Heckler

In this documentary, Jamie Kennedy says that movie critics should make a point of giving "constructive criticism," that is, instead of just saying that a movie sucked, say why it was bad and what could have been done to make it better. This is one of the parts that I agree with, so I'll try to do that here.

The first 20 minutes or so were exactly what the DVD cover and title claim to be- a documentary about how stand-up comedians deal with hecklers. Listening to the comedians' war stories and methods of dealing with hecklers is hilarious and a fascinating subject.

But then the movie veers off course when Kennedy makes a ham-fisted comparison equating movie critics to hecklers. Plenty of others here have explained why that's a bad comparison, so I don't need to explain why again.

From that point on, it feels like the movie is nothing but JK whining that no one liked Son of the Mask. I'm a bit bitter about the bait-and-switch done here. He shows us a brief clip of SotM that's supposed to convince us that the whole thing is funny, and assumes that this gets us 100% on board with his belief that everyone who criticized it is totally wrong and/or mean-spirited. And EVERYONE he finds either didn't watch it or didn't like it. He mopes around between sadness and anger, never once stopping to consider that just maybe Son of the Mask really was a bad film.

In fact, he seems to be really stuck on the idea that there is no such thing as a bad film whatsoever. Kennedy argues that because every opinion on a movie is just an opinion, not a fact. However, most people would agree that if a film is universally hated by both professional critics and the viewing public, tanks at the box office, and gets singled out by Rotten Tomatoes as one of the 100 worst films of the decade, as Son of the Mask was, then it's a pretty safe bet to call it a bad movie. There is such a thing as a bad film.

He has some valid points about how mean-spirited and personal-level criticisms of films are excessively cruel, but these points seem to get lost in the mess of the post-heckler part of the movie. It's unfocused and has a lot of logical leaps. One minute all movie critics are scum, the next minute Roger Ebert is a great and well-respected exception (even though he's just as famous for tearing into truly bad films as writing great reviews), the next we see some kid saying that Ebert is an idiot and an out-of-context clip that makes Beyond the Valley of the Dolls look really bad, completely missing the point that that film was intentionally schlocky. One minute a professional movie critic is a valid career with a legitimate purpose, the next they're all scum again. One minute he's accepting of the idea of constructive criticism that doesn't attack on a personal level, the next 25 minutes, no one should ever have a negative opinion about anything.

We're treated to a parade of famous flop-makers that we're supposed to feel sympathy for, but don't, because we're still not convinced that there's no such thing as a bad movie. Bringing in people involved with incredibly bad movies like Joel Schumaker, Carrot Top, and Uwe Boll to argue your point only further cements the idea that your movie was bad and that you're just being bitter about everyone's natural reaction to it.

However, I thought that the part about how the Web has made everyone into an elitist critic with a tendency to hate everything was interesting ("0 out of 4 waffles?"). I find people who come to IMDb, give a good-but-not-great movie 0/10 stars and a review of "THIS WUZ The WURST MUVEE EVER LOLz!" to be some of the biggest morons on the planet, and their opinions to be about as worthless as he says they are. JK also has an interesting idea where he confronts some of his harshest, most personal-level critics to see if they'll say the same things to his face. But his reaction to one of those is so terribly immature and unfunny (and I'm no prude) that it ruins the whole exercise.

In conclusion, I think that Kennedy made this film too soon. His emotions about everyone's reaction to Son of the Mask were still too raw, and that got in the way of his ability to make a coherent documentary. Had he made it two or three years later, he probably would have been thinking clearly enough to leave out some of the moments that I'm sure felt gratifying to him, but just alienated his audience, like his contradictory opinions on Ebert or his treatment of the last critic he met in person.

this film has several problems but not one related to what the film was supposed to be about. Heckler starts great and for about 30 minutes I really enjoyed the film. then, a change of subject happens. This film should be called something else because it is not about hecklers.

I'll try to keep it simple and positive - what I've liked; first 30 minutes. situations in several stand up comedy acts where we see how professional comedians deal with hecklers. not only that, it is also nice to hear their opinions on the subject.

the rest of the film? well, I don't even know what to say. it completely changes the subject. it is not about hecklers, it is about a plague called offensive film 'critics' (which I acknowledge that it is a serious plague). however I thought I was going to watch a film about hecklers (you know, with the title and all) and instead I get this guy feeling emotional about how these guys on the internet and newspapers treat his work.

I mean, it is nice to see him confronting some of these 'critics' and you kind of wish that this stuff could be done more times, but after a while it is just boring. (is this a criticism? can I write this? because you know, that's what I felt. it was boring. no personal attacks to the director or any cheap slander. I m talking about the rest of the film. Boring. )

sorry, it was a bit painful after the half time.

I suspect, as I'm one of the very few people to review this documentary, thus far, there is some likelihood that Jaime Kennedy might actually read it, as was evidenced in the film itself, often being his tendency.

I sincerely hope he does, as nobody can avoid criticism, and those that ignore it completely are destined to eventually loose touch, in some way, with their benefactors. We all face criticism. I work alongside surgeons, who give criticism to those who perform inadequately, the likes of which make the kind of harassment that a comedy heckler gives look like a prepubescent, shooting spitballs, from a straw. Entertainers don't have a corner on the market of pressure stress

I'm 38, live in my own home, and yes, I have opinions on what is or isn't entertaining, which coincidentally, I don't hold alone. I frequently agree on the value or valuelessness of entertainment with others. I'd suggest, that though we're not entertainers, we're still valid in our opinions, especially when they're informed, multitudinous and as it happens, the source of your income. I'd also mention, that I've spent some nights of my own singing dinner theater, and having people talk over it, and yes, it is rude, and ignorant.

Heckling is pointless, but though many critics are completely useless, vindictive attention whores, that doesn't negate the fact that hecklers and critics are wholly different things, simply sharing commonalities, and it doesn't mean that every critic is equally guilty of such. I know that when I've reviewed things, I try avoiding being a total prick, but as I'm occasionally a prick in daily life, some of that may show though. It's called Human nature.

I rarely spend the time to write a poor review, as can be confirmed on my comment history page, which only contains fourteen other reviews, to date, over the past two years, half of which are glowing recommendations. I rarely take pot shots at someone, because there is not much use in it, but I'll admit that when a piece of entertainment fails dismally to entertain, there's a small amount of fun that can be acquired in compensation, by publicly railing on it. Most of us have done it, in some way or another and that doesn't make us all terrible people.

On the point of the film, which I'll keep as separate from personal commentary as possible, in this wholly intertwined situation, I'm in agreement with the majority of the other critical reviews, I've seen here. The film begins interestingly, entertainingly, thought provokingly & humorously. The interviewed participants are some of the most qualified sources to be questioned on the subject of hecklers, and offered a captivating look into the lives touched by this kind of cruelty, that's endured, and the ignorance involved in perpetrating it.

Truthfully, the relevance of the Michael Richards scandal provides a welcome environment, for a film specifically devoted to the topic of those that have heckled comedians throughout Stand-up's history, & how it's been dealt with. However, the discussions in "Heckler" eventually became discussions about critics, never to return, or to find a commonality which could substantiate the digression, and was held as if it was synonymous with the subject of hecklers, which it's most assuredly not.

The film was doing something interesting, when it was handling the issue of the comic or performer, struggling against poor social conduct. That's captivating. Switching over to showing people complain about having to accept that others find their work less than sensational isn't. Brother, if I want to see that, I'll ask one of my crappier co-workers about their last performance evaluation.

It actually sort of disappointed me that this film was derailed, because when I came across the DVD, I had an impressed reaction to the notion that the subject of hecklers be discussed, in detail, via documentary, and in that way, the film's title is false advertising, or at least misleading to the film's true intent.

That's really all there is to say, of consequence, about the film, and the only thing that remains to say about the concept of dealing with criticism, is to offer some advice which I hope is beneficial.

You, as a performer, must have as widely diverse feedback as possible, or you will surely wither on the vine, or worse, be disregarded like yesterday's newspapers. Criticism is one of the ways that happens. Does that mean that every buttmunch claiming themselves a critic should have a direct plumbing line plunged directly into your soul, for the purpose of relieving themselves on you?

Of course not. So watchyagonna do about it, Punk? I'd suggest becoming savvy enough to be able to tell who's who, and just exactly what's valid and what ain't, disregarding the latter. It's not as hard as it might seem. I do it every time I'm on this website. It takes me about three or four sentences to know whether someone's completely full of crap, marginally literate, stupid, or whether they have an intelligent, informed, & worthwhile opinion. Jay & Silent Bob couldn't, so they kicked their asses

Get hip and start making the distinction, plus, be open to taking some lumps occasionally. You're a celebrity, for having become someone who entertains large masses of people. There are benefits that come with that, that the rest of us will never have. You can have a blessed life because of it. There's also consequences to it, and you need to come to grips with them, or get out. That's the nature of the beast. It can derail you if you let it. Ask Kurt Cobain, or Heath Ledger about their stress

People are mean, for no good reason, to each other just as often as they are to you. It just isn't headline news like everything else YOU do. Have some humility, and don't expect that you should be treated like a Faberge Egg.

I have never written a film review here before, but Heckler actually compelled me to do so. One thing I gleaned from the movie was an appeal to critics: Don't be mean for the sake of being mean. Instead, make the criticism constructive. I aim to do that here.

I will start by saying I really enjoyed hearing the perspective of all the performers and artists on the subject of heckling and criticism. Since the interview subjects are funny and talented people, the resulting string of talking heads is actually quite entertaining. As for the subject matter, I have always been sympathetic towards comedians who have to endure hecklers while on stage, but this movie really hit the point home. Also interesting was the footage of actual heckling incidents, and the sometimes shocking reactions from the performer.

Jamie Kennedy, the de facto host of the movie, was good for the most part, but some sequences were more effective than others. He was at his best when his humor was self-deprecating. When Jamie confronted a critic, read their review out loud, and then sat there with a sort of deflated, forlorn look on his face as the critic continued to insult him, that was good stuff. But when he went on the attack, such as insulting one guy's babysitting job, or asking a critic about his sex life, he was turning into the very mean-spirited critic that he had been admonishing. If he instead became the better person, and turned the other cheek, he would have been a more sympathetic (and funnier) character. Still, his performance overall was good.

As for the treatment of film criticism, I felt like there needed to be more balance. There should have been some acknowledgment that film critics provide a valuable source of consumer information. When I go to see a movie, I have to make a 1/2 hour to 1 hour drive, sometimes pay for parking, pay $10 or more admission, and devote 2 hours of my life to watching it. Before doing so, I would like to know if it is worth the money, time, and effort. Film reviews are an essential tool in making this determination. I am a consumer, and a movie is a product I am purchasing. How is it any different from reading reviews for any other product before purchasing it? Why are car reviewers not berated for what they do? How about Consumer Reports, which reviews just about any product you can think of? As for internet reviewers, how about the customer reviews on amazon.com, or rei.com, or any major internet retail site? They may not be professional reviewers, but their opinions can be meaningful in large numbers. When 100 owners give something a good (or bad) review, that is useful information if I am thinking of purchasing that product. I think it is also a false argument to suggest that film critics lack credibility because most of them have never made a film themselves. Back to the car reviewer analogy, I bet most of them have never manufactured cars, but they have driven enough of them to separate a finely tuned machine from a lemon.

So, while I enjoyed Heckler overall, I couldn't help but leave a little disappointed knowing it could have been much better if it was made with a little less hostility and a little more thoughtfulness. With this approach, I think these filmmakers could turn a good movie into a great one.

There are only two reviews on here, and one of them (the gushing, 10 stars, 'I laughed my ass off' review) is obviously a plant. but the other guy basically has it right. the movie starts off solidly, examining the interaction between live performers and hecklers, and interviewing comedians who've had to deal with hecklers while they, the comedians, are performing. that was interesting, and had some funny moments when the performers get to fight back. I can't imagine being a stand-up, let alone dealing with a heckler, so you get a good sense of the terror you feel when you start to lose control of an audience. but then the movie goes much broader and begins to examine all hecklers, or critics, and their motives behind posting bad or mean reviews of movies. while it seems perfectly reasonable to me to at least call out the critics when they stop reviewing and start recklessly bashing, problems arise when they start naming movies that got viciously bad reviews, and most of the movies they name are frankly terrible. Jamie Kennedy seems stunned that people didn't like "Malibu's Most Wanted" or "Son of the Mask", and even while interviewing his critics never really listens to their responses. he argues that they have no real intellectual basis for critiquing his or others' films because they've never been in the entertainment industry. by his logic the bloggers have no right because they're just losers writing from their parents' basements, and the professional critics have no right because they're just failed writers themselves who never made it in their desired profession. who then, if not his audience or his actual critics, can criticize his movies? In my humble opinion, the beginning of this movie worked quite well, if only because no one likes a heckler, they interrupt a performance and try to divert attention to themselves. Todd Glass (interviewed in "Heckler")has a great youtube video up of him destroying a heckler, not simply for interrupting his and others' sets, but for treating the wait staff badly. It's great, and he puts her in her place. But criticizing a movie, no matter how viciously or stupidly, just isn't the same thing. The film was watched, allowed to run its full course, and either you liked it or you didn't. In the same way that various comedians argue that if an audience member doesn't like a show they have the right to quietly leave, people in the entertainment industry have the right to stop reading reviews by people whose opinions they know to be no better than idiot hecklers. They don't complain when the critics love their films, so they're going to have to live with it when they occasionally hate them. "Heckler" in the end just didn't work for me.

(Editor's note: after this review, Patrick was promptly maced and escorted out of IMDb by security.)