MEET THE FOCKERS (**½)
Any parent who names their only child Gaylord (Greg) Focker has to have some wealth of comedic possibility. So it was a no-brainer for Jay Roach, the director of MEET THE PARENTS and the AUSTIN POWER movies, to follow up with another comedy sequel in MEET THE FOCKERS. You could see it a mile away as soon as Greg’s father-in-law mentioned such a meeting in their last outing. The film’s casting of Greg’s parents, as well as its title, is inspired. Thus, expectations are high for this sequel to outdo, if not equal, its predecessor. So does it? Hardly.
The late great film critic Gene Siskel once said that audiences should consider if a movie (#1) with a great cast is as interesting as a movie (#2) made about that same cast making that movie (#1). If it isn’t, chances are that the former (#1) isn’t up to snuff. Taking this as our gauge, it becomes pretty clear that MEET THE FOCKERS falls short of its promise, despite its few memorable moments.
I became keenly aware of the movie’s different feel right from the start. In MEET THE PARENTS, everyone seemed relaxed and assured within the roles they played. Therein existed a free-flowing flux of interaction that made every comic instant play out gracefully. But from the opening setup of MEET THE FOCKERS, you can the calculation on route to the payoff. Though it might be very satisfying, I prefer laughs from a natural emerging storyline rather than from a contrived sequence.
Don’t get me wrong. Comedies that have pre-arranged laughs can work as it did so marvelously in THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and AUSTIN POWERS: INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY. But they work as long as the contrivance is barely felt. This can only happen if the movie’s story is somewhat believable and/or if it is so hilarious that all is forgiven. The trouble with MEET THE FOCKERS is that although its leads lend a certain sensibility, the laughs never achieve liftoff.
Many of the movie’s scenes are noticeably forced, such as the use of a very young child to generate laughs. I must say that babies are some of the most adorable creatures on the planet, but relying on them for laughs is usually a sign of desperation (see the BABY GENIUSES movies… but then again… don’t). Yes the baby utters one riotous adjective as its first word, but it is funny only because of how we value a baby’s first word, and not because of baby’s actions.
Other strained attempts involve an ultra horny dog that reminded me of George Carlin’s own (long story). No wonder they have a saying in Hollywood never to work with kids or animals. The dog is adorable, and pondering its scenarios with that Jack Byrnes’s (Robert De Niro) cat seemed somewhat intriguing. But in the end, listening to George Carlin’s jokes about his own horny pet doing the same thing is substantially more entertaining than seeing it.
Then there are the first and the last family get-togethers. Typically in comedies like these, the lead comedic victim (in this case Greg played by Ben Stiller as only he can play it) gets to be humiliated before his loved ones. But his humiliation in both cases proves to be less palatable than intended (literally and figuratively… in that order). It proves again that a movie character’s disgrace is only funny when he/she isn’t aware of it. In these two scenes, he’s all too aware of it (and so are we).
Fear not Focker fans. The movie is not all bad. Truthfully speaking, I enjoyed some moments very much. And for this precise reason: If you have always wanted to see these four great actors (Robert De Niro, Dustin Hoffman, Barbra Streisand, and Blythe Danner) have some highly unlikely yet memorably funny scenes together, then this is the movie to see them in.
I never thought I would see the day Dustin Hoffman put on a football face to confront Robert De Niro mano a mano (that alone was worth price of admission alone). They have worked together before, most notably in WAG THE DOG, wherein there performances were straight-faced. But here you can really see them getting along wonderfully. Their chemistry is top-notch, as is the persuasiveness they lend their characters. Mr. De Niro continues to exploit his gruffly persona from his serious films to be shot down in his farcical ones. This is something he seems to do better than anyone else (whether that’s a good thing is debatable). Mr. Hoffman has long had comedic credentials (see RAIN MAN and TOOTSIE), and plays his loveable cluelessness with effortless exuberance.
The two mothers played by Ms. Streisand and Ms. Danner are equally satisfying. Ms. Streisand is a hoot, playing against type. I also never thought I would see the day she would portray a freethinking senior citizen sex therapist (with a hairdo that would make the cast of MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING wince), and seeing her massage De Niro was very funny (but could have been a so much better). Blythe Danner as always is ever graceful and lovely even in her later stages in life. Her presence provides warmth and grounded wisdom on her side of the family. And seeing her character Dina confess her romantic aspirations for her husband using puppets (yes… puppets) had me rolling in the aisles.
If only director Jay Roach could have kept a consistent flow of hilarity instead of having sporadic amusement. It becomes obvious here that he specializes in numerous setup pieces loosely placed throughout the movie (the movie is basically full of loose plot points setup for these), as evidenced from his work in the POWERS movies. I hope one day he can recreate the same flow he created so unaffectedly in MEET THE PARENTS.
Is MEET THE FOCKERS good or bad? It teeters between both. It is artificial and somewhat labored, but for those few moments when we witness these acting greats provide such notable fun, it can provide some pretty good laughs, if not an overall blast. To make it short and sweet, I liked it… but I can’t recommend it.
Posted by FLIPCRITIC at January 20, 2005 11:08 PM