Quick Hit: Miss March Movie Review
I definitely wasn't planning on seeing this movie, but this review makes me want to burn all memory of its trailers from my mind.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Quick Hit: Miss March Movie Review.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12527
As the A&E editor of my university's newspaper, I refused to allow any of my reporters to attend the press screenings or interviews as a representative from our paper. I cannot even imagine running a review for "Miss March" and wasting ink/space on such filth.
Yeah, screw freedom of the press! It's great when people abuse a position of authority at a school to stifle thoughts and opinions they dislike. Fox News will never lack a steady supply of hacks who follow the party line -as long as you're on the job. Congratulations.
Future censors of America, unite!
No doubt you would squeal like a stuck pig if the roles had been reversed and an editor made it mandatory to cover the film. Or had taken your attitude with the Vagina Monologues on the grounds that they didn't want to be "wasting ink/space on such filth". Nice going.
I understand what you are both saying.
But, not all speech is protected by first amendment rights...(for example hate speech) and it seems this is a movie that is all about the hatred of women. I know we've seen it all before in thousands of other movies - but it seems that misogyny and sexism is ALL this movie rests on. I can certainly see writing about why this movie is so terrible, and maybe provide some intelligent comments in elaboration regarding the treatment of gender...But I can also understand why someone would feel like they'd be adding to the "hype" and publicity of this movie by giving it any ink, so I can also see why someone would refuse to review or critique this in their paper.
No, the government can't tell the press not to cover something. An editor can refuse to approve a story.
No, the government can't tell the press not to cover something. An editor can refuse to approve a story. The First Amendment really has nothing to do with your point.
There are 500 movies made every year in the USA (and another 1100 per year in India) but if I decline to review your moronic piece of crap movie then I'm censoring you and oppressing you. Similarly if I am the restaurant reviewer and I decline to review your favorite diner, the Septic Tank Cafe, then there I go, oppressing you again.
But, not all speech is protected by first amendment rights...(for example hate speech) and it seems this is a movie that is all about the hatred of women. I know we've seen it all before in thousands of other movies - but it seems that misogyny and sexism is ALL this movie rests on. I can certainly see writing about why this movie is so terrible, and maybe provide some intelligent comments in elaboration regarding the treatment of gender...But I can also understand why someone would feel like they'd be adding to the "hype" and publicity of this movie by giving it any ink, so I can also see why someone would refuse to review or critique this in their paper.
By that logic, you might as well not cover any movies. I was offended by the sheer stupidity of No Country For Old Men, where the main characters are even more idiotic than those you find in low-budget tit-flicks or slasher movies. But the idea of an editor telling reporters not to cover movies because they don't like a certain kind of film shows a Stalinist mindset. It's one thing to have someone report on the movie or its premiere, or the sorts of people who watch these movies, then decide not to run it because the story or the subject are a waste of ink. It's another to have a blackout because the editor subscribes to the journalistic standards of Pravda, circa 1937.
No, the government can't tell the press not to cover something. An editor can refuse to approve a story.
And if the editor does so because he or she wants to stifle any reference to subject matter they personally dislike before the story is written, they are nothing more than an intolerant hack with an agenda.
The First Amendment really has nothing to do with your point.
I never said it did.
There are 500 movies made every year in the USA (and another 1100 per year in India) but if I decline to review your moronic piece of crap movie then I'm censoring you and oppressing you.
I'm not in the movie business.
Similarly if I am the restaurant reviewer and I decline to review your favorite diner, the Septic Tank Cafe, then there I go, oppressing you again.
If an editor tells restaurant critics not to review say, Mexican restaurants on the grounds that such food is "trash" and a waste of time and money, then they are using their own bias and position to stifle others. The editor might have every right to do it (freedom of the press only applies to those who have one), but it's pure chickenshit and I have every right to mock those who do it and I hope others do likewise. This kind of mentality is far more loathsome than a B-grade skin-flick of the lowest common denominator.
Don't you think it would be much more helpful to your readers if you could write about WHY the film is so bad? And how would you feel if you worked at a paper and the editor refused to let you cover a movie because it had homosexuality?
wow!!!!!!!!!!!!! a comedy about a woman who takes her clothes off, filled with lots of sexual jokes and misogyny!! HOW ORIGINAL AND CLEVER!!!!1111
morons (and I'm surprised Judd Apatow didn't make this first)
Worst film of the decade
Is this a cinematic realization of the J. Geils Band song Centerfold?
When I Was in 7th grade, the teachers choreographed a dance for us to perfomr to this song at the end of year extravaganza. I attended a private, Anglican, all-girls school. I still cannot imagine why they did this or what they were thinking.
Wow. I was expecting this to be a bad film for women, but I didn't expect to feel personally violated and humiliated just by reading a review for it. Things like this make me want to curl up and never leave the house.
Every time I watch Colbert and I see that woman get sucked out of the bus window on the commercial, I get pissed off! Now reading that review I see she's not even the only woman who gets injured (or killed) for laughs. So disgusting.
I'm just shocked to read an article like this on a relatively mainstream site.
The movie isn't even shit. It's shit left in a steaming bucket in the sun until the entire field smells like an outhouse. Apologies for the gross metaphor, but I think the movie deserves it.
When I saw the trailer and saw the luscious black woman sucked out the bus window I thought it was one of the most hostile things I'd seen in a movie in a long time. I couldn't imagine that wasn't the worst. I hope this film disappears from the theaters without a trace.
i saw the previews on tv and all i could do was yell at the tv! it was the worst preview for a movie and i am sure that the movie is not any better! Katemoore, I love the metaphor....it is a heaping pile of shit for a movie! ;) Oh and screw all the misogynists out there! They're all a bunch of idiots who dont know anything....
Movies like this perpetuate the idea that sex is acceptable, normal, and even necessary for young men. This in and of itself is not a problem, but then women are also fed the message that we mustn't have sex. This creates such a hostile environment for women.
I want to see one of these movies where he manages to get with the girl, but then she gets pregnant and young Mr. Horny has to help financially support the child.
That movie was Knocked Up, and it was pretty stupid too.
Women are, to a lesser degree, also fed the idea that we need to be sexually active while young. While being told that if we're sexually active (or too sexually active), we're bad.
As an aside, I keep seeing these stupid trailers on tv, and there's this exchange:
Guy 1: "She's a solid 7."
Guy 2: "She's a 7?!"
and I can't figure out for the life of me whether Guy 2 thinks being "a 7" is exceptionally good or exceptionally bad.
Anyway it looks like a total trainwreck and I'm not going to spend any more time thinking about it because if I do it will make me even more grumpy than I already am.
(Although... violence against and even inopportune death of sexified women is supposed to be funny? Christ. We need help, people).
The only good thing about this movie existing was that review: it was truly delicious.
It's now gone down to 5% on Rotten Tomatoes http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10010760-miss_march/ which should put it in the 50 worst of all time list... I think it will die a quick death. Small consolation.
I saw that too. Apparently you don't have to be a feminist to hate it.
i don't understand how a movie like this makes it into the mainstream. maybe i'm just out of touch?
I also really do not understand how these kinds of movies get funded and green-lighted. It is completely baffling. Even if it wasn't exceptionally sexist, it is clearly just NOT FUNNY.
I quite accidentally got into a Facebook war with a guy I don't know over whether or not this movie was sexist. He said such choice things as: "If anyone and I do mean ANYONE takes comedy--- especially stupid, mindless, comedy--- the kind of movie you go to when you have had a SHIT WEEK-- so seriously that they read so much nuance when the filmmakers probably cannot spell nuance...--
Maybe that person shouldn't go to the theaters anymore... "
ERGHHHH!
I blame media conglomeration for things like this getting made. It's easier for a giant company to appeal to the lowest common denominator then try to make excellent movies that will appeal to less people (or at least that's the thinking).
...I'm clearly in the minority. I liked this movie but I also LOVE the Whitest Kids U' Know.
The review linked here is a little misleading. Both the dog urine in the cocktail scene and the stabbing the girl with a fork scene have a little more to them than just the simple descriptions given. I'm not going to pull the excuse that's it's just escapist comedy and that one shouldn't take it too seriously because I hate that form of denial and avoidance, but I will say there is a certain sense of humor that this kind of material appeals to. I don't really think that Moore and Cregger were 'punishing' women with the things that happen, though.
While watching it (and even before), I knew it wasn't going to be a feminist film at all. I hadn't thought about the virgin/whore dichotomy until just now, but it's definitely worth thinking about. Even so, maybe I have to chalk this up as a personal non-feminist guilty pleasure just because I really like Trevor Moore. That doesn't mean I can't critique it as a feminist (because I can and probably will), but I won't outright rail against it.
I really like The Whitest Kids U' Know's sketch comedy. But everything about the ads for this movie looks gross.
I don't understand why Trevor Moore, who on their show has a weird, angular charisma that reminds me of Hugh Laurie, would play a horndog who seemingly spends an entire movie bugging out his eyes and dropping his jaw like a stupid sex comedy version of Macaulay Culkin in Home Alone.
Maybe Playboy drove a dump truck full of money up to their house.