Young man in blue hoodie and red-haired woman hold hands near a microphone
Film review

In a sentenceHugh Jackman has testicles on his neck, and somehow the surprise wears off before the sketch ends

Charlie Wessler (Dennis Quaid) pitches film ideas to Griffin Schraeder (Greg Kinnear), and the proposals unfold as separate sketches. He wants to sell his stories, but the material he brings means making a case for bodily functions and sexual embarrassment. In The Catch, Beth (Kate Winslet) encounters Davis (Hugh Jackman), a man whose testicles hang from his neck. Homeschooled introduces Kevin (Jeremy Allen White) and the inappropriate treatment he receives. The pitching conversation links these situations, as Wessler tries to persuade Schraeder that his ideas belong in a film.

Fi1m review

A willing cast cannot rescue this film from sketches that mistake a grotesque premise for a finished joke. There are scattered laughs, but the repetition makes this a dreary evening.

The film is a dreary gross-out sketch anthology with too few jokes to justify 98 minutes. With directors including Peter Farrelly and Elizabeth Banks, it aims for the pleasure of watching familiar actors abandon good manners. A filthy joke still needs timing, a change of direction or somebody worth watching as the situation deteriorates. Too often, this film announces something disgusting, waits for a reaction, then keeps announcing it. Most critics found it tedious; we agree, chiefly because the sketches seldom develop beyond their starting point.

The framing story has Charlie Wessler (Dennis Quaid) pitching ideas to Griffin Schraeder (Greg Kinnear), with the sketches supplying the proposed films. This ought to give each new absurdity somewhere to come from, but the pitching itself becomes another thing to wait through. Dennis Quaid puts energy into selling this material; Greg Kinnear has the less rewarding task of receiving it. The device cannot make the separate pieces feel worth sitting through, and returning to it interrupts what little momentum they find.

The clearest reason to give the film any credit is The Catch, which puts Beth (Kate Winslet) opposite Davis (Hugh Jackman), a man with testicles hanging from his neck. We laughed at that first sight, then grew impatient because the sketch had so little to add. Kate Winslet gives the absurdity the attention a real social predicament would demand, while Hugh Jackman does not ask to be excused from the joke. Their willingness helps, but the body part remains more memorable than anything that happens around it.

Tim Suhrstedt and Newton Thomas Sigel are among the cinematographers, and the pictures are clear enough to let the visual jokes register. That matters in The Catch, where the misplaced anatomy needs no explanation. Production designers Jade Healy and Happy Massee are also among the credited team, but the settings contribute little comic detail beyond what the actors bring into them. Across the sketches, there is too little pleasure in simply looking at the screen.

Editors including Suzy Elmiger and Myron Kerstein have the larger problem of sketches that continue after their surprise has gone. The cutting gives too much time to premises that needed either a quick exit or a second idea, so the anthology feels longer than its running time. The music, with contributors including Christophe Beck and Tyler Bates, does little to lighten the trudging pace. The sketches repeatedly end without giving the build-up a worthwhile payoff.

The trouble with Homeschooled is not simply that Kevin (Jeremy Allen White) is treated badly; cruelty can be useful comic material. The sketch needs a clearer target if the humiliation is to give us anything beyond discomfort. Gross-out comedy can work through surprise, embarrassment or a precise observation about how people act. Here, the determination to offend repeatedly takes the place of finding something funny about the behaviour.

The cast’s readiness to look ridiculous is the one sustained virtue, and it saves the film from seeming embarrassed by its own material. That does not make the experience much less wearying. Even allowing for the unevenness that comes with a collection of sketches, there are too few reasons to keep waiting for the next one. We would not spend an evening on it merely to watch capable actors prove they are good sports.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

26
Positive
0
Mixed
3
Negative
16

The critics are close to unanimous. Of nineteen reviews, none is positive and sixteen are plainly negative; most find this star-filled anthology of gross-out sketches unfunny, tedious and clumsily put together, with the wraparound story singled out as the weakest part. What little praise there is goes to the cast rather than the writing: several critics admire how far the actors are willing to go, and the sketch pairing Kate Winslet and Hugh Jackman, a short with Terrence Howard and James Gunn’s closing segment are each named as rare moments that work.

The spread is narrow and sits at the bottom of the scale. Three mixed notices offer the only comfort: The Wrap finds the thing disgusting but funny, Screen Daily calls it a mess worth filing as a curiosity, and Radio Times allows some laughs if taste is set aside. The recurring question elsewhere is how so many well-known actors were persuaded to appear.

Screen Daily
26 January 2013
50*

The omnibus is a total mess but perversely watchable for its raunchy, juvenile humour performed by big stars. The critic notes it settles for mildly outrageous rather than inspired comedy and is one to file away as a curiosity.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
25 January 2013 · ★★ · Dave Aldridge
40

This scatological collection of skits ignores boundaries of taste but offers some laughs if moral outrage is set aside. The critic highlights the hit-and-miss nature of the multi-director effort and praises the stars' willingness to embrace extreme comedy.

Read the full review →
IndieWire
25 January 2013 · Gabe Toro
30*

The review finds the film strains for laughs with an uninspired collection of comedy shorts featuring big stars.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
25 January 2013 · Stephen Holden
30*

The critic describes the star-filled anthology of crude vignettes as mostly juvenile and offensive, with participants seeming to relish being naughty. He singles out the transgressive 'Homeschooled' sketch involving forced inappropriate behavior on a child.

Read the full review →
Vulture
25 January 2013 · David Edelstein
30*

The critic finds the star-studded raunchy anthology mostly a fiasco with poor timing and execution, though a few sketches have moments.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
28 January 2013 · Sheri Linden
25*

The critic deems the anthology an aggressive stupidity and monumental missed opportunity with no comic payoffs, despite some sight gags. She singles out the star power in the 'Catch' sketch with Winslet and Jackman as one of the few effective moments.

Read the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is Movie 43 worth watching?
Movie 43 is not worth an evening, and we scored it 24. It is a gross-out sketch anthology in which a willing cast, Kate Winslet and Hugh Jackman among them, keeps announcing something disgusting without turning it into a finished joke. We laughed once or twice and then waited a long time for the next one.
How long is Movie 43, and what is it rated?
Movie 43 runs 1h 38m and is rated R by the MPA in the US. It is a comedy film.
Where can I watch Movie 43 in the US?
Movie 43 is streaming on Amazon Prime Video in the US, and it is also available to rent from Amazon Prime Video and Apple TV from $2.99. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.
How violent or frightening is Movie 43, and is it suitable for children?
Movie 43 carries a UK 15 certificate, and its offence is sexual and bodily rather than violent or frightening. The sketches turn on testicles, bodily functions and the humiliation of a home-schooled teenager, so it is unsuitable for children and unlikely to please anyone squeamish. Teenagers of certificate age will find nothing scary, only repetition.
How does Movie 43 compare to Monty Python's The Meaning of Life?
Movie 43 is the weaker film beside Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, which is also uneven and frequently filthy but gives its bad taste sharper targets and more elaborate staging. The Python film's best sketches earn the wait; the newer film's seldom develop past their first image. Choose the Python if you want dirt with a point.
What should I watch after Movie 43?
After Movie 43, try Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (1983, Fi1m 76): Bodily indignities and bad taste given sharper targets and more elaborate staging. Then Wild Tales (2014, Fi1m 83): Separate stories of appalling behaviour, each with a properly worked-out escalation; and Tampopo (1985, Fi1m 84): Food, sex and digressions, with room for affection as well as absurdity.

Cast

Awards

Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture, 2013

Won
Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture

If you liked this, try…

  1. The Kentucky Fried Movie (1977) · not reviewed yetAnother unruly sketch collection, with more sense of when to move on.

  2. Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (1983, Fi1m 76)Bodily indignities and bad taste given sharper targets and more elaborate staging.

  3. Wild Tales (2014, Fi1m 83)Separate stories of appalling behaviour, each with a properly worked-out escalation.

  4. Tampopo (1985, Fi1m 84)Food, sex and digressions, with room for affection as well as absurdity.

  5. The League of Gentlemen's Apocalypse (2005) · not reviewed yetGrotesque characters whose surroundings are as carefully considered as their worst habits.

Free account

Know what to watch tonight

Two lists that know where things are streaming, collections you can share, your own score beside ours, and Discover that remembers what you have seen.

  • Want to see, sorted by what is streaming now
  • Seen, with your score out of ten
  • No adverts, ever