Ugh. I walked out after 30 minutes. I actually wanted to walk out after the first 5-10 minutes (hell, the opening sequence grated on me!!), but waited to give it a chance.

Well, I suffered tonight so that you won't have to. Avoid this troglodytic piece of pooponmylar (they don't use celluloid anymore) at ALL COSTS!!

Feel free, of course, to take me up on my advice or reject, as this is only my reaction.

Actually, I was gonna avoid it anyway...if only because I had to sit thru one of those annoying animated ads for it on another site.

Did you see it at a preview screening, Luigi? Any data on audience reaction in general?

The godawful title alone would keep me away from it.

So, I guess you didn't like it, then? I guess I'm lucky; I'd never even heard of it until I saw this board.
So what is it, anyway?

Other than the fact that Smoochy is a big pink rhino, a lot like a certain big purple dinosaur, I don't know much about this movie, nor do I have any great desire to learn any more. I definitely do not intend to waste any money going to see it.

Luigi: What did you have for Breakfast dude? Carnation Instant @$$hole? That movie looks BLEEPin' funny! Me and my hetero-lifemates from the VA board are all planning to see it.

Ahem. From rottentomatoes.com:

Directed by Danny DeVito ("Matilda") from a screenplay by Adam Resnick ("Lucky Numbers"), Death to Smoochy tells the comic tale of Rainbow Randolph (Robin Williams), the costumed star of a popular children's television show who is fired over a bribery scandal and replaced by Smoochy (Edward Norton), a puffy, Barney-esque fuscia rhinoceros. When Randolph discovers Smoochy is having an affair with his ex-lover, Nora (Catherine Keener), a top programming executive at the network, he plots his revenge. The film also stars Danny DeVito as Smoochy's agent and Jon Stewart ("Big Daddy") as the network president.

Boy, lots of talent potentially going to waste there...

Oh, and Brian (also Luigi, come to that)...knock it off with the language, huh?

The trailer for this played in front of Time Machine last weekend and I thought it looked ok. Not exactly the funniest of Robin Williams' work but still looked pretty good. At least so I thought. I'll probably wait for it to get to the 2.50 cinema.

kerriem: Did you see it at a preview screening, Luigi? Any data on audience reaction in general?
Luigi Novi: Yeah, at the Sony Lincoln Square theater in NYC.

kerriem: Any data on audience reaction in general?
Luigi Novi: Many in the audience seemed to laugh. My friend Nick, with whom I watched it, thought one gag was funny. I frowned throughout it. I guess if you’re the kind of person who has very low standards for comedy (i.e.: if you think most of Adam Sandler’s or Pauly Shore’s movies are funny), then you might like this. It’s also popular that people worked into a certain expectation or by hype, might convince themselves it’s much better than it is. (And I’m not pointing fingers or moralizing, because this has of course happened to me when initially seeing some movies, only to form a different view of them upon repeat viewings.)

Craig Rohloff: So what is it, anyway?
Luigi Novi: You can find out about any movie in production at upcomingmovies.com, and about any actor, director, writer, movie, etc. old or new, at the Internet Movie Database at imdb.com.

Brian Webber: Luigi: What did you have for Breakfast dude? Carnation Instant @$$hole?
Luigi Novi: LOL. Why, no, I always eat the official Star Trek cereal, Roddenberry Crunch! It has REAL roddenberries in every bite!

Brian Webber: That movie looks BLEEPin' funny! Me and my hetero-lifemates from the VA board are all planning to see it.
Luigi Novi: Well, no offense, Brian, but I’m slightly more qualified to render an opinion on it, since I actually watched it, and remember, I noted (unnecessarily, some might say) in my first post that it was only MY reaction, and that anyone else should make their own conclusions.

The jokes were prosaic and unoriginal, centered largely on a children’s character (Robin Williams) actor using constant profanity, and sex jokes, the theme of the movie (show business newbie learns about the dark side of the biz) has been done many times, and far better, and for some reason I can’t imagine, Danny DeVito seemed to have fallen in love with pointless close-ups of the actors.

kerriem: Oh, and Brian (also Luigi, come to that)...knock it off with the language, huh?
Luigi Novi: Why, kerri, I have no idea what you mean. The 11-letter word I used is not a recognized profane word that I know of.

Okay, okay, I’m sorry.

Are there still $2.50 cinemas these days? Three-day rentals are about four bucks. A movie in Manhattan is now ten bucks any time of the day.(OW!)
BTW, Kerri, "Lucky Numbers" was absolutely dreadful. Saw it on pay cable, where I am usually more forgiving, as I made minimal effort to watch it. It still laid a big egg.

Yes. In my area they are the Danberry Super Saver Cinemas and theres a couple in the Cincinnati Dayton area.

Adam, the Cineplex Odeon theater at Worldwide Plaza on W50th was a three dollar theater that would get movies months after they were originally released at theaters, though it closed about a year or two ago.

Talking about cheap movie theaters, in Provo, Utah there's a $1.50 multiplex (just $1.00 with a student ID), but like the theater Luigi mentioned, the movies shown there have been in release for months. Some are even on video.

Found a nice story concerning the movie at the IMDB: Kids Show Exec To Sue Warner's Over Smoochy.

I remember the Worldwide Cinemas, although I never went there. They would get movies right before they hit home video. I know people who went there, and despite the low admission price, they said the theater was clean and neat. Too bad they had to close.
The Star-Ledger gave "Smoochy" four stars, their highest rating, BTW. I don't know about any other reviews. I may have a change of heart about this pic, any movie that seems to parody that big purple doofus dino can't be all bad.

Roger Ebert gave it the review it deserved. Check it out at: http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-smoochy29f.html

I saw this movie over the weekend and I thought it was hilarious, very funny in fact. I don't see what in it is turning everyone off.

Luigi: You can take note of the fact that "Smoochy" tanked big time this weekend, bringing in a measly $4.3 million. People stayed away in droves.
The re-release of "E.T." is not doing so well, but with $6.1 million, it beat "Smoochy."

Yeah, I noticed. I don't think Robin Williams is really a big draw, and the only reason I went to see it is because Danny DeVito is a reputable director. (Or was.)

Funny that; a few months ago I was hearing it hailed as Robin Williams' 'brilliant' and eagerly-awaited return to comic anarchy etc. etc. And then of course DeVito was a can't-miss director...All sorts of positive vibes.

The difference between Hollywood buzz and the actual movie, I guess.

A few months ago on a different board, I responded to the idea that hype can work both ways... it can help attract an audience to a film (tv show, whatever), but it can also elevate people's expectations too high and ultimately have the opposite effect (once word of mouth gets around).

Hmm...now that I think about it, I was responding to kerriem that first time a few months ago, too. Weird.

Second week out, and it dropped out of the top ten. Video release by July (or sooner), maybe?
The fastest I ever saw any major movie go to video was about 11 weeks for the 1980 "Flash Gordon." It opened in theaters about December 5, 1980, and was in video stores by the last week in February, 1981. The MGM release, "Brainstorm" was in theaters in September, 1981, went to video in December '81 and premiered on HBO in May, 1982.

I've seen this movie a few times since it began running on HBO. It's a lot of fun. It doesn't say anything deep or profound, unless you didn't know that TV networks want to make money or charities can be corrupt. It also doesn't break any new ground in movies. However, I didn't expect it to do so. I heard the same bad things about it as everone else, so I watched it expecting it to be weak. It was entertaining, and that is all I ask of it. I think this movie is going to become a cult classic, because some people are going to run into it by accident and watch long enough to get into it, like I did.

I watched it yesterday on TV (kind of - surfing the net the same time, and listening only half an ear, since I didn't find it that interesting to watch).

Maybe I misunderstand the idea, because it's supposed to be comedy, but I don't get at all why the FBI arrests Rainbow Rudolph for taking bribes in the beginning, and why later the police arrests Smoochy for appearing at the Nazi rally.

Why would private sales of tickets to a kids show be an offense? A state official taking bribes is illegal, yes. But where is it forbidden to sell tickets for a private show more expensive and to a select circle?

As for the Nazis, I always thought because of Freedom of Speech, they were not forbidden in the US? So why would appearing at their rally be cause of arrest for Smoochy?

I think I can explain both.

First, it was the NYPD that arrested Randolph at the beginning, and it was for taking bribes from parents to put their kids in more high-profile spots in the audience for the show. Since most TV show tapings are free or really cheap to get into, Randolph has no business taking briefcases of cash to put give some kids special treatment.

In the second case, remember that Randolph set the whole thing up to ruin Sheldon. He probably arranged for the rally to be held in the warehouse, which looked like it held government-owned vehicles. Even if the Nazis had permission to rally there somehow, he could have called the cops and claimed they were meeting to plan some illegal act. I'm pretty sure meeting to plan a crime or a rebellion is an unlawful assembly. Even if they weren't doing anything illegal, and the Nazis phoned their lawyers and got released, Sheldon would still be ruined, having been found playing a Nazi rally.