March 10, 2006
Failure To Launch Reviews
The Failure to Launch reviews are coming in... and they look really really bad. This saddens me, because I've been becoming a Matthew McConaughey fan and I was hoping he could pull this one out. Doesn't look like he succeeded.
Here's what some of the critics are saying in their Failure to Launch reviews:
"It fails at romance and comedy. It fails to make the lead characters interesting and their love affair believable. And it fails to develop a consistent tone that would enable viewers to suspend their disbelief."
James Berardinelli, REELVIEWS
"Stars Matthew McConaughey and Sarah Jessica Parker put as much energy, winning smiles and comic business into their roles as possible, but it's a no-go from the start."
Kirk Honeycutt, HOLLYWOOD REPORTER
"The movie is so intent on displaying McConaughey's wares that it gives him a shirtless surfing scene -- and the picture is set in Baltimore."
Josh Larsen, SUN PUBLICATIONS (CHICAGO, IL)
"Failure to Launch is a not-so-distant cousin of those happy-go-lucky herpes commercials that play on television--it's so far out it scans as science fiction."
Ed Gonzalez, SLANT MAGAZINE
Yikes! This is NOT what I wanted to see out of this one. Combined with Two For The Money, and this makes 2 stinkers in a row for McConaughey (some people would suggest Sahara makes 3). As of this writing Failure To Launch is holding a horrible 27% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. You can read more Failure To Launch reviews here.
Posted by John Campea at March 10, 2006 09:12 AM
Comments
Posted by: Mr Stay Puft at March 10, 2006 10:00 AM
I don't care how supposedly "sexy" the guy is, he makes crap movies. I can't remember one of his movies that I've enjoyed. Honestly, he is a big waste of potential. He could be something big if he could drop that damn accent for a movie, stop showing off his bleached teeth and spray tan and just freaking ACT.
Posted by: Kristina at March 10, 2006 10:12 AM
LOL, love the line "and the picture is set in Baltimore"...classic.
Posted by: Terry Letourneau at March 10, 2006 10:59 AM
i'm a guy. and i saw "Failure To Launch" last night in Los Angeles. I liked it... mostly because I believe in SJParker's inherent likeability. Matthew is fine but his character is basically unsympathetic (and dirty and shirtless a lot for some reason). Overall it plays like the sequel to "How To Lose A Guy in 10 Days" but I think it is vastly superior in most respects, mostly due to SJP.
What I don't understand is why they had such a hard time marketing this film. The explanation for the obscure title is right in the first 20 minutes or so of the film but wasn't shown in the tv spots or the trailer. Bizarre.
Posted by: dr. theopolis at March 10, 2006 11:38 AM
I liked "Sahara", "U-571" and "Reign of Fire". Otherwise, most of his films have been poor. I think he needs to hire a new agent. This guy should be a box office lock. He has mass appeal. He isn't another metrosexual wuss boy. But when he makes crappy romantic comedies, it hurts his draw.