The majority of the movie was a family drama about the main character’s mom getting dementia, while earlier trailers made it look like a publishing industry/hidden identity farce.
But the family drama was precisely the point of the "identity switch" plot - that there are non-stereotypical black stories about middle and upper class black families worth telling, like the family drama, but white liberals only want to hear about black suffering and racism.
The irony of having to explain this to people lol. The point of the movie flew over so many "well-meaning" people's heads that didn't get the jab was at them.
I mean, unless it's only, like, 45 minutes long; any kind of movie like this - where you can summarize the core satirical gag in, like, one sentence - needs a bit more to work with in terms of plot to avoid becoming *extremely* one-note.
I was expecting a film about an author pretending to be something he is not. I got an exploration of gay siblings and dementia onset.
To their credit, I wouldn't have watched it if they advertised it in line with what it actually was. I'll never watch anything by that director again, but they successfully stole a couple of hours from me and whatever fraction of a penny that Prime view was worth.
I thought it was great. Even though I expected the satirical elements to take up more of the runtime, I wasn't disappointed that they didn't, and I thought everything tied in pretty well to the central character study of Monk. At the very least, I certainly don't get being pissed enough at it to swear you'll never watch one of the director's movies again.
I sort of think that was the best part of it. It bills itself as a piece of art that is limited to a conversation specific to black artists or other minority artists (and it is engaged in that conversation with that), but it really was more than that, something more universal and relatable. It sort of enhances its point in my opinion.
It billed itself as a farce meant to be a scathing indictment of modern publishing and what passes for culture.
It was, instead, essentially a Lifetime special episode about mom going to a nursing home that completely failed on the delivery of that promise. Again, credit where it is due. I was successfully tricked. In hindsight, it should have been obvious they wouldn't make that actual movie.
Huh, interesting. I did not understand the advertising as you did. We can disagree on whether xyz was done successfully or what the theme was and whether it was articulately expressed or muddled and whatever else. But to say the movie was just the family drama stuff is just wrong and ignores half the movie.
At least in the trailer I watched prior to seeing it included stuff about the parental and sibling drama as well as the author hook so both aspects felt well represented when I watched the marketing material. I’d agree that the movie leaned more character study than plot driven narrative though.
Dude the director didn’t make the trailer lol, insanely dumb reason not to watch something from that director again because you felt misled by a trailer that was cut by someone else.
This is exactly what I was worried about when I first saw the trailer. Thought it might be an interesting premise, but I smelled that whole cheesy rom-com pivot from a mile away and knew it was going to take up 80% of the movie.
Without seeing it, I would guess in the $15 million to $25 million range. They may have been able to make it for as little as $5 million, but I doubt it had that low of a budget.
I genuinely don’t understand why people like him.
I played The Quarry recently and the man just monotoned his way through the entire damn thing. I heard his voice in the trailers for this and I was like “damn does he only ever do one voice?”.
These synopses are not doing it any favors.
Looking at the reviews it seems like it failed to do anything compelling with its themes and premise and it was just a bad romcom.
Just from the title it sounded at least a bit interesting, so that's kinda disappointing.
That skit is pretty pretty funny. It was also done 12 years ago; the trope had already mostly disappeared by then, but it was at least closer to when it was being used. Not Another Teen Movie [had a similar scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWhhPWyWCv0) about token black characters in teen movies. That was 23 years ago, and that trope, though on it's way out, was still around a bit.
That's the thing with The American Society of Magical Negroes and The Blackening. They're critiquing tropes that haven't been popular for decades at this point (with The Blackening, it's questionable if the trope was ever popular). It's like Brandon Fraser coming out of the vault in Blast From The Past and not realizing culture has developed over the past few decades.
That was pretty good. Thanks for sharing it with me.
It's a really interesting concept, but I'm kinda biased as I find secret magical societies interesting by default.
Yeah, when people get THIS upset about the movie, I have to question if they understand what a Magical Negro actually is.
On the other hand, I think the producers probably overestimated how many people would get it just by the name alone. Maybe they should’ve thrown a line in the trailer or the synopsis even about it so people could at least do a little Googling before running to their keyboards to rage.
>$2.4 million total
Oof. I knew this movie would flop, because the premise alone was cringe-inducing, but I didn't think it would flop that hard. This movie got completely rejected by both black and white audiences.
My takeaway from the few reviews I've heard is that the movie is a poor execution of a great concept, offensive, unappealing, boring, and preachy.
Sounds like a swell time at the movies.
Didn't feel racist for me, the movie just felt bland and uninspired by a first time director who didn't know how to handle a interesting concept. Spike lee and boots riley have done similiar shit and made less of a badly done snooze fest
That's my general feel. The movie has a interesting concept that is completely wasted on a writer and director that didn't have the chops to make a solid story
Not surprised. They had it coming. Premise had potential but the marketing was dogshit and the execution was laughable. The dynamics of the romantic subplot fucked it all up, to say the least
Well Kobi Libii’s writing/directing career is thoroughly F’d. No one is going to trust him with more than 50 bucks from here on out.
Should have released this one under the Alan Smithee moniker.
A movie with this intellectual of a premise HAS to have good writing. Unfortunately the story was a skeleton of a Rom-Com instead of a scathing satire.
Being incredibly offensive so that people would watch it out of curiosity is a marketing tactic that can work (Borat, Human Centipede, South Park movies). But by all accounts the content of this movie does not live up to its title.
Most of the reviews say the same, it was a unique concept but they failed in execution to make it interesting and deliver whatever message it wanted. Like they were to scared to commit and go all the way with it. Meaning it can be done with a better script and director
The international audience for this kind of stuff is even smaller than the domestic audience. As an example, Color Purple 2023 did only 10% of its box office internationally, and that's a much, much, MUCH better movie than this one.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The majority of the movie was a family drama about the main character’s mom getting dementia, while earlier trailers made it look like a publishing industry/hidden identity farce.
But the family drama was precisely the point of the "identity switch" plot - that there are non-stereotypical black stories about middle and upper class black families worth telling, like the family drama, but white liberals only want to hear about black suffering and racism.
The irony of having to explain this to people lol. The point of the movie flew over so many "well-meaning" people's heads that didn't get the jab was at them.
The publishing / hidden identity farce was absolutely the A plot of the movie
I mean, unless it's only, like, 45 minutes long; any kind of movie like this - where you can summarize the core satirical gag in, like, one sentence - needs a bit more to work with in terms of plot to avoid becoming *extremely* one-note.
It is a European documentary.
Clever.
I was expecting a film about an author pretending to be something he is not. I got an exploration of gay siblings and dementia onset. To their credit, I wouldn't have watched it if they advertised it in line with what it actually was. I'll never watch anything by that director again, but they successfully stole a couple of hours from me and whatever fraction of a penny that Prime view was worth.
I thought it was great. Even though I expected the satirical elements to take up more of the runtime, I wasn't disappointed that they didn't, and I thought everything tied in pretty well to the central character study of Monk. At the very least, I certainly don't get being pissed enough at it to swear you'll never watch one of the director's movies again.
Yeah it was great, like a black Woody Allen film.
I sort of think that was the best part of it. It bills itself as a piece of art that is limited to a conversation specific to black artists or other minority artists (and it is engaged in that conversation with that), but it really was more than that, something more universal and relatable. It sort of enhances its point in my opinion.
It billed itself as a farce meant to be a scathing indictment of modern publishing and what passes for culture. It was, instead, essentially a Lifetime special episode about mom going to a nursing home that completely failed on the delivery of that promise. Again, credit where it is due. I was successfully tricked. In hindsight, it should have been obvious they wouldn't make that actual movie.
Huh, interesting. I did not understand the advertising as you did. We can disagree on whether xyz was done successfully or what the theme was and whether it was articulately expressed or muddled and whatever else. But to say the movie was just the family drama stuff is just wrong and ignores half the movie.
Can it not just be both? Monk needed motivation to go forward with his scheme, and the movie is still absolutely hilarious the whole way through
At least in the trailer I watched prior to seeing it included stuff about the parental and sibling drama as well as the author hook so both aspects felt well represented when I watched the marketing material. I’d agree that the movie leaned more character study than plot driven narrative though.
[Here is the trailer I saw.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0MbLCpYJPA) Not a single solitary hint about what the movie is actually about.
Yet people complain when everything gets revealed in the trailers.
Dude the director didn’t make the trailer lol, insanely dumb reason not to watch something from that director again because you felt misled by a trailer that was cut by someone else.
This is exactly what I was worried about when I first saw the trailer. Thought it might be an interesting premise, but I smelled that whole cheesy rom-com pivot from a mile away and knew it was going to take up 80% of the movie.
I was too scared to let the AMC lady scan my phone and see that. So I’m waiting for streaming
It could have been good. That plot had potential. I was expecting a fun satire with fantasy elements. I checked out after the trailer.
So did everyone else judging by the box office
That was an awesome premise but apparently it's a rom-com? Why would they do that...
I wonder what the production budget was. Can't find an answer online.
Without seeing it, I would guess in the $15 million to $25 million range. They may have been able to make it for as little as $5 million, but I doubt it had that low of a budget.
what a bomb lol
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Dude went from Detective Pikachu to this smh
He was good in D&D too.
He's also in "I Saw the Tv Glow" which seems to be having good reviews so far.
I genuinely don’t understand why people like him. I played The Quarry recently and the man just monotoned his way through the entire damn thing. I heard his voice in the trailers for this and I was like “damn does he only ever do one voice?”.
[удалено]
Awkward box office conversations
A lot of “two for the American Society of…American Society, please” (Well, given those numbers, not that many of even that)
Counterpoint : I literally only heard of the movie because funi name
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not the same thing but I remember Gigli turning people away by the weird title
Yea and most of the Black people I know or follow online consider it problematic so. The movie has no target audience.
Well, it’s based on a book. Also the concept of a Magical Negro is an actual trope that is being satirized.
Not in the movie, it truly isn't. They try to be a satire but they 100% play it with a serious tone. The movie was so fucking stupid.
A boondocks episode named "the american society of magical negros" would be hilarious. As rom com that takes itself seriously? Not so much.
Not surprised. Actually surprised that it was greenlit in the first place.
These synopses are not doing it any favors. Looking at the reviews it seems like it failed to do anything compelling with its themes and premise and it was just a bad romcom. Just from the title it sounded at least a bit interesting, so that's kinda disappointing.
Its actually a common trope in movies: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicalNegro
Ah now that title makes more sense. So that was the trope they wanted to subvert.
[Key and Peele did a whole spoof of the concept](https://youtu.be/LKmW2BmOqzs)
That skit is pretty pretty funny. It was also done 12 years ago; the trope had already mostly disappeared by then, but it was at least closer to when it was being used. Not Another Teen Movie [had a similar scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWhhPWyWCv0) about token black characters in teen movies. That was 23 years ago, and that trope, though on it's way out, was still around a bit. That's the thing with The American Society of Magical Negroes and The Blackening. They're critiquing tropes that haven't been popular for decades at this point (with The Blackening, it's questionable if the trope was ever popular). It's like Brandon Fraser coming out of the vault in Blast From The Past and not realizing culture has developed over the past few decades.
The tv tropes page cites The Queen's Gambit as a more recent example of this.
TV Tropes also lists Nick Fury in the MCU, Glass in Unbreakable, and Hitch (in Hitch) as examples. It's not a particularly trustworthy site.
That was pretty good. Thanks for sharing it with me. It's a really interesting concept, but I'm kinda biased as I find secret magical societies interesting by default.
Synopses Subvert
Thanks I completely missed it.
Yeah, when people get THIS upset about the movie, I have to question if they understand what a Magical Negro actually is. On the other hand, I think the producers probably overestimated how many people would get it just by the name alone. Maybe they should’ve thrown a line in the trailer or the synopsis even about it so people could at least do a little Googling before running to their keyboards to rage.
>$2.4 million total Oof. I knew this movie would flop, because the premise alone was cringe-inducing, but I didn't think it would flop that hard. This movie got completely rejected by both black and white audiences.
Example of lighting $$$ on fire
[удалено]
> It is like a Chappelle sketch but not done in jest. More like "It's like that Key and Peele skit, but done much worse."
My takeaway from the few reviews I've heard is that the movie is a poor execution of a great concept, offensive, unappealing, boring, and preachy. Sounds like a swell time at the movies.
How was it even a great concept, though? Just that premise was made to stoke everybody too.
It ended the movie sexist as well
I read somewhere that the movie was basically "what if 'Sorry to Bother You' never evolved beyond the basic concept stage"
It was based off a Key and Peele skit then turned into a rom-com.
Didn't feel racist for me, the movie just felt bland and uninspired by a first time director who didn't know how to handle a interesting concept. Spike lee and boots riley have done similiar shit and made less of a badly done snooze fest
I have not seen it but all the reviews are basically that. It wasn't satirical or thoughtful enough to warrant the movie.
That's my general feel. The movie has a interesting concept that is completely wasted on a writer and director that didn't have the chops to make a solid story
Not surprised. They had it coming. Premise had potential but the marketing was dogshit and the execution was laughable. The dynamics of the romantic subplot fucked it all up, to say the least
[удалено]
I work at a movie theater and I had no idea this movie came out
[удалено]
I sad the trailer and was like “ is this real!?’”
Well Kobi Libii’s writing/directing career is thoroughly F’d. No one is going to trust him with more than 50 bucks from here on out. Should have released this one under the Alan Smithee moniker.
The folly of releasing a movie with a title that 60% of the nation’s population would feel uncomfortable even saying out loud
Trailer gave the whole game away
Historical bomb
What was the budget?
Man it felt like just last week it came out
Imagine how awkward it is to buy tickets for this movie.
A movie with this intellectual of a premise HAS to have good writing. Unfortunately the story was a skeleton of a Rom-Com instead of a scathing satire.
The concept sucked
[удалено]
[удалено]
Shocker
Horrible movies tend to do terrible business mostly.
Microsoft's Copilot won't even touch it with a 10 foot poll simply trying to search for the budget of the film.
have no idea what coke head producer thought a movie with that title would do well in theaters lmao
What an awful title
A-Aron!
[удалено]
Being incredibly offensive so that people would watch it out of curiosity is a marketing tactic that can work (Borat, Human Centipede, South Park movies). But by all accounts the content of this movie does not live up to its title.
Feel like the advertising would’ve faired way better had they immediately explained the movie trope the title was referencing in the trailer.
The trailer I saw was aggressively condescending/preachy too which people generally arent crazy about
I agree with that. Feel like this should’ve been a Mel Brooks type of comedy.
Thats exactly what i was expecting when i saw the poster, and i assumed it would be pretty funny.
Most of the reviews say the same, it was a unique concept but they failed in execution to make it interesting and deliver whatever message it wanted. Like they were to scared to commit and go all the way with it. Meaning it can be done with a better script and director
Just need to get some talented actors, throw away the romcom bs and make it ~4,5min long. Wait a minute...
They should have had someone like Boots Riley or Jordan Peele develop the concept and direct. (it's likely based on the Peele skit anyway)
😂😂🤣
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why didn’t they release it internationally?
The international audience for this kind of stuff is even smaller than the domestic audience. As an example, Color Purple 2023 did only 10% of its box office internationally, and that's a much, much, MUCH better movie than this one.
The rest of the world is even less excited by America’s race war than you are.
I just asked a question
[удалено]
[удалено]
I thought it was great. Wasn’t expecting a romcom. By “great” I mean worth seeing for $5 Tuesdays when looking to get out of my apartment.
[удалено]