The Three Stooges (2012)

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

The Three Stooges (2012)

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> The Three Stooges (2012)

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

The Three Stooges (2012) - 9/5/2012 5:10:01 PM

Phubbs

Posts: 660
Joined: 3/4/2012

So I'm British and I don't really have any or much knowledge on this all American legendary comedic trio but I know of them and how it works. From that small bit of recognition I can see the effort put into this film from the three main cast members and must give kudos to their performances.

Yes the film is completely stupid, childish and babyish but of course that's what its all about, a classic mix of Chaplin, Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton with sound and no holding back with absurd ludicrous scenario's.

I've never heard of the main cast but have read of many big names that were in line for the main roles such as Jim Carrey. Even I can see this would have been completely wrong so I'm glad the cast are as they are, unknowns (to me), they pull off the recreation very well I think, they look good and sound good.
I think the stunts on show here are decent but nothing especially amazing, its all about the well rehearsed chemistry between the Stooges really, that's what shines through, the rest is your average Farrelly brothers schtick.

Does exactly what it says on the tin folks, you know what to expect and you get exactly that. If you don't enjoy this kind of farcical comedy or find yourself hating it as you watch then you clearly didn't check the label on the tin. Not totally my thing I admit but I can appreciate the skill involved.

Post #: 1

RE: The Three Stooges (2012) - 9/5/2012 5:57:44 PM

Spaldron

Posts: 10487
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

Yes the film is completely stupid, childish and babyish but of course that's what its all about, a classic mix of Chaplin, Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton with sound and no holding back with absurd ludicrous scenario's.

Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd were anything but stupid, childish and babyish. Comparing their genius to this smoking barrel of shite-water is an insult to true comedy.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to Phubbs)

Post #: 2

RE: The Three Stooges (2012) - 9/5/2012 6:07:35 PM

elab49

Posts: 51538
Joined: 1/10/2005

Three Stooges were shown over here, same as Lloyd and L&H. It was Chaplin and Keaton I don't remember being around much at the weekends.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

What are your top 10/25 films of 2012? Vote in the forum Annual Poll now! Deadline is Sunday.

(in reply to Spaldron)

Post #: 3

RE: The Three Stooges (2012) - 10/5/2012 12:02:50 AM

MonsterCat

Posts: 6207
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire

The trailer for this made me laugh. Sorry.

_____________________________

C*** and mocker of board members since March, 2011

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 4

RE: The Three Stooges (2012) - 10/5/2012 2:28:46 AM

Qwerty Norris

Posts: 3141
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

Yes the film is completely stupid, childish and babyish but of course that's what its all about, a classic mix of Chaplin, Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton with sound and no holding back with absurd ludicrous scenario's.

_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. In The Fog
4. Good Vibrations
5. McCullin
6. Beyond the Hills
7. The Place Beyond the Pines
8. Wreck-it Ralph
9. Shell
10. In The House

(in reply to Phubbs)

Post #: 5

RE: The Three Stooges (2012) - 10/5/2012 10:15:57 AM

Phubbs

Posts: 660
Joined: 3/4/2012

I'm not exactly comparing the Stooges to Chaplin, Keaton etc...maybe I worded it badly there. I meant this film was childish and stupid but the whole concept of outrageous scenario's and to a degree silly childish comedy is very much the same line as Chaplin, Keaton, Laurel n Hardy, Lloyd, Marx Brothers etc....its not to be taken seriously and will appeal to the very young as its all very cartoonish.

Yes all the above do excel in their skills but its still childish comedy and pratfalls, very skilled yes but also very pantomime I think. That kind of act is quite dated now really isn't it...if we are honest about it.

< Message edited by Phubbs -- 10/5/2012 10:17:05 AM >

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)

Post #: 6

RE: The Three Stooges (2012) - 10/5/2012 11:17:56 AM

elab49

Posts: 51538
Joined: 1/10/2005

Fair enough it's your opinion, but there's no 'honest about it'. It's not an absolute truth you're disclosing to the world. There are many on these boards who greatly enjoy the likes of Keaton, Lloyd, Laurel and Hardy etc - and many of those have come to them new fairly recently. They enjoy the skill, the humour, the performance, the sheer genius behind some of the set-ups. IMO 'childish' is being badly mis-used here.

< Message edited by elab49 -- 10/5/2012 11:19:14 AM >

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

What are your top 10/25 films of 2012? Vote in the forum Annual Poll now! Deadline is Sunday.

(in reply to Phubbs)

Post #: 7

RE: The Three Stooges (2012) - 10/5/2012 11:38:43 AM

adambatman82

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs
I'm not exactly comparing the Stooges to Chaplin, Keaton etc...maybe I worded it badly there. I meant this film was childish and stupid but the whole concept of outrageous scenario's and to a degree silly childish comedy is very much the same line as Chaplin, Keaton, Laurel n Hardy, Lloyd, Marx Brothers etc....its not to be taken seriously and will appeal to the very young as its all very cartoonish.

I think you're completely underselling/misreading the work of a filmmaker like Chaplin if terms like "childish" even pop in to your head when you take in those films. A more apt modern day analogy to something like the automaton scene in The Circus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-2dMj3BBaM) would be a meticulously plotted, slaved over set piece in a multi-million dollar budget blockbuster, such is the care, skill and technical effort that went in to the sequence, not some shoddy Farrelly brothers "comedy". And besides, its commonly accepted that the appeal of Chaplin had more to do with the heart that came with the Tramp than the "outrageous scenarios".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs
Yes all the above do excel in their skills but its still childish comedy and pratfalls, very skilled yes but also very pantomime I think. That kind of act is quite dated now really isn't it...if we are honest about it.

I know, if only we'd had a massive hit that channels the spirit of Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd sweep awards ceremonies and public opinion this year....

As a side-note, I genuinely don't think there is a more heart-wrenching scene in all of the cinema than the chase in The Kid.

< Message edited by adambatman82 -- 10/5/2012 11:39:45 AM >

(in reply to Phubbs)

Post #: 8

RE: The Three Stooges (2012) - 10/5/2012 11:53:28 AM

horribleives

Posts: 4178
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

So is this now the official Let's Patronise A Newbie thread? Cool.

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to adambatman82)

Post #: 9

RE: The Three Stooges (2012) - 10/5/2012 11:57:28 AM

elab49

Posts: 51538
Joined: 1/10/2005

Disagreements giving reasons do not equate to patronising IMO.

Patronising is actually more akin to dismissing entire bodies of work as childish and suggesting that if we were being honest we'd all agree. That's an extremely provocative statement, don't you think?

< Message edited by elab49 -- 10/5/2012 11:58:10 AM >

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

What are your top 10/25 films of 2012? Vote in the forum Annual Poll now! Deadline is Sunday.

(in reply to horribleives)

Post #: 10

RE: The Three Stooges (2012) - 10/5/2012 12:05:37 PM

horribleives

Posts: 4178
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Patronising is actually more akin to dismissing entire bodies of work as childish and suggesting that if we were being honest we'd all agree. That's an extremely provocative statement, don't you think?

I don't think the original poster did dismiss an entire body of work as childish and the bit about being honest was in relation to the type of comedy being dated. Unless I've missed something.

< Message edited by horribleives -- 10/5/2012 12:06:09 PM >

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 11

RE: The Three Stooges (2012) - 10/5/2012 12:06:23 PM

adambatman82

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
From: Sheffield

I didn't even realise that Phubbs was new to the boards to be honest, I saw the 2 stars next to their name and went from there. There's only one person here singling them out as a "newbie" which is far more patronising than engaging in discourse with them if you ask me.

Welcome to the boards Phubbs.

< Message edited by adambatman82 -- 10/5/2012 12:08:22 PM >

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 12

RE: The Three Stooges (2012) - 10/5/2012 12:11:05 PM

adambatman82

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
the bit about being honest was in relation to the type of comedy being dated. Unless I've missed something.

I think you have actually. Saying "if we are honest about it" is a generalisation grounded in nothing more than opinion. As Elab has said, many of us don't agree with Phubbs' initial statement that "That kind of act is quite dated now".

(in reply to horribleives)

Post #: 13

RE: The Three Stooges (2012) - 10/5/2012 12:15:19 PM

elab49

Posts: 51538
Joined: 1/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Patronising is actually more akin to dismissing entire bodies of work as childish and suggesting that if we were being honest we'd all agree. That's an extremely provocative statement, don't you think?

I don't think the original poster did dismiss an entire body of work as childish and the bit about being honest was in relation to the type of comedy being dated. Unless I've missed something.

It's not really how I read it, looking through the accumulated comments, but I may have picked that up wrong.

Irrespective - disagreeing is not patronising and I honestly don't recognise the tone used in that disagreement in that way. I agree it can be a problem on any board, and the Mod team have picked it up a few times lately too. But isn't this speaking, civilly, to the points made?

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

What are your top 10/25 films of 2012? Vote in the forum Annual Poll now! Deadline is Sunday.

(in reply to horribleives)

Post #: 14

RE: The Three Stooges (2012) - 10/5/2012 12:24:12 PM

horribleives

Posts: 4178
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

I didn't even realise that Phubbs was new to the boards to be honest, I saw the 2 stars next to their name and went from there. There's only one person here singling them out as a "newbie" which is far more patronising than engaging in discourse with them if you ask me.

Welcome to the boards Phubbs.

Oh, never mind. It was quicker than writing 'new user/poster/whatever'.
I just don't think it was that crazy a notion to suggest that a lot of the comedies starring Chaplin, Keaton etc had elements which could be seen as 'childish' and felt the implication in the replies that Phubbs had somehow missed the point or misunderstood the films by saying so were a tad patronising.
But I may just be a bit over-sensitive today due to the death of an animal so feel free to ignore me.

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to adambatman82)

Post #: 15

RE: The Three Stooges (2012) - 10/5/2012 12:34:47 PM

adambatman82

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

But I may just be a bit over-sensitive today due to the death of an animal so feel free to ignore me.

Ah mate, my condolences.

(in reply to horribleives)

Post #: 16

RE: The Three Stooges (2012) - 10/5/2012 12:35:59 PM

elab49

Posts: 51538
Joined: 1/10/2005

Horrible thing to go through, isn't it?

Just in case this is down to a misreading, I didn't read Phubbs as characterising the nature of some of the deliberate humour as childish (which I also don't agree with) but more the viewer should see the whole thing as childish (which I really don't agree with). I read the above as using the word to denigrate the work on screen.

For the first part, I disagree with characterising pratfalls, etc, as childish - there might be a stronger argument with the deliberate nonsense of the Stooges, but to extend that to the others mentioned is, I think, deeply problematic. And there is a very modern example of why, even though I don't like it - Mr Bean was hugely successful, plays on elements of this humour and was not a children's show - family at a pinch, but shown at a time for adults and that's where the viewing success lay.

Quite separately I'm not sure I'm all that interested in this film. It's Farelly's - which actually may explain the initial childish comment although I think the better term for their work is puerile - and I still think the best nod to the Stooges on film was probably what Johnny 5 did to the other robots in Short Circuit.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

What are your top 10/25 films of 2012? Vote in the forum Annual Poll now! Deadline is Sunday.

(in reply to horribleives)

Post #: 17

RE: The Three Stooges (2012) - 10/5/2012 12:45:53 PM

horribleives

Posts: 4178
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

I guess that's the difference - I don't really see the word 'childish' (in this context) as a negative thing and I don't think Phubbs did either, it seemed to me more a general term to describe slapstick/pratfalls, etc.
Having said all that, given the Farrelly's recent work there's every chance this film could be a huge pile of shit so I'm not quite sure what I'm doing in here.

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 18

RE: The Three Stooges (2012) - 10/5/2012 3:23:02 PM

Spaldron

Posts: 10487
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair

Red Letter Media reviewed this last month and the verdict was basically its shite but not quite as shite as Jack and Jill, which isn't really saying much.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to horribleives)

Post #: 19

RE: The Three Stooges (2012) - 10/5/2012 4:16:19 PM

Phubbs

Posts: 660
Joined: 3/4/2012

I don't think this film is 'shite' a tall, as I said the film actually has very good performances from the main trio as they recapture the fun elements of the Stooges very well, Sasso especially as 'Curly'.

Just because the film has been directed by the Farrelly brothers doesn't mean its gonna be poor, I admit their work isn't stunning but surely you guys can agree with me that 'Kingpin' is a true gem

As for my comments...I referred to the Stooges film as childish and stupid etc....but I then said one cannot hold that against this film as that is exactly what's it's about, the Three Stooges is technically juvenile pratfalls and slapstick and this new film does exactly that.

I then added that it is akin to classic's such as Keaton, LnH etc...as they also involve much slapstick, pratfalls within ludicrous/crazy/extreme scenario's. I didn't actually say those classic's were childish etc...I worded it incorrectly perhaps. But I must say I do class such legends work as very very family friendly fun which everyone will enjoy because at the end of the day they silly fun, skilled silly fun of course. And yes I do believe this type of performance is a tad outdated these days, but that is just my opinion.

I know of Chaplin and his skills in the film world and I agree that 'The Tramp' is a beautiful piece of work and I think his best (first Chaplin film I ever saw), but much of his slapstick or pratfalls or tomfoolery or pantomime etc....whatever you wish to call it, it is essentially I think silly family fun which COULD be seen as childish to a degree, or maybe cartoonish, BUT not in a bad way you understand. I see the skills involved and appreciate them but that is how I would sum up this type of genre really, kinda like skilled clowns in a circus perhaps..if you get where I'm coming from, hard to sum this up without sounding critical.

I do understand how hard this kind of performance can be, thusly I gave 'The Three Stooges' a reasonable write up because I feel the lead cast deserve recognition for their excellent recreations and skills. I think this film has been trampled on merely down to the directors and unfortunately the content, probably because many think this kind of thing is daft and childish, dare I say outdated unless your very young.

Oh and I'm newish yes but have reviewed many films