Not too bad, but not great either. If you lower your expectations you may enjoy it more than we did.
It's pretty much constant jokes except for a few emotional bits that actually work, surprisingly.
But not worth watching in a theater. The big turn-off to me wasn't the movie itself. (Yeah, this is going a bit off topic.) I got in the theater ten minutes early. Eight minutes before the start time, they started showing ads for popcorn and soda. Ad after ad after ad after ad. Those ads continued until twenty five minutes after the scheduled start time. Total ads: thirty three minutes. Attached to a movie that I paid for. If theaters wonder why people don't go to movies any more, that's why. Or at least, it's a big part.
And I hit a Sunday matinee with my 9 year-old so it was $10.75/person, which felt worth it to me.
E.g., have a customer standing in front of the concession stand saying "Man, the popcorn costs an arm and a leg." followed by an alien with many arms and legs saying "Here, I'll pay." detaching an arm and a leg. The original speaker leaves with his popcorn and the alien buys itself some popcorn (another arm and leg taken off), takes a taste and says "Mmmm. Worth it!" (That might not be a great ad, but I am not that clever at advertising. However, I think that would at least make me smile if not laugh, and a professional should be able to find better concepts and execute them well.)
Having modestly different versions (like openings for The Simpsons) could be a cost effective way to made different versions that could actually draw attention by trying to see what is different and to see Easter eggs for movies for frequent theater goers (or those staying for a double feature).
With big time movies, the movie production company could provide one or two generic ads with various small variations (like a character from the movie being shown or being promoted with a earlier trailer sitting down next to someone in a theater "watching" a trailer who says "I clearly got here too early." to which the character says "That's why took the time to stop by the concession stand" and waves his box of Milk Duds (or other item from the concession stand) while holding a drink in the other hand.
I think there are so many ways to make advertising less annoying. However, even with no repeats and interspersing ads with trailers and shorts (possibly with some product placement, i.e., subtle advertisement), twenty five minutes sounds painful. Entertaining, or at least mildly interesting, advertisement also requires more effort and some appreciation of the audience. Why bother when one has a captive audience? Even with good targeting information, there is also the problem that those wanting to buy the movie goers time/attention may not be selling something of interest (though I could enjoy a clever car ad even though I do not drive and have a slight anti-car bias). With low effectiveness of ads (and so selling price), their number would be increased to compensate for individual ineffectiveness even if the theater is not especially greedy. Driving away movie goers with more ads, then means even more ads need to be shown to compensate for the reduction in eye count.
I have not gone to a movie for about a decade — Interstellar, which was released in 2014 — and I did not really enjoy the experience. Beside problematic aspects of the movie, the sound volume was not comfortable, the social environment was not comfortable, and I went because my host family urged me to go. However, there was not a long feed of ads, so that experience was relatively good. Anyway, I may not be the best person to ask about the contemporary movie going experience.:-)
I loved it (52 y/o dad). I've been fascinated by it since hearing a few years ago about the tax write off situation.
A bit of extra context: since seeing MacGruber, I want to see anything with Will Forte (I know that's misguided, but I can't help it).
I know it is silly and the jokes are juvenile. But, he is so fully in the character for the entire movie, and it is a joy to watch.
Literally the first line of wikipedia:
> MacGruber is a 2010 American action comedy film based on the Saturday Night Live sketch of the same name, which itself was a parody of action-adventure television series MacGyver.
How did you think this was some kind of independent original thing???
If you look at the name, sure. But, the ENTIRE premise of MacGyver was that Richard Dean Anderson would ALWAYS come up with some strange scientifically accurate combination to get out of a hairy situation. MacGruber is about an elite strike force guy whose wife is killed on their wedding day, and then this pain drives the entirety of the movie. The characters have no origin story in common, and no references to MacGruber can be derived from MacGyver.
From MacGyver: "Resourceful and possessing an encyclopedic knowledge of the physical sciences, he solves complex problems by making things out of ordinary objects, along with his ever-present Swiss Army knife, duct tape, and occasionally matches."
SPOILER ALERT: I suppose the carrot in the ass COULD be considered a clever approach to a problem. But, I just thought it was evidence of MacGruber doing somthing ridiculous. And, clearly he used this often in the past, and it is not an ad-hoc clever assessment of something in the moment. Maybe he could have picked weeds in one scene, stuck them in his butt, then Ryan Phillipe could have used fake flowers, or something. Otherwise, you get no points for that one.
MacGyver has none of the rage that is SO important to MacGruber. His origin story: "The show follows Angus MacGyver, played by Richard Dean Anderson, who works as a troubleshooter for the fictional Phoenix Foundation in Los Angeles and as an agent for a fictional United States government agency, the Department of External Services (DXS)." NOTHING in there to indicate he is using emotional pain to drive an episode.
The only real satire I see is this: "He favors non-violent resolutions and prefers not to handle firearms due to the accidental shooting death of one of his friends when he was 12." Clearly, MacGruber does not have any such qualms about violence, and he also hates guns. But, you can't parody one characteristic by taking the exact opposite (violence), and then parody another characteristic (guns) by making that characteristic identical to the original. It ISN'T RIGHT!
Also, let's talk about Jack Dalton. He's the womanizer, and his eye twitches. And, his get rich quick schemes. That could have been mined for gold in this "parody."
If it is a parody, then Will Forte is insanely lazy. I'm willing to accept that might be the case, but then you need to refer to it as a lazy parody.
Bring it on, wredcoll. I'm waiting like a ninja and wolverine combined.
And the fact that it reinforced a message his mom and I have been trying to teach him (about the importance of not letting failure keep you from trying again) was a bonus for us.
Only one way to find out.
A complete aside: nothing wrong with that. A forgettable afternoon entertainment is also fine. And it ahouldn't be delegated to Illumination near-monopoly on it.