2012 THREE STOOGES MOVIE REVIEWS

nikki · **Reply #75 on:** April 26, 2012, 01:58:21 AM

I really enjoyed this movie! I thought it was very funny and the actors did a very good portrayal. Everyone famous gets a movie about them why not the Stooges??? Support the movie guys the Farrellys are donating part money to the Stooges' families

shemps#1 · **Reply #76 on:** April 26, 2012, 06:56:56 AM

I'm sure the majority of "donated monies" will go to the Benjamin Bros.

sweet_canadian_girl · **Reply #77 on:** April 26, 2012, 12:50:02 PM

Quote from: nikki on April 26, 2012, 01:58:21 AM

I really enjoyed this movie! I thought it was very funny and the actors did a very good portrayal. Everyone famous gets a movie about them why not the Stooges??? Support the movie guys the Farrellys are donating part money to the Stooges' families

Sorry but...Nikki, are you high?

As with most of you, my curiousity got the best of me too, and I watched it. The only good thing about it was the fact that I didn't shell out any money to see the piece of shit. I watched it online and I don't recall laughing once. The movie is a total embarrassment. I get that the Farrelly's wanted to get a whole new generation into the Stooges. That's great. But that's really not the way to do it. No. They couldn't have picked worse actors for this movie. Now these kids are gonna associate the Three Stooges with the fat guy from MadTV, the gay guy from Will and Grace and some unknown actor.

I will say this though, watching this movie made me appreciate the actual Stooges, and the shorts even more.

By the way...HI GUYS. Most of you probably remember me from the old C3 board and Stoogeworld board. It's great to see a lot of the old posters from this board here, as well as you, shemps#1.

shemps#1 · **Reply #78 on:** April 27, 2012, 01:25:44 PM

Quote from: sweet_canadian_girl on April 26, 2012, 12:50:02 PM

Sorry but...Nikki, are you high?

As with most of you, my curiousity got the best of me too, and I watched it. The only good thing about it was the fact that I didn't shell out any money to see the piece of shit. I watched it online and I don't recall laughing once. The movie is a total embarrassment. I get that the Farrelly's wanted to get a whole new generation into the Stooges. That's great. But that's really not the way to do it. No. They couldn't have picked worse actors for this movie. Now these kids are gonna associate the Three Stooges with the fat guy from MadTV, the gay guy from Will and Grace and some unknown actor.

I will say this though, watching this movie made me appreciate the actual Stooges, and the shorts even more.

By the way...HI GUYS. Most of you probably remember me from the old C3 board and Stoogeworld board. It's great to see a lot of the old posters from this board here, as well as you, shemps#1.

Hey Mel, how's it going?

I watched it a second time with my brother and friend using an online copy and the friend (who knows of the Three Stooges but is not a fan or detractor) actually liked it. My brother, who is not as big as fan of the Stooges as I am but grew up on them as well, didn't like it but said it could have been worse. I downloaded a copy of Battleship that my PS3 won't play because of some protection and am currently downloading a copy of The Avengers. Both of the movies aren't even out here yet and I will most likely go see the Avengers unless they fuck it up (maybe in 3D or something to make up for the shitty foreign cam copy I am downloading).

xraffle · **Reply #79 on:** April 30, 2012, 01:38:11 PM

Whoa. Here are the box office results for the past three weeks:

Week 1: $17,010,125 (#2)
Week 2: $9,764,214 (#5)
Week 3: $5,400,000 (#9)

It's going down fast!!!

shemps#1 · **Reply #80 on:** April 30, 2012, 02:27:14 PM

Quote from: xraffle on April 30, 2012, 01:38:11 PM

Whoa. Here are the box office results for the past three weeks:

Week 1: $17,010,125 (#1)
Week 2: $9,764,214 (#5)
Week 3: $5,400,000 (#9)

It's going down fast!!!

That's what movies tend to do after they have been out a bit. Actually the loss rate from week to week for this movie are about average. As far the actual numbers go: factoring in the budget it's not going to be a box office bomb but it's not going to be a hit either. That Think Like A Man movie cost less than half of what the Stooges did and has already almost doubled the total box office numbers of the Stooges. I would fully expect to see an onslaught of romantic comedies with all black casts in the near future.

xraffle · **Reply #81 on:** April 30, 2012, 02:44:10 PM

I made a little typo in my post. It was actually #2 in week 1, not #1. I fixed it.

Usually movies that are big hits would normally stay in the #1 or 2 spot in the first few weeks. In three weeks, this movie has already went down to #9. It's certainly not terrible, but it ain't good either.

falsealarms · **Reply #82 on:** May 01, 2012, 01:14:26 AM

Stooge supporting player Diana Darrin ("Miss Lapdale") attended the premiere for this new "Stooge" movie:

http://images.bwwstatic.com/upload8/366114/tn-500_beimages_1027710ar.jpg

Faeriegirl · **Reply #83 on:** May 12, 2012, 04:05:45 AM

I thought I would not like this movie, So naturally I figured, see it and think on it later. I was thikning I was wasting my money.

Boy was I ever wrong.

I laughed like mad watching this! It was worth it.

The best joke in the whole film, "The i/eyePhone" joke. I can easily see Curly himself doing something so simple minded like that!

Now onto who the guys looked; The only one that looked like a Stooge should look was the guy that played Moe, he sounded and looked and {heck with it} ACTED like Moe would in the modern times such as now with todays technology. the guy who played Larry, who was he again ? He did not fit the bill rightly to me personally, but he did OK.

Now, the cuy that played Curly did a good job yes, but he had very big shoes to fill, in a manner of speaking. He had the voice down smoothly, sounded just like Curly too. But he needs to work a biut more on speed, Curly's "whoop-whoop-whoop" was with a fast stomping, not a slower paced stomping as was seen in this movie. However, like I mentioned, he had big shoes to fill and I think he did pretty good.

Overall, I rate this movie two pies out of three to the face, plus one fruitsalad to the face. So basically a pair of pies and a half. {or three even eyepokes}

I enjoyed myself, so did my husband

ThumpTheShoes · **Reply #84 on:** May 12, 2012, 07:51:50 AM

Quote from: Faeriegirl on May 12, 2012, 04:05:45 AM

Now, the cuy that played Curly did a good job.... He had the voice down smoothly, sounded just like Curly too.

I'm seeing this repeated in/from other reviews, that Sasso sounds just like Curly. From all that I've seen of the movie and the promotion he doesn't sound at all like Curly. He sounds more like Mister Moose from Captain Kangaroo.

hiramhorwitz · **Reply #85 on:** May 12, 2012, 11:44:47 AM

Quote from: ThumpTheShoes on May 12, 2012, 07:51:50 AM

I'm seeing this repeated in/from other reviews, that Sasso sounds just like Curly. From all that I've seen of the movie and the promotion he doesn't sound at all like Curly. He sounds more like Mister Moose from Captain Kangaroo.

...without the ping pong balls...

BeAStooge · **Reply #86 on:** May 15, 2012, 01:16:07 PM

Quote from: shemps#1 on April 30, 2012, 02:27:14 PM

As far the actual numbers go: factoring in the budget it's not going to be a box office bomb but it's not going to be a hit either.

I posted this yesterday, on the Fan Club's Yahoo Group newsgroup...

Quote

It's still a long way from making a profit. Based on the revenue and cost numbers reported so far (@ May 13), a fair estimate of its performance can be made...

$41.1MM is the gross box-office to date. Exhibition deals vary from screen-to-screen, chain-to-chain, but averaged together approximately 1/3 of it goes to the theaters; the studio will get about $28MM of it.

$30MM was its production budget. Add to that marketing, advertising, distribution, interest, etc., and the total out-of-pocket to Fox is [conservatively] closer to $40MM.

After 4-1/2 weeks, Fox has a contribution loss somewhere in the neighborhood of $(12MM).

Net international box office will help, and home video margin is high. They could take it to cash break-even; or not.

None of the above includes studio overhead costs. 20th Century Fox has a movie studio to pay for, and offices and staff in other cities too. When this thing generates a contribution that covers the overhead costs allocated to it, then it will be profitable.

I received feedback from someone in L.A. who says...

- Fox's share of the box office may be overstated by a couple million. Reportedly Fox made some exhibition fee concessions to push the movie onto as many screens as it did.

- The cash out-of-pocket estimate is too low. Total costs are reportedly closer to $50MM... $30MM production; plus $20MM for marketing, distribution, advertising/promotion, cost of capital, misc.

If those observations are true (and they are "heresay," unverified), this thing may actually be $(25MM) cash-negative, to date.

An indication that Fox may be anxious about that, although there is no official news or release date for the DVD/BD, it's already been solicited with video distributors and Amazon is taking pre-orders.

Another observation... Fox put this out there in "super-saturation." That's defined as 3000+ screens; for the first two weeks, it played on 3500 screens. That is a marketing strategy primarily used for summer and holiday blockbusters, not a modestly budgeted project like this. $17MM in the opening weekend is abysmal for that many screens. Fox was hoping to open with at least $30MM. The initial reports of "respectable" were pure spin (it helped that Fox Corp. controls many of the media outlets that used that word).

This is not a success. But it's not a fiasco either, yet. International and home video returns may turn it around. Or, they may not. It'll be interesting to watch this continuing story unfold.

Hopefully, there won't be a sequel.

locoboymakesgood · **Reply #87 on:** June 07, 2012, 10:08:28 PM

FWIW, the movie started playing at the cheap shows by my house last week and I ended up seeing it.

The theater was full of kids and people that laughed at everything. I can count how many times I actually laughed at something I found funny (once), but truly, it wasn't the abomination I had initially envisioned a few years ago. It was cute and clearly aimed towards a kid audience. Overall it was harmless, but I'd still show my kids (if I had any) the shorts over this movie.

The part before the credits roll with those two guys who claim to be the Farrally Bros. explaining the props were rubber reminded me of a story my father used to to tell me. When the boys toured back in the 60s, they appeared on whatever local Buffalo, NY program that was airing the shorts and Larry emphasized to the kids watching at home that the props were fake and rubber and not to copy them at home.

I don't know where the Farrally's got inspiration for that scene but either way I liked that.

The sound effects were primarily the same ones from the shorts -- you can't miss those iconic sounds -- but I would've figure'd those would've been property of Sony and not necessarily C3. I found that interesting.

shemps#1 · **Reply #88 on:** June 08, 2012, 02:06:22 PM

They got the idea as a "funny" (depending on your perception of the word) way of covering their asses and avoiding lawsuits. That's the reason why the real Stooges did it in the 60's, kids were mimicking what they were watching and even back then people were litigious.

archiezappa · **Reply #89 on:** June 08, 2012, 03:25:06 PM

I took my son to see this movie. We had a great time. I thought it would be vulgar, but it wasn't. It was a great tribute to the boys. We both laughed a lot. I thought it was neat to go and see the first Three Stooges feature since 1965's "The Outlaws Is Coming."

It was tough. The movie was getting bad reviews 5 years ago! They had a lot of obstacles, but I think they pulled it off well.

Yes, I liked it. But don't hate me for liking it. Remakes can be bad and this wasn't bad at all. It was great!

RICO987 · **Reply #90 on:** June 17, 2012, 03:41:02 AM

I saw the new 3 Stooges on opening night with about 15 other friends. We ranged in age from my age, mid 50s to a few in their 40s and some brought their children, so we had 8 to 15 year olds. Everyone laughed their ass off. Yes it is not as good as the originals, but the movie had many funny moments. Maybe I am weird, and so are my friends, but one of the biggest laughs for all of us was when Vegara’s boyfriend is hit by a vehicle and is then bounced around like a pinball If you did not laugh at that you must be missing your funny bone.

middlenamewayne · **Reply #91 on:** June 17, 2012, 07:15:17 AM

Quote from: hiramhorwitz on May 12, 2012, 11:44:47 AM

...without the ping pong balls...

Speaking of which, I hope the Farrellys at least
used the obvious Stooges-in-bad-taste line:

"I'm a victim o' coicumcision!"

-- mnw

xraffle · **Reply #92 on:** July 14, 2012, 10:43:52 PM

Why is stooged and confused now listed as a guest? Did he delete his account?

shemps#1 · **Reply #93 on:** July 15, 2012, 07:00:30 AM

I can tell you I didn't delete the account. I wonder how we missed that pure slice of bullshit from Archie about this movie being "the first Stooges feature since 1965". If you want to piss on the legacy of the Three Stooges by calling those three talentless asswipes "The Three Stooges" that's your choice, but let's not rewrite history.

Larrington · **Reply #94 on:** July 23, 2012, 12:48:06 PM

Quote from: archiezappa on June 08, 2012, 03:25:06 PM

I took my son to see this movie. We had a great time. I thought it would be vulgar, but it wasn't. It was a great tribute to the boys. We both laughed a lot. I thought it was neat to go and see the first Three Stooges feature since 1965's "The Outlaws Is Coming."
It was tough. The movie was getting bad reviews 5 years ago! They had a lot of obstacles, but I think they pulled it off well.
Yes, I liked it. But don't hate me for liking it. Remakes can be bad and this wasn't bad at all. It was great!

I agree. And hell...this movie was getting panned a full 10 years before it was made. LOL. I had mixed feelings, but even if it fell short I enjoyed it well enough to accept it as a decent tribute to the originals.
Is a masterpiece of comedy genius? No way.
Is it a train wreck? Not at all.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
And besides, in our worship of these guys, we overlook the fact that even the original shorts were not exactly in the category of great art to begin with.

Will there be a sequel? Good god, I hope not.

But I'll give them props for attempting the impossible even if they didn't fully succeed. The deck was stacked against them from day one.
I still say the recent film is not a bad thing if it keeps the Stooges 'brand' alive and renews interest in the original shorts to a general public that in actuality really could not care less about the Three Stooges.

middlenamewayne · **Reply #95 on:** July 26, 2012, 07:28:12 PM

Quote from: Larrington on July 23, 2012, 12:48:06 PM

I still say the recent film is not a bad thing if it keeps the Stooges 'brand' alive and renews interest in the original shorts to a general public that in actuality really could not care less about the Three Stooges.

The demand from the general public has led to the Stooges running constantly on channels whose focus ranges all the way from "classic" to "edgy". I don't think there was any need to worry.

In fact, as I've said before, it's sad that Moe and Larry died in the last period in time before it became clear that the Stooges would be remembered pretty much eternally.

- mnw