Why did people not like this?

Yeah, those "one line generic answers" are terrible, like calling a random film a "crap movie" with no explanation perhaps???

This film was alright, had some mildly amusing moments and a laugh or two, but it was ultimately forgettable. Witherspoon and Vaughn had ZERO chemistry, I wouldn't buy them as a couple in a million years, and their acting was very phoned in. The scenes with various families came and went way too fast, much like the ending which felt ridiculously tacked on. It felt like a knockoff of the Thanksgiving episode of Will and Grace where they had a set amount of time and nothing was really resolved at the end. It wasn't horrible, it just wasn't anything great or even good, just mostly mediocre.
I shimmer, ELECTRIC, I'm a one-man-marching brownie band

Well, no, it's not the worst thing out there. It had a couple of brief nice moments, but 'Four Christmases' does suffer from a weak script with major premise problems and plot holes, poor direction, and more than anything else, missed opportunities from a potentially stellar cast.

I loved 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' and you thought it was garbage, so obviously we will likely disagree.

Turns out that my favorite thing about 'Four Christmases' was Peter Billingsley, the executive producer who also had the cameo as the airline ticket agent at the beginning of the movie. Billingsley had played little Ralphie in 'A Christmas Story' all those years ago, and it's kinda cool that he's showing up now in another Xmas flick, botched though it may be.

I gather that he's worked with Vince Vaughn and Jon Favreau on several of their projects over the years.

Okay, so some things that bugged me...

Premise and plot hole problems - - Vince and Reese's problem with being 'caught' on live TV would never happen. TV stations would constantly be sued if they did that kind of thing without permission.

But assuming we allow that, AND that all four parents were watching the same news program at the same time, if their families could accept (if not believe) their absurd lies about missing Xmas again, they'd certainly buy any further lies about finding another flight or any other reason they'd give for still not making an appearance. They could have stayed a day at the crappy airport Radisson, gone back to their SF apartment, anything they wanted, and surely could have found an easy excuse.

As a bay area resident, I had trifling problems with the usual errors in geography that many films commit. Not a big deal, unless you know the area. Heading from San Francisco to the airport, they'd never find themselves on the Golden Gate Bridge, but most of the world wouldn't know that. The various shots filmed near the bridge as they drive along the Marin headlands are another one, you'd never, ever drive that way and wind up at any of the parent's houses you saw in the movie. And frankly, I'm not sure if you could hit all the different types of locations they drove to in one day. I can let all those go, as it's just one local's axe to grind.

Oh, but another 'local' aspect was how very few ways any of the families felt like SF bay area families, like, AT ALL. Sissy Spacek's house seemed fairly spot on, but...

Overall though, I came away from the movie feeling like the filmmakers either never came up with a fully serviceable script, or didn't have the conviction to stick with what they had.

Scenes were uneven. Some went on a little too long, some not long enough, and it was clear that there were many things that got edited out. You wait, I'll bet that the DVD edition of this will be loaded with alternate takes and unseen footage.

Just look at all the little pieces of business that were used in the TV ads and previews but were NOT used in the movie itself! What's up with that?

- - And then the cast. So many great names in small parts, and so many of them given so little to do with so little exposition. Jon Voight got short-changed.
Same with Dwight Yoakam as 'Pastor Phil'. Other than his scene on stage, did he ever get any actual dialogue with Mary Steenburgen, or did I blink?
And hello - - Carol Kane in an uncredited appearance as one of the 'cougar' aunts?? Uncredited perhaps, because all of her lines were cut out? Too weird. Why would you possibly want to cast Carol Kane in a movie as an annoying aunt and not have her speak? And if you cut her part down to the point that she has no lines, you need to go back and re-shoot the scene without her in it. Ridiculous. Bad enough that Colleen Camp was in those same scenes with nothing to do but take up space.

Vince was Vince doing what Vince does but nothing more, and I wish that had been enough. From my perspective, Reese was just about as wooden and she's been in everything I've seen of hers since since 'Freeway' and 'Election'. Not terrible, but...

It also strikes me that this really wasn't a 'Christmas' movie. It took as a given that people have anxieties and baggage in dealing with their families. It set that against an Xmas backdrop, but it missed so many opportunities to play off the particular flavors of Christmas-related horrors. In the office party scene at the beginning, Cedric Yarbrough and Brian Baumgartner listed some that we could all kind of relate to, but many of the trials that Vince and Reese faced had very little actual relation to the holidays. Kind of 'Hollywood shorthand', maybe? A little sloppy, in my opinion.

- - Like, by tacking Christmas onto a slightly flat dysfunctional family comedy it added a layer of 'holiday product' marketability.
Speaking of which, I've seen ad placement for the soundtrack album. I thought the soundtrack was pretty flat too, and they didn't even toss a bone to cast members Tim McGraw and Dwight Yoakam by giving them a track to sell.

Ooh, and ick, that tedious overbearing formula background score was pissing me off, too...

- - Okay, I've gone on WAY too long. But I didn't give you one-line generic answers.

I agree with the threadstarter. The movie is much better than people say. I gave it a 7/10. The imdb score is way to low.

Like so many newer Christmas films today, this one seems to be more of a farce, mockery of how awful Christmas is/can be rather than a celebration of the holiday. Hollywood seems to revel in these superficial stories instead of digging deeper and asking more of its writers, directors, producers, actors...to create something more meaningful, heartwarming,and lasting in the audience's mind. Let's face it, this movie is a lame and weak attempt to insinuate a Christmas story on its audience and most of us recognize the lack of true sentiment behind it.

How about the same vomit gag being used twice, in one film?! It wasn't even funny enough to be used once!

So, to be more specific; paucity of ideas... That was its major drawback.







Do you like having sex? Then DON'T buy a Nintendo!

Who the heck cares why some insignificant anonymous geek sitting at their computer likes or dislikes a movie? Not everyone agrees. Its not worth getting all bent out of shape because someone doesn't like a movie that you like.

personally, i didnt like or dislike it. its a movie to watch during the christmas season, because its a christmas movie. a time filler pretty much. i'll watch it with my family, but i wont laugh with it or play it 3 times in a row. and i definately will not watch it during the rest of the year. but its a movie.

Nothing like a nighttime stroll to give you ideas. ~ MAD-EYE FOREVER!!!!

Some truly disliked it while others let film critics do their thinking for them. I thought it was okay.

Clark's destiny = Superman, Lex Luthor & Lois Lane.