The Three Stooges (2012) User Reviews

"Pure of heart, dim of wit"

[RehashCritics · 6/10 · 13 April 2012]

"Pure of heart, dim of wit" is exactly what you get. One-liners and slapstick comedy galore. I couldn't stop from laughing out loud in several scenes as these morons continued their idiotic ways. But idiotic stopped at stupid with some fairly clever lines. I had expected the Farrelly directors to bring the Stooges into modern times in more creative ways (at times successful) than they had. A lot of the expected happened when of lot of the unexpected could have. But that doesn't stop the "close to the heart" Stooges from making us laugh.

I enjoyed how the Farrelly directors included a comparison of today's crap television to good ol' American traditional television. If you watch either of the shows compared, be embarrassed. You deserve it!

You can't ask for much more when it comes to acting by the Three Stooges, honestly it was brilliantly executed. Although Will Sasso has to be shaking his head wondering, "Why do my hands curl up in every scene?"

The cinematography could have used some love, just a little extra to add to the quality of the film. We could have used some aging, some finer scenery, and maybe some variety in set.

The PG rated comedy brought humor for all ages. From making the old ladies next to me snort to making the kids behind me kicking my seat laugh, it had a little bit of everything. But the broad audience appeal also stretches its ability to deliver a memorable performance. Watch, you will all forget about it until Blue-Ray (or DVD, no offense) release and then easily pass it up on the shelves.

But was this humor for all ages comedy worth the admission? By the hair of Curly's chin. You can't roll your eyes because you know what you are getting into. You will have no choice but to let the Stooges take you over. Price of admission, sign me up. Anything more, I'm out.

Cinematography: 4/10 Writing: 7/10 Acting: 7/10 Overall: 6/10

***Take great grandma, she will put you in the will for letting her relive her wonder years! Ike -Rehash Critics

An interesting experiment more than a film, yielding mixed results.

[s_campanale · 6/10 · 25 April 2012]

I'm someone who falls into the category of life-long Three Stooges fan, so I was naturally quite excited (and curious) when I heard about this movie, especially when I saw it was being directed by latter-day laugh- meisters The Farelly Brothers. We are not going to get it here in the UK until late July, but fortunately a friend had obtained a copy which I have just watched. Right from the outset, the very idea of making a feature length Three Stooges movie set in the present day with imitators makes the film more of a conceptual experiment than an actual film, rather like the infamous Gus Van Sant "Psycho" recreation. The actors playing the Stooges, while not resembling them physically, make an excellent tribute act, capturing the spirit of the long dead stars and bringing them back to life for the modern audience. The Farelleys also do a good job of name-checking and recreating some of the Stooges famous routines. The eye pokes, hits, redecoration becomes destruction routine, lousy business ideas, getting squirted in the face, random animal abuse (done for real in the originals alas!), crazy vehicles, cartoonish use of explosives and a racing off into the distance ending, are all present and correct. This part of the movie works well. It is what has been added on that creates problems. The original movies were 15-20 minutes long, and had a basic high concept plot, explained in the first few seconds by supporting actors, upon which the three then incorporated several of their well-rehearsed routines, and they did not so much end as simply finish on a random punch line or gag. There was next to no character development because there was no need for these characters to develop – They were the mythopoeic agents of chaos and destruction, wrecking the pretensions and hypocrisy of those who lived only to raise their social station and conform to their society's norms, be they the nouveau riche, the law, the army, academia, medicine, or business. Yet at the same time they too had pretensions of their own, of skill and ability which they obviously did not possess, and so they were unwitting agents of destruction just as guilty as their victims, together bringing the whole silly civilized house of cards falling on their heads in the classic tradition of satire and comedy. One thing notably absent from their films was pathos and sentimentalism. One or two films had elements of this, cute kids or old ladies in need of help, where the Stooges were hired for their skill not their absence of it, but these were far and few between because they did not work in the basic theme outlined above. One can understand why, in making a full length feature film in 2012, they should introduce the "loser finds out it's all about relationships and friendship, learns life lessons and becomes a better person who knows what really matters" plot line. After all, the Farelleys virtually patented this structure in the modern cinema, but not only is this structure the complete antithesis of everything the Stooges stood for, but it's also now as old-hat and shop-worn as slapstick itself. It undercuts the brilliant work done by actors and directors in recreating the Stooges to then put them into so formulaic and tired a storyline. There is even a sick little girl and her best friend sub-plot which seems to be played completely straight, heightening what is already a dangerously high sugar count to almost fatal levels. Commercially it all makes sense, appealing to current audience taste and guaranteeing box office, but it makes what could have been something truly exciting into something ordinary and routine, a Farellely Brothers film featuring the Three Stooges rather than a Three Stooges film directed by the Farelleys. The noted "Three short films" structure is a nice nod to the originals but doesn't work as it is simply dividing up a single narrative into the usual three act structure rather than giving us three self-contained adventures. Jane Lynch, one of the funniest women in the world, plays straight woman here, and the main plot does indeed seem to be "borrowed" from the Blues Brothers. If it had been left as a "high concept" peg on which to hang the Stooges craziness, as in the originals, that would have been fine, but it's played out for real, just like the "Postman always rings twice" murder storyline, both of which become more important than the Stooges themselves .Adding "Jersey Shore" is an attempt to be very cutting edge and at the same time put some of the old anarchy into it, but it doesn't work either. The brothers dip their toes into the water so many times, only to pull back out again rather than go in. I hope I have not been too harsh on this film. It is obviously a labour of love, and a tribute to some of the greatest comedians of all time, with excellent recreations. It's simply that the result is so formulaic, hackneyed, unoriginal, and horribly sentimental and schmaltzy. But if it makes young people more aware of the originals, and brings them back into fashion (as cover versions do with the originals) then all the better for it.

OK but not worth Theater ticket

[joegrow95-345-232129 · 5/10 · 15 April 2012]

I had high expectations especially with the Farrelly brothers at the helm. They cast three guys who fit the stooges to a tee. The performances by Sasso, Hayes, and Diamantopoulos are superb. They hit the nail on the head mimicking the original stooges.

The story is about the Stooges raising money to save an Orphanage, and the trouble they get into trying to reach their goal..

There are great shtick scenes that made me laugh, especially the Orphanage Bell scene where Larry David dressed as a nun gets clobbered. You have to see the build up to get the full effect of the gag. The film had some other sequences which were very stooge, such as pratfalls, pokes, slaps and running away from the bad guys. But for some reason the story fell apart with scenes that just didn't fit.  I mean do the Stooges need a cameo by the Jersey Shore cast to be funny?

Other scenes missed the mark. When I saw the Stooges in tuxes at an upscale party with food around, I figured here's a recipe for a classic food fight, with a pun just before the person gets whacked in the face with a pie, cake or some other party food. The build up of the party scene shows promise with Larry getting a pant full of lobster. But it falls flat after that when they throw the lobster, shoot a balloon and a little girl falls into a cake.

I liked some of this film, but it wasn't worth paying to go see at the theater. I should have waited for the DVD.

highly underrated fun

[Jawsphobia · 1 August 2012]

The tone is the real star of this Three Stooges movie, as is the case with most Farrely Brothers films. Despite actions that would be considered violent in the real world, the mood is whimsical and cartoonish. Typical of this is a moment where someone in a full body cast is "turtling," hiding from the stooges by impossibly ducking his head and extremities into the cast.

Having been exposed to a few reviews and viewer opinions before seeing the film, I was shocked by one thing. People had repeatedly said that the structure of three short films was a distraction and it should have instead been one single story. This causes me to question the sanity of those people and their most basic comprehension. The movie is merely decorated with a few "short film" title cards in the fashion of the old shorts; the movie is indeed one premise and follows a conventional narrative like any other feature. It's key plot is essentially the same as The Blues Brothers - the orphanage is in financial trouble and the boys have to raise money to save it.

They manage to have some interesting and organic story twists along the way. Most inspired is the idea of a Stooge pulling up a gangster's droopy-drawers.

Now some people might have to adjust to the throw-back terminology that is carried over from the old black and white films. But oddly within the context of the movie what seems anachronistic is a moment where Moe refers to an English butler as "Threepio." Even though it is a contemporary reference, it stands out against the 1930's vaudeville style of most stooges dialogue.

Clearly this movie was made out of love for the stooges and there is a charm found even in less likable characters. This doesn't mean that people under 20 years of age will "get" it. They should, although the fashionable thing to say is WTF. Whatever the case, if you don't get it or don't like it the fault is not that of the filmmakers. Even in parts where I didn't laugh outright I found the groove of the movie fun and engaging. Interesting that the guy who plays Moe also has played Robin Williams and Frank Sinatra.

The one story continuity flaw I noticed had to do with Moe's discovery when he happens to have a fight on stage with the other two. . .and later the producer sees them together again and says "There's three of them?" He had already seen the other two during the unwitting audition scene which Larry and Curly walked out on. But other than that odd speed bump, it's a solid effort.

I won't compare it to James Frawley's biopic The Three Stooges which Mel Gibson produced for pay TV a while back. That had Californication's Evan Handler as Larry and The Shield's Michael Chiklis as Curly, but it got into the sad story of their real lives and the way they were exploited. Performances in both are spot-on.

Pass on this and watch the real shorts instead

[originaLee · 1/10 · 17 April 2012]

As a lifelong Three Stooges fan, and over 20 year member of the Three Stooges Fan Club, this movie by the Farrelly Brothers was a complete failure. Not once in the over 200 shorts and feature films the real Three Stooges made did they ever mock religion. Yet a major part of this movie, is to, maybe not bash Catholicism, but certainly to insult it. Casting Larry David, someone openly hostile to Catholicism, as a nun named after a Nazi, is tantamount to putting David Duke in black-face to portray Bill Cosby.

As for the actors playing the Stooges, they were not very convincing. It seemed like they were doing a Saturday Night Live parody instead of portraying characters. At times each of them nail their respective Stooge voices, and perhaps even mannerisms, but overall they come off like they are in an SNL skit instead of a major motion picture.

As for the plot (something of a rip off of "The Blues Brothers"), it is divided into three acts. Act I, not counting the rampant jabs at Catholicism, seems more like The Little Rascals than the Stooges. In fact, you get the feeling the Farrellys really wanted to do a Three Stooges-Little Rascals team up film. As I said, the film doesn't really bash Catholicism as much as just mock it. Only Larry David's character is truly offensive. The other nuns, while stereotypes, are not really mean spirited (even Kate Upton's bikini moment at the end of the movie, which is totally different than the scene used in the trailers, actually plays as "cute" rather than "malicious"... although her very wooden acting is another matter). There is a scene where the Stooges attack Brian Doyle Murray as a priest that is questionable. Part of the problem of the film is that it tries too hard to inject some heart tugging melodrama into the story, only to fall flat every time.

Act II is perhaps the best part of the film, with the Stooges doing some classic bits and routines, but things really start to drag in Act III, as most of it is unbelievably spent promoting the TV show "Jersey Shore". The failed attempt at melodrama kicks in again, and there's a happy ending.

Overall, I would suggest if you want to see an excellent Stooges movie, pass on this one, and get the DVD of "Meet The Baron"(1933), perhaps the Stooges' best feature film, starring Jimmy Durante and Ted Healy. It puts this weak remake to shame. Or better yet, get a volume of "The Three Stooges Collection", and enjoy their classic Columbia shorts.

When will Hollywood learn that remakes suck?

[mariomasterman1 · 1/10 · 30 April 2012]

My God... This is truly one of the worst- no, THE worst movie I have ever seen. How did they mess up the three stooges this bad? UGhhhh... OK, I admit I actually wanted to see this movie, and not because I thought it would be good, no no no no I'm not that stupid. I actually like to watch bad or weird movies just to see how bad or weird they can get. Being a person who exclusively watches classic movies and television, when I saw they were making this I could only hang my head in shame. I knew the three stooges would be ruined forever for the next generation but I can't believe they DESTROYED it. So I went to the movie theater with my Dad (Who is a big three stooges fan, the poor guy.) and my Brother. I sarcastically asked the ticket lady for three tickets for the "disgrace to cinema"...She knew what I meant. So we sat down in the movie theater bracing for impact while watching the 20 minute advertisements we just paid $22.50 for. So the movie is divided into three episodes which have the classic three stooges opening with the new actor's faces which I have to admit is pretty cool that they did that... Enjoyment stops there. This movie has lame over done jokes, poorly delivered clearly set up puns, extremely violent "slapstick comedy" sometimes with chainsaws and knives to the head, a ton of animal cruelty, bathroom humor like fart jokes, genital jokes, and babies peeing into people's faces, mean-spirited jokes, cringe inducing child actors including the three stooges as kids, an abundance of clichés, random out of nowhere drama, and over the top hyperactive stooges that are so crazy they become totally different from the originals....Oh and Jersey Shore.... Thanks Hollywood.... The director of this movie apparently wanted to make a comedy but he couldn't decide between a slapstick comedy or a regular comedy with a little drama so he decided on both and threw in the three stooges so the movie would attract more viewers. Can't wait for Prometheus. That might help me restore hope in modern movies after watching this insult.

It Was Like Having Someone Fart In My Face For 90 Minutes!

[strong-122-478885 · 1/10 · 17 February 2014]

*WARNING!* - *Possible Spoilers Ahead!*

This film's first fatal mistake - Having The Three Stooges agree to kill someone. I don't care how this murder was justified, the original Three Stooges would never, ever, ever agree to commit an act of homicide. NEVER! There's nothing funny about murder.

2nd fatal mistake - Showing The Three Stooges as children. This was pure nonsense and it wasted the first 15 minutes of this movie. And it was not funny.

3rd fatal mistake - Filming the story in color and having it set in modern times was a grave error. It would have been so much more effective had the story been given a nostalgic, 1940's look.

4th fatal mistake - No pie fights!!! This movie desperately cried out for a few custard-cream pies thrown into some very deserving faces. And, I'm sorry, but, the overlong scene of the pissing babies (though it was funny at first, but was carried on for far too long) didn't compensate for the thrill of seeing someone get a pie right in the kisser.

5th fatal mistake - Having to endure a shirtless Peter Farrelly (writer/ director) at the end of the film, flexing and posing in the name of total conceitedness, while at the same time telling the viewer about the hazards of imitating the eye-pokes, face-slaps, etc., etc. that were seen in the film. Like, as though this self-loving poser cared. He just wanted a chance to display (hubba-hubba!) his over-developed pecs to us.

6th fatal mistake - Not only did I find that there was no chemistry between the actors who played The Three Stooges, but, Moe didn't command and none of them understood anything about comic-timing (an essentially important element in any slapstick comedy situation).

And, finally -

7th fatal mistake (phew!) - In regards to this picture in general - They say that imitation is one of the highest forms of flattery. This, in a sense, is quite true if the imitating is done out of real respect for its subject. And this was not the case here with The Three Stooges.

These actors may have been doing their perceived "imitation" of the Stooges, but, it wasn't being done with any reverence or regard for the original Stooges. It was done in a very conceited and disrespectful manner.

These actors gave me the clear impression that they thought what they were doing was actually improving on the original Stooges. And that, from my viewpoint, is a fatal mistake which is totally unforgivable.

Personally, I think this film should've never been made. The Three Stooges should've just been left alone. And, that's the truth!

I felt ten years old again

[YoungDob · 7/10 · 22 March 2012]

I remember loving Our Gang when I was a kid. Sitting in front of that wood grain TV watching Spanky & Alfalfa, wishing I could be a part of their adventures. Then I remember seeing the Little Rascals (1994) remake, and hating it Despising it. Worst piece of crap ever. Utter. trash. People who obviously had no respect for the original and just...screwed it up.

Well, I also remember loving The Three Stooges as a kid. Just classic material. Then I remember seeing the trailer for this new remake, and hating it. I moved on, putting it out of my mind. It got the 2012 treatment and looked like how you would expect it to look when they rape our memories for a quick buck.

Then I was invited to a top secret viewing of the flick. Free. I don't pass up free stuff. So I went. Figured I would have fun ranting about this movie later.

So , let me get this out of the way first. This movie surpassed my extremely low expectations for it. And that is where I sat with it for a while after I saw it, trying to figure out if I liked it because I had low expectations, or because I truly find it to be actually funny. I have confidently decided on the latter.

Yes, The Three Stooges 2012 is a *gasp* funny movie. I was pleasantly surprised by the humor. Yes its essentially a fart joke movie, but….it is a well made fart joke movie, which isn't easy to make. This isn't Norbit. Like the originals, there are well placed jokes,nice set ups and the story mostly moves along at a nice clip. The characters are interesting and plenty of the gags are laugh out loud funny. The film doesn't take itself seriously at all, and is better for it. I felt like the Farrelly brothers have a lot of love for the Stooges, and it really shows up on film.

You will fall in love the 10 year old versions of Larry Moe and Curly. I would kill to see an entire movie based on them at the orphanage. IMO 10 year old Curly is channeling Vern from Stand by Me. Like, eerily a pitch perfect Vern.

So the film is broken down into 3 episodes in classic Stooges format, but its all one story. You will know where the story is going right away, but it doesn't stop it from being entertaining. There are plenty of twists that make for some laugh out loud jokes that I would hate to ruin for you here. The adult versions of Larry Moe and Curly are REALLY good. I have absolutely no complaints other than Moe's jaw looked too big. That is about it. The mannerisms are flawless, sound effects are on point, even the 'special effects' are done in a way that looks like the originals. The way a bell falls on someone, or the way the boys jump on horses. It is all done in a way that looks fake, but on purpose. The attention to detail in that department made me smile.

There is some depth to Moe that we get to see that could have failed miserably as groan inducing but really works here. I was impressed to see some nuanced range. It was just the right touch.

What really makes this movie genuinely funny though are all the peripheral characters. Everyone buys in to who they are in this universe and plenty of characters will surprise you. Every single character the Stooges interacted with in even the smallest ways brought something worthwhile to the movie...just like in the originals.

*SPOILERS* So the cast of Jersey Shore is in the movie for a short time. The only real issue I had was I thought they played the Jersey Shore gag too much. Using topical humor too much traps a movie in that time period, when The Stooges should always be timeless. With that said, they used the cast well (I hate the show) and even had a hilarious, out of left field Kardashian sisters joke. So the topical stuff was funny, but I feel definitely wasn't needed. *END SPOILERS*

The greatest respect I can give this movie is it honestly made me feel 10 years old again. I was laughing like a kid. I let go of all the criticisms I thought I would want to give it and just sat back and ENJOYED IT. Cant remember the last time I did that with this kind of movie. The audience loved it too and clapped at the end. I know right? We must all be idiots, right? Nah. Take your son, nephew or goofy buddy and sit back and enjoy some new Stooge material in 2012. Its not often they get it RIGHT, so you owe it to yourself to see it on the big screen.

Worst movie possible to remember the life's of The Longest Comedy Act in history

[tagivens1990 · 1/10 · 2 May 2012]

This movie was absolutely terrible, after getting ten minutes into the film I had to hold myself back from walking to the ticket booth and getting my money back. The directors of this film disgraced Moe Larry and Curlys memories by making them out to be Special Needs.

As a kid growing up watching a lot of their shorts, specials and movies and seeing how they really were in the films that THEY THEMSELVES were in to seeing this is mindbogglingly insulting to their names. In 2000, Mel Gibson directed a movie based on their career as a comedy act and all the challenges and hardships that they faced, I saw this movie for the first time in 2011, being 21 years old watching a movie based on their career I thought it was an excellent movie and really showed their relationship with each other and the people that they were on and off the set and how they made it from small time comedy clubs to being under contract with Columbia Pictures where their career really took off. Gibsons film was not only educational and just as funny as their shorts with Columbia Pictures, but also very heartfelt and depressing when showing the end of the original Curly Joes comedy career and his passing followed by Shemps passing but along with their reunion performance at the end of the film and summary of the Longest Comedy Act in history coming to an end. Moe, Larry and Curly; along with Shemp even though he wasn't in the movie, WERE NOT special needs nor idiotic freaks that were a menace to society, yet a group of people with the gift of laughter to bring people joy by their amazing ability and gift to make people laugh, and this movie that has just been filmed and released to theaters deserves to be taken from all theaters around the world collected together and either locked away for eternity or destroyed leaving no evidence of its existence and all digital copies deleted/destroyed/terminated so that years and years from now in the future the world may begin to forget about this horrible film.

Made for the fans only.

[guasco-2 · 7/10 · 14 November 2020]

The greatest difficulty in adapting a comedy like the three stooges is time lapse. Comedy has changed a lot in 70 years. Therefore, this film has an immediate uphill battle. This means that any attempt to create new "three stooges" fans from a film in 2012 was a long shot. A very long shot. However, if you grew up or enjoyed the humor of a bygone era like the three stooges, this film is a fantastic homage. It's clear the Farrelly brothers truly love the three stooges and this is most clear in their choice of actors. Rather than trying to get A listers to sell tickets, they clearly chose the best actors. I honestly can't imagine anyone doing a better impression of the stooges than these three. At the end of the day, the filmmakers had two choices: make a modern stooges film that barely looks like the originals but has some famous A listers OR get some C listers, make it very faithful to the originals, and probably not win any new fans. The filmmakers chose the latter and I think that was the right choice.

Other than a couple of jokes not landing (peeing babies and pulling out nose hairs), the film is an extremely faithful and funny recreation of the originals, plus with a few improvements in editing.

awful

[Ajtlawyer · 1/10 · 13 May 2012]

Fortunately I didn't take my girlfriend to see this mess because I got up and left an hour into it and had she gone with me it would've been twice as much a waste of money. The movie is just a lame reenactment of some of the original Stooges' shtick but adding in a bunch of insults towards Catholicism and "updating" the routines with more scatological references than could've been done by the original Stooges. And Jennifer Hudson, an Oscar winner, consented to be in this mess?

Most of the anti-Catholic bashing is done by Larry David who is Sister Mary-Mengele (ha ha! Let's name a nun after a Nazi war criminal!). The Farrelly Brothers have had a lot of success with past movies like "Shallow Hal" and "Me, Myself & Irene" but they might've run themselves out of the business with this dreck.

The Three Stooges just how you remembered them

[tdub154420 · 8/10 · 27 May 2012]

If you still watch the old Three Stooges Shorts from way back when and appreciate their humor, there's no reason you won't love this movie. The setting is contemporary, with iphone's and the jersey shore and what not, but this setting is only used to further punctuate the timeless humor of the stooges. All three actors who portray the stooges do a flawless job and make you actually forget that they are not the originals halfway through the movie. It's as if Larry, Curly and Moe have been pulled out of time and placed into today's society getting into the same type of trouble and running the same type of gags they always would. There really isn't a better way the Three Stooges could have been portrayed in this day and age. The Farrelly brothers do an incredible job doing the character of the Stooges justice, weaving a fantastic Stooge-esque plot and transporting these lovable nitwits into the present day. Heck the Farrelly brothers even made sure to include the classic title slides seen before every Stooges short. It's for this reason I give this movie an extremely high rating, not because it's a profound comedy, but because it had one goal: recreate the enduring humor of the Three Stooges, and with that goal in mind this movie overwhelmingly succeeds.

People trash it but it's not THAT bad

[burnzyburns · 7/10 · 25 October 2020]

It's clear this was made as a tribute to The Three Stooges and it did exactly that. I've read reviews where people say they try way too hard to be its own movie but in no way did I ever come across that idea.

Nowhere near a perfect film, and it could've been a better tribute, but it's delightful and fitting for what it is.

The Farrelly brothers didn't make this movie so it can be one of their greatest achievements. They did it because it draws in all audiences with cartoonish throwback appeal from the original Stooges, three hilarious comedians that the directors clearly loved growing up.

Relax and enjoy the movie.

Despite some nyuks, true Stooge fans will likely be disappointed

[gregeichelberger · 4/10 · 11 April 2012]

I suppose the main question about this update is will the ridiculously violent, but often hilarious slapstick comedy of Moses and Jerome Horiwitz and Louis Feinberg translate onto the modern screens of 2012.

Of course, I am writing about Moe and Curly Howard and their third wheel, Larry Fine, who became the Three Stooges (after breaking away from comedian Ted Healy) and began making a series of short (20 minute two-reelers) features in 1933.

While Moe was the self-appointed leader (and used that power to slap, poke, gouge, crack, punch and bop the others at will), it was his younger brother, Curly, who has achieved pop culture status and is revered to this day for his wild, man-child antics. He was the darling of the troupe even in his era, from '33 to 1946, when years of bad living and alcoholism led to a debilitating stroke.

Moe and Larry carried on, first with Moe's older brother, Samuel (Shemp), Joe Besser and, finally, "Curly Joe" DeRita. After over 200 short films, Columbia decided to cease production, thus ending the long career of the trio. In 1959, however, reruns of the old features became popular on television and introduced a whole new generation to the Stooges' goofiness.

Revitalized, they finally began making the full feature films denied to them for so long by their studio (with DeRita in the Curly role). For years thereafter, children (including this author) would come home from school and watch a full hour (three shorts) of this team which fits somewhere between the Marx Brothers and Abbott and Costello on my personal funny meter.

A critically-acclaimed TV movie was made in 2000, and now, the Farrelly brothers (Peter and Bobby) have put their love of this troupe into wide theatrical release with Chris Diamantopoulos (various TV series, including "The Sopranos" and a voice on "American Dad") as Moe (ironically, he was born on May 9, 1975, five days after the real Moe passed away); Will Sasso ("Best Of Show," "Mad TV") as Curly; and Sean Hayes ("Will & Grace") as Larry.

The plot is simple: the trio is abandoned as infants at an orphanage run by various nuns (some in drag). The sisters, including "Glee's" Jane Lynch and Oscar-winner Jennifer Hudson, soon grow tired of the bad behavior, which include all of the slapstick the original troupe performed. The three grow up and are forced to earn $830,000 to save the home from foreclosure.

Like in many of the old black and white shorts, the bumbling, but good-hearted gang seems to be hopelessly over their heads and in danger of complete failure. However, luck seems to be on their side and they often triumph over the odds (despite themselves).

Here, they run into an old friend from the orphanage, uncover a sinister murder plot and split up over some petty disagreement. This break allows Moe to make an appearance on the "Jersey Shore" program, and these are easily the most hilarious sequences of this movie. To see Moe slapping and punching idiots like Snooki, Mike, The Situation, Jennifer and Vinnie around almost makes up for the picture's shortcomings.

Almost.

True Stoogeaholics will most likely long to be watching one of the original shorts instead of spending time on this one (which is divided into three titled segments). The jokes are clearly stuck in the 1930s while the boys are supposed to exist in the present day. Also, the painful physical humor and aggression that long ago audiences enjoyed may not translate well to modern, politically-correct sensibilities.

I fit somewhere in the middle here. While Diamantopoulos has an amazing resemblance to Moe and Sasso does a pretty good Curly, these are not the real Three Stooges I grew up loving and laughing at. Still, it was not a bad homage to them, either.

The Farrelly's clearly know (and seem to love) their subjects, and certainly no disrespect is shown here, and the supporting cast seems to be having a lot of fun, as well.

A silly disclaimer prologue, however, has the Farrelly's actually instructing the audience not to imitate the scenes in the movie. "This hammer is made of rubber, see?" says Peter. "You should never hit someone in the head with a real hammer."

Really ...?

The Three Stooges Are Awesomely Funny!

[jayzeefilms · 13 June 2012]

This wonderful feature-length adaptation of the stupidly funny Stooges includes colorful visuals, hilarious humor, and is quite kid-friendly! In this film, Moe, Larry, and Curly grew up in an Christian orphanage, but then the orphanage has to be demolished. They wouldn't tolerate it, so they go off on a journey to make some money to save their home. Great movie! Full of good laughs, endearing joy, and a heart of innocent stupidity from the Stooges! I also think that the actors who played the comedic trio did a really authentic job of portraying them. I can't wait until it comes out on DVD! It'll be awesome to watch at home! I give this an 8 out of 10 score! Again, great movie!

Really Really Bad

[butterflywars · 1/10 · 28 May 2012]

This might have been funny in the 1930's but it's definitely not funny now with stupid humor that makes me question my intelligence. The stunts are incomprehensible and flagrant. You won't laugh, you'll just look down, clenching your face wondering why this tripe was ever considered funny enough to be made into a feature film. You won't show any human reaction besides wondering why you're watching one of the worst movies ever made.

I can't believe these actors agreed to be involved in this mess. They should all be ashamed of themselves to ruin their reputation in order to make a quick buck. Sophia Vergara, what have you done to yourself? I've lost all respect for you. Jennifer Hudson, you've won an award for best actress, how the mighty have fallen.

The worst movie of the year 2012, and one of the worst movies ever made

[Rectangular_businessman · 1/10 · 26 June 2013]

While at first sight, one could think that this movie is a "faithful" modernized version of the "Three Stooges" classic shorts, the truth is that this movie is actually much less than meets the eye: All the similarities between this film and the original shorts are merely superficial. It completely lacks all the joy and the spontaneous fun of the original shorts, being just a mean-spirited mess that is corny and melodramatic when it is not painfully unfunny and dishonest.

Comparing the original Three Stooges shorts with this movie is like comparing actual orange juice with some Artificial Flavor Juice: No matter how much it tried, the Artificial Flavor Juice could never something like the real stuff. The same applies to this movie.

Of course, there are people who prefer Artificial Flavor Juices, and they are entitled to their own opinion. Personally, I couldn't stand this movie, and I found it to be everything what is wrong with modern cinema. Is a shame that the Farrelly brothers, who in the past made funny films like "Dumb and Dumber" or "There's Something about Mary" ended making a sub-par product like this. Their filmography have been going downhill in the recent years: After they tried to make more "tamed" comedies like "Shallow Hal" or "Stuck on You", and when they tried to make raunchy comedies once again with movies like "Hall Pass", the results weren't just as funny as their very first works. "The Three Stooges" is like a bad combination of their "raunchy" films with the corny and melodramatic elements that could be found in his more "tamed" movies. The result is simply awful beyond belief.

0/10 (And I would rate it with a negative score if I could)

It was ok but liked it for other reasons.

[waterbug-73760 · 5/10 · 1 October 2021]

Sorry but this is a self-indulgent review but I felt compelled. I saw this movie with my daughter when she was young. Left the theater thinking the movie was so-so, but my daughter liked it. For some reason the event is a memory for me as one of the last movies I went to with her as a "kids" movie. I am writing this more as sharing a few movies in my life have been associated with events rather than the movie itself. I think I have about 5 movies in my life that fall into this category.

In 2021 with the movie industry distribution system, ie going to movie theaters, is in a state of flux and going with your kids to a weekend movie at the theater may disappear. I believe when you go somewhere a memory can be firmer over time. So if taking the kids to the movie theater is going to disappear there's some downside to it. However when our family of 4 goes/went when all is said and done it's close to $80. If my kids were still young I know for this reason alone we would go to the the theater, vs streaming, a lot less.

Trio con Brio

[writers_reign · 7/10 · 28 August 2012]

Like most people who going to movies on a regular basis I'm familiar with the original Three Stooges if only from the 'Saturday Morning' kids programmes of my childhood. They were recycling Three Stooges shorts made years earlier and they were reasonably funny as far as slapstick goes. The movie seems to be a faithful and loving recreation of the group. The lookalikes are not going to fool any real aficianados but they ARE lookalikes as well as behavealikes so that the idiosyncrasies of all three are captured faithfully. You don't, of course, expect much in the way of plot but perversely the producers have thrown one in which sees the trio attempting to raise, against ridiculous not to say astronomical odds, $300,000 to save the orphanage in which they were raised. What can I tell you, they perform their schtick; if you're susceptibly you'll laugh; if not, you've wasted ninety minutes.

Why would you remake the Three Stooges?

[FFman-847-460126 · 2/10 · 13 April 2012]

I can guarantee you that no one aside from the Farrelly brothers thought that remaking The Three Stooges was a good idea. With money behind them, the cast and crew only showed up for nothing but the paycheck. In the end, the Farrelly brothers decided to be creative and make the movie even worse than it should have been. How did they do that? They incorporated the cultural trash that is Jersey Shore. Quite unexpectedly, Jersey Shore became a key element of the movie—making it far worse than expected.

The Three Stooges—the original—were good because they were pioneers of a new form of comedy. Many decades later, the comedy of banging someone over the head has run dry. You cannot bring back pioneers decades later and expect the same result. Sure, this movie might have been funny back in the right era. But that era is long gone. This kind of humor is dead.

With the humor a dud, the movie had to rely on plot and acting. It didn't even try. The acting is so terrible that it looks like the Farrelly brothers never allowed for there to be a second take on any scene. Then again, they might have. The script was so horribly written and filled with cliché plot points that it would be difficult for any actor to take it seriously—no matter how many takes.

The Three Stooges is part of the studio practice of pumping the minimal dollar amount into a movie, targeting an audience, and pocketing the profit. There are enough people who still love the original Three Stooges to make a profit. Those involved in this movie likely knew that it was a sham and should never have been made. Real actors should never accept a script like this one. It has tainted my perception of a few actors—namely Jane Lynch.

There is no reason to see this movie. Just don't do it. By seeing it, you are encouraging the studios to push more and more garbage on us. If you are a fan of the original Three Stooges, go back and watch the original Three Stooges. In a few months, this move will be released on DVD. At that point, you should steal a copy (Do not buy—they do not deserve your money), gather a bunch of fans of the original Three Stooges, and burn the movie in effigy. That is the only way to return balance to the universe.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

Farrellys does Stooges

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 16 August 2013]

Larry (Sean Hayes), Curly (Will Sasso), and Moe (Chris Diamantopoulos) are the Three Stooges. The Farrelly brothers takes on this high risk project with little possible rewards. If it goes wrong, the Farrellys will be ridiculed (as they do from some quarters). And how much reward would they get for making a Three Stooges movie anyways? In general, the three guys do a great mimicry job. The story starting with the orphanage which had good heart. The main problem is the oddball murder plot. It's way too serious to do slap sticks on. All in all, these are likable characters and they have good fun. The Farrelly brothers comedic credentials survives another day.

Terrible

[geeky_blond · 1/10 · 30 April 2012]

Honestly? I walked out almost towards the end, I couldn't take how awful it was for much longer.I went to see this with my little sister from Big Brothers Big Sisters, and she, being eleven, didn't enjoy this movie. I didn't enjoy it. The comedy was very crude and terrible, and the scenes that were meant to be funny just made me cringe. I rated this movie as a one, and I hope that you guys don't go see this movie. I usually love going to the movies, but this was the worst twelve dollars that I've ever spent. And I feel bad about taking my little to such a movie. Bottom line? If you want to see this move that badly, rent it when it comes out on DVD so you can watch it and turn it off whenever you want. Don't waste your money.

The Time is Just Right for this Remake

[esstee55 · 9/10 · 14 April 2012]

I'm pushing 60. I've been a fan of the original Three Stooges for almost my whole life. Got all the DVDs. Read most of the books. In all that time, I have seen many imitators of all 6 Stooge-members, including Moe, Larry, Curly, Shemp, Joe Besser and Curly Joe deRita. In these guys (Hayes, Sasso & Diamondapoulos), I've never seen anyone come nearly as close to the original Larry Curly & Moe. And that includes the three actors who portrayed the boys in the 2000 TV-movie bio-pic. But it isn't just that. It's the Writing and Directing of the Farrelly brothers here that really does the trick. The funniest things the original comedy trio did were the rapid-fire slapping, poking and punching, set to hilariously beautiful sound-effects. That is all presented here, perhaps even more often than in the original short films of the '30s & '40s. The time is just right for all this. This is another nostalgia trip for baby-boomers like me and so many others today. Presented in the form of one continuous 90-minute story divided into three 30-minute "short films," even the pace is perfect. I was a little leary of the brothers' apparent "need" to include Jersey Shore cast-members into the film, but that decision turned out okay. Loved this hilarious, fast-paced comedy film. ***1/2 out of ****

"The Three Stooges" Made This Wiseguy Laugh

[D_Burke · 7/10 · 10 April 2012]

There's already a risk in creating a Three Stooges movie that is not a biopic, but one where three modern-day actors play three hugely iconic characters. In particular, characters whose popularity has not dimmed in the slightest since their heyday in the Great Depression.

A five year old today may wonder why people aren't talking in a Charlie Chaplin movie, or what the Marx Brothers are talking about in their films. However, if you show him a Three Stooges short, chances are he will be so busy laughing he won't wonder where the color went.

A child born in 2007 will no doubt find the Three Stooges as funny as one born in 1927. Therefore, if Hollywood screws this movie up, they can anticipate a sizable band of enraged fans carrying pitchforks and torches, and maybe a few hammers too.

Fortunately, the mob can rest their pitchforks and hammers, provided they don't land on another guy's head. If they see "The Three Stooges", they will probably laugh, as I did.

"The Three Stooges" had the potential to fail miserably, but did not thanks to the movie mainly sticking to what makes the Three Stooges funny: the slapstick. The actors who play the Stooges never miss a beat, and their timing on the physical gags could not be better timed.

It helps that at least two out of the three actors are relative unknowns. Chris Diamantopolous (as Moe) and Will Sasso (as Curly) are not household names, and are known best for their TV appearances (with Sasso having been a cast member on "Mad TV"). However, once the movie gets going, you begin to think that they have been possessed by the spirits of Moses and Jerry Horwitz, respectively.

Sean Hayes is the most recognizable of the three, which poses a slight liability. When he first appears on screen, you may find yourself saying, "Is Jack from 'Will & Grace' going to a Halloween party?" However, Hayes also goes for gold as Larry, and fortunately nails the role as much as he gets nailed in the eyes.

Getting hit in the head may look easy when you're watching it, but it's just like spoken word comedy: the timing better be right. In almost every case, the slaps to the face or hits with a hammer are funny, and the Farrelly Brothers never forget the element of surprise in many of the gags.

The plot is far from original, and unquestionably borrowed from other movies. The Three Stooges are raised in an orphanage run by nuns. Once it's revealed that the orphanage will be shut down because of unpaid back taxes, I almost expected Mother Superior (Jane Lynch) to inform the Stooges with a ruler in her hand. If Moe had told her, "It looks like you're up the creek", it would have been a great setup for slapstick, but one that has definitely been done before (as in "The Blues Brothers" (1980)).

Having no clue how to raise the $830,000 necessary to save the orphanage, the nitwits get suckered into a plot to kill a wealthy man by his greedy wife Lydia (Sofia Vergara) and her lover Mac (Craig Bierko). It doesn't matter that this subplot is hackneyed. The movie doesn't forget the fun in seeing how these three guys are going to royally screw up whatever plans the villains have. What matters is whether or not their bumbling and stumbling is funny.

These Three Stooges of the same name but different actors fumble like experts, which is where the movie triumphs. The film falters when it adds pop culture and trends to the mix. For every mention of new technology, there seems to be an awful pun one of the Stooges blurts out. Try not to groan when someone asks to tweet the three knuckleheads, and Curly replies, "Tweet us to dinner? Why soitenly!"

I also thought the parts where Moe joins the cast of "Jersey Shore" could have been taken out entirely. When Moe bonks The Situation in the head, or pulls out Jennifer "J-woww" Farley's hairs out of her nose, it's not as funny as when he does it to Larry or Curly. Plus, it is amazing how bad the cast of "Jersey Shore" acts even when playing themselves!

The reason "The Three Stooges" legacy continues to live on long after the deaths of the original seven (yes seven) actors is because the movies weren't dated. Sure, they were black and white, but slapstick never goes out of style. "Jersey Shore", on the other hand, will be yesterday's news at least three years from now.

When sticking with the injurious gags that kept us laughing for decades, "The Three Stooges" succeeds in being funny, and can fortunately not be considered the monumentally bad idea many die-hard fans predicted it would be. Plus, with an appropriate rating of PG, kids will like it too.

Do parents have to worry? My parents did when I was a kid, which is why, growing up, I was not allowed to watch the Three Stooges. However, the Farrelly Brothers have a disclaimer at the end that could have been seen as a cop-out, but which they also managed to make funny without being preachy. I agree with that part too: Do not try this at home.

Speaking as a Non-Stooge Fan.

[khfan250 · 2/10 · 23 April 2012]

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.