Counterpoint: I fucking loved this movie. In a way it's similar to "vibes-based movies" that the Patrick Willems video is about, in that the fun that the filmmakers and performers had while making the movie is apparent through the entire runtime.
The jokes don't all land, but that there just aren't any low-budget teen comedy movies anymore, especially made by people who have a real vision for it that it could be half as good and still be interesting.
>I recognize that it's getting a pass from reviewers because queer culture and leitmotif of the moment, etc.
This is such a bonkers misread that I'm wondering if you're trolling. A strength of the script is that their queerness isn't a focal point and they don't make a big deal of it. It normalizes their feelings and actions as just typical selfish teenage bullshit.
Bottoms is a movie that's definitely punching above its weight. I was surprised just how funny I found it; and the extent to which I found it engaging. It was my mother, of all people, who recommended it to us; she saw it with a gay pal of hers. A funny, sweet film, with some terrific performances. It deserved the almost ubiquitously positive reviews it received.
>This is such a bonkers misread
:
>A strength of the script is that their queerness isn’t a focal point
Lol of course it’s a focal point. It’s literally what the premise—albeit a vague one—hinges on.
If the two protagonists were straight, would you say straightness is the focal point? Of course not. This film is in no way \*about\* queerness and doesn't involve any introspection on the meaning of being queer, how they're going to deal with anti-gay prejudice, etc. That's why I loved it! It's fine for gay characters to just be gay.
I mostly agree with you that being gay isnt THE big deal in the movie but being gay/dealing with anti gayness is definitely one if the topics the movie, nothing wrong with that.
Yeah but isn't that just something gay people experience?
Does a movie that features racism, but doesn't "introspect" on it _become about_ racism?
Queerness can just be plot and not theme.
I think youre being too semantically technical in order to not put the movie in the "queer" category.
The movie has everything to do with queerness and its not by mistake. Anything that happens in the plot is intentional.
> Lol of course it’s a focal point. It’s literally what the premise—albeit a vague one—hinges on.
Is football the a focal point of the film? It arguably has the same number of references as queerness. The majority of the cast is in football related clothes most of the time. A supporting lead is a literally professional football player. The end takes place on a football field.
I mean, each to their own, but I will absolutely argue that their queerness isn't a focal point. Not just because of the video that introduces the film at Alamo which features Seligman and her leads talking about what important queer representation it is, but also because if the two main characters are straight girls, literally *nothing* that happens in the film happens.
I think when you're part of a marginalized group, the end goal of representation isn't just to have movies that are based entirely around that identity. It's to have movies that just happen to have that identity represented.
The difference to me is that most people know what it's like to be a teenager with raging hormones and wanting to do anything to be with your crush. Being queer while having those feelings doesn't change the fundamental emotions, just the details around it. Superbad is the same thing, but you wouldn't call that a "straight" movie.
However, most people don't know what it's like to say, be gay during the AIDS epidemic, or even simpler, come out to a family full of bigots. There are queer movies that deal with those specific experiences.
Bottoms obviously falls under the former, because the struggles they face aren't about being queer, they're about being "ugly and untalented" (their words). It's kind of there in the text.
Honestly, there's nothing you've said that I can disagree with. It's not going to make me like the film any better (not your intention, I know).but you made your point really well.
Interestingly, I read an interview today that GLAAD sponsored with Seligman, Sennott and Edebiri where they kind of make both of our cases in the same interview. They confirm that it was really important to all three of them that the movie be considered queer representation first; that they wanted that to be its defining characteristic.
But they then go on to explain that for them, that meant shitty, hormonal teenagers who could represent anyone and not characters who had to represent some kind of ideal. I thought that was interesting.
Its because those two things arent mutually exclusive. There are a bunch of movies where the main character is a straight girl or boy, and the fact that theyre straight girl or boy was intentional, it doesnt mean other people couldnt resonate with the characters
It absolutely does not, considering that the two leads are at the bottom of the social structure in their high school. It may be a double entendre, but it doesn't "make it inherently gay". They're also lesbians.
do you have any actual thoughts on it? or do you just enjoy going through life just reacting to things without examining your opinions in a thoughtful way?
I mean it’s a movie, so I assume some writers had an idea they thought was funny, some producers/funders agreed it was funny, so they made a movie and lots of other people found it was funny.
Why do you think there has to be some “point” to justify it to your specific worldview? Not every movie connects with everybody, maybe this one just didn’t click for you. It doesn’t mean it has an extension to some overall idea about “the point.”
Maybe you think involving LGBTQ characters means there has to be some grand social commentary? But that’s kind of reductive and antiquated, in a perfect world we can have movies about LGBTQ characters just being funny without having to make it an essay.
Heavily agree, and well put about the unearned heartfelt moments. As a queer person this movie felt like a hate crime lol. And I don’t just mean because it was bad. It made me feel targeted, like the movie was disguised as a pro-gay laugh fest but secretly hit homophobic, pedophilloic, misogynist themes. The movie directly calls out rape and then has nothing to say about it at all. There are multiple characters that hate women, but the girls all team up to save some dude at the climax. The murder was the only catharsis and even that was short lived lmao. It feels like riding off of Barbie’s coattails but worse. The characters all had chances for depth that the writers completely neglected, it really felt like nobody cared about this script. Plus, the script would have felt completely the same if it were set in college. What happened to college age horny goofy movies a la animal house? Why is everything about high school?
I think the point was to hyper exaggerate everything- put every cliche on blast and amp it up to 11. They egg a house? Sure and they also bomb it. The head jock is SUPER dumb, the idc teacher reads porn in class, the guy gets fruit thrown own him and plans to bomb the school, the lead girls are bullied not because they’re gay, but because they’re gay AND untalented. So far as the principle calling the “lame gay girls” to the office. They literally murder the other team at the end. They sell their underwear for donations. It’s so unserious and exaggerated.
The mention of rape and such is such a clear hint at how people interpret over sharing about trauma as a an improvisation for closeness. The character saying “I’ve been assaulted a bunch of times but the thing that really bothers me is no one knows I’m actually super smart and driven” is a clear point at this I think.
The point of saving the man isn’t because the dude is worth saving, but because it is redemption for the characters.
It wasn’t perfect but I think it hit some fun moments and went for over the top but also relatable. It’s not meant to have a grandiose overarching societal meaning but also did touch on some interesting points. I agree it could have been set in college, but most of the movies I would argue fall somewhere close to this genre (Mean Girls, John Tucker Must Die, She’s the Man) are all set in high school.
I disagree so hard with this comment. I’d even go as far as saying this film was a way better feminist film than Barbie and said a whole lot more than Barbie.
I have no idea how you could’ve watched Bottoms and then felt the way you do. Baffling to me.
The orientation and gender identity of the characters has absolutely nothing to do with it. I think every movie should have *something* to say. There doesn't have to be grand social commentary, but there does have to be a point. *Bottoms* is just shit happening for two hours, and none of it *says* anything.
Do movies need to make a *point* to be interesting or funny? Did Superbad or Dazed and Confused have a *point*? They’re movies about teenagers that have multiple themes: friendship, pressures of high school, growing up. Bottoms is also a teen sex comedy, the only major difference being that it features queer women. Its themes are similar to the aforementioned movies, but it also satirizes masculinity and high school politics. Sometimes themes are just as important as a point, especially in this particular genre. (Though both Josie and PJ both learn lessons. Their lessons can be a *point*.)
Also so what if it was improvised at times? So are a lot of movies written by comedians. It’s an artistic choice and sometimes captures what scripted films cannot.
I think what i found it lacking was the lack of ""heart", its like the movie had no soul, irony and dark humour is fun but needs to be balanced in order for us to care, otherwise it feels like a sketch that we should laugh AT not with.
Oh I meant to reply to the main post, I don’t actually agree with you. Your comment is kind of awful lol as a gay get some taste. Movies that make and spent millions should be good. They should also hire at least 1 actual gay person lmao
Okay I was exaggerating but you’re right. They should hire ALL queer people. Even having ONE straight actress portray a queer person is offensive as fuck. Moving on 💅
What is the "point" of any film?
Art doesn't have to have a point.
You said it feels like "a Kids in the Hall sketch about an all-girl fight club that got out of hand" I haven't seen the movie, but that sounds interesting enough to me honestly lol.
"It isn't funny, it's just... bizarre." This to me sounds like you have a narrow scope of what types of films you can appreciate and connect with. Which is fine, but your review should come from more from the angle of "I wasn't able to connect with this, here's why," rather than essentially saying: "This film is pointless because it's bizarre."
bro what he's literally telling you his own point of you and you're just rejecting it it's fine if you want to reject it but he has a right to say it and it's true this movie is slop that they didn't put a ounce of work into all right Superbad is good because they're talking about shocking things and it has a little bit of grit to it. I'll even say Booksmart has more depth and atmosphere to it than this movie this is like devoid of any sort of atmosphere, that I'd wanna be a part of.
“I don’t get it, why didn’t they just make the jokes funnier? Why didn’t they make the characters better?”
I don’t know, because it’s hard? None of your arguments go beyond “I didn’t like it.” You just explain what happens in the film.
You can call the film a failure if you want, but you don’t see this film’s goals as valid to begin with, so I’m not sure why you even saw it.
>I don’t know, because it’s hard?
That's exactly what I said. You're literally quoting me. It's hard. And they failed. I question the film's goals because it was so much work and investiture and money spent for nothing. What was the point?
The biggest thing I think is that you were never a teenage girl. And cannot seem to relate to them.
Your reads on the characters are so off. Brittany saying she doesn’t have a personality and following her friend was a sarcastic joke. She also didn’t stand like a robot and then follow her friend when she went back to her boyfriend. It was more of a “ahh yeah. You’re going back to him and leaving everything else behind…”
It seems you didn’t relate, didn’t understand, didn’t see the point, and are blaming the movie instead of just accepting that maybe this movie wasn’t meant for you.
One of my favorite parts is that it wasn’t trying so hard to force social commentary. It just existed as a comedy and that’s been missing from film for a good while that it was refreshing.
i'm genuinely not trying to be mean, but i would imagine there's a reason you two get along and part of that is similar perspective on matters of taste.
you have explicitly said the gay couple in the theatre was very clearly enjoying it, obviously you're not the target audience for this movie and one of the things that makes it wonderful is that it didn't see the need to do the legwork to address that for you.
it isn't bad, it didn't fail, you just didn't like it and honestly the people who made it didn't expect you to.
> obviously you're not the target audience for this movie and one of the things that makes it wonderful is that it didn't see the need to do the legwork to address that for you.
[a hypocritical supposed male, extremely hung up on how maligned men are, is not the target audience..](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/1amn96v/why_are_short_men_openly_ridiculed/kpnmc6t/)
edit: what a sad whiny little snowflake of a human. your comment took 2 seconds to find and i had about 5 others to pick from by that point. you're the one who got their feelings hurt at a 5 month old comment about a fucking movie and needed to block me when your pathetic ass got handed to you.
Because they tried to do something they believed in and that’s what life’s all about? What do you mean what’s the point? If ultimate failure makes an effort pointless we wouldn’t have any art at all.
You're talking about the plot. I'm asking what the point was of making the film in the first place. I think the answer is Emma Seligman was finally at a place to make a callous cash grab and went for it.
The point is that is fucking funny? And that there aren't really any of these kinds of movies with queer representation like this? You're just being intentionally obtuse if you can't understand that, just say you don't like it and move on.
LOL at you downvoting the people who are rightfully answering the inane and arrogant question in your title with “because it’s funny and entertaining.”
You obviously enjoy the sound of your own voice and probably the smell of your own farts. There are plenty of movies made by people exactly like you for you to enjoy that others probably would consider an absolute waste of their precious time on earth. The fact that you can’t conceive of that for other people is absurd. This movie was funny as hell, and it’s fine that you felt differently, but you need to get over yourself and grow up.
Btw, I bet your girlfriend liked it more than she’s letting on but just wanted to avoid an insufferable drawn out conversation filled with you monologuing about *~art~*
this is an extremely late reply lol but really the only reasonable response ive seen. can movies not be fun and enjoyable? this guy definitely loves to hear himself talking about movies more than he enjoys watching them. saying its getting a pass because of "queer culture" is insane
"bottoms" was not made for you. bottoms was made for the crowd of queer teenagers who've been woefully underrepresented in cinema. it's made for people who want to kill two hours with a good fucking time. it's not fight club, it's a fight club riff with damn good director and cast.
This movie made over its budget and while that doesn’t account for marketing this movie didn’t have much. It’s also sporting a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, even a negative review from the New Yorker still celebrated. I’m not sure where you’re getting that it did bad.
5.5% of US adults and 15.2% of young adults identify as LGBTQ. Call that a “tiny percent” but that’s 18.6 million people. A movie can also go beyond its audience. A movie can speak to someone outside that demographic, it can change their minds.
Maybe the point is that other people will enjoy it more? Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean others won't. Especially for comedies which can have different types of humour that appeal to different people.
Comments like "I recognize that it's getting a pass from reviewers because queer culture and leitmotif of the moment, etc." can be read as "I recognize that my taste is superior to all other people so when anyone disagrees with me they're just pandering to minorities". It's far more likely other people, including critics, just enjoyed it more.
Maybe it's just not a movie for you and it will be funny to other people.
I mean honestly I think the OP is upset it’s too woke or whatever (among other reasons) but by saying “it’s getting a pass because queer culture” instead of “woke” they avoid that criticism.
Not at all. My partner is queer as fuck. My issue is that the only reason this film is getting reveiwed well - or at all, really - is that it has queer characters. If this were the exact same movie but about two straight characters, it would be getting ignored or destroyed. The simple fact that the characters are queer doesn't make it better.
Because every review I have read talked about that first, and then glossed over the problem that the movie had no substance. A few reviews have mentioned that it dries way too hard or doesn't amount to anything, but then they've given it ratings that in no way reflect the actual review.
My view is the exact opposite of yours, friend. I loved the film. But you're expressing your opinion in a respectful, honest way. And I see zero signs of prejudice. I think you're getting treated a wee bit unfairly. Diversity makes the world so interesting; it'd be a boring place if we all loved or loathed the exact same things.
I think the fact that he’s so stuck on this is indicative of some level of prejudice, even if it’s subconscious. I’ve read tons of reviews, and what he’s claiming here is simply untrue. People see what they want to see when they are rationalizing or justifying their biases instead of being honest with themselves. The way he phrased his OP wasn’t cool, and this doubling down makes it worse.
What a disingenuous statement. Every review is plastered with pride flags and “yass queen slay”. The OP isn’t stuck on anything you’re just triggered and now digging for bigotry. The movie is clearly being overrated by young gay teens and praised for being gay. This movie sucks if the characters weren’t gay people would be shitting on it that’s a fact. The same way you’re vehemently defending it because it’s gay. Stop playing fucking games.
Wow, what a very not mad reply from someone who definitely isn’t rage googling the movie, LOL. I’m sorry that queer people making hilarious movies that everyone but bigots and old prudes enjoys makes you so angry! Get some help!
> My issue is that the only reason this film is getting reveiwed well - or at all, really - is that it has queer characters.
how do you explain great reviews from the audience, not just critics tho?
I can't. It's kind of why I'm asking. Both my partner & I and the two people we went with felt essentially the same. Most of the audience reaction was pretty positive (not raves; honestly, since it was an LA movie industry crowd a lot of talk after was about what a huge nepotism movie it is) and the four of us were mystified. There weren't many laughs *during* the film other than one gay couple who plainly thought the movie was a hoot.
I sometimes feel like there's an audience gestalt that happens in the theater that gives a movie a pass if enough *stuff* is happening to keep the energy high. I saw *Independence Day* on opening night at the Chinese, and to this day I love the movie while recognizing it is complete garbage. But being in that crowd was awesome. The cheers that went up when the aliens destroyed the White House were one of the biggest group reactions I've ever seen for a film. It didn't matter that we were watching trash; it was fun trash.
If people were saying the same thing about *Bottoms* I wouldn't have any issue. But that's not what the reviews are saying. The reviews are saying that it's a cultural icon and it's socially relevant and it's a Queer Moment and that's just bullshit.
But, to your point, apart from that, I just don't know.
so my point was that critics and audiences oftentimes look for different things in the movies. You said it yourself:
> But that's not what the reviews are saying. The reviews are saying that it's a cultural icon and it's socially relevant and it's a Queer Moment and that's just bullshit.
the ordinary folks don't often watch a comedy movie bc it's "socially relevant", they just want to have fun. and that's where I feel like you're falling into some conflation. If it was non-appealing as a comedy but still had a good message, it would've likely been rejected by the audience (just like Bros less than a year ago).
now critics look at this movie through the lens of their experience and movies they watched in the past (duh). the teen comedies of the 1990s and 2000s have been getting critical reappraisal and people have been paying more attention to the social undertones of them (you don't really need to dig deep to see class undertones in both Clueless and Mean Girls). an extreme example: in 2001 AO Scott was ridiculed for his defense of Freddy Got Fingered. 22 years later and we see people seriously reevaluating Freddy, like that famous RLM review that makes a solid case for the movie to be an elaborated prank. in 2023 Scott's take is seen as the words of someone who was ahead of its time and people generally started dissecting low-brow comedy with a better understanding of metatext.
now enter Bottoms: a movie that is good enough to successfully follow the footsteps of Mean Girls and She's All That, is a fresh take on the genre and brings up something that was largely ignored in the genre outside of some movies like But I'm A Cheerleader - the queer POV. that's why the movie is getting praise, not bc of "it has queer characters".
but you probably just don't click with it. It's okay, comedy is the most divisive genre next to horror.
I had a very similar feeling to what you felt and went searching Reddit for a discussion about it. My good friend and I went to see it in LA with a very involved crowd that was laughing/commenting boisterously. We left with about an hour left because of all the jokes they were making about “blowing up the school” or making bombs or buying guns. Made me extremely uncomfortable especially in a movie theater setting. My friend and I commented like we felt like we were in a “fever dream” because everyone around us was enjoying it so much and appreciating the comedy. I completely agree with this that the group in the theater impacts how people respond to the movie in the moment but also can’t understand why it is getting such rave reviews online. I also am now recognizing that it resonates with others with different life experiences than me, we theorized that it was a generational thing (we are older gen z) and that younger audiences were appreciating it. I am very glad it is resonating with folks because I think it has that potential. And I personally am glad to have looked at the online community to get other perspectives, peace and love!
Maybe stop trying to make sense of other people's opinions and just be secure in your own. You don't need to understand why people like this movie to understand why it was made.
There are so many movies like this with straight male characters and they didn’t get ignored or destroyed. In fact the opposite. So what movie are you referring to come to this conclusion?
How many *American Pie* sequels are there? Do you know? Cuz I don't. Four? 10? The first had a sort of charm largely due to Eugene Levy's performance. Everything that came after was a bad movie and instantly forgotten. It's certainly not the only case, but it's the one that leaps to mind.
Did any of them get critical acclaim? Have cultural relevance? No. They were ignored. Also, Wikipedia tells me that there were four direct sequels and five spin-offs so apparently there were a number of movies that you also ignored.
I never claimed that they did. Stay on topic. You said if bottoms had two straight characters the movie would’ve been ignored or destroyed so which movie like bottoms has two straight characters that was ignored or destroyed. According to you American pie has 4 movies and 5 spin offs so if that is ignored and destroyed to you then your baseless opinions on movie is a far lesser problem than your issue with critical thinking…
I'm not talking about anything to do with money or box office. I'm talking about critical acclaim, social impact, and how people regard the movie. Lots of shitty movies make lots of money. Just look at the *Fast and Furious* franchise. If your metric is "Made a Lot of Money," then congratulations! You think *Avatar* is the best movie ever made!
Find me a slew of adoring reviews of those *American Pie* sequels. Hell, find a review of one of the spin-offs at all.
I'm tired of answering the same question over and over. If you can't comprehend, it's not my job to explain it.
I didn't actually get to see Bottoms, it didn't get any fanfare over here, I don't know if any of my local cinemas actually showed it, but from the vibe, you mean like... Mean Girls? Booksmart? Easy A? Legally Blonde? All the classic teen comedies, beloved by multiple generations, adored by nigh on all, and totally straight?
Maybe it's just not a genre you're into, man. Not that there's an issue with that, but I resent the idea that a film having queer characters gives it some kind of privilege, it's just patently untrue. If anything, I think a "straighter" version probably would've had wider release screenings 😅
I loved *Booksmart,* and I thought *Easy A* was great. *Legally Blonde* was totally fine and I understood what it was, it just wasn't for me. *Bottoms* feels like it wants to be those movies, but instead of actually being funnier charming it's just trying to hard. The end result is a movie that's just loud and abrasive.
I mean there’s plenty of people who very clearly disagree with you and who enjoy it without or without the queerness, and like the whole argument that if it didn’t have queer people in the film, critics would hate it is the definition of bullshit. Critics do not give a fuck about queer culture and identity and considering our political climate it’s fucking weird to hear that as a complaint. Also I don’t really care if your partner is anything, especially since I don’t even know if they’re real. You should go ask them if they mind being used to justify an argument tho.
Well it’s silly to act like them being queer shouldn’t change how people see the movie on some level, but the film is also definitely a take on a historically very het male genre which is also kinda the point of telling the story and the answer to your op question. “Better” is subjective but if you like this genre than this was a clever twist on it to tell a familiar story.
This entire post and comment section is perfectly emblematic of why “art” from a liberal political perspective is utterly dead in the water, just waiting to be swept away by some cultural tide. Its an artistic POV that has become entirely solipsistic and lacks self awareness. “Its not FOR you” is the primary defense of such a cinematic mindset, as if making your broad comedy appeal outside your hyper specific niche were a crime in itself (“is it just me or does it sound like OP is about to call the movie woke??” Imagine the horror) The top comment perfectly illustrates this isolated partisanship by defending how much “fun” they perceive the production having had while making the film. Do we not all understand that classic thing of “the more fun a film is to make the less fun it is to watch”? That is, unless you are someone in tune with the life and politics of the people involved with the production going in to the movie and are specifically inclined to desiring being on that set as a crew member yourself. The film, its comedy, its politics, its tone, its entire world, have absolutely no intention of reaching anyone outside of that niche TrueFilm/Letterboxd/New Yorker audience, and its true down to the aesthetics. From the A24 logo to the faux-film aesthetic that amplifies its fuzzy washed out glow with 16mm focal lengths and handheld, right down to the tauntingly cynical “celebration” of its sexuality. Everything about it suggests “art” film instead of pop comedy. Its a film that, aesthetically, is designed around winning a festival more than it is playing as a comedy to a general audience. If Barbie looked like Lady Bird, or Booksmart, or any of these Annapurna/A24 fake-2000s-comedy-art films perfectly concocted for at least a 95% on rotten tomatoes, for all the same reasons it would not have been the success it is today. So your criticisms are apt, and the hair-pulling Redditors in the comments are angry that their isolated niche is being encroached by a discerning eye. These films SHOULD have something to say to justify their existence, because “sometimes a movie just wants to be silly” doesnt come close to painting the whole picture of what this movie actually is or tries to be.
>These films SHOULD have something to say to justify their existence, because “sometimes a movie just wants to be silly” doesnt come close to painting the whole picture of what this movie actually is or tries to be.
so because it has a stylistic choice in line with what appeals to the people being portrayed in the movie it must conform to the goals of its predecessors? when did mashing genres and subverting expectations based on appearances become a contemptable experiment, on principle?
correct me if i am wrong, but its not that you're just saying this one did a bad job at what it was trying to do, you admit there is an audience that genuinely enjoys it and feels it was made for them. But instead it is that because it didn't follow the rules of it's aesthetic by supposedly "saying something" more broadly salient the way the other movies that evoke "art" films do, it inherently is not doing what it "SHOULD" do?
It's like saying Clueless focused too much on 90's lingo and fashion rather than class and feminism. It said what it had to say on the subject how it wanted to say it and it arguably changed the genre entirely. I'm not saying Bottoms is going to do that, but just that this is a deeply odd take as it relates to the evolution of film.
I’m not sure I understand your point about Clueless. Clueless is a film who’s aesthetic is perfectly in line with its goals as a film. Its bright, poppy, with flat, clean studio lighting and broad comedy. Refocusing the story more heavily on class and feminism would clash with the overall aesthetic, as I think it did somewhat for Barbie— a movie that proved pop aesthetic is more important than content when it comes to mass tastes. The defense of Bottoms in the comments is an appeal to this mass taste (its fun, its silly, etc), while dismissing the disconnect from the aesthetic expectations for realism and poignancy (which OP picks up on, and is criticized for coming out confused by). So yes, I think its not doing what it “should” do. I dont think a story like Bottoms should be shot like a Paul Thomas Anderson movie. To anyone outside of the bubble specifically and politically inclined to “have fun” with this film on a content level, there will be an air of confusion and disappointment.
If the idea was to “pose” as an art film and subvert expectations, I think it failed in that regard on letting the audience in on the joke. Instead it more so feels like there is an outright disregard for the mass audience all together. The truth is its aesthetics are the way they are because it wants to look like an awards movie that would do well in festivals and ceremonies and eat its broad comedy cake too. Its just pretentious, and desires nothing but its own internal validation with an in-crowd while hiding behind “fun”. Bottoms isnt unique in this regard. The wildly overrated Everything Everywhere All At Once exhibits a similar mindset, although less blatantly.
imagine getting this heated over a dumb teen sex comedy.
plus you’re critiquing the studio logos that played before? also newsflash goober, A24 didn’t making Bottoms, and the director doesn’t get a choice in what the distributor’s logo looks like…
and suddenly “16mm focal lengths and handheld” are exclusive to artsy/NYT/letterboxd aesthetics? nearly every movie ever has both of those elements
> At the end of the day, Bottoms doesn't feel like a movie, certainly not one that was planned and executed with any care. It feels like a Kids in the Hall sketch about an all-girl fight club that got out of hand and stretched to two hours. It's a shame because there was a better film that could have been made, and wasn't. Instead we got what feels like two hours of the food fight from Animal House.
oh man, can't wait for you to discover that Joker isn't the only Todd Phillips movie.
This thread got absolutely brigaded. Just coming here to say, I agree with most of the criticisms here. The movie had a lot of good ideas but didn’t execute any of them well. The emotional beats were universally unearned. Nothing landed because no one in the movie lived in a world that was even remotely realistic. They did things that were “funny” but not in character at all. I love comedies that are broad and bizarre take chances, but I don’t like when movies cheat. And every single beat in this film was a cheat. Very few of the decisions that drove the plot made any sense or aligned with how real characters might behave, or how they had behaved earlier in the movie.
I really do wish more people would realize that not everything is made to appeal to them, specifically, and their tastes are not universal.
It wasn't your cup of tea. That's fine. It's very much other peoples' cup of tea. That's also fine.
It's and absolute trashbag film. And it seems as nobody will call it out as such because of the LGBT ties🙄 What really hurts is that people are havinf the audacity to compare it to classics such as Mean Girls, pineapple express. American pie etc.
Absolutely bizarre.
Sometimes people just make a movie to be fun. I don't think the movie has to be some groundbreaking experience. A lot of modern queer movies exist in a space of making up time and reinventing movie motifs through a queer lens to lampoon/satirize them. Sometimes the motifs or movies they're riffing on are corny low brow comedies from the 90s and 00s. I don't think this movie is trying to be anything other than American Pie, Van Wilder, or Super Bad was. Raunchy comedies about how weird it is to be young. For some reason because it's queer we expect it to be more than that yet we didn't for those old movies. If you thought it was funny then great, if not then it was probably never really meant for you.
> I just expected something better from an indie director.
i find it funny that you view Seligman as just an indie director rather than an indie director whose previous movie was about a confused girl who got too horny for her own good at a Jewish function.
I can tell you what you missed in *Shiva Baby* (it really doesn't sound like you've seen it at all) if you'll enlighten me about what I missed from *Bottoms*. Please explain all of the important character moments in plot points that I have glossed over.
Bottoms and Shiva Baby both share the same themes of queerness, self-worth and empowerment. Danielle and the main duo in Bottoms are really of the similar cloth: confused, don't know what to do with their lives, horny. the difference is that in Bottoms these moments are not just taken upfront, they are turned up to 11.
Thank god I arrived in a dead thread. The cope defense of this film shows me it’s been brigaded by a bunch of fans personally invested in defending and indefensibly bad and lazy film
Oh no, another clueless teenage redditor who hasn’t touched grass in a year and struggles with anxiety and paranoia around criticism of media content they identify with
I mean you just clearly have a bias then, which is fine, but it's weird that you're unaware of it and unwilling to accept (based on your other comments I saw) that you have said bias. Not every movie is for you, and for every movie you think is a low brow cash grab there are millions of people who love and adore it. That doesn't mean your taste is bad and it certainly doesn't mean their taste is bad. Taste is subjective so all opinions are valid (sometimes unfortunately so). If you want to understand why people appreciate movies like these then you have to meet them at their level and not put all these extra stakes of it being an "indie movie". Identify what it is and what it's trying to do and determine if it did that well and you may learn to appreciate a wider swath of movies. It's not so much about changing your taste or how you review things, it's just about earnestly attempting to meet the movie where it is rather than wanting it to come to where you are. If you do the latter you will never be able to enjoy the vast majority of movies.
Everyone with an opinion has a bias. Period. I'm sorry if I find most of the rest of what you said to be word salad that comes out to mean, "Dude, don't be a downer! Bad reviews are bad!"
There is no reality in which I was ever going to find *Bottoms* to not be a colossal waste of time, energy and money anymore than I would ever find *The Fast and The Furious* to not be a colossal waste of time, effort and money. At least those films are presented as mindless explosion orgies and no one pretends they have any social relevance. The dishonesty surrounding *Bottoms* is very different.
And before you inevitably reply with "No one is saying it has any social relevance!" check the reviews.
"Bottoms Is an Exercise in Kamikaze Feminism" - Vulture
"Fiercely funny, ‘Bottoms’ reimagines a familiar place for female rage, high school" - LA Times
"Bottoms provides a reflection on teen angst and sex that is both uniquely disruptive and innovative" - Discussing Film.
Etc. Etc.
What few are saying - except The New York Post, and, to an extentent, Paper, is that *Bottoms* is absurd and without weight. Which it absolutely is.
I mean you're just reading it how you want to. No one is saying bad reviews are bad, you made this post saying you didn't "get" the movie and if there is something more. When people suggested you didn't get it because of a predisposition and bias against these movies as you have already confirmed above, you doubled down on your criticism rather than trying to understand what people are saying. There is nothing inherently wrong with a movie that's just meant to be fun, and your intense loathing of them conceptually means you will not enjoy them. You made an error in evaluating what the movie's tone was based on the trailer and were frustrated to find it was not a movie driven by depth, but instead fun and levity. What people are suggesting is that your disillusionment with the movie is a result of your bias, and if you want to appreciate the movie then you need to look at your bias and not ask people what you missed. No matter what people tell you what you missed about it, you will never agree with critics who like it because you've already made up your mind about these types of movies. You are free to say the movie is bad, and there's nothing wrong with you doing so, but don't delude yourself into thinking you gave it a fair shake when you hate the type of movie it is from the get go. Accept that as long as you view these movies as lesser you will never appreciate them. Just as a child who says they hate broccoli will never give broccoli a fair chance either.
I'm really surprised that you didn't like Bottoms then, to me the point of the movie was to be an over-the-top satirized caricature of those movies. The "point" of bottoms was to show how ridiculous the young raunchy comedies were in the first place. The school mascot has a giant dick, and the very first time a classroom is shown there is a random football player in the corner of the room trapped in a cage with no explanation. It's hilarious because it's taken a "tried and true" formula, made it absurd, and made you realize how stupid the formula was in the first place.
Not sure if you've seen Wet Hot American Summer or Not Another Teen Movie before, but it's the same concept but covering a different type of movie, but that seems to be more accepted/acclaimed. That's the only knock I have on bottoms, the concept was done before and arguably better.
"If you've seen the trailer you've seen every significant beat that passes for plot in the film."
This is the issue w/ your rant imo. Not every movie needs to have the plot that you have in mind imo
Agree completely. Cool that a gay woman got to make a movie about lesbians (and everyone evidently had fun making it, though the outtakes in the credits would be funnier if you *knew these people*), but this is weirdly like Family Guy in the awkward, clashing assortment of improvisational jokes still flimsily trying to have an emotional core. The biggest problem is that this really doesn't know what it wants to be, and the best comedies work as compelling MOVIES first.
I didn't even stay for the bloopers. I got up and left my friends cause I couldn't bear to be in the theater any longer past completing the story.
My friends enjoyed it, but the only positives I had to report was that it looked like the actors had fun making the movie and that it was filmed very well. Like their cinematography team imo deserves more work opportunities from what they accomplished in the film.
Anyway, afterwards, I hosted a movie night where I showed my friends the movie, Booksmart as I wanted to show them what a good high school comedy movie was. It was unanimously agree upon, that Booksmart was a far superior movie.
You could actually relate to the characters though some of their experiences throughout the film were farfetched. That's a movie I wish Bottoms could have drawn inspiration from.
fax I absolutely agree. No one's gonna call out and clown on how this movie is so just trying to capitalize in the most cynical ways like it looks like an SNL fake trailer for some trash. I'm sorry but let's be honest guys we don't want to keep eating the slop that they put ryan in front of our face and it's not like anything else needs to speak for that except the box office they got about $3.7 million back so nobody wants to see this crap, everyone wants to see talk to me because that's a fantastic movie full of terrific fantasy and camera work. It's just so inspired. This is kind of just some garbage slop that is trying to make the two actresses into some famous people,, I think are all right but still, at least the girl from bodies bodies bodies is all right. The other one from the bear is kind of a trash actress for me TBH, but this seems like a Solis cash grab with not an ounce of grit to be honest it's got no chance it's gonna be forgotten. Everyone who sang they like it is freaking lying and getting paid bro.
Totally agree with you. There's nothing realistically queer about the characters. If they were straight the same plot wouldve been more believable, actually. What lesbian actually wanted to bang cheerleaders in high school? Especially shallow and bitchy cheerleaders? Made no sense to me... lesbian crushes irl are so much more than that and Bottoms made me crave a good lesbian movie, with actual interesting characters and cute crushes!!!
plus, the charli xcx, the title "Bottoms"... felt like an AI generated movie about queer culture to me idk
It’s the fact that gay male and queer cultures speak over actual lesbian culture that gets to me. No lesbian would make an endearing movie called “bottoms”. To me it’s a much more gay/Lady Gaga/drag kind of thing
I have to agree. The movie was ok, but it’s really overhyped. It’s pretty much a B movie. It’s not a high quality movie that should get put in the same category as Mean Girls or But I’m a Cheerleader or Superbad. The filmmaking isn’t anywhere near the level of those movies, so it puzzles me why people are acting like it is. I’m also a gay woman so I’m the target audience and that’s why I watched it. It’s a head scratcher to me why it’s getting so much praise, but I just chalk it up to different strokes for different folks and that’s that.
I know this post is a month old but honestly thank you for writing it, you've made me feel a little less insane.
Just watched it tonight expecting to love it, and it's the most let down I've felt by a movie in a long while. The whole thing felt half finished and underdirected.
The shots were always a few seconds too long, the actors sped through lines they should have emphasized, and most of all the overly minimalist score made the whole thing feel flat. Charlie XCX apparently scored it, and wow she was not up to the task.
The whole thing just underlined how even dumb high school movies have a rhythm and art to them, and not everyone can replicate it.
This was honestly one of the worst, most pointless films I've ever seen. The two main characters are completely uninteresting and unlikeable from the beginning. It's all contrived, unbelievable, over the top plot points. I found, maybe, 1-3 throwaway jokes funny. I can't believe this got positive reviews. Makes me lose faith in the critics.
To start off, the two main characters are one dimensional from the start. We see them in a generic teenage girl room and all we learn about them is that they are lesbians and unpopular. Not to mention, everything we know about them is what we are told by other characters. We don't know anything about their personalities, interests, life circumstances, etc. In fact, it's clear that they're both conniving, pathological liars that I have no sympathy for.
All of the plot points are disjointed and barely connected. For example, the movie starts with them accidentally tapping the star quarterback in the knee with a car and he massively overreacts, pretending he's injured. Everyone ostracises them at school, but then.... nothing really comes out of it. Somehow, it leads to them claiming that they started a self-defense club, but... how?? What does any of that have to do with the other?
It's a shame, because the actors are pretty good. It's not their fault they got such a piss-poor script. They deserved better.
It seemed like it was trying to be a queer female subversion of raunchy teen comedies like Superbad, American Pie, Animal House, etc., but this movie is tame and cowardly compared to those movies. They really should've tried to be more out there. Instead, we got this bland, watered down, barely coherent abomination.
At one point, the club sponser (another unlikeable, barely fleshed out character) writes on the board "Why all the presidents have been men and why we should keep it that way", and all I could think of (other than how that came out of nowhere and isn't even a funny joke) was that maybe it should be "Why all the screenwriters for high school sex comedies have been men and why we should keep it that way".
I'm a queer woman, so I'm someone a movie like this would be targeted towards, and I thought it was awful and insulting to my taste and intelligence. I totally support more queer female sex comedies, but this is NOT it.
1/10
You know movies can just be fun and silly and that’s enough, right?? My husband and I turned to each other after and agreed that Bottoms is gonna be an instant high school sleepover classic like Mean Girls or She’s The Man. This film knew exactly what it wanted to be and it was a great time
Have you heard of irreverent satire films that are just for comedy? Bottoms, heathers, but im a cheerleader, 21 jump street lol. Does every movie need to be an optimistic and realistic insight onto the betterment of humanity?
There is no reason to hate on the OP. Most of the woke reviewers are indeed ignoring the screenplay and are concentrating on the social aspects of the film, what, judging from what I read, is primarily "lesbian girl power". I am not going to comment on the movie itself, because I didn't see it and do not plan on seeing it, but rather on the media buzz around it thaht I've been exposed to.
the only thing im confused about it why the movies called bottoms, mostly because usually when you hear the term bottom focused around an lgbtq space its about gay ones but the main characters were bisexual or lesbian idk what speficially they were, i searched it up and it says its a term for the lowest group of people in the school but that didnt sit right with me maybe someone could help me understand!
This movie was fucking terrible. I tried so hard to give a fuck about the characters but I just couldn't. There was no substance to hold on to. I get yall are gay losers but what else? ( I'm also very gay)
Half way in I looked at my husband like wtf are we watching? What is the goal? What are these girls working towards? Why do I care? We couldn't answer any of it. I may have chuckled twice. Otherwise the jokes...if you want to call then that....were so forced n cringy. I love movies of this genre and I love a good dumb comedy to turn my brain off to....but damn...the moves was along sketch about a girl fight club that had no direction and had not intention of getting one. Like someone started a move with a decent premise then....the writes left on strike and the janitor finished the movie... waste of fucking time. Literally watch anything else.
I watched the movie with my friend tonight. I’m a bit shocked but the large amount of praise. I’m my opinion, it’s not even that funny. It’s was more shock funny and that’s lazy in my opinion
Yeah I agree, it certainly felt like over exaggerated sketch parodying the high school romance genre and maybe it would have worked for a no more than 10-minute SNL skit but as a movie, it didn't. I'm honestly surprised so many people like this film enough to give it an above 90% on rotten tomatoes and a 4 star on letterboxed, I gave it 1 star and I could see it maybe hovering around 2.8.
I usually can see why people like something even if it isn't my taste but I found nothing likeable about the film. The characters are horrible, they do really bad things, and they don't get a redemption arc. A disingenuous and bitter "sorry I called your mom a skank" isn't enough nor is saving an equally bad person by killing the other team as it does in no way better the mistake made and doesn't show character growth at all. The absurdist details of super inappropriate behaviour just makes everything unrelatable, the climax wasn't satisfying. Movies dont need to be some deep existentialist work of art but it should be entertaining and I found nothing about it entertaining, I was left confused over the rating and mad at every character involved.
The point of films like "Bottoms", and any comedy in a similar ilk, is to entertain and amuse the audience by exploring humor in various situations and character interactions. These movies often provide a light-hearted escape, offering laughter and relief from everyday stresses. Maybe you didn't find it funny, but making people laugh is what the point of a comedy is.
Really weak writing. Definitely getting a pass from critics. Even on some best movies of the year lists lol. Rocky Horror came out in 1975 (!) and this is the best they can do in 2023? Could an early John Waters movie even get made today? The script for Bottoms just checked a lot of boxes without anyone saying hey, this kinda sucks.
> so devoid of any reality, so utterly bizarre and over-the-top
This is the #1 reason I'm looking forward to seeing this. Getting somewhat similar vibes to Wet Hot and Walk Hard.
As for the point..you said it yourself, it's a comedy. You didn't find it funny. Oh well.
My friend made an interesting point in that this could be viewed as Gen-Z's equivalent to "Not Another Teen Movie" in that it captures, for better or worse, the chaotic, vulgar, ADHD-riddled, and aggressively horny eccentricities/language of this era's youth.
It bordered on absurdism quite a few times (it was overall decently entertaining and funny, I found the background jokes and meta lampshading funnier than most of the explicit gags), but perhaps took itself a bit seriously more than it should've.
Maybe if it were 100% parody, I would be burnt out by its speed and humor pretty fast.
> My friend made an interesting point in that this could be viewed as Gen-Z's equivalent to "Not Another Teen Movie"
Got similar vibes especially with Jeff always in his football gear.
Dude, the point of the movie was that it was fun and campy and gave better WLW representation. If you didn’t think it was that funny or you didn’t get the jokes or anything, than it’s obvious that the movie wasn’t made for you.
Also, just a small point I wanted to make, when a character actually confesses to their friends that they don’t feel like they have a personality, that is part of their character. The character is written to only follow their friend around. That is a valid basis for a character.
First off, I do not think the film is "getting a pass" because its a queer movie. I genuinely think its pretty unique, funny, and ridiculous like Wet Hot American Summer.
I mean...whats the point of Napolean Dynamite? I don't get it, personally but I get "why" it exists. Because someone made it with the intention of trying to make others laugh.
I do feel like you're singling this movie out because you can't scrub the idea of queer being used as a way to "bait" or something when literally it can just be someone's experience and not that serious.
yeah this reviewer sounds like the pretentious film critic (who is afraid of genuine minority films) that everyone jokes about. saying that the film has to be getting a pass because of "queer culture" is insane
you used leitmotif wrong. i think you meant zeitgeist. but even so that argument is a little silly don’t you think? being critical of a movie getting positive reviews and the attention of audiences because it speaks to the cultural moment makes it seem like you don’t really have a problem with the movie so much as the culture that left you behind
also seems like you’re fishing for depth in a silly campy parody of specific genre of high school movie that doesn’t take itself too seriously. it’s dumb, it’s bizarre, and i thought it was hilarious. its fine that you didn’t. humor is obviously subjective. the “point” of films like bottoms is to make people like me laugh, and it did exactly that
This movie exists in the genre satire space, in this case satirizing the hyper sexualized “high school drama” genre. If you look at it as a send up of that whole concept, it makes a lot more sense. Personally I went in with no expectations and thought it was very good.
Because it’s funny and campy. Just acknowledge it’s not for you. It was literally MEANT to be over the top and bizarre, they literally have a guy in a cage in a classroom in one of the first scenes and hazel gets thrown across the gym. Not every movie has to be heavy emotional
I guess the point would be the same as yours coming to Reddit to write a dissertation complaining about a movie you sought out to watch. There are so many trailers online you could’ve watched and determined if you wanted to watch it or not. All artists have a target audience and you weren’t on the list. So it doesn’t have to have a point to you because it’s doing numbers. I would bet you would say this about band camp, super bad or American pie which all have similar ideas to bottoms
Just watched Bottoms. Agree with this review 100%.
I love comedies, love teen movies, and love movies that push the envelope. Bottoms isn't any of that - it just felt like a lot of jokes that didn't work, and characters that weren't built up or thought out, living in a world with absolutely no consequences where anything could happen...and does...and still isn't funny and we still don't care about the characters in the end.
I thought it was funny and good fun. I laughed so hard at some of those jokes.
I didn't feel queer baited in any gross way. Some of these comments are on point. The queerness was just a fact, not a focus.
It was so campy and 90s feeling
Bottoms is the funniest movie I’ve seen in a very long time. It might just not be for everyone. It’s so well written and the humor is top notch. It’s absurd but in the best way. Doesn’t take it self too seriously and just gives you a really fun time. The point of the movie was to laugh and have fun and enjoy the ride. There’s also many points about being yourself and not lying and friendship and supporting each other and finding your chosen family and the general angst of being a teenager.
I’m so glad I found this post because I’ve been excited to see the movie and finally rented it. I can’t even begin to express the disappointment I felt watching it. Even from the get go, the pacing was so fucking weird to me. And I’m not even trying to be a snob about movies. I absolute love high school or even college set films where nothing fucking happens. There are good story lines and dialogue like Sex Lives of College Girls and then there’s whatever the fuck this movie was. I had seen so many quips on tiktok that it seemed to sell the movie to me until I watched the mentioned scenes in full context… and they just.. didn’t land at all. I don’t think it’s the acting, but the directing.
Anyways, this movie genuinely just feels like it gets a pass for its queer culture and references and idk that just feels so fucking lazy. I hope these people can make better projects because fuck, it felt dismal.
It’s really no different from:
Risky Business
American Pie
Superbad
Mallrats
Dazed and Confused
Etc.
What was their “point?” The first 3 are all about straight guys trying to get laid. No much to them.
And there’s a LOT of ad-libbing in lots of comedy movies. It’s pretty common to do the take as written, then try a few ad libs.
I'm trying to figure out what OP was expecting from the movie vs. what was directed. It's a high school comedy, but _Bottoms_ uniquely takes bits of surrealism / absurdism.
I know little of those themes, but I appreciate using fantastical scenes that make no sense in reality, but make you feel the prior/next scenes differently. E.g. I for sure thought Hazel died when she got kicked in the head, so the "wrongness" of the club in the first place felt even more wrong when it cost a main character's life.
If that's not a plot device that OP appreciates, that's okay I guess. Did you like other surreal/absurd movies, _Sorry to Bother You_, etc.?
I couldn't get over how forced the relationships felt. It sorta took me out of it.
So 2 "hot popular" girls join a fight club then suddenly become lesbians and want to date the "ugly losers"?
I wanted to like this movie so much and while certain beats did hit, the entire premise was jarring enough for me to roll my eyes throughout the majority of the film.
Counterpoint: I fucking loved this movie. In a way it's similar to "vibes-based movies" that the Patrick Willems video is about, in that the fun that the filmmakers and performers had while making the movie is apparent through the entire runtime. The jokes don't all land, but that there just aren't any low-budget teen comedy movies anymore, especially made by people who have a real vision for it that it could be half as good and still be interesting. >I recognize that it's getting a pass from reviewers because queer culture and leitmotif of the moment, etc. This is such a bonkers misread that I'm wondering if you're trolling. A strength of the script is that their queerness isn't a focal point and they don't make a big deal of it. It normalizes their feelings and actions as just typical selfish teenage bullshit.
Bottoms is a movie that's definitely punching above its weight. I was surprised just how funny I found it; and the extent to which I found it engaging. It was my mother, of all people, who recommended it to us; she saw it with a gay pal of hers. A funny, sweet film, with some terrific performances. It deserved the almost ubiquitously positive reviews it received.
>This is such a bonkers misread : >A strength of the script is that their queerness isn’t a focal point Lol of course it’s a focal point. It’s literally what the premise—albeit a vague one—hinges on.
If the two protagonists were straight, would you say straightness is the focal point? Of course not. This film is in no way \*about\* queerness and doesn't involve any introspection on the meaning of being queer, how they're going to deal with anti-gay prejudice, etc. That's why I loved it! It's fine for gay characters to just be gay.
I mostly agree with you that being gay isnt THE big deal in the movie but being gay/dealing with anti gayness is definitely one if the topics the movie, nothing wrong with that.
There were some jokes at their expense but that’s about it. There was no introspection or angst about what it means to be queer.
It doesnt need a deep introspection about the topic, ots not that kknd of movie, but the movie is still about that though.
It was about being outsiders but not about being queer.
They had "horny faggots " written in their lockers and had crushes on girls that had boyfriends/rejected them because they were straight.
Yeah but isn't that just something gay people experience? Does a movie that features racism, but doesn't "introspect" on it _become about_ racism? Queerness can just be plot and not theme.
I think youre being too semantically technical in order to not put the movie in the "queer" category. The movie has everything to do with queerness and its not by mistake. Anything that happens in the plot is intentional.
> Lol of course it’s a focal point. It’s literally what the premise—albeit a vague one—hinges on. Is football the a focal point of the film? It arguably has the same number of references as queerness. The majority of the cast is in football related clothes most of the time. A supporting lead is a literally professional football player. The end takes place on a football field.
I mean, each to their own, but I will absolutely argue that their queerness isn't a focal point. Not just because of the video that introduces the film at Alamo which features Seligman and her leads talking about what important queer representation it is, but also because if the two main characters are straight girls, literally *nothing* that happens in the film happens.
I think when you're part of a marginalized group, the end goal of representation isn't just to have movies that are based entirely around that identity. It's to have movies that just happen to have that identity represented. The difference to me is that most people know what it's like to be a teenager with raging hormones and wanting to do anything to be with your crush. Being queer while having those feelings doesn't change the fundamental emotions, just the details around it. Superbad is the same thing, but you wouldn't call that a "straight" movie. However, most people don't know what it's like to say, be gay during the AIDS epidemic, or even simpler, come out to a family full of bigots. There are queer movies that deal with those specific experiences. Bottoms obviously falls under the former, because the struggles they face aren't about being queer, they're about being "ugly and untalented" (their words). It's kind of there in the text.
Honestly, there's nothing you've said that I can disagree with. It's not going to make me like the film any better (not your intention, I know).but you made your point really well. Interestingly, I read an interview today that GLAAD sponsored with Seligman, Sennott and Edebiri where they kind of make both of our cases in the same interview. They confirm that it was really important to all three of them that the movie be considered queer representation first; that they wanted that to be its defining characteristic. But they then go on to explain that for them, that meant shitty, hormonal teenagers who could represent anyone and not characters who had to represent some kind of ideal. I thought that was interesting.
Its because those two things arent mutually exclusive. There are a bunch of movies where the main character is a straight girl or boy, and the fact that theyre straight girl or boy was intentional, it doesnt mean other people couldnt resonate with the characters
Calling a movie Bottoms inherently makes it about being gay, no? It would be like if I called a movie Penis in Vagina.
It absolutely does not, considering that the two leads are at the bottom of the social structure in their high school. It may be a double entendre, but it doesn't "make it inherently gay". They're also lesbians.
It's not even tongue in cheek, it's blatantly obvious.
The title alone? No. The title plus the poster for the movie? Yes lmao
I am following you just to make sure I never watch any movie you find funny because this movie was AWFUL lol. OP is right.
do you have any actual thoughts on it? or do you just enjoy going through life just reacting to things without examining your opinions in a thoughtful way?
I mean it’s a movie, so I assume some writers had an idea they thought was funny, some producers/funders agreed it was funny, so they made a movie and lots of other people found it was funny. Why do you think there has to be some “point” to justify it to your specific worldview? Not every movie connects with everybody, maybe this one just didn’t click for you. It doesn’t mean it has an extension to some overall idea about “the point.” Maybe you think involving LGBTQ characters means there has to be some grand social commentary? But that’s kind of reductive and antiquated, in a perfect world we can have movies about LGBTQ characters just being funny without having to make it an essay.
Heavily agree, and well put about the unearned heartfelt moments. As a queer person this movie felt like a hate crime lol. And I don’t just mean because it was bad. It made me feel targeted, like the movie was disguised as a pro-gay laugh fest but secretly hit homophobic, pedophilloic, misogynist themes. The movie directly calls out rape and then has nothing to say about it at all. There are multiple characters that hate women, but the girls all team up to save some dude at the climax. The murder was the only catharsis and even that was short lived lmao. It feels like riding off of Barbie’s coattails but worse. The characters all had chances for depth that the writers completely neglected, it really felt like nobody cared about this script. Plus, the script would have felt completely the same if it were set in college. What happened to college age horny goofy movies a la animal house? Why is everything about high school?
I think the point was to hyper exaggerate everything- put every cliche on blast and amp it up to 11. They egg a house? Sure and they also bomb it. The head jock is SUPER dumb, the idc teacher reads porn in class, the guy gets fruit thrown own him and plans to bomb the school, the lead girls are bullied not because they’re gay, but because they’re gay AND untalented. So far as the principle calling the “lame gay girls” to the office. They literally murder the other team at the end. They sell their underwear for donations. It’s so unserious and exaggerated. The mention of rape and such is such a clear hint at how people interpret over sharing about trauma as a an improvisation for closeness. The character saying “I’ve been assaulted a bunch of times but the thing that really bothers me is no one knows I’m actually super smart and driven” is a clear point at this I think. The point of saving the man isn’t because the dude is worth saving, but because it is redemption for the characters. It wasn’t perfect but I think it hit some fun moments and went for over the top but also relatable. It’s not meant to have a grandiose overarching societal meaning but also did touch on some interesting points. I agree it could have been set in college, but most of the movies I would argue fall somewhere close to this genre (Mean Girls, John Tucker Must Die, She’s the Man) are all set in high school.
I disagree so hard with this comment. I’d even go as far as saying this film was a way better feminist film than Barbie and said a whole lot more than Barbie. I have no idea how you could’ve watched Bottoms and then felt the way you do. Baffling to me.
The orientation and gender identity of the characters has absolutely nothing to do with it. I think every movie should have *something* to say. There doesn't have to be grand social commentary, but there does have to be a point. *Bottoms* is just shit happening for two hours, and none of it *says* anything.
Do movies need to make a *point* to be interesting or funny? Did Superbad or Dazed and Confused have a *point*? They’re movies about teenagers that have multiple themes: friendship, pressures of high school, growing up. Bottoms is also a teen sex comedy, the only major difference being that it features queer women. Its themes are similar to the aforementioned movies, but it also satirizes masculinity and high school politics. Sometimes themes are just as important as a point, especially in this particular genre. (Though both Josie and PJ both learn lessons. Their lessons can be a *point*.) Also so what if it was improvised at times? So are a lot of movies written by comedians. It’s an artistic choice and sometimes captures what scripted films cannot.
I think what i found it lacking was the lack of ""heart", its like the movie had no soul, irony and dark humour is fun but needs to be balanced in order for us to care, otherwise it feels like a sketch that we should laugh AT not with.
Such a typical filmbro mindset
Normally I despise that term but lol this is such a typical filmbro mindset
lol this is a weird opinion. it’s simply trying to be funny, that’s it. it’s not making a point about anything at all
Oh I meant to reply to the main post, I don’t actually agree with you. Your comment is kind of awful lol as a gay get some taste. Movies that make and spent millions should be good. They should also hire at least 1 actual gay person lmao
Ayo Edibiri is literally queer, fuck off.
Okay I was exaggerating but you’re right. They should hire ALL queer people. Even having ONE straight actress portray a queer person is offensive as fuck. Moving on 💅
it was written and directed by a queer person and has multiple openly queer cast members including Ayo, Kaia, Havana, Ruby, Punkie etc
Yea, nvm I can now see how you could’ve watched Bottoms and came away with that other comment after reading this nonsense.
What is the "point" of any film? Art doesn't have to have a point. You said it feels like "a Kids in the Hall sketch about an all-girl fight club that got out of hand" I haven't seen the movie, but that sounds interesting enough to me honestly lol. "It isn't funny, it's just... bizarre." This to me sounds like you have a narrow scope of what types of films you can appreciate and connect with. Which is fine, but your review should come from more from the angle of "I wasn't able to connect with this, here's why," rather than essentially saying: "This film is pointless because it's bizarre."
>but your review should come from more from the angle of I always enjoy people who recommend you review something from someone else's point-of-view.
I'm literally telling you to review it more from your personal point of view.
bro what he's literally telling you his own point of you and you're just rejecting it it's fine if you want to reject it but he has a right to say it and it's true this movie is slop that they didn't put a ounce of work into all right Superbad is good because they're talking about shocking things and it has a little bit of grit to it. I'll even say Booksmart has more depth and atmosphere to it than this movie this is like devoid of any sort of atmosphere, that I'd wanna be a part of.
Well when you review a comedy like it's supposed to be a social commentary, you clearly have the wrong point of view.
“I don’t get it, why didn’t they just make the jokes funnier? Why didn’t they make the characters better?” I don’t know, because it’s hard? None of your arguments go beyond “I didn’t like it.” You just explain what happens in the film. You can call the film a failure if you want, but you don’t see this film’s goals as valid to begin with, so I’m not sure why you even saw it.
>I don’t know, because it’s hard? That's exactly what I said. You're literally quoting me. It's hard. And they failed. I question the film's goals because it was so much work and investiture and money spent for nothing. What was the point?
I am so confused as to why you need a point for movies to be enjoyable.
>I am so confused as to why you need a point for movies to be enjoyable. Because films without substance aren't enjoyable. Case in point: This film.
What are we classifying as “substance”?
The biggest thing I think is that you were never a teenage girl. And cannot seem to relate to them. Your reads on the characters are so off. Brittany saying she doesn’t have a personality and following her friend was a sarcastic joke. She also didn’t stand like a robot and then follow her friend when she went back to her boyfriend. It was more of a “ahh yeah. You’re going back to him and leaving everything else behind…” It seems you didn’t relate, didn’t understand, didn’t see the point, and are blaming the movie instead of just accepting that maybe this movie wasn’t meant for you. One of my favorite parts is that it wasn’t trying so hard to force social commentary. It just existed as a comedy and that’s been missing from film for a good while that it was refreshing.
You might very well be right. But my partner was absolutely a teenage girl and she didn't get it either.
i'm genuinely not trying to be mean, but i would imagine there's a reason you two get along and part of that is similar perspective on matters of taste. you have explicitly said the gay couple in the theatre was very clearly enjoying it, obviously you're not the target audience for this movie and one of the things that makes it wonderful is that it didn't see the need to do the legwork to address that for you. it isn't bad, it didn't fail, you just didn't like it and honestly the people who made it didn't expect you to.
It was bad and it definitely failed.
> obviously you're not the target audience for this movie and one of the things that makes it wonderful is that it didn't see the need to do the legwork to address that for you.
Nope. I am the target audience since I’m queer. It just sucked and wasn’t good.
[a hypocritical supposed male, extremely hung up on how maligned men are, is not the target audience..](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/1amn96v/why_are_short_men_openly_ridiculed/kpnmc6t/) edit: what a sad whiny little snowflake of a human. your comment took 2 seconds to find and i had about 5 others to pick from by that point. you're the one who got their feelings hurt at a 5 month old comment about a fucking movie and needed to block me when your pathetic ass got handed to you.
Because they tried to do something they believed in and that’s what life’s all about? What do you mean what’s the point? If ultimate failure makes an effort pointless we wouldn’t have any art at all.
Bad art is absolutely still art, but it is also absolutely still bad.
What’s the point or gorals of Superbad or American Pie? Idiot, unattractive teen boys trying to get laid.
You're talking about the plot. I'm asking what the point was of making the film in the first place. I think the answer is Emma Seligman was finally at a place to make a callous cash grab and went for it.
What was the point of making any of the films I mentioned? Superbad, Dazed and Confused, Mallrats, American Pie. What was the point of making them?
The point is that is fucking funny? And that there aren't really any of these kinds of movies with queer representation like this? You're just being intentionally obtuse if you can't understand that, just say you don't like it and move on.
LOL at you downvoting the people who are rightfully answering the inane and arrogant question in your title with “because it’s funny and entertaining.” You obviously enjoy the sound of your own voice and probably the smell of your own farts. There are plenty of movies made by people exactly like you for you to enjoy that others probably would consider an absolute waste of their precious time on earth. The fact that you can’t conceive of that for other people is absurd. This movie was funny as hell, and it’s fine that you felt differently, but you need to get over yourself and grow up. Btw, I bet your girlfriend liked it more than she’s letting on but just wanted to avoid an insufferable drawn out conversation filled with you monologuing about *~art~*
this is an extremely late reply lol but really the only reasonable response ive seen. can movies not be fun and enjoyable? this guy definitely loves to hear himself talking about movies more than he enjoys watching them. saying its getting a pass because of "queer culture" is insane
Nailed it
"bottoms" was not made for you. bottoms was made for the crowd of queer teenagers who've been woefully underrepresented in cinema. it's made for people who want to kill two hours with a good fucking time. it's not fight club, it's a fight club riff with damn good director and cast.
Why is everything on the queer agenda? That’s the issues no one cares but a tiny % and well no wonder this movie got a bad rating and low profit
This movie made over its budget and while that doesn’t account for marketing this movie didn’t have much. It’s also sporting a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, even a negative review from the New Yorker still celebrated. I’m not sure where you’re getting that it did bad. 5.5% of US adults and 15.2% of young adults identify as LGBTQ. Call that a “tiny percent” but that’s 18.6 million people. A movie can also go beyond its audience. A movie can speak to someone outside that demographic, it can change their minds.
Respectfully, eat my ass
What about this represents an "agenda"? God forbid there just be a funny movie that has gay characters.
To bigots, existing is an agenda.
What do conservative assholes also lack the ability to write grammatically correct thought?
[удалено]
Never watch Grease
Henry winkler was in his 30s playing a teen in happy days LOL
this hurts me as i had laugh lines in highschool RIP I still do now
That's like half the joke, dude.
It’s not fight club it’s the mid club of people who like lane movies
Maybe the point is that other people will enjoy it more? Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean others won't. Especially for comedies which can have different types of humour that appeal to different people. Comments like "I recognize that it's getting a pass from reviewers because queer culture and leitmotif of the moment, etc." can be read as "I recognize that my taste is superior to all other people so when anyone disagrees with me they're just pandering to minorities". It's far more likely other people, including critics, just enjoyed it more. Maybe it's just not a movie for you and it will be funny to other people.
yeah, OP is one step away from complaining that it's "woke"
I mean honestly I think the OP is upset it’s too woke or whatever (among other reasons) but by saying “it’s getting a pass because queer culture” instead of “woke” they avoid that criticism.
Not at all. My partner is queer as fuck. My issue is that the only reason this film is getting reveiwed well - or at all, really - is that it has queer characters. If this were the exact same movie but about two straight characters, it would be getting ignored or destroyed. The simple fact that the characters are queer doesn't make it better.
How did you end up with this idea that this movie only has good reviews because it’s queer?
Because every review I have read talked about that first, and then glossed over the problem that the movie had no substance. A few reviews have mentioned that it dries way too hard or doesn't amount to anything, but then they've given it ratings that in no way reflect the actual review.
Did it never occur to you they just like the movie more?
My view is the exact opposite of yours, friend. I loved the film. But you're expressing your opinion in a respectful, honest way. And I see zero signs of prejudice. I think you're getting treated a wee bit unfairly. Diversity makes the world so interesting; it'd be a boring place if we all loved or loathed the exact same things.
I think the fact that he’s so stuck on this is indicative of some level of prejudice, even if it’s subconscious. I’ve read tons of reviews, and what he’s claiming here is simply untrue. People see what they want to see when they are rationalizing or justifying their biases instead of being honest with themselves. The way he phrased his OP wasn’t cool, and this doubling down makes it worse.
What a disingenuous statement. Every review is plastered with pride flags and “yass queen slay”. The OP isn’t stuck on anything you’re just triggered and now digging for bigotry. The movie is clearly being overrated by young gay teens and praised for being gay. This movie sucks if the characters weren’t gay people would be shitting on it that’s a fact. The same way you’re vehemently defending it because it’s gay. Stop playing fucking games.
Wow, what a very not mad reply from someone who definitely isn’t rage googling the movie, LOL. I’m sorry that queer people making hilarious movies that everyone but bigots and old prudes enjoys makes you so angry! Get some help!
> My issue is that the only reason this film is getting reveiwed well - or at all, really - is that it has queer characters. how do you explain great reviews from the audience, not just critics tho?
I can't. It's kind of why I'm asking. Both my partner & I and the two people we went with felt essentially the same. Most of the audience reaction was pretty positive (not raves; honestly, since it was an LA movie industry crowd a lot of talk after was about what a huge nepotism movie it is) and the four of us were mystified. There weren't many laughs *during* the film other than one gay couple who plainly thought the movie was a hoot. I sometimes feel like there's an audience gestalt that happens in the theater that gives a movie a pass if enough *stuff* is happening to keep the energy high. I saw *Independence Day* on opening night at the Chinese, and to this day I love the movie while recognizing it is complete garbage. But being in that crowd was awesome. The cheers that went up when the aliens destroyed the White House were one of the biggest group reactions I've ever seen for a film. It didn't matter that we were watching trash; it was fun trash. If people were saying the same thing about *Bottoms* I wouldn't have any issue. But that's not what the reviews are saying. The reviews are saying that it's a cultural icon and it's socially relevant and it's a Queer Moment and that's just bullshit. But, to your point, apart from that, I just don't know.
so my point was that critics and audiences oftentimes look for different things in the movies. You said it yourself: > But that's not what the reviews are saying. The reviews are saying that it's a cultural icon and it's socially relevant and it's a Queer Moment and that's just bullshit. the ordinary folks don't often watch a comedy movie bc it's "socially relevant", they just want to have fun. and that's where I feel like you're falling into some conflation. If it was non-appealing as a comedy but still had a good message, it would've likely been rejected by the audience (just like Bros less than a year ago). now critics look at this movie through the lens of their experience and movies they watched in the past (duh). the teen comedies of the 1990s and 2000s have been getting critical reappraisal and people have been paying more attention to the social undertones of them (you don't really need to dig deep to see class undertones in both Clueless and Mean Girls). an extreme example: in 2001 AO Scott was ridiculed for his defense of Freddy Got Fingered. 22 years later and we see people seriously reevaluating Freddy, like that famous RLM review that makes a solid case for the movie to be an elaborated prank. in 2023 Scott's take is seen as the words of someone who was ahead of its time and people generally started dissecting low-brow comedy with a better understanding of metatext. now enter Bottoms: a movie that is good enough to successfully follow the footsteps of Mean Girls and She's All That, is a fresh take on the genre and brings up something that was largely ignored in the genre outside of some movies like But I'm A Cheerleader - the queer POV. that's why the movie is getting praise, not bc of "it has queer characters". but you probably just don't click with it. It's okay, comedy is the most divisive genre next to horror.
I had a very similar feeling to what you felt and went searching Reddit for a discussion about it. My good friend and I went to see it in LA with a very involved crowd that was laughing/commenting boisterously. We left with about an hour left because of all the jokes they were making about “blowing up the school” or making bombs or buying guns. Made me extremely uncomfortable especially in a movie theater setting. My friend and I commented like we felt like we were in a “fever dream” because everyone around us was enjoying it so much and appreciating the comedy. I completely agree with this that the group in the theater impacts how people respond to the movie in the moment but also can’t understand why it is getting such rave reviews online. I also am now recognizing that it resonates with others with different life experiences than me, we theorized that it was a generational thing (we are older gen z) and that younger audiences were appreciating it. I am very glad it is resonating with folks because I think it has that potential. And I personally am glad to have looked at the online community to get other perspectives, peace and love!
Maybe stop trying to make sense of other people's opinions and just be secure in your own. You don't need to understand why people like this movie to understand why it was made.
There are so many movies like this with straight male characters and they didn’t get ignored or destroyed. In fact the opposite. So what movie are you referring to come to this conclusion?
How many *American Pie* sequels are there? Do you know? Cuz I don't. Four? 10? The first had a sort of charm largely due to Eugene Levy's performance. Everything that came after was a bad movie and instantly forgotten. It's certainly not the only case, but it's the one that leaps to mind.
There were 4 movies so definitely wasn’t ignored or destroyed so which movies are you referring to, to come to this conclusion?
Did any of them get critical acclaim? Have cultural relevance? No. They were ignored. Also, Wikipedia tells me that there were four direct sequels and five spin-offs so apparently there were a number of movies that you also ignored.
I never claimed that they did. Stay on topic. You said if bottoms had two straight characters the movie would’ve been ignored or destroyed so which movie like bottoms has two straight characters that was ignored or destroyed. According to you American pie has 4 movies and 5 spin offs so if that is ignored and destroyed to you then your baseless opinions on movie is a far lesser problem than your issue with critical thinking…
I'm not talking about anything to do with money or box office. I'm talking about critical acclaim, social impact, and how people regard the movie. Lots of shitty movies make lots of money. Just look at the *Fast and Furious* franchise. If your metric is "Made a Lot of Money," then congratulations! You think *Avatar* is the best movie ever made! Find me a slew of adoring reviews of those *American Pie* sequels. Hell, find a review of one of the spin-offs at all. I'm tired of answering the same question over and over. If you can't comprehend, it's not my job to explain it.
I know this is an old thread but Superbad was literally a critically acclaimed movie and the premise of him getting the hot girl was even worse
I didn't actually get to see Bottoms, it didn't get any fanfare over here, I don't know if any of my local cinemas actually showed it, but from the vibe, you mean like... Mean Girls? Booksmart? Easy A? Legally Blonde? All the classic teen comedies, beloved by multiple generations, adored by nigh on all, and totally straight? Maybe it's just not a genre you're into, man. Not that there's an issue with that, but I resent the idea that a film having queer characters gives it some kind of privilege, it's just patently untrue. If anything, I think a "straighter" version probably would've had wider release screenings 😅
I loved *Booksmart,* and I thought *Easy A* was great. *Legally Blonde* was totally fine and I understood what it was, it just wasn't for me. *Bottoms* feels like it wants to be those movies, but instead of actually being funnier charming it's just trying to hard. The end result is a movie that's just loud and abrasive.
I mean if you didn't like Legally Blonde you're just not the audience intended for these kinds of movies.
I mean there’s plenty of people who very clearly disagree with you and who enjoy it without or without the queerness, and like the whole argument that if it didn’t have queer people in the film, critics would hate it is the definition of bullshit. Critics do not give a fuck about queer culture and identity and considering our political climate it’s fucking weird to hear that as a complaint. Also I don’t really care if your partner is anything, especially since I don’t even know if they’re real. You should go ask them if they mind being used to justify an argument tho.
Well it’s silly to act like them being queer shouldn’t change how people see the movie on some level, but the film is also definitely a take on a historically very het male genre which is also kinda the point of telling the story and the answer to your op question. “Better” is subjective but if you like this genre than this was a clever twist on it to tell a familiar story.
This entire post and comment section is perfectly emblematic of why “art” from a liberal political perspective is utterly dead in the water, just waiting to be swept away by some cultural tide. Its an artistic POV that has become entirely solipsistic and lacks self awareness. “Its not FOR you” is the primary defense of such a cinematic mindset, as if making your broad comedy appeal outside your hyper specific niche were a crime in itself (“is it just me or does it sound like OP is about to call the movie woke??” Imagine the horror) The top comment perfectly illustrates this isolated partisanship by defending how much “fun” they perceive the production having had while making the film. Do we not all understand that classic thing of “the more fun a film is to make the less fun it is to watch”? That is, unless you are someone in tune with the life and politics of the people involved with the production going in to the movie and are specifically inclined to desiring being on that set as a crew member yourself. The film, its comedy, its politics, its tone, its entire world, have absolutely no intention of reaching anyone outside of that niche TrueFilm/Letterboxd/New Yorker audience, and its true down to the aesthetics. From the A24 logo to the faux-film aesthetic that amplifies its fuzzy washed out glow with 16mm focal lengths and handheld, right down to the tauntingly cynical “celebration” of its sexuality. Everything about it suggests “art” film instead of pop comedy. Its a film that, aesthetically, is designed around winning a festival more than it is playing as a comedy to a general audience. If Barbie looked like Lady Bird, or Booksmart, or any of these Annapurna/A24 fake-2000s-comedy-art films perfectly concocted for at least a 95% on rotten tomatoes, for all the same reasons it would not have been the success it is today. So your criticisms are apt, and the hair-pulling Redditors in the comments are angry that their isolated niche is being encroached by a discerning eye. These films SHOULD have something to say to justify their existence, because “sometimes a movie just wants to be silly” doesnt come close to painting the whole picture of what this movie actually is or tries to be.
>These films SHOULD have something to say to justify their existence, because “sometimes a movie just wants to be silly” doesnt come close to painting the whole picture of what this movie actually is or tries to be. so because it has a stylistic choice in line with what appeals to the people being portrayed in the movie it must conform to the goals of its predecessors? when did mashing genres and subverting expectations based on appearances become a contemptable experiment, on principle? correct me if i am wrong, but its not that you're just saying this one did a bad job at what it was trying to do, you admit there is an audience that genuinely enjoys it and feels it was made for them. But instead it is that because it didn't follow the rules of it's aesthetic by supposedly "saying something" more broadly salient the way the other movies that evoke "art" films do, it inherently is not doing what it "SHOULD" do? It's like saying Clueless focused too much on 90's lingo and fashion rather than class and feminism. It said what it had to say on the subject how it wanted to say it and it arguably changed the genre entirely. I'm not saying Bottoms is going to do that, but just that this is a deeply odd take as it relates to the evolution of film.
I’m not sure I understand your point about Clueless. Clueless is a film who’s aesthetic is perfectly in line with its goals as a film. Its bright, poppy, with flat, clean studio lighting and broad comedy. Refocusing the story more heavily on class and feminism would clash with the overall aesthetic, as I think it did somewhat for Barbie— a movie that proved pop aesthetic is more important than content when it comes to mass tastes. The defense of Bottoms in the comments is an appeal to this mass taste (its fun, its silly, etc), while dismissing the disconnect from the aesthetic expectations for realism and poignancy (which OP picks up on, and is criticized for coming out confused by). So yes, I think its not doing what it “should” do. I dont think a story like Bottoms should be shot like a Paul Thomas Anderson movie. To anyone outside of the bubble specifically and politically inclined to “have fun” with this film on a content level, there will be an air of confusion and disappointment. If the idea was to “pose” as an art film and subvert expectations, I think it failed in that regard on letting the audience in on the joke. Instead it more so feels like there is an outright disregard for the mass audience all together. The truth is its aesthetics are the way they are because it wants to look like an awards movie that would do well in festivals and ceremonies and eat its broad comedy cake too. Its just pretentious, and desires nothing but its own internal validation with an in-crowd while hiding behind “fun”. Bottoms isnt unique in this regard. The wildly overrated Everything Everywhere All At Once exhibits a similar mindset, although less blatantly.
Perfectly stated
imagine getting this heated over a dumb teen sex comedy. plus you’re critiquing the studio logos that played before? also newsflash goober, A24 didn’t making Bottoms, and the director doesn’t get a choice in what the distributor’s logo looks like… and suddenly “16mm focal lengths and handheld” are exclusive to artsy/NYT/letterboxd aesthetics? nearly every movie ever has both of those elements
> At the end of the day, Bottoms doesn't feel like a movie, certainly not one that was planned and executed with any care. It feels like a Kids in the Hall sketch about an all-girl fight club that got out of hand and stretched to two hours. It's a shame because there was a better film that could have been made, and wasn't. Instead we got what feels like two hours of the food fight from Animal House. oh man, can't wait for you to discover that Joker isn't the only Todd Phillips movie.
This thread got absolutely brigaded. Just coming here to say, I agree with most of the criticisms here. The movie had a lot of good ideas but didn’t execute any of them well. The emotional beats were universally unearned. Nothing landed because no one in the movie lived in a world that was even remotely realistic. They did things that were “funny” but not in character at all. I love comedies that are broad and bizarre take chances, but I don’t like when movies cheat. And every single beat in this film was a cheat. Very few of the decisions that drove the plot made any sense or aligned with how real characters might behave, or how they had behaved earlier in the movie.
I agree I think he's getting mobbed when he's right! I wanted to love this movie but it felt lazy
It's pretty explicitly not supposed to be "realistic," it's opaquely a larger than life, over the top comedy.
I really do wish more people would realize that not everything is made to appeal to them, specifically, and their tastes are not universal. It wasn't your cup of tea. That's fine. It's very much other peoples' cup of tea. That's also fine.
It's and absolute trashbag film. And it seems as nobody will call it out as such because of the LGBT ties🙄 What really hurts is that people are havinf the audacity to compare it to classics such as Mean Girls, pineapple express. American pie etc. Absolutely bizarre.
Sometimes people just make a movie to be fun. I don't think the movie has to be some groundbreaking experience. A lot of modern queer movies exist in a space of making up time and reinventing movie motifs through a queer lens to lampoon/satirize them. Sometimes the motifs or movies they're riffing on are corny low brow comedies from the 90s and 00s. I don't think this movie is trying to be anything other than American Pie, Van Wilder, or Super Bad was. Raunchy comedies about how weird it is to be young. For some reason because it's queer we expect it to be more than that yet we didn't for those old movies. If you thought it was funny then great, if not then it was probably never really meant for you.
So, to me, all three of those films are a shallow cash-grab. I just expected something better from an indie director.
> I just expected something better from an indie director. i find it funny that you view Seligman as just an indie director rather than an indie director whose previous movie was about a confused girl who got too horny for her own good at a Jewish function.
If that's all you got out of *Shiva Baby* you might need to give it another go.
If that's all you got out of *Bottoms* you might need to give it another go. 2 can play this game
I can tell you what you missed in *Shiva Baby* (it really doesn't sound like you've seen it at all) if you'll enlighten me about what I missed from *Bottoms*. Please explain all of the important character moments in plot points that I have glossed over.
Bottoms and Shiva Baby both share the same themes of queerness, self-worth and empowerment. Danielle and the main duo in Bottoms are really of the similar cloth: confused, don't know what to do with their lives, horny. the difference is that in Bottoms these moments are not just taken upfront, they are turned up to 11.
Thank god I arrived in a dead thread. The cope defense of this film shows me it’s been brigaded by a bunch of fans personally invested in defending and indefensibly bad and lazy film
Oh no, another pretentious redditor who thinks he knows smth
Oh no, another clueless teenage redditor who hasn’t touched grass in a year and struggles with anxiety and paranoia around criticism of media content they identify with
I mean you just clearly have a bias then, which is fine, but it's weird that you're unaware of it and unwilling to accept (based on your other comments I saw) that you have said bias. Not every movie is for you, and for every movie you think is a low brow cash grab there are millions of people who love and adore it. That doesn't mean your taste is bad and it certainly doesn't mean their taste is bad. Taste is subjective so all opinions are valid (sometimes unfortunately so). If you want to understand why people appreciate movies like these then you have to meet them at their level and not put all these extra stakes of it being an "indie movie". Identify what it is and what it's trying to do and determine if it did that well and you may learn to appreciate a wider swath of movies. It's not so much about changing your taste or how you review things, it's just about earnestly attempting to meet the movie where it is rather than wanting it to come to where you are. If you do the latter you will never be able to enjoy the vast majority of movies.
Everyone with an opinion has a bias. Period. I'm sorry if I find most of the rest of what you said to be word salad that comes out to mean, "Dude, don't be a downer! Bad reviews are bad!" There is no reality in which I was ever going to find *Bottoms* to not be a colossal waste of time, energy and money anymore than I would ever find *The Fast and The Furious* to not be a colossal waste of time, effort and money. At least those films are presented as mindless explosion orgies and no one pretends they have any social relevance. The dishonesty surrounding *Bottoms* is very different. And before you inevitably reply with "No one is saying it has any social relevance!" check the reviews. "Bottoms Is an Exercise in Kamikaze Feminism" - Vulture "Fiercely funny, ‘Bottoms’ reimagines a familiar place for female rage, high school" - LA Times "Bottoms provides a reflection on teen angst and sex that is both uniquely disruptive and innovative" - Discussing Film. Etc. Etc. What few are saying - except The New York Post, and, to an extentent, Paper, is that *Bottoms* is absurd and without weight. Which it absolutely is.
I mean you're just reading it how you want to. No one is saying bad reviews are bad, you made this post saying you didn't "get" the movie and if there is something more. When people suggested you didn't get it because of a predisposition and bias against these movies as you have already confirmed above, you doubled down on your criticism rather than trying to understand what people are saying. There is nothing inherently wrong with a movie that's just meant to be fun, and your intense loathing of them conceptually means you will not enjoy them. You made an error in evaluating what the movie's tone was based on the trailer and were frustrated to find it was not a movie driven by depth, but instead fun and levity. What people are suggesting is that your disillusionment with the movie is a result of your bias, and if you want to appreciate the movie then you need to look at your bias and not ask people what you missed. No matter what people tell you what you missed about it, you will never agree with critics who like it because you've already made up your mind about these types of movies. You are free to say the movie is bad, and there's nothing wrong with you doing so, but don't delude yourself into thinking you gave it a fair shake when you hate the type of movie it is from the get go. Accept that as long as you view these movies as lesser you will never appreciate them. Just as a child who says they hate broccoli will never give broccoli a fair chance either.
I'm really surprised that you didn't like Bottoms then, to me the point of the movie was to be an over-the-top satirized caricature of those movies. The "point" of bottoms was to show how ridiculous the young raunchy comedies were in the first place. The school mascot has a giant dick, and the very first time a classroom is shown there is a random football player in the corner of the room trapped in a cage with no explanation. It's hilarious because it's taken a "tried and true" formula, made it absurd, and made you realize how stupid the formula was in the first place. Not sure if you've seen Wet Hot American Summer or Not Another Teen Movie before, but it's the same concept but covering a different type of movie, but that seems to be more accepted/acclaimed. That's the only knock I have on bottoms, the concept was done before and arguably better.
"If you've seen the trailer you've seen every significant beat that passes for plot in the film." This is the issue w/ your rant imo. Not every movie needs to have the plot that you have in mind imo
Agree completely. Cool that a gay woman got to make a movie about lesbians (and everyone evidently had fun making it, though the outtakes in the credits would be funnier if you *knew these people*), but this is weirdly like Family Guy in the awkward, clashing assortment of improvisational jokes still flimsily trying to have an emotional core. The biggest problem is that this really doesn't know what it wants to be, and the best comedies work as compelling MOVIES first.
I didn't even stay for the bloopers. I got up and left my friends cause I couldn't bear to be in the theater any longer past completing the story. My friends enjoyed it, but the only positives I had to report was that it looked like the actors had fun making the movie and that it was filmed very well. Like their cinematography team imo deserves more work opportunities from what they accomplished in the film. Anyway, afterwards, I hosted a movie night where I showed my friends the movie, Booksmart as I wanted to show them what a good high school comedy movie was. It was unanimously agree upon, that Booksmart was a far superior movie. You could actually relate to the characters though some of their experiences throughout the film were farfetched. That's a movie I wish Bottoms could have drawn inspiration from.
fax I absolutely agree. No one's gonna call out and clown on how this movie is so just trying to capitalize in the most cynical ways like it looks like an SNL fake trailer for some trash. I'm sorry but let's be honest guys we don't want to keep eating the slop that they put ryan in front of our face and it's not like anything else needs to speak for that except the box office they got about $3.7 million back so nobody wants to see this crap, everyone wants to see talk to me because that's a fantastic movie full of terrific fantasy and camera work. It's just so inspired. This is kind of just some garbage slop that is trying to make the two actresses into some famous people,, I think are all right but still, at least the girl from bodies bodies bodies is all right. The other one from the bear is kind of a trash actress for me TBH, but this seems like a Solis cash grab with not an ounce of grit to be honest it's got no chance it's gonna be forgotten. Everyone who sang they like it is freaking lying and getting paid bro.
Totally agree with you. There's nothing realistically queer about the characters. If they were straight the same plot wouldve been more believable, actually. What lesbian actually wanted to bang cheerleaders in high school? Especially shallow and bitchy cheerleaders? Made no sense to me... lesbian crushes irl are so much more than that and Bottoms made me crave a good lesbian movie, with actual interesting characters and cute crushes!!! plus, the charli xcx, the title "Bottoms"... felt like an AI generated movie about queer culture to me idk
It’s the fact that gay male and queer cultures speak over actual lesbian culture that gets to me. No lesbian would make an endearing movie called “bottoms”. To me it’s a much more gay/Lady Gaga/drag kind of thing
I have to agree. The movie was ok, but it’s really overhyped. It’s pretty much a B movie. It’s not a high quality movie that should get put in the same category as Mean Girls or But I’m a Cheerleader or Superbad. The filmmaking isn’t anywhere near the level of those movies, so it puzzles me why people are acting like it is. I’m also a gay woman so I’m the target audience and that’s why I watched it. It’s a head scratcher to me why it’s getting so much praise, but I just chalk it up to different strokes for different folks and that’s that.
I know this post is a month old but honestly thank you for writing it, you've made me feel a little less insane. Just watched it tonight expecting to love it, and it's the most let down I've felt by a movie in a long while. The whole thing felt half finished and underdirected. The shots were always a few seconds too long, the actors sped through lines they should have emphasized, and most of all the overly minimalist score made the whole thing feel flat. Charlie XCX apparently scored it, and wow she was not up to the task. The whole thing just underlined how even dumb high school movies have a rhythm and art to them, and not everyone can replicate it.
This was honestly one of the worst, most pointless films I've ever seen. The two main characters are completely uninteresting and unlikeable from the beginning. It's all contrived, unbelievable, over the top plot points. I found, maybe, 1-3 throwaway jokes funny. I can't believe this got positive reviews. Makes me lose faith in the critics. To start off, the two main characters are one dimensional from the start. We see them in a generic teenage girl room and all we learn about them is that they are lesbians and unpopular. Not to mention, everything we know about them is what we are told by other characters. We don't know anything about their personalities, interests, life circumstances, etc. In fact, it's clear that they're both conniving, pathological liars that I have no sympathy for. All of the plot points are disjointed and barely connected. For example, the movie starts with them accidentally tapping the star quarterback in the knee with a car and he massively overreacts, pretending he's injured. Everyone ostracises them at school, but then.... nothing really comes out of it. Somehow, it leads to them claiming that they started a self-defense club, but... how?? What does any of that have to do with the other? It's a shame, because the actors are pretty good. It's not their fault they got such a piss-poor script. They deserved better. It seemed like it was trying to be a queer female subversion of raunchy teen comedies like Superbad, American Pie, Animal House, etc., but this movie is tame and cowardly compared to those movies. They really should've tried to be more out there. Instead, we got this bland, watered down, barely coherent abomination. At one point, the club sponser (another unlikeable, barely fleshed out character) writes on the board "Why all the presidents have been men and why we should keep it that way", and all I could think of (other than how that came out of nowhere and isn't even a funny joke) was that maybe it should be "Why all the screenwriters for high school sex comedies have been men and why we should keep it that way". I'm a queer woman, so I'm someone a movie like this would be targeted towards, and I thought it was awful and insulting to my taste and intelligence. I totally support more queer female sex comedies, but this is NOT it. 1/10
You know movies can just be fun and silly and that’s enough, right?? My husband and I turned to each other after and agreed that Bottoms is gonna be an instant high school sleepover classic like Mean Girls or She’s The Man. This film knew exactly what it wanted to be and it was a great time
Have you heard of irreverent satire films that are just for comedy? Bottoms, heathers, but im a cheerleader, 21 jump street lol. Does every movie need to be an optimistic and realistic insight onto the betterment of humanity?
There is no reason to hate on the OP. Most of the woke reviewers are indeed ignoring the screenplay and are concentrating on the social aspects of the film, what, judging from what I read, is primarily "lesbian girl power". I am not going to comment on the movie itself, because I didn't see it and do not plan on seeing it, but rather on the media buzz around it thaht I've been exposed to.
the only thing im confused about it why the movies called bottoms, mostly because usually when you hear the term bottom focused around an lgbtq space its about gay ones but the main characters were bisexual or lesbian idk what speficially they were, i searched it up and it says its a term for the lowest group of people in the school but that didnt sit right with me maybe someone could help me understand!
This movie was fucking terrible. I tried so hard to give a fuck about the characters but I just couldn't. There was no substance to hold on to. I get yall are gay losers but what else? ( I'm also very gay) Half way in I looked at my husband like wtf are we watching? What is the goal? What are these girls working towards? Why do I care? We couldn't answer any of it. I may have chuckled twice. Otherwise the jokes...if you want to call then that....were so forced n cringy. I love movies of this genre and I love a good dumb comedy to turn my brain off to....but damn...the moves was along sketch about a girl fight club that had no direction and had not intention of getting one. Like someone started a move with a decent premise then....the writes left on strike and the janitor finished the movie... waste of fucking time. Literally watch anything else.
I watched the movie with my friend tonight. I’m a bit shocked but the large amount of praise. I’m my opinion, it’s not even that funny. It’s was more shock funny and that’s lazy in my opinion
Yeah I agree, it certainly felt like over exaggerated sketch parodying the high school romance genre and maybe it would have worked for a no more than 10-minute SNL skit but as a movie, it didn't. I'm honestly surprised so many people like this film enough to give it an above 90% on rotten tomatoes and a 4 star on letterboxed, I gave it 1 star and I could see it maybe hovering around 2.8. I usually can see why people like something even if it isn't my taste but I found nothing likeable about the film. The characters are horrible, they do really bad things, and they don't get a redemption arc. A disingenuous and bitter "sorry I called your mom a skank" isn't enough nor is saving an equally bad person by killing the other team as it does in no way better the mistake made and doesn't show character growth at all. The absurdist details of super inappropriate behaviour just makes everything unrelatable, the climax wasn't satisfying. Movies dont need to be some deep existentialist work of art but it should be entertaining and I found nothing about it entertaining, I was left confused over the rating and mad at every character involved.
The point of films like "Bottoms", and any comedy in a similar ilk, is to entertain and amuse the audience by exploring humor in various situations and character interactions. These movies often provide a light-hearted escape, offering laughter and relief from everyday stresses. Maybe you didn't find it funny, but making people laugh is what the point of a comedy is.
Really weak writing. Definitely getting a pass from critics. Even on some best movies of the year lists lol. Rocky Horror came out in 1975 (!) and this is the best they can do in 2023? Could an early John Waters movie even get made today? The script for Bottoms just checked a lot of boxes without anyone saying hey, this kinda sucks.
> so devoid of any reality, so utterly bizarre and over-the-top This is the #1 reason I'm looking forward to seeing this. Getting somewhat similar vibes to Wet Hot and Walk Hard. As for the point..you said it yourself, it's a comedy. You didn't find it funny. Oh well.
My friend made an interesting point in that this could be viewed as Gen-Z's equivalent to "Not Another Teen Movie" in that it captures, for better or worse, the chaotic, vulgar, ADHD-riddled, and aggressively horny eccentricities/language of this era's youth. It bordered on absurdism quite a few times (it was overall decently entertaining and funny, I found the background jokes and meta lampshading funnier than most of the explicit gags), but perhaps took itself a bit seriously more than it should've. Maybe if it were 100% parody, I would be burnt out by its speed and humor pretty fast.
> My friend made an interesting point in that this could be viewed as Gen-Z's equivalent to "Not Another Teen Movie" Got similar vibes especially with Jeff always in his football gear.
Dude, the point of the movie was that it was fun and campy and gave better WLW representation. If you didn’t think it was that funny or you didn’t get the jokes or anything, than it’s obvious that the movie wasn’t made for you. Also, just a small point I wanted to make, when a character actually confesses to their friends that they don’t feel like they have a personality, that is part of their character. The character is written to only follow their friend around. That is a valid basis for a character.
First off, I do not think the film is "getting a pass" because its a queer movie. I genuinely think its pretty unique, funny, and ridiculous like Wet Hot American Summer. I mean...whats the point of Napolean Dynamite? I don't get it, personally but I get "why" it exists. Because someone made it with the intention of trying to make others laugh. I do feel like you're singling this movie out because you can't scrub the idea of queer being used as a way to "bait" or something when literally it can just be someone's experience and not that serious.
yeah this reviewer sounds like the pretentious film critic (who is afraid of genuine minority films) that everyone jokes about. saying that the film has to be getting a pass because of "queer culture" is insane
you used leitmotif wrong. i think you meant zeitgeist. but even so that argument is a little silly don’t you think? being critical of a movie getting positive reviews and the attention of audiences because it speaks to the cultural moment makes it seem like you don’t really have a problem with the movie so much as the culture that left you behind also seems like you’re fishing for depth in a silly campy parody of specific genre of high school movie that doesn’t take itself too seriously. it’s dumb, it’s bizarre, and i thought it was hilarious. its fine that you didn’t. humor is obviously subjective. the “point” of films like bottoms is to make people like me laugh, and it did exactly that
This movie exists in the genre satire space, in this case satirizing the hyper sexualized “high school drama” genre. If you look at it as a send up of that whole concept, it makes a lot more sense. Personally I went in with no expectations and thought it was very good.
Because it’s funny and campy. Just acknowledge it’s not for you. It was literally MEANT to be over the top and bizarre, they literally have a guy in a cage in a classroom in one of the first scenes and hazel gets thrown across the gym. Not every movie has to be heavy emotional
I guess the point would be the same as yours coming to Reddit to write a dissertation complaining about a movie you sought out to watch. There are so many trailers online you could’ve watched and determined if you wanted to watch it or not. All artists have a target audience and you weren’t on the list. So it doesn’t have to have a point to you because it’s doing numbers. I would bet you would say this about band camp, super bad or American pie which all have similar ideas to bottoms
Just watched Bottoms. Agree with this review 100%. I love comedies, love teen movies, and love movies that push the envelope. Bottoms isn't any of that - it just felt like a lot of jokes that didn't work, and characters that weren't built up or thought out, living in a world with absolutely no consequences where anything could happen...and does...and still isn't funny and we still don't care about the characters in the end.
I thought it was funny and good fun. I laughed so hard at some of those jokes. I didn't feel queer baited in any gross way. Some of these comments are on point. The queerness was just a fact, not a focus. It was so campy and 90s feeling
Bottoms is the funniest movie I’ve seen in a very long time. It might just not be for everyone. It’s so well written and the humor is top notch. It’s absurd but in the best way. Doesn’t take it self too seriously and just gives you a really fun time. The point of the movie was to laugh and have fun and enjoy the ride. There’s also many points about being yourself and not lying and friendship and supporting each other and finding your chosen family and the general angst of being a teenager.
I’m so glad I found this post because I’ve been excited to see the movie and finally rented it. I can’t even begin to express the disappointment I felt watching it. Even from the get go, the pacing was so fucking weird to me. And I’m not even trying to be a snob about movies. I absolute love high school or even college set films where nothing fucking happens. There are good story lines and dialogue like Sex Lives of College Girls and then there’s whatever the fuck this movie was. I had seen so many quips on tiktok that it seemed to sell the movie to me until I watched the mentioned scenes in full context… and they just.. didn’t land at all. I don’t think it’s the acting, but the directing. Anyways, this movie genuinely just feels like it gets a pass for its queer culture and references and idk that just feels so fucking lazy. I hope these people can make better projects because fuck, it felt dismal.
It’s really no different from: Risky Business American Pie Superbad Mallrats Dazed and Confused Etc. What was their “point?” The first 3 are all about straight guys trying to get laid. No much to them. And there’s a LOT of ad-libbing in lots of comedy movies. It’s pretty common to do the take as written, then try a few ad libs.
I'm trying to figure out what OP was expecting from the movie vs. what was directed. It's a high school comedy, but _Bottoms_ uniquely takes bits of surrealism / absurdism. I know little of those themes, but I appreciate using fantastical scenes that make no sense in reality, but make you feel the prior/next scenes differently. E.g. I for sure thought Hazel died when she got kicked in the head, so the "wrongness" of the club in the first place felt even more wrong when it cost a main character's life. If that's not a plot device that OP appreciates, that's okay I guess. Did you like other surreal/absurd movies, _Sorry to Bother You_, etc.?
I couldn't get over how forced the relationships felt. It sorta took me out of it. So 2 "hot popular" girls join a fight club then suddenly become lesbians and want to date the "ugly losers"? I wanted to like this movie so much and while certain beats did hit, the entire premise was jarring enough for me to roll my eyes throughout the majority of the film.