SECOND HELPINGS: The Incredibles (2004)

When this film came out, I was irked by the number of people who thought that describing this film as ‘incredible’ was witty. I was still in college when I got around to watching it and, rather than seeing it as an homage to comic book teams, I viewed this film as a rip-off fusion of the Fantastic Four and the X-Men. Had I known anything about Watchmen at the time, I probably would have been screaming rip-off of that too. Now that I’m older and wiser, my opinion of this film has improved significantly. Still though, I can’t help but feel that this film is just a smidge overrated.

I still have no reason to complain about the quality of Pixar’s animation. The textures and environments that they create really make you wonder at times if all action-oriented films will be done exclusively with CGI someday. Nothing seems impossible anymore with this production company. I’m not convinced yet that Pixar is very good at animating human characters in a realistic way, but The Incredibles gets a pass because it’s a faux-comic book movie. Anyone who’s looked at a comic book knows that most take at least a few liberties with dimensions and proportions.

Teams of superheroes are nothing new and three of the four members of the Parr family suiting up have powers just like three of the Fantastic Four. The filmmakers do throw freshness into the mix pretty well through juxtaposing our main characters’ abilities and their impact on a real-world setting. Thwarting bad guys causes some very real wear and tear on the people and buildings caught in the crossfire. Some of this juxtaposition is pretty subtle while some of it is used for immediate sight gags.

Overall, I can see now how The Incredibles pays homage to comic book superheroes but there is also a lot of satire involved. It’s got to be a pretty fine tightrope walk to poke fun at comic book conventions while including a number of them in your film. The balance may be uneven at different times but this film never gets too cynical nor too fanboy rah-rah on us. Syndrome, the film’s antagonist, has a few moments where he gets very mean-spirited and dark but he is usually yanked out of full-blown maniacal villain mode in a humorous way. Whether this makes that momentary intensity acceptable is up to you.

While The Incredibles looks great and is a lot of fun to watch, it is remarkably violent for a family film. I recall docking The Black Cauldron quite a bit for being very un-Disney with its darkness and creepy imagery but I think level of violence, peril, and intensity in this film surpasses even The Black Cauldron. You can try to argue that this is a Pixar film and that my Disney branding is inaccurate, or that the nature of the film’s subject, comic book superheroes, requires a higher level of violence. The tell-tale mark that justifies my criticism is this film’s PG rating. That tells you that this film is not appropriate for the entire family.

If you have little ones, particularly boys, what will they retain from this film? What will they reenact? Will it be the wholesome lesson of family togetherness and teamwork or will it be the high-flying kicks, punches, and action sequences? I’m not condemning this film for the violence but I do think a little less of it. It’s still a fun, feel-good kind of movie but it is one that I’ll have to think long and hard about sharing with my daughter. Putting all that danger and violence in context is a tricky thing.

ORIGINAL RATING: 3 out of 5

NEW RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Big (1988)

This is the film that cemented Tom Hanks as A-list talent even before he moved away from comedy. Watching this film for the first time in over a decade, it’s not hard to see why both Hanks and this film became so popular. Big takes an emotionally honest look at the struggles that come with growing up by plunging its main character into adulthood overnight. The growing pains may be fantastical but they are familiar enough to make one ponder just how we survive that transition at slow-speed.

When 12-year-old Josh Baskin makes a wish to be big on a carnival fortune teller machine, he gets much more than he bargained for. The next morning he wakes up with the body of a 30-year-old man (Tom Hanks). Unable to explain his transformation to his freaked-out mother, Josh has no one to help him but his best friend Billy (Jared Rushton), who believes Josh’s tale. Together, they find Josh a job and an apartment in New York City while Billy tracks the carnival so Josh can reverse the spell. As Josh climbs the ranks at a toy company he finds it harder to live a double life and struggles to choose between which one matters most to him.

Sometimes these sorts of one-trick-pony films irk me for being completely reliant on one actor to carry the entire film. More often than not, you find this kind of overreliance on a star player in biopics and very weighty dramas requiring the kind of stirring passion and powerful oratory skills that are now clichéd for the most part. With Big, however, we have a delightful break from the norm. This film has to rely on its main star to keep the illusion of a child in a man’s body alive but the illusion being preserved is every bit as important as the performance that Hanks delivers.

The age-change conceit wasn’t exactly fresh when Big hit theaters but most films using it involve two people switching bodies and aimed for easy laughs. Few if any actually involved a full-body transformation or contain subtle commentary as our youthful protagonist comes of age in an adult’s body. Big never takes the easy way out and that matters. Credit goes to the writers for crafting such an emotionally real film. Director Penny Marshall deserves plenty of credit herself for keeping that emotional honesty alive in Josh Baskin.

Tom Hanks pumps all the right youthful energy and naivety into his performance. All of his mannerisms, reactions, and gestures are exactly what a child would do, which adds to the humor of his most expressive scenes. Even when the character starts to drift into accepting adulthood as his reality, there is enough 12-year-old body language to remind us that Josh does not belong there yet.

There are a few clunky story elements that have to be aired, lest you think this film is perfect. Obviously the fantastical storyline is pure fiction and some of the things Josh does to get by in the adult world are hard to swallow. Even in the 1980s, I have a hard time believing a major company would hire someone without discovering a bogus social security number, a falsified degree, and made-up references. Then there is the really-icky-if-you-think-about-it romance between Josh and a colleague.

Even still, this film has enough innocence and fun to make up for these kinds of details. Big manages to say a lot of insightful things about both childhood and adulthood without getting preachy or cliché. That makes for a pretty impressive 104 minutes. The world of children and adults seem light-years apart, yet this film reminds us that some aspects of both are closer than we think or would like to admit. The emotions are the same but we hold them in check better and feel those emotions about different things. Big defies the Hollywood coming-of-age film odds and smashes through the cynicism of adulthood. The fashion and technology are dated but this film is timeless and could not possibly be remade without losing some of the magic. Leave this one alone, Hollywood.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Home on the Range (2004)

To be completely honest, I had to look up this film online to refresh my memory of the plot points. That sentence alone should tell you loud and clear what kind of impression this film makes on its audience. This is pretty much lowest-common denominator Disney. It may satisfy visually but without memorable characters or a compelling story, there is nothing to recommend here outside of a momentary distraction.

After the rest of her herd is stolen by the dastardly Alameda Slim (Randy Quaid), Maggie (Roseanne Barr), is sold to the Patch of Heaven farm, where she butts heads with two prim and proper cows named Grace (Jennifer Tilly) and Mrs. Calloway (Judi Dench). When Patch of Heaven is threatened with foreclosure, Maggie convinces the other cows to band together and find a way to raise enough money to save the farm. Upon learning that the bounty on Alameda Slim is the exact amount needed to save their home, Maggie steers the trio headlong into an adventure that is as revealing as it is dangerous.

The basic plot of this film has been done more times than I can count. Whether it’s winning a contest, putting on a show, or (in this case) finding something to claim a reward, we’ve seen this outline too many times before to even mistake it as original. Using an archetypal story isn’t a sin, however. The real problem is that Disney fails to give Home on the Range any satisfying twists on said archetypal story. Oh sure, there are outlandish deviations from the blueprint but perhaps a yodeling cattle rustler is a little too out there to be accepted by anyone who has finished elementary school.

The timing of Home on the Range is tragic. Computer-animated films had taken over and Disney, reading the writing on the wall, decided to make one last traditional animated film for nostalgia’s sake. The animation in this film showcases the sad slide in quality that befell Disney over a half-dozen years. It’s not bad but it’s often no better than Disney’s TV cartoons (if they even still made them for afternoon and Saturday morning TV by 2004).

The characters in this film are hit or miss. Roseanne Barr’s sassy, blue-collar wit is something I grew up with, so that may explain why I’m okay with Maggie. She is a little paint-by-numbers but the personality injected by the voice actor goes a long way. I cannot say that the same goes for the rest of the cast. Grace and Mrs. Calloway fall under the typical goodie-goodie types who grow to appreciate their boisterous colleague but never really approve of her behavior. It’s more solidarity than sisterhood. Everyone else is just there to fill a role and provide their own brief moment of uniqueness but they fail to leave a mark.

When a film alternates between trying too hard and not trying hard enough, it makes it hard to know what to think. This review feels almost like a collection of incomplete thoughts but maybe that’s less of strike against me and more of a strike against the film. As far as Disney films go, Home on the Range is terrible. Fortunately, terrible for Disney is still a mostly-harmless way to kill some time if you absolutely must.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

Ernest Goes to Camp (1987)

Just like Short Circuit, this is a film that I watched on a regular basis growing up. My grandparents had recorded it off one of those free movie channel previews and my sister and I probably pushed that poor VHS tape to its limit by the time we were old enough to stay at home on our own after school. It’s far from great cinema but Ernest Goes to Camp is great fun.

Ernest P. Worrell (Jim Varney) is the facilities handyman at Kamp Kikakee, a summer adventure camp for boys that was once the site of a Native American tribe known for its trials for ushering boys into manhood. Longing to become a camp counselor, Ernest gets his chance when no one is willing to take charge of a group of delinquents from a nearby juvenile detention facility. While Ernest struggles to engage the defiant youths, he also inadvertently gets used by a local mining executive who wants to steal Kamp Kikakee from Chief Saint Cloud, who speaks no English.

I don’t think any of the Ernest films qualify as anything but a guilty pleasure, but I don’t see any harm in liking this movie. This was the first true Ernest film, coming on the heels of a successful string of commercials and a few direct-to-video releases. Despite being dimwitted and klutzy, Ernest lets down his wide smile several times to show a caring sincerity that is absent in many of the other adults around him. He may have the enthusiasm of a child, which is why many people in this film disregard him, but it is also an innocent enthusiasm. Part of this man wasn’t forced to grow up, providing a spastic and hilarious conduit between children and adults.

While Varney obviously commits to his role with zeal, credit has to be given to the child actors working most closely with him. They do a good job selling the tough-guy delinquent attitude their characters need, even if none of them seem particularly imposing or muscular enough to actually be in juvie. They may be based on delinquent stereotypes fitting of late-teen thugs but they do their best with what they’ve got. Their slow turnaround from apathy doesn’t feel as phony as some kid-focused movies. That’s probably because the filmmakers focus more on entertaining audiences than trying to inspire them with clichéd aww-shucks moments.

The story isn’t very original or compelling (David v. Goliath, standing up for what’s right, and learning responsibility) but it is very fun to watch. Ernest constantly breaks the fourth wall, which signals to the audience that Ernest is aware of how crazy all his antics really are. This breaks down the forced sense of objectivity that the fourth wall represents, allowing us to take the film as seriously or lightly as we choose. I choose to take it lightly and I think that makes all the difference.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

The Best Years of Our Lives** (1946)

As I write this review of a film following three World War II veterans struggling to reacclimate into everyday life, a heated debate is raging about a film that looks at the same issue. While I have yet to see American Sniper, I have to wonder if this film sparked any controversy upon its release. Re-entry into civilian life was either taboo or not on Hollywood’s radar before The Best Years of Our Lives was made. Granted, the golden age of Hollywood was in the roaring 20s, when glitz and glamour were in vogue and long after the end of World War I, and production codes restricted a wide range of content from being put on film. The content of this film feels like it should have been risky, which is why I think it is so powerful.

Three servicemen meet while heading home after World War II and discover that they all live in the same town. Al Stephenson (Fredric March) returns to a loving upper-middle class family and a job as a loan officer at a bank. Homer Parrish (Harold Russell) lost his hands in the war and is nervous how his fiancée and their families will react to his disability. Fred Derry (Dana Andrews) returns to an unskilled job and a wife who is tired of scraping by. The three men find themselves leaning on each other as they all struggle to rejoin civilian life.

This is a very honest film in its presentation of civilian America. All of the sets were built to real size as opposed to the oversized architecture common to Hollywood films of the day. All of the costumes are real off-the-rack items instead of designed and perfectly tailored by a costuming department. All of this adds up to a tight, authentic look that feels almost like a documentary at times. If you don’t know these facts, then you might find the aesthetic elements of the film to be lackluster. I don’t hold this against the film but the length of it made me restless at times.

The Best Years of Our Lives comes in at just under three hours long. I think any viewer would get fidgety in that final hour because the film lacks any external conflict or rising tension. Instead, it’s like a three-hour case study of three veterans struggling to figure out who they are and what they believe after the war. What we do have are three genuinely interesting men struggling internally with how they want to define themselves. As the film goes on, each of these characters develop in their own way. Harold Russell provides a completely honest portrayal of struggling with disability but he also struggles with his more emotional scenes (this was his first experience as an actor).

Perhaps this film avoided any controversy over its subject matter because it was treated with respect and earnestly raised awareness of the struggles of veterans. Had it been more exploitative or made veterans look bad there probably would have been a row. Still, I was shocked to see Al’s daughter declare her intentions to break up Fred’s struggling marriage in a film made in the 1940s.

Its length and slow but true-to-life pace may turn some off but this really is an excellent film. Other than a few deep focus shots, there isn’t much to see in this film that will dazzle you but that is by design. The film appeals so well to the emotions that one can’t help but root for each of the three principals to find their place in the world. Younger audiences may not care for The Best Years of Our Lives but this is certainly a case of slow and steady winning the race.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Brother Bear (2003)

The three years separating this film from The Emperor’s New Groove feels like an eternity. Other than the mildly entertaining Lilo & Stitch, Disney seems to have lost its magic. Had Pixar been a rival to Disney rather than a business partner during this time frame, the House of Mouse would have been on life support. While Brother Bear seems to check off some of the surefire ingredients that served Disney well over the years, the end result feels more like a misfire.

In a prehistoric time, a young man named Kenai (Joaquin Phoenix) is displeased with the sacred totem (a bear) bestowed upon him by his tribe. Seeming to confirm his disapproval of bears, a wild bear steals food from the tribe during the ceremony. When Kenai and his older brothers hunt the bear down, the eldest brother, Sitka (D. B. Sweeney), gives his life to save his brothers. Kenai kills the bear but the Spirits the tribe worship transform him into a bear. To regain his human form and achieve manhood in his tribe, Kenai must learn from his mistakes and help a young bear cub find his way through the wild.

I do have to give this film some credit for a little bit of trickery. When the film begins, it is presented in one aspect ratio and the art direction portrays the animals and environments very realistically. After Kenai is turned into a bear, the aspect ratio is wider and the environments and animals have a more cartoonish look. It’s not exactly Dorothy walking out into a Technicolor Munchkinland but it’s a clever trick involving a change of perspective, which Kenai needs to appreciate his totem.

Other than that, this film is forgettable. In the time that has passed since I saw Brother Bear, I completely forgot that this film even has songs in it. That’s a cardinal sing for Disney movies that use songs. My lapse in memory is probably in part because most of the songs were used during montage segments, rather than having the characters sing them movie-musical style. More often than not, this musical direction choice hasn’t worked out well for Disney.

When you have a fairly simple story, as in this film, it helps to have complex characters to make up for it. I was not engaged by any of the characters in Brother Bear. Kenai and Koda are too paint-by-numbers and the plot twist that befalls them is predictable from early on. The filmmakers even bring back the goofiness of Bob and Doug McKenzie by way of Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas voicing two sarcastic moose. This is an obvious throwaway joke for parents when the film came out but probably half the people my age don’t even remember that comedy act. Those not in the know just assume they’re a pair of stereotypical Canadian moose. I like Bob and Doug but I did not care for the moose bit.

The prehistoric setting probably helped prevent Native Americans, anthropologists, and history buffs from getting upset when this film was released. Pocahontas certainly irked a number of people but that’s because it butchered a true story. Brother Bear is fiction and I doubt it will elicit a strong response from very many people. It’s cute and colorful but it’s also low-quality Disney. That doesn’t mean it’s bad but being boring is usually worse.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

Clue (1985)

In what is said to be the first film based on a board game, audiences are handed a delightful mad-cap dark comedy with plenty of screwball antics. It may be easy to dismiss Clue as little more than a gimmick, what with its source material and three different endings, but it is also a lot of fun to watch. A good viewing experience counts for quite a bit and Clue is more than just a guilty pleasure.

Six strangers attend a mysterious dinner event at a secluded New England estate. The butler reveals that a seventh guest, Mr. Boddy, is the one secretly blackmailing them all and informs them that the police are on their way. Boddy counters by encouraging the guests to kill the butler, destroy the evidence, and everyone walks away. When the lights go out, Boddy is killed, leaving the guests to sort out whodunit before the police arrive.

This film was a mixed bag with critics when it was released and I can see why, if you assume that those critics only got to see one ending of the film. On home video, two endings are presented as possibilities and the third as the real ending. The two false endings involve a single mastermind behind all the killing. In the ending listed as the real one, there are multiple murderers for multiple reasons. It’s hard to swallow the two false endings because they border on ridiculously intricate to pull off. The mass chaos of the third ending is both amusing and much more believable.

The more familiar you are with the murder mystery genre, the more you will probably appreciate this film. Most of the characters are based on stereotypes from the genre, so there is actually quite a bit of subtlety and nuance to Clue. If you’re not familiar with the genre much at all, you will still find it amusing for the witty banter and physical comedy. Either way, there is something to like here.

As for the other aspects of the film, they all do their job but they don’t stand out. The sets give off the right stuffy-mansion-playing-host-to-murder vibe and the music is appropriate to the genre as well. The combination of ingredients makes this film a good time for most, which elevates it above mere guilty pleasure status. It’s harmless fun that no one should fault you for watching or passing over when you come across it on the TV.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Ray* (2004)

When I watched this film with my wife, it was the first biopic I watched in over a year (no, Magic Mike doesn’t count) and the first good biopic I had seen in almost two years. Watching Ray reminded me that biopics can be more than just Oscar bait. The filmmakers certainly sugarcoat Ray Charles’s life toward the end of the film but they do not shy away from dragging us through the mud and muck that Charles endured. Disability, racism, womanizing, and addiction haunted Ray Charles through much of his life but his ability to overcome most of his personal demons is every bit as inspiring as the talent he possessed.

The film starts out when Ray Charles is a young boy growing up on a sharecropping plantation. As if growing up in poverty and watching his brother drown in freak accident weren’t enough, Ray started losing his sight at just seven years old. Determined to prevent her son from accepting a life of helplessness, Ray’s mother forces him to adapt to his new world and trains him to listen and feel his way around a space. Upon discovering a knack for the piano, Ray surprises many on his way to the top of the music business. Blindness may not hold him back but other demons haunt him every step of the way.

Like most biopics, Ray is almost always focused exclusively on its titular character. We learn and see very little that does not take place within the immediate vicinity of Ray Charles. It’s a limiting perspective but also a necessary one when a film tries to cover as much time as Ray does. What the film lacks in introspection from its supporting cast is made up for in Jamie Foxx’s performance.

One of the biggest gripes against biopics comes when the lead actor or actress doesn’t look enough like the film’s subject. It can be even more trouble for musical biopics when characters cannot bring the stage presence or signing ability of the film’s subject. Neither is the case here, as Jamie Foxx looks, moves, sings, and howls like the late Ray Charles. Foxx benefits by having half of his face covered by Ray’s signature dark sunglasses most of the time but looking the part is only part of making a biopic work. Foxx is believable and infuses his character with humanity, both the good and bad parts.

If you know little about Ray Charles’s life beyond his music, this movie will probably leave you thinking a little less of him. Yes, it shows how Charles overcame a number of obstacles in his life but it also shows his stubborn unwillingness to give up a few too. This is not the squeaky-clean, Diet Pepsi-hawking Ray Charles you know from TV but biopics are all about showing a little dirt and a few rough edges. Had the whole film had been as hagiographic as the on-screen epilogue (basically saying he was a wonderful man the rest of his life), audiences would have revolted and the film would have been a disaster.

Overall, Ray is a very strong film built on Jamie Foxx’s exceptional performance. There are a few odd, almost trippy visions that Charles has that don’t make a lot of sense and are never fully explained. Most of them are designed to send us into a flashback but it’s a very weird way to segue through an otherwise normal dramatic film. Foxx alone makes the film worth seeing but tidying up a few of the other pieces would have nudged this film into my ‘great’ category.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Finding Nemo (2003)

This is one of those films that everyone assumes you saw. Dozens of jaws dropped over the years when friends and acquaintances found out I had not, in fact, seen this yet. Go ahead and tell me that it’s about time so you get it out of your system. I’ll wait. Ready? Okay. While a decade of hype might normally leave me feeling underwhelmed, Finding Nemo actually lives up to its reputation as a beloved and entertaining film.

After losing his wife, Marlin (Albert Brooks) grows exceedingly protective of their son Nemo (Alexander Gould). After an act of rebellion results in Nemo being taken away by humans, Marlin takes what few clues he has and sets off on a journey to rescue his son. While Nemo gets to know his new tankmates in Sidney, Australia, Marlin enlists the help of Dori (Ellen DeGeneres), a cheerful fish with short-term memory issues.

The animation in this film is just gorgeous. Pixar’s artists go to great length to capture the subtleties of aquatic environments, not to mention their mesmerizing color palettes. Very little of the underwater action looks like it defies physics. Rather than hold the various sea creatures in static positions, you see their fins moving to keep them relatively still or they bob up and down as they shift their bodies to navigate the ebb and flow of underwater currents. This attention to detail does not go unnoticed by the subconscious mind or to those of us who pay attention to that sort of thing.

Storywise, Finding Nemo is pretty simple but effective. A father’s unfailing love causes him to risk it all to find and rescue his child. What good, loving parent wouldn’t do the same? While working out father-son issues on film can easily turn cheesy, schmaltzy, and/or preachy, the writers find a way to avoid most of the pitfalls. The split storylines of Marlin’s determination and Nemo developing self-confidence show each character growing individually, which makes their relationship at the end of the film work. There’s no one-sided revelation to the resolution and that is appreciable.

Since Pixar films are not musicals, it really forces the animation, story, and characters to be that much better. Marlin starts out overprotective to the extreme, which is wince-inducing but also comical. Dori’s memory issues help jazz up her archetypal sidekick role. Marlin appreciates her eagerness (which is usually the annoying thing about sidekicks) but her constant amnesia frustrates him to no end. His loyalty and conscience prevent him from abandoning her. Nemo, on the other hand, is just a kid trying to cut the apron strings, so both father and son work really well. The misfits Nemo meets in Sidney are all very entertaining which prevents Nemo’s side of the story from growing too depressing.

I had a very difficult time rating this film. The story is very strong and the characters are all very engaging but there are a few minor quibbles with content that goes way over the heads of children. Reformed sharks holding an intervention to prevent a peer from falling off the wagon and eating a fish? That’s a bit much. Also, while it blows my mind how Pixar manages to improve their animation quality film after film, I felt as though I couldn’t rate this film higher than Toy Story. Sure, Nemo looks better and nails all the other ingredients but should Toy Story hold a higher place for coming first? It’s a similar struggle that I have with Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. Perhaps additional viewings will help me sort it out.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Little Fockers (2010)

Call me crazy, but I’ve always enjoyed Meet the Fockers over Meet the Parents. Some try to argue that the sequel brought down the quality of the series but I think it holds its own just fine. This poorly conceived dud, however, deserves all the criticism thrown at it.

Greg and Pam Focker (Ben Stiller and Teri Polo) are preparing for their twins’ fifth birthday party while also nearing the completion of building a new home. When Greg’s father-in-law Jack Byrnes (Robert De Niro) approaches him about becoming the heir of the Byrnes-Focker family throne, Greg reluctantly accepts. This leads to even more scrutiny and opinion from Jack about how Greg’s children should be raised. As if brochures for private schools and delayed construction schedules aren’t enough, Jack inadvertently uncovers aspects of Greg’s secret promotional work for an erectile dysfunction medication. Rather than question Greg about the few pieces of evidence he finds, Jack assumes Greg is having an affair and sets off on a mission to bring down his son-in-law.

A chief problem in this film is that Greg’s children (the titular little Fockers) aren’t featured enough. The humor in the Meet films is largely situational and it works best when Greg is trying to impress his father-in-law. In Meet the Parents, Greg was trying to make a good first impression on his future in-laws. In Meet the Fockers, Greg is trying to give Jack a good first impression of his parents. This time around? It feels more like Jack is trying to cement his legacy rather than Greg trying to do anything impressive.

There are only a few scenes where Greg has humorous moments with his kids. The rest of the time he’s arguing with Jack or sneaking around to do his promotional work. I can see Greg finally being at the point of sticking up for himself and dishing it right back at Jack but sometimes these moments feel a little too mean-spirited for a goofy comedy. When, at long last, the two come to blows, the fight scene alternates between being too corny and too serious.

Greg is a nice guy and means well. Jack should know this by now, so his jump to the conclusion that Greg his a cheating scoundrel is unrealistic. What we really need from this film is Jack to make a few choice comments about parenting styles, Greg to try to impress Jack and fail, and conclude with Greg being himself and showing Jack that that results in a loving bond with his children. Instead, we get more cheesy post-CIA paranoia antics, a lot of crude humor stemming from the nature of Greg’s side work, and not enough of what made the first two installments work.

Astounding as it may seem, Little Fockers came just $20 million short of matching the box office haul of Meet the Parents. Ordinarily that may suggest an additional sequel but I highly doubt one will surface given the terrible reviews it got from critics and audiences alike. Maybe it was the change in director or a change on the writing team. Or maybe the concept and characters were milked for all they were worth after two films. Whatever the case, the well seems to be mostly dry and what little is brought up in the bucket is tolerable at best but leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

RATING: 2.25 out of 5