I really didn’t like Gentlemen Broncos, the newest movie from Jared and Jerusha Hess, who made Napoleon Dynamite. (Here’s my review.) The problem, I think, is that the movie — about a nerdy teenage writer of bad sci-fi who discovers his work has been plagiarized by other dorks — can’t distinguish junky kitsch from quality kitsch. (That’s Sam Rockwell, above, playing a lame sci-fi hero.) And I’m exasperated by the filmmakers’ insistence that everyone and everything can be cute, if you squint with the right kind of tolerance. Whereas, the way I squint, not everything and everyone is cute by a long shot, not even subjectively. I’m not a fan of Napoleon Dynamite either, although I know millions are — including, maybe, you?
Still, when my editor asked me what grade I planned to give Gentlemen Broncos – would I give it a straight F? — I said no, Gentlemen Broncos gets a D–, and my editor said, why?, and I said it’s because I reserve straight Fs for movies that I think aren’t just bad and badly made, but also reprehensible. Aggressively awful. Maybe even without any redeeming merit. IMHO, of course. Gentlemen Broncos is just…gently awful. IMHO, of course.
I mean, you and I both know that grades are kind of dumb. So are stars and thumbs that are waggled up and down, yea or nay. Such rough calculations say nothing insightful about the movies under review; they’re just a shorthand guide to what one critic thinks is good or bad or somewhere in between, an invitation to read more thoughtful analysis. Still, a D– isn’t an F, and an F isn’t a D–. And now you know my reasoning.
Agree? Disagree? I invite thoughtful analysis, accompanied by a thumb up or down.
Can’t wait to see this movie!
What does IMHO mean? Your hipster text-speak confuses me.
In My Humble Opinion. It’s standard Internet Speak.
Or In My Honest Opinon, depending who you ask
Unfrozen caveman lawyer, is that you?
Text speak? Awwwwwww. IMHO dates back to AOL chatrooms and Instant Message! We’re talking close to fifteen years here, WAY before texting.
Tila,
Text-speak has been around before “texting”
Isn’t it kind of tough for us to chime in because, you know, none of us have seen the movie? Yes, I know you’re asking about input about your movie grading system. But that’s impossible to do in a vacuum. I can’t tell if a D- doesn’t equal an F unless I know what you’re talking about.
Rich, you’re right. I posted this today because my review went online today. But maybe I should have waited? Oh well, get back to me!
I love how you actually read these comments! I agree with what you said about the difference between a D- and an F. Transformers would get a D- because it has some (not many) redeemable qualities. Whereas the entire Saw franchise would get a straight up F from me.
First of all Transformers is absolutely not a D- it’s a C+ at worst. Secondly I really like the grading system on the movies as it is something that everyone can relate to and easily quantify.
I saw the movie last night and I have to sort of agree with lisa. I was never a fan of Napoleon or Nacho for that matter and this movie had me rolling my eyes several times and yet, I couldn’t completely hated as a whole, but I did hate some parts and characters. I would have given it a solid D if it was up to me.
i wanted to love this movie…but no. jemaine’s scenes were great but the rest? meh
what the hell is gentlemen broncos?
The problem with your system is the same as with any system. Art is subjective and so it is hard if not impossible to rate art by any system. However, I suppose the appeal and value of a review is that it allows the reader to learn the opinion of a (supposedly) qualified evaluator. The scale is self-defined and in the end arbitrary. You just have decide what an F looks like and what A+ looks like, which is in the eye of the beholder, and thus the reviewer. The job of a review is to evaluate the quality of a film based on pre established criterion established by previous films, which could be placed on a scale w/ A being the film that satisfies these criterion the most fully. So the system works, I guess. Plus, I hardly notice the grades in a review, if that’s all you look for then what’s the point?
This movie is “art” to you?
I like your reasoning for an F. However, I will always disagree with you about Napoleon Dynamite. It’s just not your sense of humor. You must be too mature. But millions of people laughed over it, quoted it, and bought merchandise bearing it. My mom didn’t get it, but my dad and I did. You just have to have the right idiot humor. When you do, nothing hits the spot like that did.
You know Lisa, I’ve disliked many of your reviews and grades, but I think you were right on the money about Napoleon Dynamite, and I’m sure this movie’s just as miserable. Plus I think EW as a whole is pretty consistent about what gets an F – sort of like the Roger Ebert 0 Star rating. Occasionally, Owen would write an F review and include the one-word sentence “Unwatchable.” That to me is the true nature of an F – it simply cannot even be watched. It’s pretty rare something is that extreme and awful.
Napoleon Dynamite rules!
…ok i havent seen gentlemen bronco yet but i dont understand how you can give this a D- and give the informant a B grade. the informant was as funny as a documentary on how bridges are made. sorry you and especially owen (for the moon review) have lost credibility with me.
kenle 11, you point out another confusing thing about grades: Each movie is evaluated on its own terms, not in comparison to others. So that’s why I might give X a higher grade than Y, even though Y is obviously a more ambitious movie.
I hated Napoleon Dynamite. I kinda like Nachos Libre … a little. But I enjoyed Gentlemen Broncos. This guy explained it better, why– An Instant Classic That Is Much More Than The Sum Of Its Parts, 23 October 2009
Author: merrilltoyco from United States
I saw this movie last night at a sneak preview in Jared Hess’ home city. It totally ruled. It was full of laugh-out-loud scenes, with comedy on every level, excellent performances, and a sneaky plot that Scorsese would have been proud of. Everyone in the audience seemed to love it, lingering to cite scenes to each other long after the film was over. Even the press seemed genuinely giddy to be there.
Everyone who follows comedy knows what a big hit Napoleon Dynamite was, and although Nacho Libre was extremely funny, it lacked some of the kitschy style that made Napoleon more than just a comedy. Gentlemen Broncos seems to be the calculated result of a wise decision to return form. If Napoleon Dynamite has nerds, Gentlemen Broncos has Supernerds; if Napoleon Dynamite has touches of the 70′s and 80′s, Gentlemen Broncos has dropped you off and left you there.
Like the best Wes Anderson films, Hess has the ability to identify and isolate a lovably weird segment of our society and walk right on that line for the duration of his films. In this case, it’s the soul-drying, bad sci-fi stories that I used to see when I was a kid but don’t anymore. The lone, laser-gun-wielding hero standing on a world with three moons and a tight, lit-up grid pattern for ground; the farming space station that’s been overrun by cyborg apes; etc. The kind of bad stories that couldn’t even merit a hardback release, let alone a movie– and now can’t even be found new. Capturing that odd energy and riffing a clear story on top of it earns Hess bonus points right off the bat.
He also has a gift for making good actors great at being bad, on purpose. Mike White has never been even nearly as hilarious as he was in this film (watch out for snakes), Jennifer Coolidge was in top form (as usual), and Sam Rockwell got all the way on board with a career burning phoenix of comedy that covered the polar ends of the spectrum. And because Hess pays special attention to each character, Hector Jiminez and Halley Feiffer are given equal opportunity to steal the show, and turn hilarious performances.
Now let’s start a new paragraph. Shame on whoever dissed this movie before I had a chance to get here– you shall fall into the pit which you dig, because you seem to have forgotten one important detail: Jemaine Clement is in this movie. You can’t give anything with Jemaine Clement in it one freakin’ star. It’s against the laws of physics. And when people see that you’ve done that, they’ll only question whether you really even saw this movie at all. One of the funniest people alive, Jemaine Clement (of Flight of the Conchords) reproves his very real character-acting abilities, swanning over the film in full form as a tightly wound, bad-jeans-wearing, writer-bearded egomaniac who is so cheesy that you can smell the leather conditioner coming out of the screen. He was the obvious heir to the throne, for the whole show, and turns in what I think is his best performance so far, by far- which is really far. He’s a full-blown comedic genius, and still seems to have been able to go even further under the direction of Jared Hess.
But the real satisfaction ends up coming from Hess knowing to place Michael Angarano right up front to show everyone what he can do. Clement is no surprise, when his greatness comes through- that’s just normal. But to watch Angarano hang ten on his own terms, through his own scenes, was magnificent.
I caught Michael Angarano in several films, starting with Seabiscuit. But it was in the family favorite “Sky High” that I noticed how well he was starting to do subtle comedy as a farce’s underdog, a’la Ben Stiller. Apparently Hess noticed him long before that, and was able to capitalize on Angarano’s rising talent, to have it perfectly coincide with Gentlemen Broncos. He builds up the pain in Angarano’s character so smoothly and steadily, that when he finally explodes it’s about as pressured as Travis the Taxi Driver. Except replace the mohawk with a woman’s clownsuit dress and the gun with a bean pillow in the shape of a blonde, mustached tranny. And throughout the wind-up, Michael Angarano plays everything to a tee, walking brow-first above bloodshot eyes, seeming to be struggling to keep down his own intestines at the sight of the limitless tragedies that are happening to him throughout the bulk of the film. He’s so likable and well-paced that you just can’t believe it either, and can’t imagine anything getting any better for him- until he goes off in a blaze of glory.
Now I realize that all of these descriptors may sound like Hess may have sacrificed the inspired randomness of Napoleon Dynamite in order to make a more structured film. But let me console you in saying that, somehow, surrounding this Coen-worthy plot is so much perfect silliness that most people won’t even see all of the true plot steps until they come together for a perfect showdown and a winning finale. In fact, the movie is so wild that some will mistake it for trying relying on sophomoric humor, which it sells fresh and hot throughout (when the majority is more intelligent situational and quotable line humor, with which Hess is a born natural). But analyze it honestly, and you’ll see that the emotion-based story is top rate in it’s rawness and simplicity, like all the best films.
In short, Gentlemen Broncos is just like it’s name- a sophisticated, well-dressed animal that kicks naysayers repeatedly in several places. I wish I had the connections to be able to see it again right now. Thank you comedy Gods, for giving us Jared Hess.
“In short” my ass.
PLANT!!
Long much?
Interesting read, though.
Whoa fell asleep there about halfway through that snoozer….
Officer Farva: It’s not a plant, I wrote that review. I still stand by it. Films need more originality, and critics of Jared Hess don’t get that. Dante Hicks: I agree that my review is a little long to expect people to read it all here, but being rude to people makes you look like you don’t have anything valuable to add to the conversation. Perhaps some time with a dictionary will help you out with these types of reads. And to Jeremy: thanks for the props, brutha.
Lisa, a great big THANK YOU — you seem to be one of only a handful of people who so precisely saw right through that crap NAPOLEON DYNAMITE. I thought it was garbage, and this movie looks even worse.
I do agree that there are some movies that are D- and some that are straight Fs. I think some of it has to do with the intentions of a movie. For instance, Adam Sandler’s early movies, “Billy Madison”, “Happy Gilmore”, etc., are not good movies at all by “good movie” standards. But they don’t try to be. They know they are childish comedies, and they act like childish, D- comedies, so your expectations aren’t raised too high. However, movies like “Showgirls” that claim to have been made seriously deserve straight F grades for not only failing to be what they tried to be, but failing miserably.
You have absolutely no sense of humor if you think that Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore are D- movies. Those movies are absolute comedy gold. They are hysterically funny from start to finish.
Comedy gold? Well that is a *bit* of an overstatement.
I didn’t say 24 karat LOL
Happy Gilmore is kind of funny, but Billy Madison is almost unwatchable.
Lisa, I usually agree with your movie reviews, your opinion on Napolean Dynamite notwithstanding. …it would appear you have discovered am area of humor for which you have no capacity. It’s OK, we get it you don’t have to!
Regardless, I would bet good money that the movie makers will not strike that particular vein of gold twice. It’s probably NOT as bad as you think it is, but it’s probably pretty dumb.
Anyway, I would expect you to hate a movie vehemently to give it an F (ironically that would intrigue me enough to want to see it). But, please, I ask you a favor: don’t understate the review!
Given that you are such a dramatic and emotional writer, I would expect a full review. Let that crazy pen fly, ok?
Whoever brought up the “0 star Roger Ebert review” knows their stuff.
That’s exactly how I feel. A film is a D- if it’s just plain terrible to watch & bereft of all (or any) enjoyment.
A film is an F if it is not only joyless, but absolutely shoddy, inept & anger-inducing. A film deserves that F if I feel that it has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and the only way to make the film better would be to not make the film at all.
Something as terrible as “Transformers 2″ is a D-, it is certainly an awful movie, but there is an attempt to make the film entertaining. One might enjoy it, but it comes up far short in my opinion.
“Epic Movie” (and other “Movie”s) deserves an F because it absolutely fails at what it’s trying to do (be funny) to the point where you ask yourself why the film was even made in the first place (hint: to make some money), which makes me realize that the film is nothing but a cashgrab without anything resembling wit or quality filmmaking.
this article earns a C- for being a space filler
and a C for the promotinal aspect of spinning and discussing movies that deserve to be ignored…
Of course if no one spoke up , it would just be guessing game as to which movies to ignore
( unfortunately no one said anything when these actors read the script and signed their contracts, except for maybe “Here’s a pen”. )
Seriously , bad movies highlight how trying the film industry can be/is ….sometimes bills need paying , so good actors and other film professionals will continue to work on bad movies that are not worthy of their talents.
and we will keep hashing them over and warning people to stay away , encouraging others who appreciate the signature scent of cinematic skunks to flock to the very same films so to experience first hand what the newest definition of what a “bad movie ” is…!!
IMHO, Transformers 2 should have received an F. Why didn’t it? It’s not only very bad and very badly made, it is absolutely reprehensible. Ok, at least a D-.
Neither of that, it got a C-.
B-
Thank you KEVIN for finally being a voice of reason regarding Transformers 2. I’m not saying that movie was a work of art, but if that is what you were expecting than you should have just stayed home. BRING ON TRANSFORMERS 3!!!!
The FIRST Transformers may be okay enough to get a C- but the sequel? anything higher than a straight up F would be offensive. Lisa hated that movie, it was Owen (who’s been slowly liking crap more and more with the years) who loved it.