst to Ms. Breslin, most people living and dating in America today can absolutely relate to in some form or another. The fact that Susannah can't look past her own cynicism and disdain for this true-to-life inspired farce is a real shame.  It is a testament for the curious, review seeking reader, to look anywhere else but the critic when searching for the right movie to see on the weekend.  I must be honest when I say this (and I don't take saying it lightly, as I am a pretty solid supporter of the film critic), I have not read a review so out of touch since Owen Glieberman of EW called MI:2 "brilliant" and gave it an A. All I am asking is for Susannah to take into account a film's worth before ultimately trashing it in the span of a few paragraphs.  I mean, that $3.00 needs to count for something right!? " -- Tim O.

Meet the Parents not only had a strong opening weekend, but closed out Monday with a solid $3.5 million in ticket sales. Tim O. must not be the only one who disagrees with Susannah's review. Cameron Crowe's very personal film Almost Famous isn't enjoying similar box office success. Early word had the rock 'n' roll pic as a shoe-in Oscar® nominee. But with its box office still hovering below the $30 million mark, Almost Famous may disappear from the Academy's radar. roughcut.com reader Avery may know why...

 

"Sooner or later you might want to mention that Almost Famous is not necessarily beloved by EVERY critic in the known universe.  The best riposte I've heard so far?  That this is a really good episode of 'The Wonder Years' and while that may be unfair to the TV show, it's a wonderfully apt remark.  Because both are gauzy looks at a past that never existed, suffused with a need to please -- but never to search, investigate, or discover. Hey, maybe the vaunted director's cut will deliver the love triangle that the movie squanders.  Almost Famous should have been about First F@*#, First Love, and First Heartbreak.  But instead -- it was about getting your First Cover Story.  Which may explain Crowe's pathetic need to give Wenner a cameo in all his movies." -- Avery

DreamWorks certainly had more faith in the film than Avery and gave it a fairly substantial marketing push. The film showed a strong per screen average in limited release, but failed to capture a large audience once it went wide. Almost Famous may have failed to open to bigger numbers simply because it lacked a bankable star. Billy Crudup and Kate Hudson will certainly emerge from the pic with a little more fame and far more offers, but neither has box office clout -- yet. Poor word of mouth from folks like Avery may also be keeping Almost Famous from striking box office gold.

So what gets you to the movies? Trailers, t.v. ads, the lure of a particular movie star? After all, movies are product and Hollywood spends big bucks trying to sell them to you. Joe G. had this to say about movie marketing...

"First I have to note that it can all be so completely misleading.  Sure they'll always try to make their dogs presentable, but almost as often they'll panic and try to sell a difficult picture as something more palatable (i.e. the Girl, Interrupted stuff that tried to pass it off as an '80's summer camp comedy).  One must be wary, looking through the obvious hype and picking up the subtle signs like an old Texas Ranger scouting tracks on the banks of the Brazos. Trailers, of course, are preeminent. They're what get me psyched.  You can pick up a lot in a trailer, naturally the look of the film but also the tone of performances, a taste of the dialogue.  There's only so much that can be faked even by the wiliest of marketing hacks, but there are warning signs. Is it cut too fast?  They're likely hiding something (6th Day campaign, I'm looking in your direction).  Is it drenched in upbeat pop tunes? That's a bad sign, just as the film's own score is a good one.  Motown oldies are a definite red flag. With TV commercials (and billboards, newspaper ads etc.) I'm really trying to sniff out the studio's own level of confidence.  Is it obvious that they love this picture, or am I picking up a whiff of desperation?  Those live-on-tape "real people" endorsements from theater lobbies are always the sign of a desperate, clammy-palmed studio (and a lousy film).  The ultimate sign of panic is giving away a picture's ending, if they have to do that, man they've got a real pooch on their hands and she ain't housebroken (see Double Jeopardy). As much as for content I'm watching how often TV spots appear and where, and how soon are they dropped?  (This has become more difficult lately and I suspect contractual obligations are the cause.  I saw way too many Bless the Child spots.) As far as magazine pieces/interviews and the like, I tend to hold off reading about specific films until after I've seen them.  Why invest any more time in a train wreck than I have to?  But if I love a picture I'll read everything I can get my hands on. Is this all a little cynical?  Yes it is.  But I have learned through bitter experience that these slick Hollywood types are out to screw me out of my $8.50.  The movie industry is perhaps the last where manufacturers can still knowingly subject consumers to obvious, bald-faced and shameless lies and fear no reprisal.  We must be cautious." -- Joe G.

Have you ever been suckered in by a marketing campaign? Which studios should give you your money back for sitting through a terrible film that looked promising in the trailers? Are you a fan or foe of Meet the Parents? Almost Famous? Feel free to send me your answers to these questions or get us started on a whole new topic. This is your space. Do with it as you will.

Meghan McCarthy
Editor, Civilian Voices

Send your submissions to civilianvoices@roughcut.com

No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited. Must be age 16 or older to submit a story. Stories will be edited for length and content by representatives of Roughcut. Not all stories will appear online. By submitting this story you agree that Roughcut has the perpetual right to use the submitted story, in any and all media, without limitation, as Roughcut may determine in its sole discretion. You also acknowledge that you will not receive any monetary compensation for the use, if any, of your story.