The Honeymooners (2005)
User ReviewsAdd a Review
The producers, writers, director, movie executives, etc. should hang their heads in shame. They knew it wasn't funny when they released it. The test audiences, if there were any, must have been ignored.
Why does Hollywood release this kind of junk and then wonder why movie attendance is down? Why do actors sign up even after reading the script and knowing this will be a second-rate movie, at best?
While I certainly appreciate Cedric the Entertainer's considerable talents, with all due respect to him, he is NOT Jackie Gleason, and the other members of this cast cannot hold a candle to the likes of Art Carney and Audrey Meadows.
Here's a tip to Hollywood:
Instead of trying to make every TV show into a movie, why not show some creativity and actually come up with something NEW? If you need a reminder, remember Tom Arnold's horrific remake of McHale's Navy.....or the God-awful remake of Sergeant Bilko of a few years back. You can't do better than the original, now or ever.
If I could give this no stars, I would.
Idea....rename the movie it has nothing to do with the TV series.
Where is the feeling that you use to get after watching the honeymooners.
What happened to creating a movie that depicts the era that the original was filmed in.
What happened to casting? The characters in the new movie are nothing like the TV series.
This remake should be renamed or removed. Its a load of crap!
Sorry, but not even close to capturing the magic that the Honeymooners had....
The cast is great in their reading lines and playing their parts, but the film itself wasn't depicting the 1950s that made the original Honeymooners such a successful offering of the times.
This film did take some of the better known lines made into a cultural awareness from the original TV series but perverted them into something that wasn't close to the heart of the flavor of the TV show.
The idiots that stole the The Honeymooners title should be shot and pi**ed on for releasing this trash!
Can we sue these morons for this? I think my dog could have created a better movie!
What next with these racial equality dim wits?
Archie Bunker being played by Chris Rock? Malcolm X played by John Goodman George Jefferson played by Woody Harrelson?
Unless your a retard this movie sucked donkey balls and is an insult to the original TV show.
Now, having said that, I believe this was a huge waste of an excellent opportunity. Now, I really don't care that the four main characters were reimagined as African-Americans. Hey, if it's a good movie, James Bond could be Black for all I care. This movie, however, given the script, was not worth making.
In fact, let's all just agree to erase this film from our collective memories. The REAL "Honeymooners" movie needs to wait about five to seven years for JOSH PECK from the Nickelodeon Show "Drake & Josh" to get old enough to step into Jackie Gleason's shoes. If you have never seen Peck before, watch the show. He oozes Gleason's influence (he is even an accomplished pool player as seen in one episode).
Of course, this is all my opinion which is probably not worth the time it took you to read this, but thanks anyway.
I could blab about everything that was bad in this film, but taking the same name of a classic sitcom and making it into a "modernized" garbage flick is insulting. This is just an example of how Hollywood has made countless remakes and rehashes of older material in the past few years by making them worse. There is no talent to be found here, and none of the actors are something to get all excited about. Another problem was that the cast was all black. I am not being racist, but during "The Honeymooners" era, there were hardly any black people who were in show business, and this cast is nothing compared to the old cast.
The least Hollywood could of done was make it into a "Pleasantville" type setting. Even though it's nowhere near a favorite movie of mine, it depicted the same era that "The Honeymooners" was cast in and it revealed a whole new experience of what it was like to live in that time. But, this movie was nothing special, nothing original, and nothing exciting. Just a rehash that Hollywood made up because they are too greedy to convince themselves to think of something new.
Consider yourself warned if you happen to see this. Don't even watch this for Cedric. Put this into your trash bin and watch the classics instead.
1 out of 10.
Here's an idea, remake the movie Boyz in the Hood ... but give the lead role to Larry the Cable Guy co-starring Jeff Foxworthy and Ben Stiller. Get the picture?
All in all, The Honeymooners was the most terrible movie I've ever seen, thanks again, Hollywood, for ruining my favorite program.
The biggest mistakes the makers of this movie made were naming it "The Honeymooners" and naming the characters the same names as characters from the classic series. The movie is very reminiscent of the show, but its NOT the show. Its nothing like the show.... But it is a good movie in its own respect. Granted its not the best movie you'll ever see, but it IS an enjoyable comedy that many can enjoy, that is, unless you look at it as what its not, "The Honeymooners". This movie accomplishes everything a good comedy should- genuine performances, good casting, fun and comical storyline, and a slew of good jokes. This is not a bad movie, its just a bad remake for a show that really didn't need to be remade.
The only problem with this film is something thats wrong with many films, trying to be something else. I don't like remakes for that reason, but I still manage to find enjoyment in them by looking at them as their own films. This movie would have been far better off as its own movie. It would have worked just as well and wouldn't have received all the criticism. Its a shame that this movie is so ill-fated to already be in the bottom 100 on this site, as there are FAR worse films.
How does it compare to other remade films in theatres now? Well, its better than Herbie, but not as good as the Longest Yard. Overall, its a good time and I don't regret seeing it. Just don't expect The Honeymooners, because its not.
However, I'm sure the generations who didn't have the privilege of seeing the original shows, this might be OK for them.
Some things shouldn't be attempted and remaking classics such as The Honeymooners is one of those.
Unfortunately, my expectations were too high! If it weren't for John Leguizamo's character, I would have not laughed at all. The movie overall was not funny. Although Leguizamo's character was despicable and crass, he did make me laugh! Okay, so I laughed four times throughout the entire movie, however, I walked away from the theater feeling like I had totally wasted two hours of my life and nine dollars.
The only way I can get 2 hours of my life back is seeing The Jeffersons starring Adam Sandler and Reese Witherspoon or Sanford and Sons starring Martin and Charlie Sheen.
Terrible remake 1 out of 10
And then there is "The Honeymooners." The original is arguably the greatest of all television situation comedies. It holds up very well, despite being 50 years old, because the premise (admittedly a take off on "The Life of Riley") works so well and, mainly, because of the magic of chemistry. Face it, Gleason, Carney, Meadows, Randolph, and Kelton were a cast that could not be surpassed. They worked off each other like they shared a brain and a soul. They were the reason "The Honeymooners" is classic.
They are also the reason the movie "The Honeymooners" does not work. In changing so much about the classic "Honeymooners" while retaining the personalities of the originals, the movie, rather than paying homage, spoofs and spoofs badly. But to pull off a spoof takes talent and timing, neither of which are an ingredient in this movie.
The cast is okay but there is zero chemistry between Cedric and Epps. The script mistakes noise and frantic action for humor and cleverness. The movie is not funny. It is not entertaining. It is stupid. It is embarrassing. It is a total misfire and not worth even a free rental. Watch a DVD of the classic "Honeymooners" instead.
............. ............... ....... ...... ....... ................. .......... ............
........ ........ ..... ....... ................ ...... ..... ............... ........ ........ ....... ....... ........ ........ ..... ..... ..... ....... ....
Sad, sad, sad. ......................................