Heckler (2007)

As a 'Top Reviewer' on IMDb, I have written many film reviews in my time; however, almost all of them are capsule reviews that include a plot summary, brief pros/cons, and maybe a quick noteworthy piece of trivia to add an eensy bit of fat. However, none have been more personal than HECKLER. Here is a rare PERSONAL summary: I first watched HECKLER a couple of years after its release. Nobody likes a heckler, so the generic title was really an eye-catcher for me. Also, being a horror movie fan, I have a soft-spot for Jamie Kennedy who played Randy Meeks in the first three SCREAM films—possibly the horror genre's most underrated supporting character. My first viewing was at a buddy's studio apartment, and he and I both really enjoyed it.What brought me to replay this movie a few years later:I had recently discovered that one of my books had gotten a * out of ***** on Amazon.com by a reader. It included something along the lines of "the characters are as flat as the paper they're printed on" and some other harsh words that I don't wish to continue breathing life into. Deep down, I knew I shouldn't have cared; I get reviews and some of them are good, some are mixed and some are bad—this person's review made it pretty clear that they either didn't understand important elements of the story and/or it simply wasn't their cup of tea. On the surface, however, it was difficult not to be hurt.I actually decided to give HECKLER a replay and it really helped. Not only did it remind me that others receive this on a similar scale, but also that I created something that puts me in the spotlight to get heckled. In a way, whether my work was praised or criticized, I made an accomplishment that put me in a position to get reception from others—and just being able to have myself out there in front of the world like that is quite an achievement, and that fact is what I should be focused on.Also, Perez Hilton made a commendable comment in a deleted scene, explaining that because he dishes criticism, he has to accept criticism from others in return. While it might be an obvious point, it's an easy one to forget when you're down-in-the-dumps due to a bad review. I have written hundreds of reviews; and, yes, on occasion, I am willing to be blunt. Therefore, I need to move on and not let such a First World problem affect me creatively or emotionally.HECKLER is an excellent comfort film for anyone who is in a positioned to be heckled or negatively reviewed.***½ (out of four)

The true irony of this movie is that the comedians and actors interviewed become the hecklers of hecklers and critics. For the most part I sympathize and agree with what the comedians are saying. But when Eli Roth just makes fun of a fat chick in Cleveland as though anyone who doesn't live in Hollywood or like his movies is a dumb worthless piece of sh*t, he becomes the bully (heckler) he's complaining about. Another bit of irony is that I am writing this "review" about a movie that essentially just becomes a sob fest of actors complaining about bad reviews they've received. After a half hour of this I started having a hard time feeling sorry for them no matter how right they were and just got bored. It really just shows how self obsessed some of these people are. Do they ever disagree with a good review? Sorry some of your movies are really, really sh*tty and you know they are sh*tty. Does that mean people shouldn't or won't watch them? Hell no. People love bad movies and I love tons of 'em, but don't get your p*nties in a bind if somebody calls your piece a sh*t a piece of sh*t. Just count your cash all the way the bank and get your agent on the horn, because I'm sure there's another piece of sh*t waiting for you to star in. Anyway, I give this movie 2 1/2 waffles. ;)

This film is OK, but not one that I'll be re-watching anytime soon, or recommending to friends. The first 20 minutes or so are great. This section focuses on how stand up comedians are impacted by hecklers, and how they deal with them on stage, and emotionally. Suddenly, the film focuses solely on film critics. This starts out interesting, but drags on for the remainder of the film.One thing I found offensive was a point that was hi-lighted a few times in the film: What have YOU created? What film experience do YOU have to be able to judge me!? I hate this elitist attitude from performers. I'm not a chef, but I know when food tastes like poop.All in all, I really wish the film would have stuck to hecklers because that part of the film was interesting and funny. The second part of the film that focused on critics was interesting, but not nearly as entertaining, and dragged on for too long.

This documentary is a lot of fun, mainly because Kennedy spends a lot of time interviewing interesting people and funny comedians. Not surprisingly, the comedians often have the most incisive, trenchant observations--often cloaked behind vulgarities or inanities.Where the film goes awry is in its conflation of heckler with critic. As a teacher, I can understand the destructive nature of a heckler. There is no benefit in having a student make a smart alec comment while I'm trying to make a point. If the "heckler" truly wishes to help me, then he can come to me after class and offer a suggestion. I think the analogy holds with comedians--although my students aren't normally drunk! A critic, in contrast to a heckler, is not interrupting the show. He is assessing the show/performance/movie/music/etc. after the fact. Admittedly some critics can be jerks, but good criticism should work to make art better by defining the art and helping us to understand it deeper. (As a fan of Roger Ebert, I can attest that he does this for me.) Besides, many of us enjoy reading criticism almost as much as we enjoy the actual art. (In other words, any criticism Jamie Kennedy has against criticism can be turned against him: If you don't like my show, don't attend it. If you don't like my criticism, don't read it.) One thing I think Kennedy fails to understand is that average people don't see a distinction between stars and characters. Jim Carrey is a real person, yes, but I don't know him and never will. To me he is as much a distant character as Ace Ventura. If I make a snide remark about how Carrey's career is on the wane and he deserves an early retirement before he can do any more damage, I don't mean this personally because I don't know him personally! There are several good books about "para-relationships" that people have with stars. Kennedy seems to think that we should relate to him the same way we relate to our roommate or our next door neighbor.And that's my final problem: There is some hypocrisy here. Kennedy seems to be asking for sympathy for himself and his fellow comics: Hey, y'all, we're just people with feelings! But how many comics make a name ripping to shreds women, or Paris Hilton, or conservative Christians, or George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton? So it's okay to laugh these people to scorn, but please, oh please, be nice to me? As they say where I'm from: Don't play with the bull if you don't want the horns.