Posted: 12/27/2005 |
|
![]() Cheaper by the Dozen 2(2005)by Erin Paulson | |
|
Film Monthly Home Archives Wayne Case Interviews Steve Anderson The Rant Short Takes (Archived) Small Screen Monthly Behind the Scenes New on DVD The Indies Horror Film Noir Coming Soon Now Playing Television Books on Film What's Hot at the Movies This Week Interviews TV |
It’s not that I’m not a fan of slapstick family comedies; when done well, I think this genre can excel beyond its expected capabilities, such as in the case with the time-honored classic A Christmas Story. That movie is genius - it combines the holiday film with family comedy, and succeeds admirably. Cheaper by the Dozen 2 had no such ambition, and cannot even conquer the one genre. Now, this isn’t just the fault of the sequel - the first one was equally as awful. The plot, if you can call it that, involves Tom and Kate Baker (Steve Martin and Bonnie Hunt) realizing that their kids are growing up faster than they would like. So to preserve some sense of family togetherness (or to keep the leash around their kids a little while longer), they decide to go on a family vacation at a lake to which they had previously gone. That’s right - all dozen children, the parents, and the eldest daughter’s husband staying in a dirty cabin by a lake. While there, Tom rekindles a life-long competition and jealousy match with his friend across the water, Jimmy Murtaugh (Eugene Levy). Determined to come out on top, he ends up agreeing to compete for the Labor Day Cup with Murtaugh and his eight children. At this point the audience is supposed to start caring that the two fathers are using the kids for their own selfish purposes… except this offense on the children’s behalf just never seems to actually materialize. Nor does the film elicit more than a couple of laughs, and that at my most generous. By the end of the film I cared no more for the characters and what may happen between them than I did in the beginning. The behavior between Dad Baker and Dad Murtaugh is so over-the-top and annoying that I found myself checking my watch more than once. The lone area in which the film actually succeeds is in becoming propaganda supporting the idea of large suburban families, and that is the last topic I want to watch play out in the theatre (or ever, really). One of the only positive things I can say about this movie was that it wasn’t quite as painful to endure as its predecessor. Quite close, but no cigar. The experience of watching this movie is more akin to having four teeth pulled, which isn’t entirely as horrible as the root canal experience of the first movie. What I simply cannot comprehend is why the first one was even made, let alone the sequel. Are there people out there who actually find this type of movie funny? You may argue that it is directed towards children, and that’s why I didn’t appreciate it. I may be alone here, but when I was a child I did not enjoy watching movies like this. I felt they were an insult to my intelligence, much as I feel today. These movies squander Martin and Hunt’s talents - a degradation so severe that I can only hope they received a hefty paycheck for lowering their dignity in such a way. As Martin sheds a single tear holding his newborn grandson, I wanted to shed a single tear for the death of his career. Erin Paulson is a Chicago area film critic and photographer. Got a problem? E-mail us at filmmonthly@gmail.com |
