With his wife on a book tour, Tom Baker finds his life turned upside down when he agrees to care for his twelve children while simultaneously also coaching his new football team.With his wife on a book tour, Tom Baker finds his life turned upside down when he agrees to care for his twelve children while simultaneously also coaching his new football team.With his wife on a book tour, Tom Baker finds his life turned upside down when he agrees to care for his twelve children while simultaneously also coaching his new football team.
- Awards
- 2 wins & 7 nominations total
Featured reviews
Let's see if this film has all the necessaries of a modern film.
1) Classic title 2) Dad is an idiot 3) New script bearing no resemblance to the original. 4) Male lead cannot droll without instructions from female 5) Children are out of control 6) The man is incurably stupid 7) Mother is a wise saint 8) Father has no clue about his own home (have I covered that already??) 9) Large families result from irresponsibility
I saw and loved the original. I held no illusions that this would be nearly as good. In fact I knew it would require some updates. The world of the 1950s when the original was made and the 1920s when it was set are dramatically different.
The story is weak, the comedy is poor, the new plot is bigoted.
In the original, Clifton Webb play an efficiency expert Frank Gilbreth. In fact, Frank Gilbreth's principles are still taught in course on efficiency in industry. He was a real person. And a competent one. His son John Kenneth Gilbreth, went on to become one of the world's leading economists. To this very day.
In this one, Frank Baker (Baker's dozen ... get it? Hit me over the head with a joke why doncha?) is a small time football coach who is so inefficient that he can't get breakfast on the table and wipe up a spill at the same time. And it's hard to imagine his wanna be drop out son becoming anything but a bum.
The scene from the original where the woman from Planned Parenthood came to the door to humorous results was morphed into the yuppy neighbors, the Shenks, essentially scolding anyone who has or wants more than two kids. Tina is so obsessed with having only one that Bill is portray as sexually frustrated ... he ain't getting none lest she conceive again.
I grew up in a family of 13. While my Dad was not the modern hands on type, he was aware of where things were and how things worked. He could cook and do the laundry and get us off to school on time. And he worked hard to be able to pay for us all to go to Catholic school. He had to be efficient; every 18 months or so, Mom was squeezing out another sib.
We were well behaved. We had to be. If not, 13 children turn into the unruly mob shown in this stupid film. I knew other families like ours. From nine to fifteen kids. They were all self disciplined families. I cannot tell you how many people, my sister-in-law included, who have asked me if it was "that way in your house." People came out of this movie thinking that large families are rude and out of control.
1) Classic title 2) Dad is an idiot 3) New script bearing no resemblance to the original. 4) Male lead cannot droll without instructions from female 5) Children are out of control 6) The man is incurably stupid 7) Mother is a wise saint 8) Father has no clue about his own home (have I covered that already??) 9) Large families result from irresponsibility
I saw and loved the original. I held no illusions that this would be nearly as good. In fact I knew it would require some updates. The world of the 1950s when the original was made and the 1920s when it was set are dramatically different.
The story is weak, the comedy is poor, the new plot is bigoted.
In the original, Clifton Webb play an efficiency expert Frank Gilbreth. In fact, Frank Gilbreth's principles are still taught in course on efficiency in industry. He was a real person. And a competent one. His son John Kenneth Gilbreth, went on to become one of the world's leading economists. To this very day.
In this one, Frank Baker (Baker's dozen ... get it? Hit me over the head with a joke why doncha?) is a small time football coach who is so inefficient that he can't get breakfast on the table and wipe up a spill at the same time. And it's hard to imagine his wanna be drop out son becoming anything but a bum.
The scene from the original where the woman from Planned Parenthood came to the door to humorous results was morphed into the yuppy neighbors, the Shenks, essentially scolding anyone who has or wants more than two kids. Tina is so obsessed with having only one that Bill is portray as sexually frustrated ... he ain't getting none lest she conceive again.
I grew up in a family of 13. While my Dad was not the modern hands on type, he was aware of where things were and how things worked. He could cook and do the laundry and get us off to school on time. And he worked hard to be able to pay for us all to go to Catholic school. He had to be efficient; every 18 months or so, Mom was squeezing out another sib.
We were well behaved. We had to be. If not, 13 children turn into the unruly mob shown in this stupid film. I knew other families like ours. From nine to fifteen kids. They were all self disciplined families. I cannot tell you how many people, my sister-in-law included, who have asked me if it was "that way in your house." People came out of this movie thinking that large families are rude and out of control.
I did like this movie in general. There are some funny moments and the performances are spirited from the entire cast. Unfortunately, although as a remake it is acceptable it does have its weak spots. I didn't feel as though it had the charm of the original, by that I mean that doesn't quite have the irreverence and likability that made the original so endearing. There are some pacing problems and major discrepancies in the screenplay, plus the direction wasn't as strong as it could have been. On the whole though, it is not too bad. There is some nice scenery and camera work. The performances from the cast are fun; Steve Martin does very well in the title role, and the ensemble of children have strong chemistry. And despite the weak script, there are some funny moments, like the mince-in-the-trousers part. And there are some heart-warming parts like the ending. Overall, flawed but acceptable. 6/10 Bethany Cox
Just kidding. I truly believe that some people have good intentions when commencing to write a critique. However, it seems to me like some of the people who commented about "Cheaper by the Dozen" were either on drugs or should be. Sheesh guys...it was a movie. It was just plain old entertainment. Time will decide whether or not this film was a classic. Please, take it from me don't hold your breath waiting. I'm not going to hold mine.
Yup, I thought it was going to be a comedy. Yup, I became annoyed with the movie about the time they all moved to Evanston, IL. Yup, the lil red headed dude[Mark] reminded me of the Harry Potter kid. Big deal. Frankly, the last 152 critiques were funnier, though some much more annoying in length, than the kids in that movie.
All in all...it was an okay film. Well worth the 99 cents that I spent to rent it. Musicians1, Victor Field and Katrina Ann Van Tylor were slendid as comedic crictics. Katrina should be given the award for Epic criticism. Victor the award for best music critic and last and thank god not least musician1 The Life Time Achievement Award for lack of any structure, punctuation or thought. Musician1 is the person who I owe my deepest gratitude for getting me to read all 152 comments. I had to see if they were all going to be so rambling. Thank goodness for brevity.
Yup, I thought it was going to be a comedy. Yup, I became annoyed with the movie about the time they all moved to Evanston, IL. Yup, the lil red headed dude[Mark] reminded me of the Harry Potter kid. Big deal. Frankly, the last 152 critiques were funnier, though some much more annoying in length, than the kids in that movie.
All in all...it was an okay film. Well worth the 99 cents that I spent to rent it. Musicians1, Victor Field and Katrina Ann Van Tylor were slendid as comedic crictics. Katrina should be given the award for Epic criticism. Victor the award for best music critic and last and thank god not least musician1 The Life Time Achievement Award for lack of any structure, punctuation or thought. Musician1 is the person who I owe my deepest gratitude for getting me to read all 152 comments. I had to see if they were all going to be so rambling. Thank goodness for brevity.
Mom's parenting skills consist of having all the kids get into the bed with her like puppies. Indeed, when she goes away on tour and has to stay in a hotel, she rings up room service for a dozen pillows in order to get to sleep! Similarly, Dad's parenting skills amount to letting the kids do whatever they please, so the story is not about two parents with twelve children, but rather fourteen children, of which two are somewhat older. There is no structure to this family, and hence when Mom and Dad become distracted by new career choices, it starts breaking down rapidly into anarchy and chaos. The problem isn't the number of children or the new career choices, but that the parents have not provided a family structure sufficient to support any changes in direction or growth.
In short, the story misrepresents a poor example of parenting as though it was a good example, manipulating the audience with feel-good sentimentality at every turn, so that we will not notice how messed up and dysfunctional this family actually is. We are supposed to laugh at all their craziness and antics, the chandelier crashing from the ceiling, the kids slipping on vomit, the frog splattering breakfast on everyone, and so forth, and then feel good in the end, when love conquers all, and they return to the simpler life where they started. In other words, this is just mindless nonsense promoting stupidity and childish values. It has nothing in common with the 1950 film from which it takes its title.
In short, the story misrepresents a poor example of parenting as though it was a good example, manipulating the audience with feel-good sentimentality at every turn, so that we will not notice how messed up and dysfunctional this family actually is. We are supposed to laugh at all their craziness and antics, the chandelier crashing from the ceiling, the kids slipping on vomit, the frog splattering breakfast on everyone, and so forth, and then feel good in the end, when love conquers all, and they return to the simpler life where they started. In other words, this is just mindless nonsense promoting stupidity and childish values. It has nothing in common with the 1950 film from which it takes its title.
As a child, I read and loved the book, "Cheaper by the dozen", so I rented the movie expecting an on-screen adaptation of the book. I think the only similarities are the title, and the fact that they have 12 kids. The movie does the book a huge injustice.
Expectations aside, the movie had some plot holes, but I would have appreciated this kind of film if I was a parent looking for a family film. It reminded me of the old Disney classics my family rented when I was growing up. I'm sure that kids would love the mess and destruction that seemed to be the focal point of the movie. They tried to cram too many sub-plots into it when they could have focused strictly on the family dynamics and had a great movie.
I'm just glad I rented it and didn't spend $$ at the theater.
Expectations aside, the movie had some plot holes, but I would have appreciated this kind of film if I was a parent looking for a family film. It reminded me of the old Disney classics my family rented when I was growing up. I'm sure that kids would love the mess and destruction that seemed to be the focal point of the movie. They tried to cram too many sub-plots into it when they could have focused strictly on the family dynamics and had a great movie.
I'm just glad I rented it and didn't spend $$ at the theater.
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaWhen the "Cheaper by the Dozen" movies were made, neither Steve Martin nor Bonnie Hunt, who played the parents of 12 children, had ever had a child in real life. Steve Martin first became a father years later in Febuary of 2013 when his wife Anne Stringfield gave birth to his first child.
- GoofsFor some reason Sarah and Henry are never shown going to school when the family moves to Chicago, even though there are scenes with the twins, Jake, Mark, and Mike going to the elementary school/junior high, and Charlie and Lorraine going to high school.
- Crazy creditsOver the first part of the credits, we see outtakes.
- SoundtracksThese Are Days
Written by Natalie Merchant and Robert Buck
Performed by 10,000 Maniacs
Courtesy of Elektra Entertainment Group
By Arrangement with Warner Strategic Marketing
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- Más barato por docena
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $40,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $138,614,544
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $27,557,647
- Dec 28, 2003
- Gross worldwide
- $190,538,630
- Runtime1 hour 38 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
