my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Little Fockers (2010)

Author Topic: Little Fockers (2010) Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-07-2011 09:45 PM                        Well, nobody was expecting this to be any good, including the people in it. But I have to admit it did have a couple of fun moments. The best bits for me were whenever Owen Wilson and Ben Stiller were onscreen at the same time. (Although their entire shtick was pretty much duplicated in the other two movies.) Wilson gets pretty old pretty fast but he's used just the right amount in this show. Stiller's "slow burns" whenever Wilson says anything are the best parts of the movie. Hoffman and Streisand are totally useless. They could have been edited completely out and it would have made no difference in the story. DeNiro has worn pretty thin in this role. The only real chuckle from his character was the "Jaws" spoof near the end (which included the same camera move from "Jaws"). But he wasn't even on screen for most of that. Teri Polo's character was pretty nonexistent. The movie is purported to be about the kids but they apparently forgot to write them into the story and had to manufacture ways to shoehorn them into the screenplay. Again, the kids could have been edited out and the story would have been about the same. Jessica Alba was good eye candy. The comedy bit over the end credits is the least funny of the series; the same summary could be applied to the whole shebang. 1.5 out of 5 stars (a half-star extra for Jessica Alba's underwear scenes).  |  IP: Logged Tom Petrov Five Guys Lover Posts: 1121 From: El Paso, TX Registered: Jan 2003 posted 02-07-2011 10:39 PM                    quote: Mike Blakesley edited completely out I heard Hoffman was edited in. The film was done and after it was finished the realized it was really bad, so they filmed Hoffman and some parts and added him in to finished picture.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 02-08-2011 03:06 PM                     That makes sense. He was not in the original trailer and actually thought he had been smart and decided not to do another...unlike the rest of them. No Dustin at around 0.59 seconds.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-08-2011 07:31 PM                        Universal should have made the movie with Fox (instead of Paramount) and called it "Little Fockers Home Alone."  |  IP: Logged Kurt Zupin Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 989 From: Maricopa, Arizona Registered: Oct 2004 posted 02-08-2011 08:01 PM                     This is true, the film tested so poorly that the studio went back to Hoffman who had turned down doing another film the first time. The rumored offer they made him was $5mil. I can't say that I blame him for doing it for a cool $5mil for a couple days worth of shots. On the review side, this film was horrible. I screened it hoping it was going to be some what funny as I had like the two previous films. This was just bad, no even Alba could save it in her underware. .5/5 (.5 for the underware)  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.