Wow. Based on the “Little Fockers” review roundup, the only thing critics like about the new Ben Stiller movie is making fun of its title (sample headline: Shut the “Fock” Up). I could not find one positive review for “Fockers.” Of course, if you’ve seen the “Little Fockers” trailer, you know it’s in the same vein of humor as the first two movies, “Meet the Parents” and “Meet the Fockers.” Here’s a look at what critics are saying in their “Little Fockers” reviews.
(For my money, the “True Grit” trailer makes it look like a more promising movie night!)
New York Post: “Little Fockers” may not be the worst, most vulgar, most pathetic and least funny picture of the year. But it’s a strong contender for second place behind the picture Brett Favre allegedly sent over his cellphone.
Time Out New York: There’s really no focking place for the franchise to go anymore, having exhausted its original scary-dad anxieties (Meet the Parents) and subsequent rude-baby mania (Meet the Fockers). Still, it multiplies, this time having its way with the stars’ cinema pasts—De Niro gets especially shameless with the “Godfocker” stuff—and a nonaffair between Ben Stiller’s meek Gaylord and a home-wrecking pharmaceutical rep played by Jessica Alba.
Rotten Tomatoes: The second sequel to 2000’s Meet the Parents defines uncalled for. Little Fockers is upchuckingly unfunny.
Boston Globe: Is there a statute of limitations for how many good actors can be wasted in a bad movie? Antic and only fitfully amusing, “Little Fockers” is the multiplex equivalent of a cash grab — it’s a three-quel, what did you expect? — but that only makes the quality of talent involved more than routinely depressing.
Washington Post: We must have been pretty naughty this year for Santa to stuff a lump of coal like “Little Fockers” into our cinematic stockings. How bad is the third installment of the “Meet the Parents” franchise? So bad it makes the perfectly ordinary “Meet the Fockers” look Oscar-worthy.
Other recent posts by ToniFitz76: