An out-of-work golf pro gets pulled into teaching the game to the "Bad News Bears" equivalent of young golfers at a public course.An out-of-work golf pro gets pulled into teaching the game to the "Bad News Bears" equivalent of young golfers at a public course.An out-of-work golf pro gets pulled into teaching the game to the "Bad News Bears" equivalent of young golfers at a public course.
IMDb RATING
4.2/10
358
YOUR RATING
Alf Humphreys
- Jack
- (as Alfred E. Humphreys)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaMaureen Webb's debut.
- GoofsThe sign to a hole at the Vista Creek golf course shows the name of the real course - Canyon Meadows. This is seen at the toward the beginning of the movie, when Peter and his friend see Allister McGrath sneak off onto the course and fire off a few balls.
- ConnectionsReferenced in Minty Comedic Arts: 10 Things You Didn't Know About Loaded Weapon 1 (2021)
- SoundtracksWe All Wind Up In A Hole
Music & Lyrics by Doug Berlent
Published by Media Right Music
Featured review
A cheap, unfunny, shoddily made mess with no laughs, a terrible script and poor all round delivery what's worse is that it is exactly what you expect when you see the words 'National Lampoon'
Peter is a geek and is bullied at school. In an attempt to help him fit in more, his parents encourage him to pick a sport to play. Having failed at all their choices, Peter settles into a public golf course where he joins a team of misfits under the tutelage of the rundown and uncaring failed-pro Al Oliver. However, even as part of a team Peter finds that he is still looked down on by the other kids in his school some of whom are in the upmarket private golf course in direct competition. On top of this Al has his own worries off the course as he owes a bookie a large amount of money due to a run of very bad luck.
When I saw that the opening credits had the attachment 'National Lampoon's' above the title listed in the TV guide, I immediately wondered if I should just bail out now. With a load of ironing to do anyway, I decided to just stick with it and not prejudge it on the basis of the name. However, I learnt that a dog is still a dog and even the most forgiving viewer will struggle to find anything of value here. The plot is the usual sports cliché of the underdog coming good but even that chestnut is fumbled in a film that screams 'cheap & nasty' from every pore. The script offers nothing in the way of actual laughs and just falls back on childish humour that even kids above the age of 5 will be furrowing their brow over. I could go on about just how bland the script is it doesn't even have laughs that don't work in it, it just has no laughs at all.
The delivery of the film is also a pretty big problem too. The film is edited in a very cheap way, like anyone with a home computer can do the screen slides in over other scenes, stuff like that and it all makes it feel like nobody could be bothered with it (not to mention the effect it has on the impression of structure of the film). The score is also nasty: having a cheesy, tinkly score with 'wacky' touches does not make us think a film is 'wacky' it just highlights further how very lame the whole thing is. The delivery of the cast doesn't help one bit either. If I could think of one good Tom Arnold performance then I would say that he is wasted here, but to be honest I can't and this sort of material is about his level anyway. He puts on a smile all the time but really he is awful from start to finish. The kids are poor too all stick into clichés or ethnic stereotypes (a hip black kid, an Indian kid with a funny name, a Philippineo who smiles and nods etc); they are so poor it is hard to watch and none of them are likely to have many acting jobs of any note in the immediate future. If it was worth the energy but it would be offensive but their characters were given no thought by the writers so why should I make any effort?
Overall this is exactly what we have come to expect from the National Lampoon stable. It is shoddy in nearly every way and I could not find one good thing to say about it except for the fact that it is quite short (although it feels longer). The production is cheap (with awful editing and a tiresome score), the material just lame and bland, laughs have called to say they won't be coming in today and can boredom fill in, while the whole cast range from poor to awful to offensive with none of them ever approaching a point where one could call them 'good'. A waste of time but happily, judging from the finished product, no talented people were wasted in the making of this film.
When I saw that the opening credits had the attachment 'National Lampoon's' above the title listed in the TV guide, I immediately wondered if I should just bail out now. With a load of ironing to do anyway, I decided to just stick with it and not prejudge it on the basis of the name. However, I learnt that a dog is still a dog and even the most forgiving viewer will struggle to find anything of value here. The plot is the usual sports cliché of the underdog coming good but even that chestnut is fumbled in a film that screams 'cheap & nasty' from every pore. The script offers nothing in the way of actual laughs and just falls back on childish humour that even kids above the age of 5 will be furrowing their brow over. I could go on about just how bland the script is it doesn't even have laughs that don't work in it, it just has no laughs at all.
The delivery of the film is also a pretty big problem too. The film is edited in a very cheap way, like anyone with a home computer can do the screen slides in over other scenes, stuff like that and it all makes it feel like nobody could be bothered with it (not to mention the effect it has on the impression of structure of the film). The score is also nasty: having a cheesy, tinkly score with 'wacky' touches does not make us think a film is 'wacky' it just highlights further how very lame the whole thing is. The delivery of the cast doesn't help one bit either. If I could think of one good Tom Arnold performance then I would say that he is wasted here, but to be honest I can't and this sort of material is about his level anyway. He puts on a smile all the time but really he is awful from start to finish. The kids are poor too all stick into clichés or ethnic stereotypes (a hip black kid, an Indian kid with a funny name, a Philippineo who smiles and nods etc); they are so poor it is hard to watch and none of them are likely to have many acting jobs of any note in the immediate future. If it was worth the energy but it would be offensive but their characters were given no thought by the writers so why should I make any effort?
Overall this is exactly what we have come to expect from the National Lampoon stable. It is shoddy in nearly every way and I could not find one good thing to say about it except for the fact that it is quite short (although it feels longer). The production is cheap (with awful editing and a tiresome score), the material just lame and bland, laughs have called to say they won't be coming in today and can boredom fill in, while the whole cast range from poor to awful to offensive with none of them ever approaching a point where one could call them 'good'. A waste of time but happily, judging from the finished product, no talented people were wasted in the making of this film.
helpful•37
- bob the moo
- Sep 26, 2004
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- National Lampoon's Golf Punks
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour 33 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.33 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
