By Geo Ong
I haven’t seen it, so you don’t have to listen to a word I say about the actual movie. But The New York Times writer A.O. Scott did, and he turned in a truly entertaining review of MacGruber last Saturday. I advise you to read his entire article, but for the sake of stealing the spotlight, I’ll be providing you with the really good bits.
Mr. Scott, take it away:
Good morning, class. Welcome back to ‘Advanced Topics in the Ontology of Cinema.’ Today’s lecture is on ‘MacGruber,’ a film that poses a philosophical question fundamental to our inquiry here, namely: ‘Why does this exist?’
Finally, someone writing for a mainstream publication who… *deep breath*… doesn’t like bad movies. Someone writing for a mainstream publication who still has artistic standards. Someone writing for a mainstream publication who doesn’t mindlessly swallow what they’re fed (you’re not infants – you have choices). Finally. Someone writing for a mainstream publication who agrees with us.
Capitalising on the skidmark of shite that Judd Crapatow smeared behind (giving the term ‘trailblazing’ an entirely new meaning), our generation has been cursed with some of the stupidest, irresponsible, and dangerously offensive films for way too long. (Once again, I’m reminding you that I haven’t seen MacGruber – I am merely making an example of it.) Worse, no one seemed to notice. Worse than worse, some people seem to like them.
As Urchins, we have no problem in counting small victories. This is one of them. Mr. Scott, you were saying?
The law of diminishing returns is enforced so stringently that the movie succeeds not only in negating its own comedy, but its very being. Thus ‘Why does this film exist?’ turns out to be a trick question, because as we have conclusively demonstrated here, ‘MacGruber’ does not, at least within the ontological parameters elaborated by this course, exist at all. Class dismissed.
Mr. Scott, I’ll remember this come professor-evaluation time.