DISQUS

James Rocchi · 1 month ago

Actually, the piece I wrote was separate from my 2.5/5-star review, which can be found here (http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie-critic-revie...) and at Rotten Tomatoes.

With Thanks,

James Rocchi.

Cole_Abaius · 1 month ago

While I disagree with most of your assertions here - I think the film did well on the heels of Vince Vaughn, a lot of names behind him, and commercials that appealed to date-night moviegoers. There's no real mystery beyond that. And, a decent amount of those moviegoers probably dug the movie.

It's nice that Rocchi would explore the deeper dilemma that he faces, and I'm sure "mixed review" was the nice way of saying a "bad one," but it's not impossible to separate the reviewer from the interviewer. Just for safe playing, I usually make sure that if I go on a junket, I'm not the one that reviews a movie, but I have no problem interviewing a director of a movie I didn't like or giving a film a bad grade while waking up in a hotel room the studio bought for me.

Granted, I've never been to Bora Bora...

RobHunter · 1 month ago

I didn't read this article, but I'm still wondering what the point is. Shitty movies make money all the damn time. A more relevant question might be why a movie like Moon didn't make shit.

iMean · 1 month ago

I'm thinking you should read it before you comment, Sport. It's an interesting question... are journalists more likely to feel sympathetic to a film if the studio wines and dines? Back-to-basics sales strategy, that one.

RobHunter · 1 month ago

Thanks pops, but I was actually joking. Also, the question you raised isn't really that interesting or new. The obvious answer is that some will and some won't, and this has always been the case. Couples Retreat is sitting at 14% on Rotten Tomatoes so you could argue that obviously very few of the critics took the bait anyway. The movie made money because it has a likable cast, it looks like harmless comedy, and it had zero other new releases opening against it.

Christopher_M · 1 month ago

I think studios only back films they can sell...shitty or good, it doesn't matter people will go see it if it's sold to them....Moon could be the greatest science fiction film in the last ten years, but try to sell it to the average moviegoer..it would be a nightmare for studio executives....it's one of the many reasons films get their cult status and rabid underground followings...don't expect a studio to consider a good film bankable...

Regi_S · 1 month ago

Have to agree with Rob. Of course it's going to do good when there are no new wide releases to compete against in the theater or anything with the drawing power to pull in the audiences. If Couples Retreat pulls $15-18 million this weekend I'll be surprised.

ajcxix · 1 month ago

because they can't send journalists to the moon ;)

Christopher_M · 1 month ago

it's nothing new that a studio will do anything to impress or entice journalists during set visits and junkets...I remember when Forgetting Sarah Marshall's studio had flown people out to Hawaii, although that was an amazing film...I think the studios think it will influence their experiences and they'll write something positive even if they didn't like the movie...it's almost like payment but done in a promotional way....I don't think this effects respected people in the business but it can't hurt the studio's brownie points...

david_09 · 1 month ago

With all the negative reviews and bad ratings, it is truly a wonder how this movie has gained the number 1 spot at the box office with $35mil over the weekend. I will say right now that i have not seen this movie. However, i believe i have an explanation as to why this movie has made so much money. Right now all the hype is on the movies "Paranormal Activity" and also "Zombieland". With that said, I would say that a large percentage of total movie ticket buyers are under 18. Both of these movies are Rated R making it impossible for an underage teen to buy the actual tickets for these movies. But that obviously doesn't stop them from watching. As we all know, it is ridiculously easy for someone to buy a ticket for a movie, such as "Couples Retreat" (PG-13), and simply walk into either "Paranormal Activity" or "Zombieland". So even with all the money going to "Couples Retreat" you gotta take into account how many people are actually watching it. I'm sure Universal doesn't mind though.

Osiris3657 · 1 month ago

It's because it was only the wide opening release, it's PG-13, is a date movie, and yes, the cast, especially Vince Vaughn, have strong followings...that's why this piece of shit was #1.

I spent my money on Paranormal Activity instead.

Matt · 1 month ago

The article might as well be titled "Why did Transformers 2 do so well?" Sometimes people are content to just go to a brainless film. It's not as hard to tell why when it's a big loud action Bay film, of course. But this kind of rom-com schlock is "fun" for some people just like loud explosions and giant robots are fun for others.

michaeldance · 1 month ago

I think you're pretty far off on this. The junket? It's interesting that it was so big, but junket or not, the movie got overwhelmingly bad reviews, so there's no conspiracy here. You (and apparently the L.A. Times) really think enough people were swayed by a handful of press people in better-than-normal moods thanks to a Bora Bora trip that THAT was what tipped the movie over the edge?

How about...Vince Vaughn. PG-13. Happy tropical setting. No other new wide releases. A basic plot that would appeal to couples, men, and women. There is absolutely no mystery in that to me.