This is primarily a complaint to you millions out there that messed the Universe up by going and watching “Meet the Fockers” (it doesn’t even deserve an IMDB link but here’s one -> .) (also directed towards the friends of Karin; but not Karin herself who, fortunately for Kyle, has an agreeable taste in movies).

First of, the first film, Meet the Parents, was pretty decent. It gave Robert De Niro the opportinity to be in a comedy while playing his own serious self. Let’s be honest, De Niro can’t play a comic role, he must be a rough tough guy a la Analyze This (and That) both of which were passable (This more than That). Ben Stiller on the other hand played the “quirky son-in-law trying to fit in” to an acceptable level (I’m not going to say perfect as it wasn’t and it wasn’t passable…which isn’t acceptable). So…the first film was balanced and funny and original and (this is key) emotional.

There’s a reason people don’t like sequels…it’s because they’re not original and they don’t evoke the same emotion…it’s just more of the same old thing. However, if you wait a few years and put out a sequel then the general public forgets about the original and is all like “Wow! What an original new film!” EXCEPT IT’S NOT! The first film was targetted towards the University and teenage crowd. It was choked full of slapstick comedy and enough De Niro sophistication to keep almost all of us pacified (he’s the babysitter for us grownups like the way Vin Diesel is for kids in The Pacifier).

This second film was a masterpiece in marketing (read on to find out why!). The producers realized that they needed to bring in an older crowd simply because they had a screenplay that was so weak that a gimick was needed. Enter Dustin Hoffman (excellent actor) and Barbara Streisand (horrible actress) who when combined on a poster emit a high pierced scream (Barbara) and credibility (Dustin). Seriously, who wouldn’t want to watch a film with Dustin and De Niro? They’re top notch. Now, if you don’t watch movies that often but you’re going to the movies and you see that Streisand is in it then it’s likely you’re going to watch that movie. That’s why the movie did well, not because it’s a good movie but because people who didn’t know what to watch watched that. Don’t believe me? Go stand in line at the movies and watch groups of people come in and look at the listing. They don’t know what they want to watch, they don’t even know what the movies are about, they just want to be entertained.

Now some will say, “I don’t care about creativity or originality, I just want to be entertained for a bit.” To which I reply: “That’s fine, but an entertaining film is not a good film, it’s not an iff relationship.”
“What!?” you say? That’s right…examples? Let’s consider the classic example of “Freddy Got Fingered” (Tom Green) which is an immensely entertaining film but by no means a good film. A good film makes a lasting emotional impression upon you. It’s an expression in creativity that evokes emotion that people can understand at a personal level. “Freddy Got Fingered” will make you laugh but the understanding of the film does not make you laugh, the acts within it do. The acts combined do not evoke emotion or cause you draw meaning. Let’s talk about a marginally good film: “Made”. It’s basically a Mob film but it’s a comedy about the futility in a life of crime and how ones attitude towards those in your life is all the resolve one needs. In the movie however there’s a character played by Vince Vaughn that makes you want to absolutely destroy that character because he’s so annoying. Needless to say Vince played the part very well and emphasises the message that is projected through Jon Favreau. I only say the movie is marginally good because the message isn’t incredibly clear and it is slow in parts but I picked a marginally good film to show that an obviously good film (like Lord of the Rings) isn’t needed to prove my point.

Let’s look at the message in Meet the Fockers, “family is good”, wait…hooooolllllllllllld up…wasn’t that the message in the first film? I do believe that De Niro said that at some point in the first film. Ok, so maybe the message is about “fitting in”…can’t be…they did that in the first film as well. How about “happiness is important enough to put up with strangeness”? They did that in the first one as well. Ok ok, so it’s a continuation of the first one. Ok, I can live with that, we’re extending it to develop more relationships. However, De Niro still seems to be developing a relationship with Stiller. In addition, there need to be relationships between the in-laws and the daughter with the in-laws and the pets…can this be done? Sure, if it was a movie only about relationships and it was 2 hours long! “Wait!” you say, “the movie is 1 hour and 55 minutes! There is enough time!” To which I respond: “NO!! Because you still have to explain the first movie to all of those who didn’t see it…and the 115 minutes includes the credits!”

You see where I’m going with this? While there was a message in this movie there wasn’t nearly enough time alloted to fully develop the relationships. A bunch of cheap gags can’t nearly begin to showcase exactly how much the families could have bonded while still being funny. I chalk this up to the weak acting on the part of Barbara. She’s an incredibly one dimensional character and actor. She lacks the ability to properly express herself…must be the botox in her forehead.
Sure they play a realistic couple BUT if you can’t properly showcase a relationship then all everybody remembers is how entertaining it was with a few slapstick gags or “zanny” scenes.

It was seriously disappointing to see each character be so marginalized simply because there was so much to do in so little time. Could have been a lot better, next time cut the dead weight, and you’ll have a better film. How can one tell that I’m right and that the cinema success was a fluke? Well, if people really like a movie in theatres then they’ll like it when it’s available to rent or buy, correct? Check out a release chart to see if a movie that is in its second week of release is even on the chart (first week release is just a fad). So…will you look at that? Not even on the Billboard top 10 listing and it’s been out for two weeks. On the sales chart the first and second week sales are important as they suggest impulse and premediated buys (see chart), oh look!! No “Meet the Fockers”.
“What??!” you say? Why didn’t it sell when it sold in theatres? It’s because it didn’t make a lasting impression. Elektra has a target audience that wants to see Jennifer Garner run around in tight red leather. Nobody on the other hand really cares about paying any more money to see a bunch of cheap gimmicks and a movie with no point to it. That is a true measure of how good a movie is. People are willing to pay $10 (average) to see a movie on an impulse when they don’t know what else to see over Christmas break (come on…you could have watched “The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou” although it sounds like a documentary) but they aren’t willing to pay $20 to see a film that didn’t make an impression on them. That’s why people are willing to buy DVDs of TV shows because they mean something to them, because they understand that it will not only entertain them but evoke emotion. In the end that’s what people really want, they want to feel something. More than that, films that are really really good will sell millions of DVDs simply because people want to see something beautiful that makes them feel.

So, that’s my opinion about “Meet the Fockers” and why it isn’t a good film. It’s not about entertainment but emotion.