Before I begin reviewing this movie, I want to debunk a few reasons as to why it's good. Sean Hayes, Will Sasso, and Chris Diamantopoulus have received acclaim for their accurate portrayals of Larry, Curly, and Moe. But, as I stated in the title, I'm not a fan of The Three Stooges original show. Even as a kid, I knew slapstick humor was not my kind of comedy. I respect people that appreciate it, but I never could. So I found the actors so over-the-top that, for a while, it was quite comical. But after the first third of the movie, the mugging to the camera and over-use of the wide angle lens just got grading that it just begins to look unpleasant.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember the original show ever having much of a constructive narrative. I remember the slapstick like everyone. And by making a movie of this requires the alcohol-influenced writers to come up with some needlessly complicated, half baked story that's neither relevant or interesting.
The movie also has a lot of plot points that just come and go as they please. What do I mean by this? Well, in the first ten minutes of the movie, they establish this characters to be diagnosed with some sort of unexplained, incurable disease. The next time we see her, not only is she completely cured, but the filmmakers didn't even come up with a reason as to how she was cured!
My biggest gripe with the movie comes at the very end. The directors, the Farrelly brothers, come out and explain that the slap stick is, of course, choreographed and unreal. This bothers me for a couple of reasons:
1.) Wouldn't it have made sense for the Farrelly brothers to include this caution before the movie and not after?
2.) I think this is slapping the audience in the face. Whenever I did watch the original t.v. show as a kid, I knew the slapstick was choreographed. I knew that you couldn't slug someone in the face with a hammer without causing serious injuries. I think kids are smarter than most people give them credit for; they know enough to separate what's real and what's unreal when it comes to cinema.
One other thought is this. In his review, Roger Ebert says, and I quote, "The Farrelly brothers have made probably the best Three Stooges movie it's possible to make in 2012". I thought that was true at first. But, upon further thought, I came to the conclusion that, while I'm sure the Farrelly brothers were trying, this movie is just unnecessary and not fit for our times. The original show is fine, I guess, and there's absolutely no need to make it this derivative.
Final verdict: Though I don't hate this movie, it's still pretty bad. If you are a Stooges fan, you could like this movie, though the constructive narrative could bug you, as it did me. Other than that, it may disappoint.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember the original show ever having much of a constructive narrative. I remember the slapstick like everyone. And by making a movie of this requires the alcohol-influenced writers to come up with some needlessly complicated, half baked story that's neither relevant or interesting.
The movie also has a lot of plot points that just come and go as they please. What do I mean by this? Well, in the first ten minutes of the movie, they establish this characters to be diagnosed with some sort of unexplained, incurable disease. The next time we see her, not only is she completely cured, but the filmmakers didn't even come up with a reason as to how she was cured!
My biggest gripe with the movie comes at the very end. The directors, the Farrelly brothers, come out and explain that the slap stick is, of course, choreographed and unreal. This bothers me for a couple of reasons:
1.) Wouldn't it have made sense for the Farrelly brothers to include this caution before the movie and not after?
2.) I think this is slapping the audience in the face. Whenever I did watch the original t.v. show as a kid, I knew the slapstick was choreographed. I knew that you couldn't slug someone in the face with a hammer without causing serious injuries. I think kids are smarter than most people give them credit for; they know enough to separate what's real and what's unreal when it comes to cinema.
One other thought is this. In his review, Roger Ebert says, and I quote, "The Farrelly brothers have made probably the best Three Stooges movie it's possible to make in 2012". I thought that was true at first. But, upon further thought, I came to the conclusion that, while I'm sure the Farrelly brothers were trying, this movie is just unnecessary and not fit for our times. The original show is fine, I guess, and there's absolutely no need to make it this derivative.
Final verdict: Though I don't hate this movie, it's still pretty bad. If you are a Stooges fan, you could like this movie, though the constructive narrative could bug you, as it did me. Other than that, it may disappoint.