
Your Highness seems to be one of those polarizing movies that critics despise and audiences enjoy. Okay, enjoy might be too strong of a word - it received a 57% on Rotten Tomatoes for audience choice and a paltry 25% for critics choice. But doesn't this unusually high gap between audience and critic enjoyment suggest that for those who the movie was really intended for, it was actually a success? The target audience, which Bill O'Reily fondly coined the term Stoner-Slackers, was probably too lazy to make a strong showing at a movie primarily made for them. Medieval enthusiasts and men with a very immature sense of humor also probably enjoyed this film. For everyone else though, it's no surprise that it wasn't a hit.
James Franco stars as Fabious, a pretty-boy knight who must quest with his incompetent, jealous brother Thadeus (Danny McBride) to save his bride-to-be Belladonna (Zooey Deschanel). Natalie Portman comes in to support the cast as Isabel, the warrior-hottie love interest of Thadeus. The plot, while nothing spectacular, is certainly coherent and straightforward enough to deserve less criticism than it has been getting.
What is especially being picked apart in recent reviews, however, seems to be the humor. Your Highness marketed itself as a stupid but entertaining movie (how can a tagline like "Best. Quest. Ever" suggest otherwise?), and that was exactly what it was. Yes, there were maybe too many uncomfortably sexual j

Why did such a lowly but entertaining film like The Fast and Furious gain a 52% approval rating from critics on Rotten Tomatoes, while Your Highness gained just half of that? My theory is that people were expecting too much from recently lauded actors James Franco and Natalie Portman, and that given the surprisingly deep and emotional tone of the other Gr

No comments:
Post a Comment