I wonder why many serious film critics go to the trouble of explaining in lengthy and clever reviews why "Coyote Ugly" is not a good film. What did they expect? What do they expect in general of mass-produced teen-targeted entertainment? To challenge, illuminate and move? To elevate the audience to a new esthetic climax? Are them critics familiar with with teens' tastes? I find such criticism superfluous, even self-indulgent. "Coyote Ugly" is simply an instance, undistinguished, of a vast and serious cultural issue. One can address the issue itself and use this movie as an illustration, but taking it at face value and analyzing it out of context is inappropriate. Movies like "Coyote Ugly" do not set out to deliver artistic or original or educational content; so it is unfair to reproach them the fact that they do not deliver such values.
"Coyote Ugly" is a successful movie both commercially and in that it seems to hit all the targets it aims at. This is the standard we should judge it by. Teen-targeted "dramas" could be judged, I propose, by technical merit alone: is the tempo of the movie high enough so that not to bore but low enough so that not to exhaust? are the actors beautiful and charismatic? are the characters simple enough not to create moral ambiguity but complex enough to be believable? is the story predictable enough so that not to challenge but reassure? Smashing soundtrack? Criteria such as these are more suitable. And I think "Coyote Ugly" delivers from this point of view. If there was, and I wonder why it isn't, an Academy Award category for perfunctory entertainment this movie would be a contender.
