Metascore
18

Overwhelming dislike - based on 23 Critics What's this?

User Score
3.0

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 339 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
Watch On
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 23
  2. Negative: 18 out of 23
  1. Reviewed by: Michael O'Sullivan
    Jan 26, 2013
    88
    Movie 43 is a near masterpiece of tastelessness. The anthology of 12 short, interconnected skits elevates the art form of gross-out comedy to a new height.
  2. Reviewed by: Gabe Toro
    Jan 25, 2013
    50
    An oddity recommended for only the most fervent, undemanding comedy junkies.
  3. Reviewed by: Nick Pinkerton
    Jan 26, 2013
    40
    It's the kind of thing you feel you should laugh at through a phlegmy, hacking cough-and it does get laughs, if inconsistently, predictable given the circumstances of production.
  4. Reviewed by: Josh Winning
    Jan 25, 2013
    20
    Quite why A-listers Kate Winslet, Hugh Jackman and Emma Stone (among others) aligned themselves with this excruciatingly moronic compilation of shorts is anybody's guess.
  5. Reviewed by: Joshua Rothkopf
    Jan 25, 2013
    20
    As sick-making sketch comedies go, this stupefyingly bad one-somehow rife with A-list talent-must rank near the very bottom.
  6. Reviewed by: Frank Scheck
    Jan 25, 2013
    0
    Despite the dizzying array of talent involved both in front of and behind the camera, this godawful exercise is so painfully unfunny, so screamingly bad that it immediately qualifies as one of the worst films of all time.
  7. Reviewed by: Laremy Legel
    Feb 26, 2013
    0
    An epically miserable viewing experience, go ahead and skip this one unless you’re seeking to answer the riddle of what happens when people don’t try at their jobs.

See all 23 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 27 out of 113
  2. Negative: 76 out of 113
  1. Feb 16, 2013
    10
    Movie 43... what can I say? I have NO IDEA why this is getting such bad reviews. Obviously the reviewers didn't see who stars in it. Em,Movie 43... what can I say? I have NO IDEA why this is getting such bad reviews. Obviously the reviewers didn't see who stars in it. Em, Wolverine?? He's in the Oscars for next week. Kate Winslet. She's in loads of good movies. Uma Thurman anyone?? She Killed Bill. TWICE!! Anyway, not only are all these amazing stars in it, they also have a good laugh at themselves. I don't see any reviewers doing that. It might be about poos, wees and spunk but who doesn't love that?? The mind boggles. See this amazing movie. See it twice. No, see it 43 times!! I can't wait to see it. Expand
  2. Feb 2, 2014
    8
    he poor reviews are really annoying me. I'm all for "everyone has the right to their own opinion", but I do think people have been very unfairhe poor reviews are really annoying me. I'm all for "everyone has the right to their own opinion", but I do think people have been very unfair to this movie. It's actually a very funny watch, featuring very risqué performances from A-list actors and even Oscar-winners. Halle Berry is without a doubt the most shocking (and equally hilarious) cast member as she truly shines in her 'Truth or Dare' segment with Stephen Merchant. Emma Stone, Kate Winslet, Naomi Watts, Gerard Butler and Elizabeth Banks give incredibly funny performances, Butler in particular had me crying. The comedy is silly, but I've seen much, much worse. Movie 43 is silly within reason, it's not slapstick, it's just a funny and I wish people hadn't so quick to call it the worst movie ever made. Expand
  3. Aug 13, 2013
    4
    Just because it has a lot of famous stars it doesn't mean that it is a good film.
    I admit: some scenes were nice and I laughed, but most of
    Just because it has a lot of famous stars it doesn't mean that it is a good film.
    I admit: some scenes were nice and I laughed, but most of them were so stupid that i was embarrassed for the actors/actresses who played in.
    I can't say that it's so bad that it deserves 0 as scores because the idea was nice but just that.
    It seems to be written by a 16 years old guy.
    Probably they thought that just for the stars, they would have gain a lot of money... If they just worked more on it (and not just putting some trashy jokes in it) it would be the funniest movie of the year!
    Expand
  4. Mar 1, 2013
    2
    Movie 43 is a prime example of a movie that could have been pretty good, but missed that opportunity with plenty of unfunny and just stupidMovie 43 is a prime example of a movie that could have been pretty good, but missed that opportunity with plenty of unfunny and just stupid sketches. 2/10- Disaster-piece Expand
  5. Jun 21, 2013
    1
    If you think Hugh Jackman sporting a pair of testicles dangling from his chin is funny, I've got some great news for you. The marketing teamIf you think Hugh Jackman sporting a pair of testicles dangling from his chin is funny, I've got some great news for you. The marketing team must have had a hell of a time trying to sell "Movie 43" to the general public because it's a comedy that really isn't about anything. It's a series of skits strung together by a barely cohesive narrative. Of course, there have been many skit films before "Movie 43," but this is the first film to be backed by a major studio and to have a litany of A-list actors, actresses, and filmmakers involved.

    The film is centers on an unkempt "screenwriter" (played by Dennis Quaid), who is trying to pitch his movie to a Hollywood executive (played by Greg Kinnear). Much like the rest of the movie, their situation begins to spiral into absurdity, and in between we are treated to a series of mock ads and strange scenarios that increasingly build on their gags until they just eventually sort of end.

    "Movie 43" fares best in its first half, as the film's opening half hour boasts a number of amusing shorts including a bit of silliness featuring Naomi Watts and Liev Schreiber as parents who take the home-schooling concept to very dark places. However, the film begins to lose steam somewhere around the midway point, inundated with sketches that are completely pointless and desperately unfunny. The second half of the film is loaded with skits that are either disastrously overlong or problematic; quickly losing any appeal that might be left.

    If the sketches have any unifying style, it's that they go for shock value over genuine laughs most of the time. "Movie 43" is best suited for in the home-entertainment market, where these short story dilemmas can be hashed out between bong rips and consuming large amounts of alcohol.
    Expand
  6. Feb 10, 2013
    0
    I think this film succeeds in what it wants to be, which is awful. It's an ugly satire of the movie industry, and it's really not that farI think this film succeeds in what it wants to be, which is awful. It's an ugly satire of the movie industry, and it's really not that far off. For the audience, who has been abused like this countless times, it's a hard rub. The irony isn't meant for the audience, it's meant to mock Hollywood studio execs and the crap they shovel out. The audience still gets the raw deal. Instead of watching ill-conceived crap, we are watching intentionally conceived crap. I understand the intent of this movie, but it sorta backfired by abusing it's audience and instead of sending an FU to Hollywood comes off as an FU to the viewer. Expand
  7. Jul 13, 2013
    0
    This is a horribly made, stupid, uneven and beyond a WTF-fest. Every joke is completely immature and inane, completely relying on "offensive"This is a horribly made, stupid, uneven and beyond a WTF-fest. Every joke is completely immature and inane, completely relying on "offensive" jokes. It's one of the stupidest movies I've ever seen but I giggled once (I'll get into that later) but I felt like my IQ dropped 100 points afterwards. It's not necessarily due to the raunchy humor, (though that was a factor) but mostly how the entire film was witless and relied on childish jokes involving feces, bodily fluids, language and mild bestiality and incest. Some sketches were just horrendous and some were just awful. (Which one is worse? Exactly.) These are all DISGUSTING, crude, and void of any wit at all. I can laugh at crude; 21 Jump Street, Ted, and This is the End made me cry with laughter, but these are the worst things I have ever had to endure.

    The one with Anna Faris and Chris Pratt was unbearably awful and made me want to shoot myself in the face; it's just one "joke" about how gross they can make dialogue about coprophilia, all while seemingly trying to harm the audience's intelligence. The iBabe sketch was really bad given how terminally stupid it was, as was the Beezel sketch given its terminal velocity of terribleness. I was disappointed by the Homeschooled sketch because the idea is actually very funny: two parents harassing their home schooled child in order to give him a true high school experience. However, that went past when it was funny and just became uncomfortable given the jokes about child abuse and mother-son and father-son incest. It truly could have been hilarious, but it just made me want to leave due to how mean-spirited and void of wit it was.

    Because this is a series of sketches, the characters aren't actual characters, just actors due to the non-existent plot and non-existent character development. The cast is good, so you're watching screen saying, "That's not a character, but it's just Emma Stone, who I really like." Right after that, you become overrun with an unspeakable amount of pity and depression in regards to how all of these amazing actors and actresses are in this: the worst movie of all time. (Keep in mind that I've seen Jack and Jill and Piranha 3DD.) Speaking of Emma Stone, her sketch was the only one that had me giggle. Her banter with Kieran Culkin and their love-hate relationship and jokes actually made me chortle once, and I'll admit that. (Their arguing, "chicken-egg" debate, the Golden Girls, etc.) The Batman and Robin sketch also had *some* potential elements of funniness, such as a joke about Superman's hair and comic book references, but it was wasted away. The timing is bad and the shots in the film feel like a first take, as if they didn't even try. All mentioned moments, also, add up to about 20 seconds total. That's 0.35% of the entire "film".

    Ultimately, the most depressing part of it all is that the cast is actually in this crap. They don't seem to be trying and it's documented by one of the directors/producers that no one actually wanted to be in this; it's evident due to the horrid delivery of "funny" lines. The entire cast is wasted and nowhere in the 94 minutes of trash did they ever take advantage of their incredible, funny and talented actors. This is the stupidest film of all time but I somehow giggled once. Is it a good movie? No. Never. Not at all in the slightest. In fact, it's the worst movie of all time. It has EVERYTHING wrong with Hollywood and the world in one atrocity. A-listers to cynically attract audiences (victims, really), a pile of trash that has absolutely no work put into it, no art whatsoever, a "comedy" with no laughs, and it somehow managed to make 94 minutes feel like four hours.

    After you cringe two or three times due to the humor (which is all driven by making people go "ew", nothing else), you really do get bored. It's so repetitive, and I can't believe that not a single sketch was good. This could have been really good, considering the talent involved, but once they decided to make it all obscene, they should have stopped. There's no way to win. You infuriate and insult 99.99% of the audience and once they become accustomed to the beyond lowbrow "humor" that it's going for, you become numbed to it and begin to cry inside. It's lose-lose-lose. It's expected for an anthology to not be 100% great, but the ratio of miss-to-hit here is simply astounding.

    Sitting through it made me a stronger person, and one of the worst parts of it was that it was so incredibly boring. This is the biggest disgrace to cinema ever, something that I love near and dear, something that is truly my passion. I used to like a ton of these actors, but I won't be able to forget their involvement in this catastrophe. At least Elizabeth Banks' sketch is halfway through the credits so most people won't see it. Also, they cut out the sketch where Anton Yelchin played a necrophiliac that would rape female bodies at the morgue at which he worked.

    If I were to ever commit suicide, r
    Expand

See all 113 User Reviews

Trailers

Related Articles

  1. The Best and Worst Movies of 2013

    The Best and Worst Movies of 2013 Image
    Published: January 6, 2014
    There were more great movies released in 2013 than in any year in recent memory. Browse our official lists of the year's highest-scoring movies in a variety of categories, and check out 2013's worst films, too.