Friday, March 7, 2003

STRAIGHT. TRIPPIN'. BOO! Before continuing this blog's review of the critical digs Bringing Down the House is receiving, candor and my internal sense of objectivity compels me to first note that not all the reviews are negative.

Carrie Rickey of The Philadelphia Inquirer, whose opinions I respect a great deal, says the movie plays with stereotypes without reinforcing them, and calls the movie "a gut-busting, stereotype-busting slapstick comedy, returning Martin to the antic highs of All of Me and The Man With Two Brains and elevating Latifah to goddess status, that is, if we all agree that goddess outranks queen." There are other positive reviews out there, for sure, and let's be clear: Steve Martin is still funny --

-- in general, that is. Just not here. Let's start in our nation's capital, where Rita Kempley of the Washington Post says:
It is the rare film that is capable of offending both Trent Lott and Al Sharpton, but Bringing Down the House gets the job done, and how. An embarrassment for all concerned, this witless, odd-couple comedy slings separate but equal gibes at blacks and whites . . . and still manages to ridicule gays and Hispanics. Why was this picture made?

And what to make of Queen Latifah's involvement in this sorry debacle? Since she has acknowledged cleaning up the crude script, she clearly read the thing and agreed to play a hip-hop Aunt Jemima anyway.

Over to Salon.com, where you'll have to sit through a brief ad to read Charles Taylor write:
Bringing Down the House is for everyone who finds the idea of a white person saying "bitchslapped" hilarious. The movie appears to have been made for an audience that considers the idea of black people terribly exotic. And just who, nowadays, is that, some 30 years after the birth of rap and with hip-hop style everywhere in pop culture? Bringing Down the House seems to be aimed at people who want to consider black style in dress or speech or music some sort of passing fad -- you know, one of those crazy things the kids do before they settle down and start wearing Dockers and listening to Dave Matthews.

Says the Orange County Register:
It's the kind of sitcom-caliber trifle that's designed with only the squarest segments of society in mind - for example, folks who still get a kick out of seeing a middle-age white actor don high-tops and jive like Curtis Blow. . . . The single most astounding thing about Bringing Down the House is that Tim Allen didn't snag this role first.

Michael Medved, of all people, gets all worked up:
Bringing Down the House tries for laughs rather than social commentary, but still unleashes an avalanche of controversial messages, all of them bad. The most offensive aspect of this lame excuse for a comedy involves the most one-dimensional racial stereotyping this side of Birth of a Nation. All black characters happen to be emotional, uneducated, over-sexed, violent, warm-hearted, hip, cool and connected to the criminal underclass. All white characters are uptight, repressed, clumsy, materialistic, shallow, cruel and incurably racist.

To the Las Vegas Mercury:
When the two get together, there's enough bad, sitcomy racial humor to fill 20 seasons of "What's Happening," the difference here being that even Roger and Rerun could generate more laughter than this groaner. . . . It's sort of Planes, Trains and Automobiles meets You've Got Mail meets Sinbad's Houseguest meets dog shit.

The San Francisco Chronicle:
[T]his is strictly formula stuff, made worse by an utterly careless depiction of the characters, whose road to friendship is neither believable nor remotely accounted for. Most of the jokes turn on racial stereotypes, which the movie presents without wit -- and certainly without truth. . . . .. In some early scenes, Charlene [Latifah] is presented as a kind of vulgar beast whose mere presence is considered appalling. The film's pretense may be that it's reproaching white racism, but there are moments here that seem to cross the line -- where Latifah's bigness and blackness are presented as inherently monstrous.

Elvis Mitchell of the New York Times calls the movie "You've Got Bail" and, while loving Queen Latifah's "charisma, wit and independence", notes with regret:
Like the film Housesitter, which also starred Mr. Martin, Bringing Down the House doesn't have the nerve to follow through on what seems like its romantic-comedy setup. Instead, Peter is hung up on his ex-wife, Kate (Jean Smart). In one scene Charlene teaches a drunken Peter to be more of a man — find his inner Treach — and get his ex-wife back. She puts his hand on her breast and the picture becomes a sexual version of a minstrel show. This makes no sense. The movie gropes toward a cheap laugh to shore up its lack of courage.

Finally, AICN really brings down the house here, pleading:
“WHY?” Why Queen Latifah, why?

Sure, Steve Martin I can understand. With his recent string of bad movies it’s obvious that the Three Amigos curse has finally caught up to him as it did Martin Short and Chevy Chase long ago. . . .

But Queen Latifah . . . you?!

Your name means something. You represent strong black women everywhere. Like Ice Cube, you’re much less a good actor as you are a charismatic personality . . . and what a personality, indeed! It garnered you a much-deserved Oscar nomination for your outstanding work in Chicago. Girl, you have arrived!

Which makes this situation all the more baffling. Frankly, Bringing Down the House is a movie I’d be disappointed to know you rented, let alone starred in and executive produced(!!).

I think. . . .that maybe. . . . I don’t really want to know the answer. *sigh*

Considering that there was a Civil War movie with Robert E. Lee as the hero (Gods & Generals) released during Black History Month, I think I might have an answer as to reason Bringing Down the House was released after…

Mercy.

And on that note, let's move on. After all, Gwyneth Paltrow's View From The Top, which finished filming in March 2001 (before Paltrow filmed The Royal Tenenbaums) and was first scheduled for release on April 19, 2002 (then October 2002, then January 2003), is now only weeks away. . . .

No comments:

Post a Comment