JamesG
04-13-2012, 09:16 PM
Movie Reviews: The Three Stooges
It’s likely that moviegoers’ reaction to The Three Stooges will depend a lot on how they regarded the original shorts that the Stooges turned out with assembly-line rapidity more than a half century ago.
Rafer Guzmán says in Newsday that the new film, “is a virtual clone job.”
Guzmán praises “the inspired impersonations of the lead trio” and regards the movie as “one of the Farrellys’ better films and a movie in which excess — the hallmark of everyone involved — is decidedly a virtue.”
Manohla Dargis in the New York Times writes:
“It’s a perfect fit for the Farrellys, who have made a career out of idiocy.”
Joe Neumaier in the New York Daily News observes that making a movie set in today’s world with actors who are the spitting image of the original Stooges is:
“a concept that shouldn’t work at all. But — who’da thunk it? — it’s better than a hammer to the head.”
Claudia Puig in USA Today pronounces the end result:
“a movie with some big laughs, plenty of heart and terrible coifs.”
Then there are those critics who probably never enjoyed the earlier shorts.
Roger Ebert grumbles:
“I didn’t laugh much. I don’t think the Stooges are funny, although perhaps I might once have. Some of the sight gags were clever, but meh.”
Stephen Cole in the Toronto Globe and Mail remarks:
“The Stooges were probably meant to be seen on television, Saturday morning, while consuming fast food and colored juices.”
Lou Lumenick in the New York Post comments:
“It’s all sloppily sentimental and utterly pointless.”
Michael Phillips in the Chicago Tribune is the only critic who comes right out with the admission:
“To really dig the Farrellys’ tribute to the Stooges, you have to be more of a fan of the old stuff than I am.”
-IMDB News
It’s likely that moviegoers’ reaction to The Three Stooges will depend a lot on how they regarded the original shorts that the Stooges turned out with assembly-line rapidity more than a half century ago.
Rafer Guzmán says in Newsday that the new film, “is a virtual clone job.”
Guzmán praises “the inspired impersonations of the lead trio” and regards the movie as “one of the Farrellys’ better films and a movie in which excess — the hallmark of everyone involved — is decidedly a virtue.”
Manohla Dargis in the New York Times writes:
“It’s a perfect fit for the Farrellys, who have made a career out of idiocy.”
Joe Neumaier in the New York Daily News observes that making a movie set in today’s world with actors who are the spitting image of the original Stooges is:
“a concept that shouldn’t work at all. But — who’da thunk it? — it’s better than a hammer to the head.”
Claudia Puig in USA Today pronounces the end result:
“a movie with some big laughs, plenty of heart and terrible coifs.”
Then there are those critics who probably never enjoyed the earlier shorts.
Roger Ebert grumbles:
“I didn’t laugh much. I don’t think the Stooges are funny, although perhaps I might once have. Some of the sight gags were clever, but meh.”
Stephen Cole in the Toronto Globe and Mail remarks:
“The Stooges were probably meant to be seen on television, Saturday morning, while consuming fast food and colored juices.”
Lou Lumenick in the New York Post comments:
“It’s all sloppily sentimental and utterly pointless.”
Michael Phillips in the Chicago Tribune is the only critic who comes right out with the admission:
“To really dig the Farrellys’ tribute to the Stooges, you have to be more of a fan of the old stuff than I am.”
-IMDB News