Heckler (2007) User Reviews

Heckler: Entertaining, but extremely flawed

[dyl_gon · 7/10 · 5 October 2008]

It's a little weird – and very ironic - to review Heckler, a documentary that speaks out specifically on film criticism. Despite the title and promotional materials suggesting that it focuses on those who heckle stand up comedians, the film has a change of heart half way through, switching its efforts over to berating film critics. Therein lies one of the bigger problems with Heckler: the two topics don't have much to do with one another, despite Jamie Kennedy's, the star of the film, attempts at correlating them. Besides this major flaw, Heckler is an entertaining film. Personally, I disagree with nearly every point of view featured within Heckler, but the film held my interest, containing what must be hundreds of different interviews with celebrities.

The first half of Heckler focuses primarily on audience members at stand-up comedy shows who take it upon themselves to interrupt the performance, insult the comedian, or occasionally even try and steal the spotlight by finishing the jokes. While this may not seem like a big issue to most, the film demonstrates how hecklers have become an increasingly large problem for stand –up comedians. Interviews with a myriad of celebrity comedians, including David Cross, Bill Maher and Tom Green among others, show the frustrations, self-doubt and career repercussions comedians face because of unruly patrons. Heckler also documents some of the more extreme cases as well, including an assault on a stand-up by an offended viewer, a musician who smashes his guitar over an unruly mans head, and the infamous Michael Richards incident. This portion of Heckler does a good job of shedding light on an issue most people have never given a second-thought to.

This is soon abandoned in favor of bashing film critics, especially, but not limited to, the internet kind. There are a few legitimate points made about criticism, particularly how in the "internet" age, more attention is focused on deriding and humiliating the actors/directors who created the film, then critiquing the film itself. While this does show a gradual decrease in the quality of film criticism over the years, it's still very difficult to sympathize with the various film directors interviewed within the film, who all seem to take film criticisms, and the small jabs that come with many of them, way too far. Anyone working within the entertainment business has to have thick skin, it comes with the job. One of these featured directors is Paul Chilsen, who supposedly dropped out of film-making because his first feature got poor reviews. This isn't the fault of the critics; he simply wasn't cut out for the business.

However, no performer featured in Heckler comes across as infantile and whiny as the star of the film himself, Jamie Kennedy. It's a wonder the man ever made it through high school, as it is frequently demonstrated throughout the film that he is unable to take the slightest criticisms of his work. When confronting two teenage hecklers, Kennedy doesn't seem to care about the fact that his show was disrupted; his only concern seems to be that they didn't find it funny, as he begins to say "What do you know about comedy? Who are you to decide what's funny". They're your audience, Jamie. They paid money to see your show, and while they don't have a right to ruin it for others, they have every right to decide whether it's funny or not. If you don't feel like people should judge your work, perhaps you shouldn't be performing it for them.

Kennedy also begins meeting with critics who have given his last feature film, Son of the Mask, a bad review. It becomes more apparent that Kennedy just can't accept the fact that people dislike it or other films of his. He blames others for his own failures as an actor/writer. It's not just the insulting reviews that Kennedy has a problem with: he has a problem with any review that speaks negatively of the film. In Kennedy's dream world, everyone would be forced to enjoy every single piece of art out there, for fear of upsetting the artists. Kennedy takes offense to Richard Roeper's review stating he wanted to walk out of Son of the Mask. The ensuing confrontation is hilarious, as Kennedy attempts to change Roeper's mind by saying in all seriousness that the movie was trying to push new boundaries...by having a baby with super powers who could throw people. In another scene, Kennedy confronts a critic, Peter Grumbine, who seems to find Jamie's overreaction rather funny. At the end of the exchange, Jamie actually calls Grumbine evil, putting someone who dislikes his film among the ranks of Hitler, Charles Manson and Osama Bin Laden. Even if you still have the slightest doubt after watching the movie that Kennedy is overreacting, the deleted scenes should clear everything up: Kennedy freaks out on a friend who merely said one of his comedy bits didn't work.

Perhaps the most alarming thing is many of the director's insistence that no one has the right to judge their work, that anyone who speaks negatively of their work misunderstands it. It shows a complete lack of consideration for the audience, and makes one wonder why these self-proclaimed masters of film even bother showing their work to audiences if they don't care about the reaction. The one exception is Uwe Boll, possibly the most hated man in the film-making business. While he does have an organized boxing bout with critics in the movie, letting off a bit of steam, he never once speaks out against film criticism. Perhaps this is why someone like Boll is increasingly getting better (his two latest movies have had some support) while people like Jamie Kennedy, Joel Schumacher and Eli Roth are continuously getting worse and worse. In the end, it's not film criticism that's destroying the film business, but Kennedy's (and others) inability to learn from the criticism.

Good, but could have been great.

[houlihanb · 6/10 · 6 April 2009]

I have never written a film review here before, but Heckler actually compelled me to do so. One thing I gleaned from the movie was an appeal to critics: Don't be mean for the sake of being mean. Instead, make the criticism constructive. I aim to do that here.

I will start by saying I really enjoyed hearing the perspective of all the performers and artists on the subject of heckling and criticism. Since the interview subjects are funny and talented people, the resulting string of talking heads is actually quite entertaining. As for the subject matter, I have always been sympathetic towards comedians who have to endure hecklers while on stage, but this movie really hit the point home. Also interesting was the footage of actual heckling incidents, and the sometimes shocking reactions from the performer.

Jamie Kennedy, the de facto host of the movie, was good for the most part, but some sequences were more effective than others. He was at his best when his humor was self-deprecating. When Jamie confronted a critic, read their review out loud, and then sat there with a sort of deflated, forlorn look on his face as the critic continued to insult him, that was good stuff. But when he went on the attack, such as insulting one guy's babysitting job, or asking a critic about his sex life, he was turning into the very mean-spirited critic that he had been admonishing. If he instead became the better person, and turned the other cheek, he would have been a more sympathetic (and funnier) character. Still, his performance overall was good.

As for the treatment of film criticism, I felt like there needed to be more balance. There should have been some acknowledgment that film critics provide a valuable source of consumer information. When I go to see a movie, I have to make a 1/2 hour to 1 hour drive, sometimes pay for parking, pay $10 or more admission, and devote 2 hours of my life to watching it. Before doing so, I would like to know if it is worth the money, time, and effort. Film reviews are an essential tool in making this determination. I am a consumer, and a movie is a product I am purchasing. How is it any different from reading reviews for any other product before purchasing it? Why are car reviewers not berated for what they do? How about Consumer Reports, which reviews just about any product you can think of? As for internet reviewers, how about the customer reviews on amazon.com, or rei.com, or any major internet retail site? They may not be professional reviewers, but their opinions can be meaningful in large numbers. When 100 owners give something a good (or bad) review, that is useful information if I am thinking of purchasing that product. I think it is also a false argument to suggest that film critics lack credibility because most of them have never made a film themselves. Back to the car reviewer analogy, I bet most of them have never manufactured cars, but they have driven enough of them to separate a finely tuned machine from a lemon.

So, while I enjoyed Heckler overall, I couldn't help but leave a little disappointed knowing it could have been much better if it was made with a little less hostility and a little more thoughtfulness. With this approach, I think these filmmakers could turn a good movie into a great one.

How do you give a bad review to a movie whose whole point is how much bad reviews hurt celebrities' feelings?

[patrickjnorton · 5/10 · 21 September 2008]

There are only two reviews on here, and one of them (the gushing, 10 stars, 'I laughed my ass off' review) is obviously a plant. but the other guy basically has it right. the movie starts off solidly, examining the interaction between live performers and hecklers, and interviewing comedians who've had to deal with hecklers while they, the comedians, are performing. that was interesting, and had some funny moments when the performers get to fight back. I can't imagine being a stand-up, let alone dealing with a heckler, so you get a good sense of the terror you feel when you start to lose control of an audience. but then the movie goes much broader and begins to examine all hecklers, or critics, and their motives behind posting bad or mean reviews of movies. while it seems perfectly reasonable to me to at least call out the critics when they stop reviewing and start recklessly bashing, problems arise when they start naming movies that got viciously bad reviews, and most of the movies they name are frankly terrible. Jamie Kennedy seems stunned that people didn't like "Malibu's Most Wanted" or "Son of the Mask", and even while interviewing his critics never really listens to their responses. he argues that they have no real intellectual basis for critiquing his or others' films because they've never been in the entertainment industry. by his logic the bloggers have no right because they're just losers writing from their parents' basements, and the professional critics have no right because they're just failed writers themselves who never made it in their desired profession. who then, if not his audience or his actual critics, can criticize his movies? In my humble opinion, the beginning of this movie worked quite well, if only because no one likes a heckler, they interrupt a performance and try to divert attention to themselves. Todd Glass (interviewed in "Heckler")has a great youtube video up of him destroying a heckler, not simply for interrupting his and others' sets, but for treating the wait staff badly. It's great, and he puts her in her place. But criticizing a movie, no matter how viciously or stupidly, just isn't the same thing. The film was watched, allowed to run its full course, and either you liked it or you didn't. In the same way that various comedians argue that if an audience member doesn't like a show they have the right to quietly leave, people in the entertainment industry have the right to stop reading reviews by people whose opinions they know to be no better than idiot hecklers. They don't complain when the critics love their films, so they're going to have to live with it when they occasionally hate them. "Heckler" in the end just didn't work for me.

(Editor's note: after this review, Patrick was promptly maced and escorted out of IMDb by security.)

Genius on the fly

[winner55 · 12 August 2011]

A few years ago I wrote that the infamous Monkees' movie "Head" was an accidental masterpiece. Rereading that review recently, I realized that many people may have thought I was writing sarcastically, ironically. I was not. "Head" IS a masterpiece of cinema, even though it undoubtedly was not what the Monkees or the filmmakers intended, it is just so brilliantly put together that whatever the motivations, a real document of the '60s had been produced.

"Heckler," similarly, is a film that reaches way beyond its initial intentions. Filmed 'on the sly' (i.e., whenever they could arrange an interview) over a three year period, the film evolved from a 'behind-the-scenes' tour documentary into a study into the relationship between comics and their hecklers, into an essay on the problematic relationship between performing artists and their critics generally (especially those on the internet, such as at IMDb). This evolution marks its 'accidental' character - the filmmakers are not trying for depth, they find it because it is there, and demands attention.

Some of this movie is funny, even hilarious, some even disturbing. As it should be. The film asks why we want to voice opinions of work that is solely intended to entertain us. Some of the answer to that is not pleasant to confront. Are we jealous of the more successful? Yet even the equally successful seem to have their opinions - why7 The film leaves the question with us, preferring to resolve the problem of how artists (of various genres) should deal with it (learn from it, burn it, move on).

I learned a lot from this movie. The cinematography is - well, anyone who could hold a camera and hit the record button did so. The editing is wonderful. There's no intrusive commentary except a handful of title cards. The people are real and captured in as real a manner as the present day (post 'reality TV) allows. It's just a brilliantly put together venture, however it came about.

My favorite part? - and I think the decisive moment of the film - Andrew Dice Clay's confrontation with a worm of a CNN commentator who had not the slightest idea what he was talking about, and then moved on to a story about Art Carney! You won't learn a lot about the mysteries of the universe, but you may learn something about yourself.

(2 BTW notes - (1. The dance towards the end is fascinating. 2. The 'bonus' material on the DVD is uniformly excellent.)

Starts in the right place, but then looses it

[JimmyG100 · 6/10 · 26 January 2010]

The irony isn't lost on me that I am reviewing a documentary that specifically targets critics. I don't review much, but I felt I had something to say about this piece.

Now, I find Jamie Kennedy funny. Not hysterical, but I like him in films like Scream and even his cameos in Harold and Kumar and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. Hell I even get a chuckle watching some of his movies when I catch them on TV. I wouldn't mind seeing his stand up act. I certainly wouldn't heckle him.

However, this movie seems to be spreading the message that nothing is bad to everyone, and shame on us if we so choose to tell someone we didn't like their movie. I haven't seen Son of the Mask, but from what I can tell, it was truly an amazingly horrible film. What this film won't face up to is that, while there are many underrated movies out there, some things, in fact, ARE just plain bad.

But I'm getting off track, as this movie seems to. It is, of course, called "Heckler" and the first half of it covers the art of heckling and the response stand up comics have to it very well. I loved hearing the stories of every comedians worst heckler. I loved the different responses they thought to give and their thought process behind it. After all, nobody likes a heckler. You want to sit down and watch a show, what you don't want is some obnoxious person interrupting to contribute their own thoughts or lack there of.

But about half way into the movie it diverts from heckling into reviewing. As if to say harsh reviews are equal to heckling. It bashes movie critics as if they are all stupid elitists that have nothing better to do than poo-poo on the film you just made. And you know, I can see their point, especially in the harsh and unwarranted personal attacks critics put out there. However, critiquing films is not equal to heckling. Heckling interrupts the show, it ruins everyone's experience of it, it's not criticizing anything it's just being an ass.

The most ridiculous part probably comes during the Carrot Top interview. This is when Jamie Kennedy sits across from Carrot Top and seriously asks him why people find him to be an easy target. Carrot Top. I'm sorry, but when you look as ridiculous as Carrot Top when he preforms his routine, why not just design your own prop bulls eye?

You see what this film doesn't show is people accepting criticism for what they put out. They have Uwe Boll fighting his critics as if by fighting them that's going to make him a better filmmaker. You have Jamie defending Son of the Mask. You know what's better than making a documentary that goes after people that didn't like your movie? How about laughing at yourself and how bad your film really was? I mean appreciate all the people who liked it, but don't be so sad when someone posts a bad review of you online. That's not heckling.

I only wish this movie would've spent more time with stand up and less time asking why people are rude online. I mean overall it's a pretty good doc, the parts about heckling are great, the focus group stuff was interesting too and I wish they had gone more into that, but it gets a little too sensitive at times defending actors and directors for stuff that is really just plain bad, and I only wish they would admit that.

Starts out great, changes direction, and drags out.

[glassmonovitch · 6/10 · 7 January 2013]

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.

the movie would have been much, much better if Jamie Kennedy hadn't hijacked it. But still a very entertaining movie.

[murder-junkie2005 · 6/10 · 13 November 2009]

The casting list is so great and the first half of the movie feature such great and funny stories. But it seems like there were so many more great and funny stories still to be told when Jamie Kennedy decided that the movie was going to be about himself and defending Son of Mask. rather then about actual heckling of stand-up comics.

It just wasn't what I was expecting given the DVD packaging and marketing of the film. Its a huge waste to have all of those great and cool talents in the cast listing and not use but 10-15 seconds of their stuff.

The movie still wasn't bad, though. Jamie Kennedy did a good job of exposing the losers who some people might mistake as experts (as odd as it sounds, those dumb asses do seem to get quoted quite a bit).

Here's My Constructive Criticism

[CaptainADD · 3/10 · 21 July 2010]

In this documentary, Jamie Kennedy says that movie critics should make a point of giving "constructive criticism," that is, instead of just saying that a movie sucked, say why it was bad and what could have been done to make it better. This is one of the parts that I agree with, so I'll try to do that here.

The first 20 minutes or so were exactly what the DVD cover and title claim to be- a documentary about how stand-up comedians deal with hecklers. Listening to the comedians' war stories and methods of dealing with hecklers is hilarious and a fascinating subject.

But then the movie veers off course when Kennedy makes a ham-fisted comparison equating movie critics to hecklers. Plenty of others here have explained why that's a bad comparison, so I don't need to explain why again.

From that point on, it feels like the movie is nothing but JK whining that no one liked Son of the Mask. I'm a bit bitter about the bait-and-switch done here. He shows us a brief clip of SotM that's supposed to convince us that the whole thing is funny, and assumes that this gets us 100% on board with his belief that everyone who criticized it is totally wrong and/or mean-spirited. And EVERYONE he finds either didn't watch it or didn't like it. He mopes around between sadness and anger, never once stopping to consider that just maybe Son of the Mask really was a bad film.

In fact, he seems to be really stuck on the idea that there is no such thing as a bad film whatsoever. Kennedy argues that because every opinion on a movie is just an opinion, not a fact. However, most people would agree that if a film is universally hated by both professional critics and the viewing public, tanks at the box office, and gets singled out by Rotten Tomatoes as one of the 100 worst films of the decade, as Son of the Mask was, then it's a pretty safe bet to call it a bad movie. There is such a thing as a bad film.

He has some valid points about how mean-spirited and personal-level criticisms of films are excessively cruel, but these points seem to get lost in the mess of the post-heckler part of the movie. It's unfocused and has a lot of logical leaps. One minute all movie critics are scum, the next minute Roger Ebert is a great and well-respected exception (even though he's just as famous for tearing into truly bad films as writing great reviews), the next we see some kid saying that Ebert is an idiot and an out-of-context clip that makes Beyond the Valley of the Dolls look really bad, completely missing the point that that film was intentionally schlocky. One minute a professional movie critic is a valid career with a legitimate purpose, the next they're all scum again. One minute he's accepting of the idea of constructive criticism that doesn't attack on a personal level, the next 25 minutes, no one should ever have a negative opinion about anything.

We're treated to a parade of famous flop-makers that we're supposed to feel sympathy for, but don't, because we're still not convinced that there's no such thing as a bad movie. Bringing in people involved with incredibly bad movies like Joel Schumaker, Carrot Top, and Uwe Boll to argue your point only further cements the idea that your movie was bad and that you're just being bitter about everyone's natural reaction to it.

However, I thought that the part about how the Web has made everyone into an elitist critic with a tendency to hate everything was interesting ("0 out of 4 waffles?"). I find people who come to IMDb, give a good-but-not-great movie 0/10 stars and a review of "THIS WUZ The WURST MUVEE EVER LOLz!" to be some of the biggest morons on the planet, and their opinions to be about as worthless as he says they are. JK also has an interesting idea where he confronts some of his harshest, most personal-level critics to see if they'll say the same things to his face. But his reaction to one of those is so terribly immature and unfunny (and I'm no prude) that it ruins the whole exercise.

In conclusion, I think that Kennedy made this film too soon. His emotions about everyone's reaction to Son of the Mask were still too raw, and that got in the way of his ability to make a coherent documentary. Had he made it two or three years later, he probably would have been thinking clearly enough to leave out some of the moments that I'm sure felt gratifying to him, but just alienated his audience, like his contradictory opinions on Ebert or his treatment of the last critic he met in person.

Funny and thought-provoking - creators vs. destroyers.

[addicott · 8/10 · 1 January 2009]

The title: Heckler might lead one to believe that the whole film is about standup comedians and their drunken, attention-starved arch-rivals. The gaze shifts quickly to film critics, both established and the legions of self-appointed online experts (like me... hey, wait a minute!!!). Apparently producer Jamie Kennedy has a bone to pick after the thrashing he got for his role in Son Of The Mask. (I sense he might not have been as motivated for this project if he'd just won the Oscar.) But it's not just him - he pulls up a virtual who's who of comedy and just about everyone seems traumatized and disillusioned to some extent.

Getting dozens of great comic talents like Harland Williams and Bill Maher to speak candidly for any length of time on any topic is a sure-fire way to guarantee some entertainment value. Ironically, this approach got more laughs out of me than most feature film screenplays.

Oh, there I go. I keep forgetting I'm part of this problem.

I was surprised to see the extent and the intensity of the online vitriol. A lot of what gets said does seem excessively mean and uncalled-for. Apparently morbid, extreme insults are a cheap way to gain notoriety and generate lots of web hits. (Just like shouting "YOU SUCK" is a quick and dirty way to gain attention from everyone in the auditorium.)

This picture clearly distinguishes doers from I-could-do-betters and the latter group doesn't fare very well under scrutiny. They showed a clip from Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls, screenplay by Roger Ebert, that makes makes Malibu's Most Wanted look worthy of the Palme D'or by comparison. And when 4 internet critics accept director Uwe Boll's challenge to a boxing match, well... let's just say they won't be lambasting his fight the way they did his films. (He pretty much knocks them all out, back to back, without even breaking a sweat.)

So as a documentary, I found Heckler to be very enlightening and provokative. (What am I doing here, picking apart other people's movies? Why don't I get off my ass and try making one?)

No comment...... on second thought

[Quinoa1984 · 6/10 · 21 June 2009]

A friend of mine once said something that I think is important to mention when bringing up the documentary Heckler produced and featuring as its guide/interviewer Jamie Kennedy, and it's about the whole process of movie-making. There's usually considered to be three steps: the writing, the shooting, and the editing. But there is a fourth part, arguably, and that is the film with an audience, how they react to it. I mention this because this friend of mine is an aspiring filmmaker who once made short films in college and would intentionally sit in with the audience to see how the film was received by his fellow student filmmakers and other people, and then would get reactions from everybody afterwords. As someone else, myself, who has also made short films and aspires to direct on a professional level, it is the most sobering and soul-crushing experience imaginable to be told a) your movie was great, b) your movie was a piece of s***, and c) what *was* that? And, the question comes, what if they were to write either (or all) of these?

So, as someone who has been on both the end of the creative stick and that of being in that leper colony of people who write on this God-forsaken den of vice and misery known as the inter-web, I respect and admire Jamie Kennedy for what he's done here. I'm reminded why I do what I do on here, and why this "comment" on his production of Heckler I've made personal - because, frankly, so does he here. At the same time I also have to realize with this movie, for everything about it that is funny- and at times it's not just funny but f***ing funny (re: Deep Roy's jacuzzi rant, Kennedy's confrontation with his own critics), it goes without saying that the documentary itself is not that great. It's insightful, it's meaningful, and I know that aside from little tid-bits and a few anecdotes, it's not staying in my collection as more than a rental. I would preface this by saying "I'm only being honest", but that would in turn suggest I lie often enough to have to mention it.

But, then again, what the hell am I doing on here than to say what works or doesn't? How can I write or say something constructive about a movie that is about the very subject of a monkey throwing verbal or written feces at a creative traveler? Do I write that it needs more, well, criticism on critics? On the nature of heckling? On maybe relaying the ratio of blood-alcohol content in a comedy club or at a keyboard to how reactions come out? Heckler can't really get much better, or worse, than it is. It's a series of stories and opinions from people talking about people who have an opinion. It is worthwhile to see that. Nobody can say they're not in the audience on some level, even if, as George Lucas says, you're a creator and not a destroyer. If you're at all in any field of entertainment, you create AND you destroy, to one degree or another, sometimes in crude terms like the gossip bloggers, and sometimes, well, you're Roger Ebert.

Whew. Bottom line, 'the fourth stage', as my friend calls it, is never an easy thing. If it weren't, then I and the creators wouldn't be here. Just remember the scene in History of the World Part 1: for every man making a cave painting, there's someone coming around to bring his urine sample to the equation. Perhaps Jamie Kennedy will, or already had by the end of the movie miraculously enough, come to terms with that fact of being in a business of comedy and movie-making: this is what you do, and that is most certainly what "they" do was well. It's a face. Certainly this is a first step into a world where both he and, in fact, Stanley Kubrick are fair game. And yes, I just compared Jamie Kennedy to Stanley Kubrick, so I may have just devolved this entire discourse. Whatever.

Jamie Kennedy is a whiny little @#$*%

[totire-a · 1/10 · 27 June 2009]

This movie is complete garbage. I would have turned it off less than halfway through, but I thought I would indulge Jamie Kennedy who I sometimes find amusing. However, after the first 15-20 minutes the film no longer deals with the topic of hecklers at all. Instead, Kennedy goes off on a whining tantrum where he confronts his critics asking them why they didn't like his movies. Instead of accepting the fact that he has made some pretty terrible movies (Malibu's Most Wanted, Son of the Mask) he confronts his critics and makes them explain why they said the things they said. What he should have done was turn the tables and explain to the public why he makes such shitty movies. Honestly, he made hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars for those movies. Criticism comes with the territory. Suck it up, stop whining, and make some movies that are entertaining. I honestly wish he would come interview me for "Hecklers 2", but we all know that nobody who watched the first one would ever green light a sequel.

Just an absolutely 100% self indulgent piece of garbage that should be avoided at all costs.

excellent except for kennedy

[gs20 · 10/10 · 25 July 2010]

I don't understand anyone's objection to this documentary. It is excellent in its interviews with many of the greatest minds in modern American comedy and it also brings forth some very cogent points about how we treat celebrity.........it is quite good with, of course the exception of jamie kennedy.........kennedy does not have the skill or delivery of don rickles or almost ANY of the comedians who have adopted that particular style of comedy.......attack, insult and put down comedy takes a very accomplished timing and delivery that he just doesn't have......that coupled with his annoying personality and punch me in the face demeanor just puts people off........most importantly, he is sadly not funny and is a poor actor as well.

However that does not negate the excellent interviews and archival clips in this offering.

So, if you want to enjoy this show just turn off the sound when kennedy is speaking and you will see how entertaining the rest of the film really is.

Heavily influenced me as a reviewer

[SeriousJest · 7/10 · 3 August 2013]

The film begins by focusing on hecklers, as the term is generally used: people who attend live performances, like a stand-up comedy show, and attempt to interrupt the performers and shift the attention to themselves. I think an overwhelming amount of the public will agree that those people are annoying and in the wrong. Nobody is there to see the heckler. If you don't enjoy the performance, don't clap, don't smile, or simply leave…but don't interrupt everyone else's experience. Live-performance hecklers are like the ugly girl who CBs her friends at a party because nobody's talking to her. I enjoy seeing good comedians rip those people apart…and here's a secret: the guy with the mic will usually win that battle.

The brunt of this documentary, however, focuses on extending the term "heckler" to critics in general, including movie reviewers. To that end, Kennedy confronts people who have written scathing reviews about him, effectively demonstrating that they focus more on creatively bashing him than actually explaining why they don't like his projects or offering constructive criticism. He also points out that many of these individuals appear to be people whom you probably wouldn't want to have a conversation with, let alone take movie advice from them.

Several of the performers interviewed make the point that most critics haven't ever produced a successful piece of performance art themselves. I respect that argument for the concept that reviewers should be sensitive to the fact that producing creative material is not easy. However, I would counter that I don't need to be a chef to tell you that something doesn't taste good to me. I may not have a "refined palate," but for people who like the kind of movies I like, like the way I think, or otherwise relate to me, my opinion may actually be useful, despite whether the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences agrees with me. I mean, who the hell makes up AMPAS anyway? Google it. It's pretty interesting.

Kennedy and his diverse cast of performers also discuss how the internet has empowered a slew of people to take cheap shots at artists from the safety of anonymity. He compares the internet to a big bathroom wall, where anyone can just write whatever they want. I agree that it's much easier to rip someone mercilessly when you don't have to face them. On the other hand, as some of the cast acknowledged, a review that actually intelligently identifies what the critic sees as flaws in the performance can be a very valuable learning tool for the artist. Kennedy just ponders why you'd have to be a jerk about it.

Personally, I like the fact that we no longer have to rely on a select group of "published" individuals to tell us what's good and what isn't. A site like Rotten Tomatoes is very useful because it aggregates the opinions of critics as a percentage of likes versus dislikes, and distinguishes them from the opinion of the site users at large. It's a good starting point for determining whether you want to spend your valuable time watching a particular movie…but if you trust the opinion of a particular person, because you relate to him or her in some way, or because they have a good track record of recommendations, that can be even more useful. We at Live from the ManCave (www.livemancave.com) hope to be those reviewers for you, and we're thankful that the internet allows us to bypass all of the obstacles to voicing our opinions that existed just a couple of decades ago.

Moreover, the same medium that allows anybody to voice their opinion about art also allows any aspiring artist to bypass the old obstacles to publishing their art. For example, before the internet, talented artists had to court the attention of A&Rs to get people to listen to their material. A select group of people decided what music the public at large got to hear, and if one of them wasn't having a good day, your song might get tossed before the first beat of the first track reached a speaker. Nowadays, you can post your song directly to a social media site and let the people determine for themselves whether they like it. "Shares" and "Likes" are easy to count. A&Rs can't ignore someone with a million Twitter followers.

The film also acknowledges that artists ultimately control how criticism affects them. The point is driven home that artists are people, and like any individuals who throw maximum effort and hope into their projects, their feelings are going to be hurt when that project is negatively reviewed. However, as many of the interviewed performers state, artists have to acknowledge the intelligent criticism, discard the useless insults, be strong enough to brush negativity off their shoulders, and keep doing what they love with maximum effort. It may not be easy to do, but it's what you have to do if you want to be successful. Once the critics sense a particular weakness or sensitivity, the sharks will come feasting for blood, and it won't get any easier, as Kanye West has discovered the hard way.

Regardless of on what side of the foregoing controversy your opinion falls, this documentary does a good job of highlighting the issues in an entertaining way, and provoking thoughtful conversation on the subject. The film is well-edited, fast-paced, and generally interesting. While it definitely seems to be biased against the hecklers and critics, some of the interviews are not always a clear-cut win for Kennedy. The documentary appears to be kind of tongue-in-cheek, as Kennedy often acts sensitive and whiny when receiving criticism, but the film is also edited as to poke fun at him. In the end, you realize that he gets it. Don't be hatin'.

Policing the Police

[Bill-276 · 4/10 · 12 April 2011]

I want to try to be as fair to this film as possible, because it's clear from the comedians interviewed in this film that criticism from anyone can be taken very personally.

Since this film isn't about hecklers so much as it is film critics (it's a bait and switch), let's address the latter. Comedies in general have always been held, fairly or unfairly, to the same standards by most movie critics as an Oscar nominated Meryl Streep film. And that is unfortunate. I can be guilty of the same comparisons. However, I don't see that changing anytime soon, and as long as Adam Sandler's target audience remains 12 year old boys, many critics are not going to recommend his films. Sure there may be a caveat ("If you're a pre-teen...") but generally, critics are looking to recommend films not to genre-specific buffs or age groups, but to all audiences (unfortunately this isn't really examined in this documentary).

"Heckler" takes an almost defeatist approach at the hands of film critics when actually there is a solution. Using eBay or even IMDb as a prototype, the buyer and sellers on ebay, and the critics here on IMDb are graded by the readers or themselves, thus helping to weed out unnecessary incendiary and non-constructive deals and/or reviews. Does it work for movie reviews? Do audiences have a way to grade Roger Ebert or Leonard Maltin? No, but it's likely to happen very soon.

I would compare the current film critic industry to the news media in general before profiteering became so prominent post Cronkite. The news media and their personalities have nearly lost any and all respectable viewers. Bill O'Reilly draws 4 million viewers to win his 8:00 time slot. But that's only 1/4 of 1 percent of the population. The 4th estate has been so inept, and the difference between "experts" with special interests so intertwined, that's it's taken Jon Stewart to create what I've been calling "The 5th Estate" to police the 4th estate, because they haven't been doing their job of working for the public, but rather the government, special interests or themselves. And that's where I see the process of film criticism heading--toward a state of viewers policing and correcting, if necessary, critics reviews.

I like Jamie Kennedy based on what I saw from "The Jamie Kennedy Experiment". I haven't seen any of his films but they don't appear to be targeted at me. There's a place for silly farce, slapstick and toilet humor (The Farrelly Brothers...) And there's a place for very sharp dialog comedies with small but adult themes like "The 40 Year Old Virgin", "Superbad" and "The Hangover". Unfortunately, Kennedy's film fall into the former category, and it's difficult to gain traction among critics who only want to recommend films to wider audiences than the 12-18 year old demographics in the Adam Sandler vein.

"Heckler" is not a documentary I would recommend because it's filmed to be more of a defensive commentary on Kennedy's movies (or at least a cathartic release for Kennedy to confront his critics) than anything constructive about critics of comedy--which ironically and to it's own point, is self-defeating. The day will come when the poison arrows are graded. Jamie Kennedy is not for everyone, but that's OK, and great! But like Sandler and even Vince Vaughn, David Spade, Tina Fey etc... he needs to realize this himself, and the sooner the better.

How can you be a movie critic if you haven't filmed any movie in your life?

[sensei_110585 · 23 April 2009]

Documentary against hecklers and critics... and maybe even guy who has an opinion... the next three questions were in the movie, so i'll try to give my opinion...

1. How can you be a movie critic if you haven't filmed any movie in your life? - WTF!? Guys, this is the lamest and dumbest excuse ever! I haven't been president nor politician so far, but it doesn't mean that I can't criticize them or their work.

2. Everybody has an opinion about everything today... - Of course, is it wrong to have an opinion? A lot of comedians also have some kind of social criticism in their act. Is it me, or is this exactly the same opinion that we talk about?

3. We don't have thick skin, we also have feelings... - Yeah, humans usually have feelings, but you shouldn't feel bad and sad if some low life loser/nerd/idiot or how else you call them, wrote or said something offending to you or about you. You should work on your self-esteem. If you're more popular, more people will talk about you, and not all talk is cool. Get used to it. It's the price you have to pay.

I don't consider myself heckler, nor critic, not even basher of anybody's work, but this documentary and people in it are really asking for it. Folks, get used to it, it's part of life and especially part of entertainment, stop bitching about it so much.

Fun but Flawed Documentary

[bean-d · 6/10 · 15 June 2012]

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.

Do what you love and what you are proud of and you are bulletproof.

[lastliberal · 6/10 · 13 August 2009]

This documentary could not have predicted the teabagger mobs that are currently appearing at town hall meetings and heckling the speakers, but it did show a clip of Ronald Reagan getting heckled to the point that he said, "Oh, shut up!" Of course, Barbra Streisand was a little tougher saying, "Shut the f*ck up!" Comedians, actors, directors, sports stars, anyone who entertains is subject to heckling. This film shows many of them responding to heckling that they have experienced, and there are also some actual clips where comedians, like Reagan, get heckled.

Bill Maher actual got up and threw a heckler out of the studio himself.

The film abruptly turned from heckling to critics, as if they are one and the same. I really didn't like that, but hung in there to see Nicole Mandich's breasts - totally unexpected.

The funnest part was seeing Uwe Boll pummel several critics in the boxing ring.

It was an interesting look at what artists have to suffer for their art.

Comedians Fight Back... Justified or Whiny? You decide.

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 13 September 2012]

After starring in a film that was critically bashed, Jamie Kennedy takes on hecklers and critics and ask some interesting questions of people such as George Lucas, Bill Maher, Mike Ditka, Rob Zombie, Howie Mandel and many more.

The worst thing about this film is that it focuses on Jamie Kennedy, because the fact is that the clips they show of him are legitimately unfunny and unoriginal. If anyone deserves to be heckled, it is Jamie Kennedy. Not saying heckling is okay (I am undecided), but Kennedy is a failure.

The best thing? All the people they were able to get and the clips they found. Wow. If you have a favorite comedian, they probably appear here. And then, they got musicians, too. I was shocked by Barbra Streisand's presence, but shocked in a good way. She has more passion inside her than I would have thought.

In a way I understand but.....

[stagedlined466 · 2/10 · 30 July 2015]

No artist likes receiving criticism. I understand that might be frustrating to have your hard work not pay off. But you can do one of two things, you can thrive on criticism or you can be so indulged with your self and whine about it. Guess which one is practiced in this movie.

To be fair I did like the first fifteen minutes of this documentary. Where it was about how hecklers during comedy shows need to stop and be polite etc. That part made sense. I for one hate it when people are rude during any form of entertainment. But when Jamie Kennedy changes the topic to attacking critics that's where it fell apart.

Not only are Jamie Kennedy's antics childish and rude, but also completely contradicting to the message against hecklers. And it doesn't help that Kennedy makes a fool of himself when he is interviewing a critic who gave one of his films a bad review.

Now on a positive note I at least do get behind some of what this documentary is trying to say. There are some critics who are bad at their jobs. Not giving the proper criticisms of the product's content and instead criticizing on how hot the actors are, and how many parts of a movie suck. But not all critics are like that. There are those who know what they are doing and give good constructive criticisms.

But what I can't get over is how is seems that most of these comedians and other artists think that critics should not even exist. That is just petty and unprofessional. Shouldn't artist be glad that their are critics to point out flaws so that the artist can try better next time? Well not for our Mr. Kennedy apparently.

So in the end I thought is was a terrible documentary. I'll admit I like the first few minutes, but after that it becomes an indulgent, childish and just down right disgusting experience.

So if there are any inspiring artists of any kind, I'd implore you to swallow your pride and listen to your critics. But only the ones that have actual good constructive criticisms. And if you don't you'll become egotistical hacks like the people that made this movie.

Serious perspective

[cole-morgan · 10/10 · 30 November 2012]

Jamie, you freaking rock man. I don't review movies on IMDb often but I had to throw one your way.

I've worked in film/TV production for a few years on the side and have seen this up close. I think this film said what needed to be said and they should show it in schools as a lesson in humanity.

I started watching this as it was recommended on Netflix after I watched Joe Rogan's stand-up and was looking for something short before a meeting later in the day. I was so hooked, I skipped the important meeting and finished the film. I definitely got more perspective from the film than any meeting. I don't want to overstate this - I just really think more people should see this film.

Bravo sir.

Put yourself out there

[barefoottourguide · 7/10 · 27 November 2012]

This brought back many memories from a past career in standup. Unlike Jamie, I was not able to get past criticism for the sake of jealous individuals or people not with the guts to give it a real try to feel better about themselves. It is fair to be able to face your critics and have them explain why they feel compelled to go beyond criticism of the work and demonize your existence. No one forced Jamie to be in the spotlight. No one asked you to sit in the darkness in anonymity and focus your own bloated self-righteousness on those who do put themselves out there. Whether it is appropriate to put this confrontation in he public view is a worthy discussion, but to call it whiny to discuss the horrible feeling of having your art... and yes it is art... to be disrespected as such is not. If I deleted bloggers' user accounts before they could finish a post, they might understand what it is to be in the spotlight facing down a critic or heckler.

It just made me sad more than anything.

[hedcraft · 2/10 · 6 January 2013]

These comedians want you to like them so much, you can almost tell they're on the verge of tears knowing that somebody thinks they suck. It starts out strong, with some great comics talking about how much they love verbally destroying hecklers, but quickly degrades into a string of second-rate comics talking about how much it sucks when people say mean things about them. They run out of actual footage after about a half hour, so the last half of the movie is Jaime Kennedy tracking down people who gave him a bad review and trying to make them feel bad by talking about how chicks totally want to screw him. It's entertaining in the same way it would be to watch a group of autistic children diving for quarters. You'll probably laugh, but you won't feel good about it after.

Heckler is a Highly Entertaining and Witty Documentary

[GerryRocksMyWorld · 10/10 · 28 February 2008]

Just saw "Heckler," yesterday at the Roxie Cinema in San Francisco. It opened at the Noise Pop Film Festival. Great movie, funny, insightful, and extremely informative view of hecklers and critics towards comedians, directors, actors, and movies. Jamie Kennedy was there for a Questions and Answers after the movie. He is a wonderful, creative, and down to earth person. Jamie is a VERY, VERY, FUNNY GUY! I was lucky to meet him after the screening.

I highly recommend seeing this film. It portrays how critics and hecklers affect those that they critique and especially how the negative criticism from some of the critics are down right cruel. Many of the critics sway away from actually analyzing the movie or comedy stand-up but instead take low unnecessary pot shots at the actor's physical appearance which have nothing to do with their work.

Jamie Kennedy, and many other notable actors, comedians, and filmmakers such as George Lucas, Joel Schumacher, Eli Roth, David Cross, Craig Ferguson, and Tom Green, are just to name a few of this wonderful group who participated in the making of this documentary that were interviewed. They discuss SPECIFICALLY what certain critics have negatively said about their work.

As an audience member, I was able to sympathize and side with the actors and comedians who endured the cruelty of the critics. I feel that actors, comedians, directors, and those who are in the entertainment industry are extremely brave to be in the business that they are in because they are under constant scrutiny.

My favorite parts of the documentary included the scenes when Jamie confronts his harshest critics and asks them why they wrote what they did. I bet many other actors would have loved to have confronted their critics the way Jamie did. Highly enjoyable documentary, and I laughed throughout it.

You should go see it!

Why is film criticism needlessly controversial?

[StevePulaski · 6/10 · 28 December 2012]

If Heckler is anything for Jamie Kennedy, the film's prime target as someone who has gotten enough heckling for a whole night of comedy acts, it's a feasible and marginal catalyst for all the hate he has gotten over the years from not only critics but people who just seem cold to the idea of "accepting him." Having not seen many of his works, only Malibu's Most Wanted which wasn't particularly compelling but I've without a doubt seen worse, I feel the man is just the public eye's punching bag. He took the throne from Pauly Shore and Tom Green (both men appearing in this film as well) and decides to release his anger and frustration to the hecklers of the world.

A "heckler" is someone with intentions of curbing a person's current formal state. The term is commonly associated with comedy acts, when one arrogant loudmouth decides it would be fun and brilliant to disrupt the performer by yelling something unnecessary at them like, "you suck" or something along those lines. The first twenty minutes of this seventy-nine minute documentary focus directly on those kind of people, and have a variety of comedians such as Arsenio Hall, David Cross, Louie Anderson, and Lewis Black weigh in on the concept and how they've dealt with a heckler in their career.

The remainder of the documentary takes the questionable turn as it then begins to attack film critics and how miserable, sulky, pretentious, idiotic, lazy, evil, and out of touch they are if they rate a product harshly.

As an aspiring film critic myself, I've heard the argument frequently that if you've never made a film you have no right to criticize it. It's a valid point, but by saying that, you're stripping someone of their basic right to have an opinion. Do I need to be president to openly dislike one of his mandates/laws? Do I need to be a chef to say I didn't like this person's food? Do I need to be a landscaper to say I didn't like the look of this yard? Do I need to be a website designer to say I don't like the look of a particularly website? By saying that one is not qualified to state their opinion or look at a film deeply, picking out its flaws and examining its layers pretty much means that one can not have an opinion on pretty much anything unless they've done or experienced it themselves. It's not a sustainable point. One needs to accept the fact that by putting out a piece of work that the ones who pay money to view it in some way, shape, or form have a right to voice their opinion on it. I'm not condoning the action of listlessly shouting at a performer, but everyone has and should have the right to give a mature opinion on something regardless of it being positive or negative. I would've thought many of these comedians, doing a job that is very public and very open, knew that ahead of time.

I'm also not huge on the way this film compares hecklers to critics. First off, comparing film/media critics to some random, ignorant scrub yelling insults to a performing act is a facile, invalid point. One party professionally evaluates art and the meanings it could spawn, while the other gives a very immature, childish statement in an act of unnecessary disrespect. They're incomparable, except in the regard that they could potentially make the party at hand feel bad about themselves, which is not my personal goal when writing/publishing a review. When I give a poor review to a film, I give it to the film and not to those involved. I didn't think I needed to attach a disclaimer like this when I began writing.

Chunks of the short feature are devoted to other little ways different men in the business of film respond to criticism. Noted director Uwe Boll staged a boxing match between him and his critics, which I honestly can't believe. Unique it is, but if someone didn't like your film, what will make them like it if you beat them bloody in a ring, and what does that say about your acceptance of dissent? Eli Roth states the "death of film" are focus groups, little screenings of the first/second/third cuts of films where a private audience (usually made up of the film's target demographic) is invited to watch the film and voice what they like and didn't like. Instead of writing it off as a way for more people to bitch and moan about what they didn't like, filmmakers should think of these groups as ways to not only improve on their own work but connect with their demographic in a stronger way.

While it appears my criticism with Heckler's negative portrait of film critics runs a mile deep, this is nonetheless an interesting documentary, that serves as much more than Kennedy's therapeutic method of coping with sour critics/public. I just kind of wish any of the talents involved would've recognized that their attitude towards critics comes off as bitter and angry, when it's almost cemented in the job description for an actor/comedian. And I'd like to challenge Lewis Black on the fact that when someone's young they do not want to be a critic of any kind. At age five I knew that I wanted to be someone who wrote essays and reviews of films, giving ideas and different views of the medium.

Full, more complete review on http://stevethemovieman.proboards.com

not my sorta thing

[FFAxDAVID · 3/10 · 6 November 2008]

Admittedly i watched this because i was expecting from the reviews a funny movie/documentary,so is probably my own fault for expecting something its (presumably) not trying to be.

From what i can tell it is in fact a documentary made to somehow make us feel sorry for comedians etc for the heckles they get,and i went into it expecting it to be more about showing how comedians handle the hecklers and turn a heckle into the funniest part of their shows (which if handled correctly is often the case),but alas its not.

If you want to sit through an hour n half of Jamie Kennedy moaning about fact that a lot of people don't find him funny and getting others to moan about hecklers then sure,pay to see it,but if (like i was),your looking for a few laffs this is not for you.(this is NOT by the way a criticism of the movie,its just a comment in the hope that someone else does not assume like i did that its intentionally supposed to be funny-least i hope its not,because it is'nt lol)