why would anyone pay $12 to see a two hour movie based on an unfunny three minute sketch?

is it just me or is the logic behind greenlighting this movie completely messed up? i was watching this film for the first time a few hours ago—i believe it was on hbo—and i was gobsmacked that someone actually gave the okay on this.

i mean, lorne michaels has produced some pretty bad snl movies, but most of ‘em came out in the ’90s, when it was easier to get a movie made, and when snl was coming off what could arguably be considered its best five-year stretch (the farley, sandler, myers, spade, hartman run).

but while i was watching this movie, i got a little irritated. why? because all you hear about in la (or film school, to be more specific) is how hard it is to make movies nowadays. and i don’t mean the low(er) budget, straight-to-the-festival-circuit types, i’m talking studio-backed, wide-released movies. it’s too expensive, people don’t want to take risks, etc., etc.

then what the fuck is macgruber? how was this not a huge risk? has there ever been a good snl crossover movie? night at the roxbury, maybe? i don’t even know. i’m struggling to think of one here. and to make it worse, this skit isn’t even funny in its original format. that’s the part that gets me. if i were one of the suits, i would’ve seriously greenlit a 3-hour epic based on “the barry gibb talk show” before i gave this a thumbs up. at least stuart saves his family was based on a mildly amusing skit. even superstar had a few choice moments, but this right here just fucks with my head.

if you had a dog that kept crapping on your bathroom rug, would you put him in the bedroom hoping he’d improve with the more expensive carpeting? no, you wouldn’t. because that’s just ridiculous.