Own the rights?
18 out of 28 people found the following review useful: 'It Sucks: The Movie': better title, 24 January 2004 Author: Scott LeBrun from Winnipeg, Canada
Ill-advised attempt to create a feature film vehicle for the disgusting, creepy androgynous "Pat" character that Julia Sweeney created for "Saturday Night Live".To begin with, most people knew this film shouldn't have been made in the first place. How prophetic.Flat, forced comedy in which "Pat" searches for fame and fortune while romancing the equally gender-bending "Chris" (David Foley). Charles Rocket plays Kyle, a neighbor of "Pat"'s who ruins his marriage when he becomes unhinged in his quest to confirm Pat's gender.Now, I like Sweeney; I really, really do, but she'll have to bear some of the blame for this 'comedy' that provides little to no entertainment value. I think I had two good laughs in total.For once, a film that I can believe should go on the IMDB bottom 100 list.Even at 78 minutes this film is too long; an SNL skit that was vaguely amusing at best is stretched out too darn far.I got to say, though, for such a bad comedy, Rocket certainly plays his weirded-out character well.If I DIDN'T like Sweeney, I would easily give this 1/10.As it stands...2/10.
6 out of 8 people found the following review useful: surprisingly mean-spirited and unfunny, 7 November 2005 Author: ithearod
I actually liked the sketch "Pat" on SNL. It was a fresh idea - honestly, how many other "andrognenous character-sketch" routines can you name? It had its limitations, and it sure as hell could have been pushed past the "Pat almost reveals his/her gender but then doesn't" joke that seems to have been the limit of its humor.So when there was a movie, I thought, "Hey, they're finally going to push the character beyond the one-joke limit. I like Pat, sure, I'll like the movie!" Well, I was stunned at how ineptly and poorly executed the whole thing was. The Pat character is immediately portrayed as boorish, intrusive, insensitive, and a host of other undesirable characteristics. Who decided this is what Pat was about? Who thought this would be funny? And how does this relate to the SNL character, anyway? I see no resemblance at all.Even Dave Foley, whom I love and who is well-known for his excellence at portraying long-suffering comic characters, cannot soften the unrelenting ugliness that Pat exudes. In addition, I really think they took the low road with the "Chris" character. Of all the androgynous names they could have chosen (Terry, Bobby, Sam, the list is long), "Chris" is so boring! And the style of androgyny that was chosen, "70's-esque flower child", complete with page-boy haircut, while certainly complimenting Pat's dowdiness, was just one more joke with a very short lifespan.By the time you finally realize the ugly boorishness that Pat is all about is not going to be a short-lived bit, but is instead the main (and only) joke, and that you will get no reprieve at all, ever, through the entire film, it will be too late. You will have suffered through the whole film, with very few laughs, and entirely missed out on a "naive-but-loveable-doofus" version of Pat, that you might have expected to get.
14 out of 24 people found the following review useful: About As Bad As It Gets., 2 July 2002 Author: tfrizzell from United States
Mercy what an awful excuse for a film. Sexless (meaning impossible to tell whether male or female) Pat (Julia Sweeney) wants to get married to another equally sexless person in this amazingly poor motion picture that was just a ploy by those morons at Saturday Night Live to make a few quick bucks. They made very few bucks as the movie-going public saw through this mess before they ever set foot into a theater. Tasteless and worthless. Turkey (0 stars out of 5).
3 out of 4 people found the following review useful: The worst movie ever, 19 January 2007 Author: robertseege from Finland
I've seen a lot of movies, many good and many bad ones. But trust me on this; this is by far the worst. There is nothing positive I can mention about this movie. Why? Well I'll tell you why; The script is something that should have been thrown in trash, the acting is awful, the jokes are not even a bit funny and the characters are utterly annoying. I would understand if this movie would be a film for kids but with all of the "undeterminable sex" stuff, it's clearly not just for kids. A certain Quentin Tarantino helped out with the script(according to the trivia) and he will be relieved that he chose to be uncredited. It's hard for me to even imagine what types of idiots would do a movie like this or even worse find it funny. This is as I mentioned earlier the worst movie I've ever watched and therefore I can't recommend it to anyone. In my opinion this should occupy the no. 1 spot in the bottom 100. It's so bad that if you for instance showed it to some monkeys at a zoo, even they would understand how bad this movie actually is and would destroy the TV set after the first five minutes.
4 out of 6 people found the following review useful: A movie to torture yourself with, 12 April 2007 Author: haker1182 from Bosnia and Herzegovina
This has got to be the worst movie I have ever seen. It features 77 minutes of pure boredom. Watching this movie is like watching paint dry, only that it's more boring.The characters are irritating the plot is stupid the acting is awful, even though its listed as a comedy it doesn't have even one mildly funny or interesting scene. The plot revolves over a an androgynous character and the efforts that the other characters take to find out his/her real sex. I doubt that any sane person has that amount of patience needed to watch this movie until the end. It's best to avoid this movie at all cost.
5 out of 8 people found the following review useful: Not even Dave Foley can save this..., 12 March 2006 Author: rcs914 from Tucson
I loved Kids in the Hall, and so one day when this stinker of a movie was on HBO I watched it, thinking that it couldn't be all bad, if Dave Foley was in it. I was truly wrong. That's 80 or so minutes that I can never have back. It's not just that the movie is bad, it's that the main character, Pat, is completely unlikeable. It behaves like a complete obnoxious jerk, oblivious of the feelings of others. I spent the whole time just hating the character.The only reason I gave this 2 stars instead of 1 is for the setting of Pat's apartment. I liked the almost googie style architecture, and the retro interior decorating. But other than that, I wouldn't recommend this movie for any reason, not even to see Dave in yet another dress or two.If you really want to watch an SNL spin off, check out "Stuart Saves His Family" which is actually quite good.
2 out of 3 people found the following review useful: Bad, but not the worst movie ever, 4 January 2008 Author: Jsimpson5 from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Being a fan of SNL and bad movies is an odd mixture of things that I enjoy. Being a fan of older SNL skits, one that always gave me a good laugh was Pat. In order to ride the wave of success that the skit had a movie was made called It's Pat, and while it's not the best film around, it's currently not the worst either.The skit Pat is about a androgynous person called Pat, who no body is able to tell if Pat is a male or female. Pat would say phrases that would be said specifically by either sex, but would then be canceled out by having Pat say something that would confuse the person further. An example of this would be Sorry if I'm a little grumpy, I have really bad cramps... I rode my bike over here, and my calf muscles are KILLING me!" I will now talk about the film itself. The film starts with the birth of Pat but just like the show we don't know if Pat is a male or female. The entire plot of the film deals with this entire though, "Is Pat a man or a woman" Some of the dialog is just stupid and at times pointless. While the whole plot goes on, another man tries to find out what is Pat's sex because he is obsessed with Pat.The acting is at times awful, but it's still funny to watch at times. This isn't the best film around, but it's not the worst.
3 out of 5 people found the following review useful: A pretty good movie that had some hilarious moments, 24 December 1998 Author: Jose Cisneros
I must admit, I wasn't expecting much of this movie when I saw it on cable, but i didn't have anything else to do (and there was nothing else on tv) so I decided to watch this movie. To my amazement the movie was pretty good. Don't get me wrong or anything like that, it wasn't an oscar worthy production or some runaway hit, but the movie made me laugh hysterically in many of its insane scenes. I suggest you give this movie try....You will be laughing!
4 out of 7 people found the following review useful: I loved this film, it was 'high'-larious..., 14 February 2004 Author: robot-cat from Llano, TX
Yes, it's cheesy, but what else would you expect.There were some great scenes that were cut out that I saw once on broadcast TV. From what I remember, they were more/extended scenes of Pat's early jobs, bad dreams, and fantasies when Pat met Chris. I eagerly await it to be broadcast again just so I can record those scenes. (I don't believe they were on the DVD release.)It was great seeing Ween. (Long live the Boognish!)It didn't even bother me that the most annoying woman in the world, Kathy Griffin, was in it.A somewhat biased(I love the ridiculousness) 5/10 or **(out of 4)
4 out of 7 people found the following review useful: A bit trite, but thought-provoking, 27 May 2000 Author: spyder-19 from Sydney, Australia
It's interesting to see a movie that hinges on nothing but a single-line plot (what's Pat's Sex?)and yet makes one think. The bizarrely stupid plot forces one to wonder whether gender is at all important or not. Granted, the movie is one long stupid tease, but hey when did you last see a tease that actually had something to say?
Add another review
