After 32 reviews on RottenTomatoes Bucky Larson: Born to be a Star has a 0% rating. After two weeks in theaters (yeah, that’s all it lasted) it made only $2.5 million from audiences and users at IMDb have rated it 2.1/10 and after over 8,500 ratings at RottenTomatoes it has a 2.3/5 user rating. What I take away from this is that the general consensus is that it’s not a good film. However, star Nick Swardson doesn’t believe that’s the case…
Talking with SplitSider, Swardson was asked his opinion on the film’s reception and he starts off well enough saying, “It was one of those things where I was like, either people are going to buy this or not. It’s going to hit or miss, and it didn’t really hit.” That’s a sensible answer. No blame placed and embracing the fact he took a “Go big or go home” attitude with a character and unfortunately it just didn’t work out. Then he gives up.
In the same breath he talks about the critical reception saying, “[Critics] were waiting, waiting to hate that movie. It’s kind of funny that they get their rocks off on reviews like that. They review The King’s Speech, then they review Bucky Larson.”
The interviewer, Halle Kiefer, admits to seeing the film, but I can’t quite tell if she buttered Swardson up, letting on that she liked the film or if he just continued to go off on his own, but he had more to say:
“It’s a lot of work and a lot of reviewers aren’t going into that movie to like it. They don’t want to like it. None of those reviewers was psyched to see Bucky Larson and laugh. They go in with the mentality, f–k these guys for making another movie. They go in there to kind of headhunt. It makes me laugh because it’s just so embarrassing. It makes them look like such morons. You can’t review Avatar then review Bucky Larson. Comedy is so subjective, you know what I mean? To sit there and technically pick it apart is so stupid. We’ve never made movies for critics, so we could give a f–k.”
I’m pretty sure you can put all of this together without me saying too much, but it’s quite obvious Swardson is in denial and has completely abandoned his previous level-headed “people are going to buy this or not” approach and now gone into full excuse and name-calling mode.
Critics can’t review “Avatar then review Bucky Larson” because comedy is “subjective”? What is that supposed to mean? Comedy is and always will be subjective and not just for critics but for EVERYONE. Therefore, is Swardson saying no one can have an opinion on Bucky Larson?
I wonder what excuse he has for the ratings the film has received from users at RottenTomatoes. There are only 32 critics reviews filed compared to 8,513 user grades and only 35% of them gave ratings saying they liked it. One RottenTomatoes user review says it’s “the worst movie i’ve ever seen in a movie theater.”
In Swardson’s defense, the film did earn a “B” CinemaScore according to The Hollywood Reporter and many of the comments I saw on RottenTomatoes were written by people giving it a 0 out of 5 stars that had not seen it. Additionally, the Internet is primarily built on hate. I can understand Swardson’s feelings are hurt, but that can happen when you put yourself out there. This, however, doesn’t give him any reason not to accept someone else’s opinion, especially with the arguments he’s using above.
As for me, I haven’t seen Bucky Larson, but based on the trailers it would appear it’s not a movie for me. I explained my reasons why when I posted the trailer and poster back in June. If I did review it, however, I would give it an honest and subjective review based on what’s on screen and my personal sensibilities. Would Swardson prefer I, or any other critic or moviegoer, do otherwise?
