Meet the Fockers (2004) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
431 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
10/10
Star Power Overcomes Some Comic Weaknesses
realangst18 December 2004
There are many movies where the performances are so good that the weaknesses of the movie itself are almost oblivious.

The casting in this film, bringing together the stars of the original with Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand as Greg aka Gaylord Focker's parents, is sensational.

While I admit that I believed I would read comments and reviews about the crudeness of the material, I believe the reason this is not a typically tragic Hollywood farce is due to the strength of the performances and the interaction of the characters.

As you know, the premise of the movie is very simple. Prior to the wedding of Greg and Pam, the two families will meet. In typical Hollywood sequel fashion, we already know that the Byrnses are somewhat reserved, set in their ways. So it is no surprise that the Fockers are almost the complete opposite.

Hilarity ensures, some crude, some overtly sexual. But the cast is skillful and it plays more like a comic version of "Closer". You will believe that Bernie and Roz (amazing performances by Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand) are Greg Focker's parents. Not only is their interaction genuine, their love for their child is as well. Part of Greg's embarrassment is the knowledge of his parents' "quirks" and how different they are from the Byrnses. Ben Stiller aptly conveys this while not backing down from his love for his parents.

Meanwhile, stern Jack Byrnes scans the Fockers for clues to prove why he should not like them, therefore not allowing his daughter to be married into that family. His design of the RV is classic Jack Byrnes. What is an improvement in this film, is that Jack discovers some things about himself and his relationship with his wife and daughter that change him. This may be the funniest performance in Robert DeNiro's career.

Throughout the film, there are themes that everyone has experienced but most of all, how important love is. The love of another and the love of family and friends. There is a very good example of this in a scene between Teri Polo and Ben Stiller, after some new information is exposed that could possibly tear them apart once again.

All in all, when you know the cast is having a good time, the audience does too. I will be seeing this one more than once.
191 out of 289 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Worth Watching For One Reason: Dustin Hoffman
lavatch6 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I enjoyed the sequel "Meet the Fockers" more than the original "Meet the Parents" for one reason: the performance of Dustin Hoffman. Overall, it was a fine ensemble cast and good scripting of the jokes and situations surrounding the irrepressible ex-CIA agent and family patriarch Jack Byrnes (Robert DeNiro). But Hoffman's character Bernie Focker, an attorney who retired to become a full-time dad to his son Greg (Ben Stiller), grounds this comedy in solid human values that raise the film beyond the level of nutty comedy.

I admired how Hoffman's character revealed genuine pain following the nasty remarks of Jack Byrnes. For example, the shrine of framed memorabilia of his son's accomplishments was ridiculed by Jack. One could empathize with Bernie's pain which he registered at the criticism. Indeed throughout the film, the most memorable scenes were those with Hoffman's character on the defense, but also taking the offensive against Jack.

The film also included some wildly funny moments, such as the teenager born out of wedlock to Greg's babysitter, a young lad with humongous eyebrows who was a dead-ringer for Ben Stiller's character and Jack's outrageous motor home rigged with listening devices, which provided him with his command center for spying on the Fockers. Much credit should go to director Jay Roach for outstanding comic rhythms, timing, and pacing.

In the end, this was thoroughly enjoyable movie, which had the surprising effect of providing a good window into family values unusual for Hollywood film comedies.
30 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
We've Been "Focker-ized"!
Radio_Lady20 December 2004
"Meet the Fockers" sounds like "Meet the f-u-u-…". Oops! Can't say that because of FCC guidelines. Just the same, the title pretty much describes the level of the humor in this Ben Stiller comedy. But that's redundant because it IS a Ben Stiller movie. Clearly my expectations for this movie were not high and, maybe because of that, I found "Meet the Fockers" quite funny.

Don't get me wrong. This is not a movie for everyone. First off, the writers did not miss a single opportunity to play off of the name "Focker". It's silly and gets a little old but it somehow works with the other repetitious low-down gags.

Focker is the family name for Greg (Focker), Ben Stiller. The funniest Fockers, however, (now I'm doing it) are Greg's parents Bernie and Roz, a loose and liberal Florida hippy couple still living in the last century and enjoying every minute of it. Dustin Hoffman, as Bernie displays a previously unrevealed talent for over the top comedy. Fitting perfectly with Hoffman's Bernie, is Barbra Streisand as Roz Focker, reminiscent of the "zaftig" Lainie Kazan. Bernie is a yesteryear lawyer who has not practiced since who knows when. Roz is the main breadwinner from her business as a sex therapist to the elderly.

Greg is not too eager to reveal his parents' true nature to his fiancée's parents as they all come to visit to get to know one another better. Teri Polo nicely plays Greg's fiancée Pam. Robert DeNiro and Blythe Danner play her stiff and straight parents, Jack and Dina Byrnes. Oh – also add in some baby low-brow by Spencer and Bradley Pickeren, two adorable twins playing Little Jack.

So, go low, go loose -- or don't go at all -- but if you like Ben Stiller, go see "Meet the Fockers". Dustin's antics will crack you up and you'll enjoy Barbra back on the big screen after so long. Rated a B+.
162 out of 248 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Not as good as the original, but its' still a satisfying sequel!
max-21719 December 2004
MEET THE FOCKERS made me laugh a lot. It probably has more laughs than the original, but the laughs aren't as big or as fresh or as subtle. And as sequels go, it contains many scenes that are mere variations of the original: the dinner gone wrong, the sports competition gone wrong, the pet gone wrong, the Owen Wilson cameo, the "focker" puns, etc. But many of the variations are quite inspired. Thanks to the terrific cast. De Niro, Stiller, Hoffman and Streisand all look like they're having a great time. Each is given a scene or two to really shine; De Niro and Hoffman fare the best. A child actor's also been added to the cast, and he's a scene-stealer. I just wish Blythe Danner (Mrs. Byrnes) and Teri Polo (Pam Focker) were given more to do. But, as entertaining as I thought the movie was, expect many critics to be turned off or pretend to be turned off by the numerous toilet jokes. I say, flock 'em!
111 out of 173 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
A different kind of comedy than Meet the Parents
Brandt Sponseller30 April 2005
Series note: As this is a direct continuation of Meet the Parents (2000), it is recommended that you watch that film first. It gives necessary background exposition and characterization for this film.

Gaylord "Greg" Focker (Ben Stiller) and fiancée Pam Byrnes' (Teri Polo) wedding is fast approaching, and their parents still have not met each other. So Greg and Pam fly from Chicago to New York to meet her parents, Jack (Robert De Niro) and Dina (Blythe Danner), before heading off with them to Miami to meet his parents, Bernie (Dustin Hoffman) and Mother Focker Roz (Barbara Streisand). The problem is that the Byrnes are staid, conservative (though slightly crazy) types who would never think of showing public affection, while the Fockers are still hippies--she is a sex therapist for elderly couples and he's a lawyer who became Mr. Mom once Gaylord was born. Can Gaylord keep his parents reined in enough to not cause Jack blow his lid and try to stop the wedding? Although I didn't think Meet the Fockers was quite as funny or successful as Meet the Parents, it's still funny and successful, with a bit less of an emphasis on nonstop outrageous humor and a bit more of an emphasis on the often amusing complexities of extended family relationships.

If you've seen Meet the Parents first--and you should--some of the material, such as Gaylord's job, jokes based on the "Focker" name, and even Jack's background and disposition will have less of an impact, which initially partially depends on novelty and surprise. Additionally, director Jay Roach and the writing team of James Herzfeld, Marc Hyman and John Hamburg telegraph quite a few of the punch lines. For just one example, it's obvious that something is going to happen to Gaylord's rental car in New York as soon as we hear him opt out of purchasing insurance, blowing it off as a "scam" to make money.

On the other hand, Roach and crew make it clear from the start that they're not exactly shooting for the same style of film as Meet the Parents. This is evident from the beginning, which cleverly pokes fun at Meet the Parents' "gradually going to hell in a handbasket" style by having everything go exactly right.

Roach aims for classic scenarios of families colliding that have surprisingly serious subtexts (and in the real world, these kinds of situations do have an attendant humor, at least when we're not right in the midst of them). Every family tends to have its own customs and norms, its own take on ethics, etiquette, politics, religion and so on. Naturally, when we try to merge families through marriages, uncomfortable, often embarrassing, and frequently tense situations abound. Aside from the humor, this is the crux of Meet the Fockers.

Another important subtext that occurs in various guises through the film (and for which the potential was there in Meet the Parents even if it wasn't capitalized on in quite the same way) is opening up to "free", honest expression of one's thoughts, feelings and desires versus showing a "proper" public face. This is particularly amusing and poignant in the case of Jack, whose job involved obtaining honest expression, but who is the strongest case of putting on a false public face--to an extent that he's bought into the persona himself. In a way, Roach and crew are suggesting that if we can really reach that ideal self-expression, maybe those family mergers, and even other kinds of cultural encounters (such as the Fockers' run-in with the police) could proceed more smoothly.

So it's not so important whether Meet the Fockers is as funny as Meet the Parents. Roach isn't just trying to make you laugh, even though he does so frequently. Despite all the comments in others' reviews about sex-oriented humor (how could you not expect that in a film with a title like this?), or general "low-brow" humor, the comic situations here are more sophisticated in many ways than a typical "outrageous" comedy. That means that you're not going to laugh out loud, with tears streaming down your face, as often as you're going to be sitting there with a big smile on your face watching scenarios such as Bernie trying, and mostly succeeding, to hold on to his hippie ideals no matter what the short term costs. This is more a humor of slightly exaggerated but realistic folly, played fabulously by a stellar cast.
40 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
The critics are wrong, this movie is funny
christian12322 December 2004
After convincing his fiancée's parents to allow them to marry, Greg Focker (Ben Stiller) now has to deal with what happens when her ex-CIA father Jack Byrnes (Robert De Niro) meets his own wacky ex-hippy parents, played by Dustin Hoffman and Barbara Streisand.

I really wanted to see this film when it was first announced. The original was very funny and it had a great repeat value. However, the reviews started coming in and they were all negative so I was a little discouraged. I still went to see it and it turned out to be very funny. The critics really need to lighten up since they turned away a fine comedy. Sure, some of the gags are old and tired but they still work. They use a lot of "Focker" jokes and of male nurse jokes sob that kind of got annoying but it wasn't an overload either. The story is pretty much the same as the first one except now Greg's parents are thrown into the mix and nothing ever goes right. The writers came up with a bunch of different, funny situations and some of them were recycled while others were new.

The cast is great and they help move the film along nicely. The best was clearly Dustin Hoffman as Greg's dad. He was hilarious and fun to watch on screen. Ben Stiller was okay but his uptight character role is kind of getting annoying. Robert De Niro also gives a funny performance and he is now forgiven for appearing in Godsend. Barbara Streisand was surprisingly funny and bearable. I usually cannot stand her but she was alright in the movie. Blythe Danner gives a decent performance, nothing really special. Teri Polo was the only miscast in the movie. She just didn't fit or look well next to Hoffman, Stiller and De Niro. Owen Wilson makes a cameo and it was decent, a little unnecessary though.

Jay Roach directs and he does a good job with the movie though it was a little too long. 115 minutes is kind of long for a comedy and because of the long running time, the film starts to bore around the end. They should have taken some things out to keep the film shorter and interesting. I also didn't like the character little Jack. He was the grandson of Jack (De Niro) and he was very annoying. The addition of the baby character was unnecessary and it kind of brought the film down. Compared to the original, the first one is funnier and more enjoyable. The second one is still pretty funny but it doesn't have a good repeat value. However, the film is still worth checking out in theaters. In the end, please ignore the critics and check this film out in theaters. Rating 7/10
146 out of 241 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Focking Awful
warnerclassic19 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Meeting the Parents of your girlfriend can be stressful enough. But having her parents meet yours can sometimes be a recipe for disaster, something Greg Focker finds to his peril; when both sets of parents meet on the eve of his wedding. Made after the success of Meet the Parents, Meet the Fockers carries on where the last film left off, with Greg delivering babies while his stuffy future father in laws delivers ultimatums, both with memorable results. Of course Greg is now finally in "The Circle of Trust" a circle that is headed by Jack, Greg's uptight future father in law, retired from the CIA, yet still firmly attached to his former profession. Meanwhile Greg's own parents are laid back and free with their emotions, his mother being a sex therapist and his father a house husband. Knowing Jack's conservative ways Greg is delighted but terrified at his fiancés news that they are going to have a baby. Worried of Jacks reaction, things get worse when Greg's old teenage crush reappears, along with a 15 year old son who is a dead ringer for Greg and, as far as Jack's concerned, a prime contender for a DNA test . Meet the Fockers is based purely in the realm of a one joke movie (i.e. the family's name) and so has the longevity of one (i.e. very short) The main problems with the film is the heartbreaking (from a film fans point of view) sight of Robert De Niro, Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand all participating in a film that Benny Hill would have passed at. Streisand, the powerhouse all singing and acting legend, is here reduced to teaching senior citizens how to have better sex, something I could have lived without seeing. Hoffman is clearly having fun, although quite unaware that the audience isn't. His scenes with De Niro have a chemistry, but the scenes themselves do little to their reputations. One scene with Hoffman sitting on a toilet and De Niro in the shower waiting for him to "finish" really felt like an all time low, and when Hoffman flushed I hoped their careers wasn't going down with it. One high point is the appearance of Owen Wilson (Stiller's Hutch to his Starsky) who shows up at the end, but by that time I was too busy sawing through my wrists. Meet the Fockers has an incredible waste of exceptional talent, and that my friends is no laughing matter.
37 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An extension of the original film done bigger but to lesser effect
bob the moo11 March 2008
Firmly part of the circle of trust, Greg Focker is planning his marriage to Dina and has put off a big family get together for as long as he can. With no further excuses, Greg and Dina join Pam and Jack as they take their RV down to Florida to meet the Focker family. With an eye very much on his bloodline, Jack is keen to judge his future son-in-law by his parents, which spells problems when he finds himself living with two very liberal and touchy-feely Fockers.

I'm in my thirties now and it probably is not very impressive that I can put words together in a basic sentence. Whereas for a two year old it might be a real surprise if they were to discuss their opinions on political matters as such with you. What is the difference? Well it is simply one of expectation. Coming to the subject of films, expectation can often make or break a film, with perhaps a poor Pauly Shore movie being better received by viewers than a poor Spielberg film partly because you expect that standard from the former but more from the latter. So it does help this film that with the very title you are informed that you are not about to witness the sharpest of comedies.

With this in mind I went in with a forgiving eye, just hoping for laughs but I was not really prepared for how most of the film is unimaginative and base. In the first film we had Greg contrast with stern father Jack and hilarity ensues; here we have the same setup again but this time Greg is replaced as a device by his parents. What this means is that the film essentially aims at the same low targets as the first film and mostly hits them. To avoiding being too boorish on this subject I will admit that moments are funny and that the casting was a nice try but mostly I just found it obvious and dull. Toilet humour, a retread of the CIA stuff and so on supposedly provide the comedy while the drama is the same superficial relationship stuff as before.

The cast mostly do their best to try and lift it. Stiller mugs along well enough but the real fun (such as it is) comes from De Niro and Hoffman. The former more or less just does his stuff again but is enjoyable enough, while the latter is at least having fun with a silly character. Streisand and Polo have lesser roles but still have a bit of fun, while poor Danner is just a plot device to try and the give the film some sort of centre. Cameos from Wilson and Nelson don't add much to proceedings and don't even get me starting on the annoying Pickren twins who are not only irritating but made more irritating by the way the film overuses them, apparently in the belief that "Little Jack" is funny and/or cute when really he is neither. Roach's direction is nothing short of pedestrian – even the choice of theme music is obvious and easy.

Overall then this is a film that people who really liked the first film will enjoy. Those that just "liked" it may find that they didn't like it enough to watch it twice, which is what is happening here. The cast play it up as much as they can but really this is just an extension of the original idea done bigger but to lesser effect.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Stay away from this movie in droves
baikauskas14 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Despite the reviews being lukewarm, I went to see this movie on a recent afternoon because I had a couple of hours between holiday visits to friends. It was the only film that fit my schedule. It was not my first, second or third choice and if I had absolutely anything else to do and if the weather had been any more cooperative, I would have run - not walked out of the theater. I decided that since it remained at the top of the box office for another week, maybe, just maybe there was something redeeming about it. There isn't. Nothing. And the audience agreed. There were probably 20 of us and not one person - not one - laughed at any point in this movie. It is one of the most pathetic wastes of talent since - since - since I don't know what. Shame on everyone associated with this horribly unfunny movie.
62 out of 100 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Overrated, vulgar and NOT FUNNY!
moviemasterdebater12 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Believe the critics because this one is just a rehash of the first and I don't remember laughing even once during the entire film. Unfortunately, this sequel continues in the same vein as the original. Making fun of Greg's profession as a male nurse and using his last name in virtually every way possible to replace the sexual expletive, this film appears doomed from the start for family viewing.

Along with heavy innuendo based on the family moniker, much of the script's humor relies on overt sexual themes for the punch lines. Working as a seniors' sex therapist, Roz promotes erotic exercise moves and candidly discusses options for an amorously repressed couple. A paternity case, a busload of buxom cheerleaders who start to remove their tops and an incident of mooning are also played for laughs. As well, a toddler learns to swear repeatedly and gets his hands on some hard liquor when a flustered caregiver is distracted by an incoming call. The results are supposed to be funny, but the farce often comes up short in good taste.
35 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Better than the first
scottw19@hotmail.com23 December 2004
This is an incredibly funny movie. I can't believe the lackluster reviews that this film has received. It's one of the most consistently funny films to come out in recent memory. I (and the rest of the audience for that matter) laughed hardily throughout. Dustin Hoffman, Robert Deniro and Ben Stiller are great. The female characters aren't given much to do, but give adequate performances. Not being a Streisand fan, I was a little apprehensive about her casting, but am pleased to say that she is very good in the role and stands toe-to-toe with hubby Hoffman. The movie is quickly paced and provides very little "down time" where the comedy bogs down. It's a great mix of slap-stick, witty banter, strong comedic performances, crude humor and even cutesy fowl mouthed toddlers. To me all these high brow critics need to lighten up. Comedies should be judged by whether or not they are funny and that's it. The bottom line with this film is that it's hilarious. All those critics are coming off as smug ass hoooooooooles.
109 out of 201 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!! humbug
wee_scottish_lassie28 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
You could hardly call this film a comedy. Just a bunch of people making absolute fools of themselves. When I went to see this I just about died of boredom. It is simply not funny! There was absolutely nothing hilarious about the guy's mum being a sex therapist.. There was nothing funny about a kid saying ass hole. Come to think of it, there was nothing funny about it full stop. I am fed up of seeing films which are not only trash as far as film making is concerned but destroy the purpose of going to the cinema. "Now what is the purpose?" I hear you ask.. That, my dears is something that if you do not know now, will find out in the future years to come. In my mind the purpose is to be entertained but Hollywood doesn't seem to think like that. I sincerely hope that no more people will go and see this sad excuse for a film.
23 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
I still don't get it.
superscal2319 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't like the original Meet the Parents, and I don't like Meet the Fockers. $250 million later, maybe it's me.

I laughed out loud at this movie exactly 3 times, and they all occurred within the last 20 minutes of the movie. First, when Ben Stiller's character says "Yo soy tu papa" to his alleged son. Second, the illustration of the circle of trust which clearly indicates Greg is no longer part of said circle. Third, Owen Wilson singing in Hebrew. That's it.

Nothing that DeNiro, Hoffman, or Streisand did in this film made me laugh. They have reached such one dimensional cartoon levels (is that redundant?), that the joke, which wasn't real funny to begin with, gets old very fast.

We have 3 legendary actors, one of today's top comic performers, the underrated talents of Blythe Danner and Teri Polo, and the movie was terrible. Like I said, maybe it's me.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Very Hilarious Sequel – Be Ready for a Non-Stop Laughing Mode
Claudio Carvalho11 November 2005
In this very hilarious sequel, Gaylord Myron Focker (Ben Stiller), his pregnant fiancée Pamela Byrnes (Teri Polo), his future father-in-law and retired CIA agent Jack Byrnes (Robert De Niro) and his future mother-in-law Dina Byrnes (Blythe Danner) travel to Florida to visit Greg's parents, Bernie Focker (Dustin Hoffman) and the sex-therapist Roz Focker (Barbra Streisand). The dispute between the "Focker-ized" and very "Zen" family and the rigid and paranoid Jack Byrnes made me burst in a "non-stop laughing" mode not only along the movie, but also after, recalling the funny scenes and gags. The talent of Ben Stiller and Robert De Niro as comedians is very well-known by the audiences, but Dustin Hoffman surprised me how funny he is. Barbra Streisand is also excellent, and the jokes with the English word "Focker" are great. For my surprise, there are IMDb users that hated this movie, probably bitter people without sense of humor that unfortunately we stumble in our lives. If the reader of my simple review wants to laugh, see this movie. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Entrando Numa Fria Maior Ainda" (a slang, that means "Getting into a Bigger Trouble")
30 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Not really a disappointment
Alan Farris18 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Before reviewing this movie, I would like to make a few points:- Firstly, I am a big Robert de Niro fan. Ten years ago I would have stated unequivocally that he was the finest movie actor ever, with a number of powerful performances to his credit. These days I still cherish him, but am less certain of his greatness.

Secondly, I am not trying to be provocative or unpleasant or offencive in writing this review, but to simply put forward an opinion for discussion. I would welcome responses, of all kinds, to my email address (ba_hinks@hotmail.com).

Thirdly, I have to confess that I approached this movie with trepidation, with the prejudice that I was not going to like it. Nevertheless, when the opportunity to see it came up I was prepared to take it.

The first disappointment about this movie is the juvenility of its humour (humor for the Americans!), starting with its title, which contain a word which sounds closely like a crude Anglo-Saxon term for having sex (oooh, how rude!!), but is also a genuine surname arising from the Dutch aircraft designer Anton Fokker. I wonder what the target audience for this humour is - surely only children under the age of about 12 find the hint of coarse language amusing? Or is there a vast swathe of conservative middle-age matrons who, scared of using the 'F word' themselves find the threat of it dangling before their noses dangerously exciting? There is further 'nudge, nudge, wink wink' (as we Brits say, from the Monty Python sketch) sex-related humour through Barbara Streisand's character, and the over-amorous dog, plus some (dog-down-the) toilet humour thrown in for good measure.

The second disappointment is the sheer predictability of the plot. Two very different families, in terms of personalities, careers, background etc. are linked by a single commonality - their children wish to wed. Simple movie logic suggests that the differences will cause frequent confrontation and misunderstanding as both sets of parents attempt to dominate with their preferred version of reality, but that they will come together in the end, united by the love their children have for each other. And - surprise, surprise - the movie follows that immensely predictable path to a conclusion that could have be written within five minutes of the beginning.

The third disappointment is the involvement of two giants of the screen in Robert de Niro and Dustin Hoffmann (the other actors are appropriate to this level of excrement). I realise that de Niro is a producer of the movie, so has a vested interest additional to his acting role, but he is not a comic actor and his legacy is tarnished by performances such as this.

The only aspect of this movie which was not a disappointment to me was the fact that I predicted that I would dislike it, and that it would be embarrassing and unfunny. I was not disappointed to have been proved correct - although I would have preferred to have been proved wrong.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
How many times can they make a focker joke in this sequel
ctfury2322 December 2004
This movie in no way did the first justice. When the writers sat down I think the only thing discussed was how many times they could throw the word focker in the movie. Gregs last name was a humorous topic in Meet the Parents, but it really falls flat in the sequel. Every two minutes they try to spin off a joke about focker or gaylord and it seriously got old in the first two minutes of the sequel. As for the rest of the movie it was incredibly unbelievable. The reason Meet the Parents was so successful is because the audience can relate to Gregs situation meeting the parents and the unfortunate situations that come about. If you plan on seeing this movie I really hope you still go to stitches every time you here the word focker and do not mind a mediocre sequel with cheap laughs. The only time I laughed during this movie is when some guy fell down the steps and spilled his popcorn.

And before I forget....If you cast a vote for this movie or any other please be realistic. Over 50% of the people who have casted a vote for this movie have given it a ten. How ignorant can you be. If you really think this movie is a classic I wonder how tough it was to grow up with an underdeveloped brain and would love to meet with you and discuss the brilliance that went into this movie. If you like the movie great, but don't skew the results so people actually think this is a classic. Save the 10 ratings for the Godfather, Shawshank redemption, braveheart, anything that didn't take a half an hour to write.
38 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
One hilarious movie
In this sequel to 'Meet the Parents,' Gaylord Greg Focker (Ben Stiller) has finally invited his fiancée's parents, ex-CIA agent Jack Byrnes and his wife (Robert DeNiro and Blythe Danner) to meet his parents. Jack wants to know if Greg came from a good gene pool. Jack discovers that the Fockers are very strange. The Dad (Dustin Hoffman) is a hippie and retired lawyer, and the Mom (Barbara Streisand) is an open sex therapist. Jack begins to thinks this is not a good family for his daughter to marry into. Greg's parents are so proud of Greg that they have a wall of honor with Greg's ninth and tenth place sports awards. The two families try to become one family. This was one hilarious movie, which I laughed from beginning to end. This is proof of the old adage, that actors don't like to work with children and animals, because they stole the movie. The child spoke with sign language and had some of the best comedy scenes of the movie. The toilet scene with the cat and dog was just so funny. (Universal, Run time 1:30, Rated PG-13) (8/10)
39 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Overrated sequel with only a few laughs and smiles
OriginalMovieBuff2130 May 2005
I've been wanting to see Meet the Fockers ever since I heard it was coming out to theaters since I loved Meet the Parents. After hearing good reviews and how hilarious it was, I finally decided to rent it. To my viewing, I thought the movie was overrated. I had laughs in the film and I did like the characters besides the little kid, but I didn't have enough which I was hoping for. There were scenes that were stupid and just shouldn't be in the film. I mean I did have laughs and I loved the football and shot injections scenes but there wasn't enough hilarious parts to entertain me. Overall, a decent sequel with a few laughs but not enough to qualify to its prequel. This could be a letdown to Meet the Parents fans.

Hedeen's Outlook: 6/10 ** C-
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Life-support machine for DreamWorks.
FilmSnobby15 January 2005
Like virtually all mainstream releases, *Meet the Fockers* is, of course, really too awful to warrant an amateur review: only the professionals should be forced to deal with the dreary task. But a movie whose cast includes Robert De Niro, Dustin Hoffman, and Barbra Streisand would SEEM to invite discussion. Thirty years ago, such a cast would have indicated a Major Motion Picture. In 2005, I'm sorry to report that these living-legend actors have been inducted -- however profitably to themselves -- in the ongoing mission to Keep DreamWorks Afloat. The Stiller/De Niro "franchise" has officially joined the *Shrek* series as an anomalous money-maker for the studio. The creative bankruptcy of Messrs. Spielberg, Geffen, and Katzenberg resulted in the demise of both the TV and music units of the company; and as for the movie-wing of the operation, that creative bankruptcy has never been more clearly demonstrated than with *Meet the Fockers*.

But, as I've said, *Fockers* appears to be making a lot of box-office dough, so the sheer awfulness is likely to continue. Expect *Fockers 3* and maybe even a *Fockers 4*. (Expect the same for *Shrek*, too.) In fact, the sequels may go on and on until somebody over at DreamWorks finds a way to concoct a good movie. Or maybe Spielberg will occasionally drag himself into the director's chair and put the aging Toms -- Hanks or Cruise -- through the motions of the occasional spurious blockbuster.

I realize I've not talked much about the movie itself, but why bother? The first film of the series, *Meet the Parents*, at least had the chemistry between De Niro and Stiller, and an overall funny premise: the nice Jewish guy desperately trying to fit into the suburban milieu of a pathologically WASPish family. The Stiller character's all-too-human propensity for telling white-lie upon white-lie complicated his troubles and increased the comedy. In *Fockers*, Stiller and De Niro are curiously muted in their (few) scenes together. One wonders if they were getting along on the set. But on the other hand, the movie isn't focused on their interpersonal dynamic anyway, choosing instead to make De Niro the put-upon character, overwhelming him with the stereotypical "earthiness" (i.e., "Jewishness", I suppose) of the Focker parents. This diminishment of De Niro totally misses the point of what worked in the first movie, which is that he was a larger-than-life maniac whose expectations were so high that nobody, especially not Ben Stiller, could hope to match them.

As for Hoffman and Streisand, they bring nothing unique to their stereotypical roles: any pair of aging actors would have sufficed. The fact that they're introduced by way of an answering machine only cements their irrelevance. I even doubt that they've enhanced the box-office profits, as most people under the age of 30 scarcely know who they are, anyway -- Hoffman and Streisand haven't been major screen presences for some time. Which brings me back to De Niro: he had better play *King Lear* or its contemporary equivalent, and do it fast. One tires of watching this great actor continue to trash his legacy with these god-awful comedies. He needs to remind us that he was once considered the greatest screen actor since Brando. (But then, Brando ended up as a joke, too. Curse of *The Godfather*, perhaps?)

1 star out of 10.
20 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
As good as the original
Jerry Brown (jp88)18 January 2005
When I went to see Meet the Fockers I was expecting to see another bad Hollywood sequel, as Ocean's twelve, but luckily it was as good as the original. The new characters, specially the one played by Dustin Hofman, who did a superb job, were really hilarious and added a new dynamic to the story. The lowest point of this film were the scenes that involved the baby (Pam's sister son), instead of spend so much time with him ,the writers should have developed more Owen Wilson's character. It may not be the best comedy ever made, but Meet the Fockers is a very good and funny movie, with excellent performances and a good script.

My rating: 9/10
19 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Fantastic
eileen54820 December 2004
I think this movie was fantastic, it was absolutely great. There was tons of laughter, and it didn't drag on like most movies does. It wasn't the same old jokes, and it wasn't the same old boring continuation of Pam and Gaylords lifes, they actually had new story lines and something else because they were able to develop two new characters and give this something new. The characters were great, real funny material, they were real down to earth characters. Its cool how they took laid back people and matched them with pams parents, who are strict and uptight, makes for great comedy. Even the animals were freaking hilarious, not the same old story line where you make something else boring happen, this had life and was a great sequel. It was worth making the trip out in the freezing cold.
30 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Entertaining
buiger10 September 2006
I beg to disagree with most of the critics on this one. I actually liked this movie a little better than 'Meet the Parents', and it is very rare for me to prefer a sequel to the original. There was some good acting in this movie, which is no wonder given the caliber of the cast. Make no mistake, this was definitely not a masterpiece, the script could have been better and the last 20 minutes of the film are a little overdone and cheesy, but all in all a decent, entertaining movie.

One thing I found to be a little disturbing about this film is the message it sends, especially to the younger audience: 'It is wrong to be straight, to have strong principles and self-discipline (the Byrnes), whereas it is proper to have no inhibitions, no discipline, no job (somehow everybody is rich anyway) and the world is just a happy merry-go-round (the Fockers). Even coming from liberal Hollywood, this is still wrong.
18 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Vulgar antics
zadkine28 December 2004
Do not see this movie. Do not spoil the affable "Meet the Parents" with the thoroughly unpleasant "Meet the Fockers". Do not replace the memory of so many fine and respectable performances by these veteran actors over several decades with the vulgar and idiotic antics you will see in this movie. Let's not continue to perpetuate this kind of moronic movie making. The first film was very funny, along the lines of "Flirting with Disaster". It's not just that the bathroom humor is distasteful - it's distracting. You often wonder when seeing a sophomoric film what it would have been like without the crude humor. You don't have to wonder, in this case - the same film exists without the crassness of the sequel. These two films could be used in a writing class as examples of how a scene, or a whole movie, could be funnier without playing to the lowest common denominator. In America that denominator appears to be getting lower, year after year.
13 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Trust the critics!
kdn0100324 February 2005
I should have listened to the critics, but I didn't. The first sequel was merely OK. I remember I laughed at least a couple of times. My friend and I saw "Meet the Fockers" at the cinema. It was so incredibly boring that nobody, I repeat, _nobody_ in the audience laughed. Not even once. Maybe it's the cold weather that makes all Swedes down in the dumps, but I refuse to believe that. This film is simply BORING!

What the film is all about? Sorry, I don't know. I've repressed it - totally.

If you ever see this film, make sure you have a beer or two up your sleeve.
15 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
The phoenix of humiliation rises again for the masses
Clark Richards25 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Gliding on the good graces of its predecessor, this new installment has very little to showcase in the way of ground breaking comedy. Not that anyone would expect a sequel to 'Meet the Parents' as being a 'departure film' or a film that would ever titillate its audience with anything close to resembling an 'over the line' type of comedy. No, this film is just a very safe and predictable sequel.

This sequel force feeds us the chronic Ben Stiller humiliation angle scene after scene. Adding to the comedic clockwork, the producer and or director (or whatever moron in charge), decided to work in the 'baby genius' sub plot into every 7th minute of the film. As if that wasn't enough dumbing down, we're all supposed to be delighted by the dog and cat show that takes place inside DeNiro's 'home on wheels'. The fact that the punch line to this dog and cat chase joke is predicated on one of the animals landing inside the toilet, seems an appropriate place, the proper level if you will, where this film seems most at home.

Infants that are more intelligent than adults, cats that are smarter than dogs, how could this film succeed? Well, it can't succeed. However, I have to admit to one thing about this film being good. The performances of Barbara Streisand and Dustin Hoffman were good. I was surprised to see a return to comic form from Barbara Streisand. She really should have been making comedy/musicals these past few years...er...decades. Comedy really suits her. Both her performance and Hoffman's are surprisingly good.

Not to take anything away from DeNiro who is also likable, but I was more interested in the 'wacky' hi-jinks between Streisand and Hoffman.

Here's the thing. The movie is enjoyable, but I rolled my eyes way too much for me to consider this a great comedy. It's a comedy that is very much by the numbers, for the numbers.

If you don't mind a comedy that works down to Mall level, where you can see the jokes coming, then watch it on DVD.

I would have given this movie a 5/10, but Streisand and Hoffman were a pleasant enough surprise. I didn't hate this movie, I just didn't like it all that much.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews