Soitenly
Moronika
The community forum of ThreeStooges.net

new film – thoughts on the Farrelly-esque, non-Stooge content

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Shemp Shady

Since there have already been so many reviews of the new Stooges film—at this site, elsewhere online, and in various printed periodicals—yet another one would have been superfluous. I’ll briefly say that the film was okay and sufficiently enjoyable—and was NOT the Farrelly debacle that many of us thought it might be.

Instead, as I watched the film yesterday, I kept track of which suggestive or lewd material might not (or definitely would not) have appeared in Stooge shorts of the 30s, 40s, and 50s (or, for that matter, other comedies of the era). This was to verify how true the Farrellys were to their claims—about keeping the film authentic, something that the Stooges themselves would enjoy, and in no way another There’s Something About Mary or Dumb and Dumber. Here’s what I found:

= = = = =
(as the young Stooges): the suggestion, to cheer themselves up a bit, that they start a small brushfire and ‘whiz’ it out (suggesting urination)

Larry (after the monsignor commented that they’d need a lot of money to save the orphanage, making the money gesture by rubbing his thumb against his fingers): “How many boogers are we talkin’ about?”

When Sofia Vergara is first seen, and the camera focuses on her ample bosom and curvaceous buttocks, Larry makes a comment on (seemingly) her legs, along the lines of: “Look at those getaway sticks.” (Comments on a woman’s legs seems fine per old Stooge flicks; but here, it’s more so how long and how directly the camera focuses on Vergara’s overall voluptuousness.)

Curly, while changing a baby’s diaper in the hospital, commented that the baby must be French since the diaper contained a lot of ‘oui-oui’ (wee-wee).

Curly is then tormented by triplets spraying him in the face with urine—somewhat analogous to the old clam-in-the-chowder or oyster-in-the-stew routines. Curly then addresses the problem by covering his face with a tray—but the urine is then deflected onto Moe.

The above, by the way, holds no candle to the ensuing mock gunfight, in which all three are urinated on by diaper-less babies and use babies as mock guns. (This was alleged to be a mock pie fight, but only once do we see diapers used as projectiles—and a whole bunch at once, with a large slingshot). And, overall, so much urine!

In the zoo, a peanut hits (and enrages) a lion in what is clearly and vividly shown as the lion’s scrotum.
Moe yanks out some nose hairs from one of the Jersey Shore women. (He had previously done so to Larry, but Larry’s a guy—plus he’s Larry!)

In the office building for the law form of Kickem, Harter & Indagroin: a firm/partnership of proctologists named Proba, Keester & Wintz.

(as was shown in some trailers) Moe puts a lobster down the front of Larry’s pants, causing Larry to sing ‘soprano.’

A rat gets loose in a small carful of seven people and lodges itself in Sofia Vergara’s cleavage. (Might this have been shown in the old days? Then again {per comments above], might they have allowed her cleavage to be displayed so prominently way back when?)

(as was shown in some trailers) In the submerged car, bubbles come up through the water into the limited air space—because of Curly’s flatulence. This wasn’t, however, fully gratuitous since it served as a way for the Stooges and others to escape from the underwater vehicle.

The comment that Teddy’s fiancée was barren (thus the reason that they were adopting kids from the orphanage/spa).
Eet ees a klasseek!!


Offline Larrington

A very good analysis.  You're right...it was not the debacle that some feared, and most of the gags described above wouldn't have appeared in the 30's-40's-50's shorts.

On the other hand, if the original (and only) Stooges themselves were in their prime today making films, I'd bet a bundle that they'd be doing precisely the sort of gags described.  The original films are artifacts of their time, and reflect the comic sensibilities of the time.

The new film is not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, and I further think that the promo appearances by the three leads in character before the film opened were pretty painful.  But having said that, I do think the F-brothers did the best they could with what was a risky idea to begin with.   
Too bad so many people made up their minds to hate it  before taking the trouble to see it.


Offline Bum

Since there have already been so many reviews of the new Stooges film—at this site, elsewhere online, and in various printed periodicals—yet another one would have been superfluous. I’ll briefly say that the film was okay and sufficiently enjoyable—and was NOT the Farrelly debacle that many of us thought it might be.

Instead, as I watched the film yesterday, I kept track of which suggestive or lewd material might not (or definitely would not) have appeared in Stooge shorts of the 30s, 40s, and 50s (or, for that matter, other comedies of the era). This was to verify how true the Farrellys were to their claims—about keeping the film authentic, something that the Stooges themselves would enjoy, and in no way another There’s Something About Mary or Dumb and Dumber. Here’s what I found:

= = = = =
(as the young Stooges): the suggestion, to cheer themselves up a bit, that they start a small brushfire and ‘whiz’ it out (suggesting urination)

Larry (after the monsignor commented that they’d need a lot of money to save the orphanage, making the money gesture by rubbing his thumb against his fingers): “How many boogers are we talkin’ about?”

When Sofia Vergara is first seen, and the camera focuses on her ample bosom and curvaceous buttocks, Larry makes a comment on (seemingly) her legs, along the lines of: “Look at those getaway sticks.” (Comments on a woman’s legs seems fine per old Stooge flicks; but here, it’s more so how long and how directly the camera focuses on Vergara’s overall voluptuousness.)

Curly, while changing a baby’s diaper in the hospital, commented that the baby must be French since the diaper contained a lot of ‘oui-oui’ (wee-wee).

Curly is then tormented by triplets spraying him in the face with urine—somewhat analogous to the old clam-in-the-chowder or oyster-in-the-stew routines. Curly then addresses the problem by covering his face with a tray—but the urine is then deflected onto Moe.

The above, by the way, holds no candle to the ensuing mock gunfight, in which all three are urinated on by diaper-less babies and use babies as mock guns. (This was alleged to be a mock pie fight, but only once do we see diapers used as projectiles—and a whole bunch at once, with a large slingshot). And, overall, so much urine!

In the zoo, a peanut hits (and enrages) a lion in what is clearly and vividly shown as the lion’s scrotum.
Moe yanks out some nose hairs from one of the Jersey Shore women. (He had previously done so to Larry, but Larry’s a guy—plus he’s Larry!)

In the office building for the law form of Kickem, Harter & Indagroin: a firm/partnership of proctologists named Proba, Keester & Wintz.

(as was shown in some trailers) Moe puts a lobster down the front of Larry’s pants, causing Larry to sing ‘soprano.’

A rat gets loose in a small carful of seven people and lodges itself in Sofia Vergara’s cleavage. (Might this have been shown in the old days? Then again {per comments above], might they have allowed her cleavage to be displayed so prominently way back when?)

(as was shown in some trailers) In the submerged car, bubbles come up through the water into the limited air space—because of Curly’s flatulence. This wasn’t, however, fully gratuitous since it served as a way for the Stooges and others to escape from the underwater vehicle.

The comment that Teddy’s fiancée was barren (thus the reason that they were adopting kids from the orphanage/spa).


Just seeing the ...ahem... "clever" names of the doctor and law firms  [Kickem, Harter & Indagroin; Proba, Keester & Wintz] tells me all I need to know. For God's sake, the whole point of a gag of this type is to come up with names that at least REMOTELY sound like real last names! It's as though they just said "Think of a vulgar expression that can be broken down into three parts and we'll use those words as the last names. And it will automatically be funny". NO, IT'S WONT! "Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe" WORKS as a gag because it flows smoothly and those are three realistic sounding names.  "Kickem, Harter & Indagroin" fails miserably for those same reasons.


xraffle

  • Guest
Too bad so many people made up their minds to hate it  before taking the trouble to see it.

I would gladly see it if it's free. I do not want to contribute to those box office numbers. I want it to flop. By paying to see this film, you are supporting this movie which, I believe, is a mockery to the real stooges.


Offline Larrington

I would gladly see it if it's free. I do not want to contribute to those box office numbers. I want it to flop. By paying to see this film, you are supporting this movie which, I believe, is a mockery to the real stooges.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. In any case, you'll probably have your chance to see it for free sooner than later.

I didn't see this thing as a 'mockery' of the Stooges at all. 
If anything, I saw it as a well intentioned (but flawed)  attempt at quite the opposite.   It's not the best writing (though it had some good moments), but in the end it wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been.   It's not going to be a runaway financial success by any stretch of the studio accountants' imagination, but I don't think it will turn out to be a downright flop either.

Besides...it's not like the original classic shorts we all love have been taken out of circulation.  They're still around to enjoy (and having undergone some restoration work, probably look better than they ever did).


Offline Liz

  • Donald O'Connor's and Gene Kelly's #1 Fan
  • Puddinhead
  • ***
    • The Psycho Ward's Classic Film Reviews - Request a film to be reviewed!
I agree...the humor was way too gross for my blood.  The classic slapstick was perfect, but the Farrelly-esque humor I did not like at all.
IT'S ALIVE!!!!


Offline shemps#1

  • Pothead, Libertarian, Administrator, Resident Crank and Baron of Greymatter
  • Global Moderator
  • Chowderhead
  • ******
  • Hatchet Man
If I didn't know better I'd think some of you were Puritans in 17th Century Salem.
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish." - Unknown


xraffle

  • Guest
I just think that by supporting this film, it encourages the Farrelly Brothers to make another one and continue mocking a great comedy team. After watching those clips, I can’t help but laugh…. not because their funny, but because of how ridiculous their imitation of the stooges are. The stooges had great talent where they were able to provide a lot of slapstick in their shorts, but at the same time, they were able to make it look more natural. These actors in this movie are too overdone and just way over the top making their portrayal of the stooges look very silly. But that’s just me.


Offline shemps#1

  • Pothead, Libertarian, Administrator, Resident Crank and Baron of Greymatter
  • Global Moderator
  • Chowderhead
  • ******
  • Hatchet Man
I would gladly see it if it's free. I do not want to contribute to those box office numbers. I want it to flop. By paying to see this film, you are supporting this movie which, I believe, is a mockery to the real stooges.

It's really not a "mockery" but rather a weak tribute.
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish." - Unknown


Offline shemps#1

  • Pothead, Libertarian, Administrator, Resident Crank and Baron of Greymatter
  • Global Moderator
  • Chowderhead
  • ******
  • Hatchet Man
I just think that by supporting this film, it encourages the Farrelly Brothers to make another one and continue mocking a great comedy team. After watching those clips, I can’t help but laugh…. not because their funny, but because of how ridiculous their imitation of the stooges are. The stooges had great talent where they were able to provide a lot of slapstick in their shorts, but at the same time, they were able to make it look more natural. These actors in this movie are too overdone and just way over the top making their portrayal of the stooges look very silly. But that’s just me.

Given the mixed-reviews and tepid box office ($17 million opening week is nothing to crow about) I would be surprised to see a sequel made.
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish." - Unknown


Offline shemps#1

  • Pothead, Libertarian, Administrator, Resident Crank and Baron of Greymatter
  • Global Moderator
  • Chowderhead
  • ******
  • Hatchet Man
A very good analysis.  You're right...it was not the debacle that some feared, and most of the gags described above wouldn't have appeared in the 30's-40's-50's shorts.

On the other hand, if the original (and only) Stooges themselves were in their prime today making films, I'd bet a bundle that they'd be doing precisely the sort of gags described.  The original films are artifacts of their time, and reflect the comic sensibilities of the time.

The new film is not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, and I further think that the promo appearances by the three leads in character before the film opened were pretty painful.  But having said that, I do think the F-brothers did the best they could with what was a risky idea to begin with.   
Too bad so many people made up their minds to hate it  before taking the trouble to see it.

Here we go again, you're nothing if not consistent. I gave the movie a fair chance and it is just not funny. Here's the thing about the "risky idea": nobody asked them to do it. There were no cries to resurrect the Three Stooges from the public at large, and the box office numbers have proven that. The major Stooges fans have already seen it for the most part so I expect at least a 60% drop off rate in weekend 2.
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish." - Unknown


Offline Larrington

Here we go again, you're nothing if not consistent. I gave the movie a fair chance and it is just not funny. Here's the thing about the "risky idea": nobody asked them to do it. There were no cries to resurrect the Three Stooges from the public at large, and the box office numbers have proven that. The major Stooges fans have already seen it for the most part so I expect at least a 60% drop off rate in weekend 2.

Can't say I disagree at all with your projections for the film (no pun intended there).  Also...my last comment wasn't directed at you (or anyone specific).  Some liked it,  some hated it, and some (like me) were like, "ok, not great, but no harm done" (except to the wallets of the folks who paid to make the film).
The way I see it, the live promotional TV appearances were a far worse disaster than the film itself.

There will probably be a huge drop 2nd weekend, and then pretty much that'll be that. At least everyone can take comfort in the fact that given the response this time around, there will likely be no sequel to discuss. ;)

After this week the forum will likely be busy discussing other Stoogery (the 2012 presidential election comes to mind).