>considered an unwatchable mess at release>funnier than any movie that came out this yearwhy doesn't hollywood know how to make comedies anymore? executive meddling?
2004? i would have pegged it for like 2002 or 2001 or something. it's definitely a year or two past its time with movies like Juwanna Man, Black Knight and Undercover Brother. come to think of it... what the hell went down there
>>222807265>Juwanna Man, Black Knight and Undercover Brother.any of those movies any good?
>>222807560Just Undercover Brother.
>>222807198Terry Crews funniest role.
>>222807738thanks >>222807753yeah he was the best part of the movie
Comedies are illegal today.
>>222807198There hasn’t been a funny comedy in a decade anon, they cant make funny anymore
>>222807198>considered an unwatchable mess at releaseWas it? I watched on release and had a blast
>>222807964>The film received negative reviews from critics upon release.[5] On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 15% of 126 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 3.9/10. The website's consensus reads: "Scattershot comedy that's silly and obvious."[12] Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 41 out of 100, based on 31 critics, indicating "mixed or average" reviews.[13] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B+" on an A+ to F scale.[14]>In his negative review, Dave Kehr of New York Times stated that "Most movies require some suspension of disbelief. But White Chicks... requires something more radical than that. A full frontal lobotomy might be a good place to start."[15] Film critic Richard Roeper put the film at #1 on his list of the worst films of 2004, amongst claims of unconvincing prosthetics and racism.[16][17] Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film 1 and 1⁄2 stars out of four and said "Here is a film so dreary and conventional that it took an act of the will to keep me in the theater." He subsequently named the film the seventh worst film of 2004.[18][19] Owen Gleiberman from Entertainment Weekly said "A tawdry excuse for a movie, but it has a handful of shameless giggles", and rated the film "C+".[20]
>>222807198SHITLIBS are too afraid of making a comedy that offends anyone
>>222808001Roger Ebert was such a faggot I don't know why anyone ever took him seriously
>>222807265>come to think of it... what the hell went down therehttps://youtu.be/7lbFRYF-bbM
>>222807560nah, just watch Pootie Tang
>>222808001wow, it was silly and crass nut very funny nonetheless
>>222807198>unwatchable mess at releaseAll movies are like that, now. I guess I should watch them in 20 years?
>>222808071>i don't need to wear a dress to be funny
>>222808262>2006 interview discussing 1999 movie>Robin Hood Men in Tights - 1993lel
The logical Netflix sequel would have to be Black Chicks and I don't think the world is ready for that.>black dudes in the audience have to poker face the entire movie going "nah.. that ain't right yo..." and "fucking exaggeration N shit" or they know they'll never have sex again
>>222808777>checked>implying that level of foresight, conscientiousness, and caring
>>222808001Critics despise almost all comedies and horror films.
>>222809045This is true and fucking stupid. Rate a filn for genre and audience.
