Hollywood locates barrel's bottom

Discuss

171 Responses to “Hollywood locates barrel's bottom”

  1. Kommkast says:

    Gotta say, Snooki or whatever the hell her name is getting poked in the eyes almost makes it worth it.. I mean at least its still slapstick, if a bit excessively so.

  2. Carlos Mal says:

    Slapstick revival. I don’t see anything wrong with that. I could do with less “hip-sideways-hat-wearing-Moe” and with less Snooki, but apart from that, I prefer slapstick and goofball comedy a million times over the awful “Scary Movie” and (Meet the Spartans, etc…) series of “films”.

    • Cowicide says:

      I prefer slapstick and goofball comedy a million times over the awful “Scary Movie” and (Meet the Spartans, etc…) series of “films”.

      Those movies make me want to rip my eyeballs out and ram sharpened pencils into my ears.

    • Is there something wrong with me? I actually laughed a few times at the trailer. I should have gone all hyper-critical…

      • Carlos Mal says:

        It’s easy to be cynical with Hollywood movies, especially with remakes that predate on nostalgia. But I don’t know, this made me laugh, too, and I think that is the sole purpose of any Three Stooges film.

      • Cowicide says:

        Sadie, I giggled at parts of this trailer too.  I was referring to the “Scary Movie” series Carlos was mentioning.  I can’t watch those more than 5 minutes usually without wanting to die.

      • millie fink says:

        I didn’t feel like there’s something wrong with me because I chuckled at that trailer. I have fond memories of laughing at the Stooges as a way of winding down after school, and some of that feeling came back. Yeah, the violence is obnoxious, and now it’s apparently misogynist too, but it sure did feel back then like it had its place, a distant and safe place, on TV.

        I also think they chose actors who capture the original trio pretty well. I used to love Curly’s anarchic silliness. Still do, I guess.

      • Ant says:

        Me too. It wasn’t bad. Also, it is a trailer that is meant to be good. Movie might just suck though. :(

  3. Daemonworks says:

    And yet, looks a thousand times better than many other hollywood projects, like the Akira fiasco that seems to be back on.

  4. rocjoe says:

    Personally I prefer the original, with the young Bobby DeNiro making his first foray into comedic acting… or at least that’s how I remember it.

  5. MrRocking says:

    I thought they were doing a biopic? This is….. Help me out here.

    Awful. Wretched. A little under par. Underwhelming. Unecessary.

    No wait I got it.

    Eff. This. Movie…

    • Bonobo says:

      Yeah, I heard an interview where Sean Hayes was talking about an upcoming 3 stooges movie and I thought it was a biopic. This is certainly a disappointment.

      • millie fink says:

        Maybe they had pretty boring personal lives? I mean, I am curious about their personal lives, but I don’t  think they’d necessarily for an make an interesting movie.

        • Christopher says:

          There already was a biopic of their lives. It was a made-for-TV-movie. I didn’t find that their lives were that interesting, but it was interesting (and depressing) to see how they were mistreated by the studio. The most touching moment of the biopic, for me, was when the three living Stooges (Moe Howard, Larry Fine, and Joe Besser) discovered they had a huge number of fans when they thought their films had been completely forgotten.

  6. duc chau says:

    Now I have to cleanse my laptop with fire. Thanks, Cory.

  7. Kimmo says:

    Poking folks in the eye wasn’t funny then, and it isn’t funny now.

    Unless of course, you’re lowbrow enough to disagree…

    It’e entertainment for idiots in my book, and this remake strikes me as a cynical experiment to guage the idiocy of modern audiences.

    • EH says:

      yeah, anybody who likes it must be a stupid person.

    • Mark_Frauenfelder says:

      “Every time you think you weaken the nation.”

    • Cowicide says:

      It’e entertainment for idiots

      Idiot here….

      I don’t know what’s wrong with me, but I started giggling during parts of the preview and I don’t even really like the original 3 Stooges that much and I normally have an aversion to Adam Sandler movies.

      Then again, I really enjoyed Dumb & Dumber too and thought that was funny in some parts.

      Tastes in humor is a bizarre, unpredictable thing.  I wouldn’t doubt if I’d hate the movie, though.. but, shockingly… I did… indeed… giggle during parts of this preview.

      [cow works on cross, finds nails...  readies self for crucifixion]

    • Poking folks in the eye isn’t FUNNY? I need to know nothing else about you, sir!

    • Bizket Jones says:

      Apparently, I am low brow and an idiot. Good thing I don’t hang out with you eh? I might make you look bad to your peers.

      • C W says:

        I don’t care about what “my peers” think, but you apparently sure do. If you’re such a “maverick” for liking trash movies made for your average American, why do you care that people find it insultingly stupid? Enjoy it, and stop worrying yourself about the rest of the happy mutants who would rather enjoy things slightly less stupid.

        • Genre Slur says:

          Someone seems to have a fondness for wearing the Judge’s Robe…

        • Bizket Jones says:

          I don’t have any problem with people finding something I enjoy to be insultingly stupid, I just have a problem with someone deciding that if I might enjoy something they don’t like that I must be lowbrow and an idiot. Thankfully neither you nor the person I was responding to are folks I would consider peers. My peers don’t judge based on taste in movies or music.

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        Apparently, I am low brow and an idiot.

        The first step in recovery is admitting the problem.

    • kringlebertfistyebuns says:

      My my…aren’t we edgy and discerning and cultured and all that! 

  8. VaughnMarlowe says:

    Just as long as there’s no goddamn zombies or vampires.

  9. Roy Trumbull says:

    Wonder if the plot setup for “The Producers” is being played out on the silver screen? That is selling 500% of a flamer and pocketing the excess money collected.

    • Sam says:

      I think that award goes to Adam Sandlers Jack and Jill film. $79 million dollar budget that seems to have gone to a big list of pointless cameos and a long stream of product placement ads peppered with an attempt at a storyline.

  10. redsrevenge says:

    And this is yet another example of how DVDs are a gift from (your particular) god both to comedy fans and people who appreciate quality.

    The remastered originals are outstanding and you may find, as I did, that most of the shorts were never shown on TV. They just kept showing the same small sampling over and over. So there will be lots of stuff you never saw and most of it is better than what they were showing.

    Well worth the expense and and a good way to get back at those who don’t appreciate the comedy. Sit ‘em down and every time they start to laugh , just say, Hey, stop! this is dumb unfunny stuff, remember?

    If enough people watched them maybe Curly would start to get some of the admiration he deserves. Many of his physical moves are on par with Chaplin.

    I had hope the F brothers could pull it off because they have done some great movies but I think they went for the dough on this one or lost sight due to the long gestation of the film.

    This will probably be regarded in the same way as the prequels to the Star Wars saga.

    Just think how much you would cringe if George said he was now going to make the last 3 episodes of the original 9 episode series.

    rr

    • Melinda9 says:

      I’m female and women  supposedly don’t  like the (original) 3 Stooges, but I always enjoyed their comedy. My favorite quote, if I can remember it close to correctly, was when one of them said ‘we’re going to jail’ and a bystander said ‘jail?’ And the other Stooge said, ‘No, he said ‘Yale’. He has a brother at Yale – he has 2 heads and he’s in a jar.’

    • ocatagon says:

      Actually the Farrelly brothers have been trying to make this for years and the studios have said no. One of the reasons is that supposedly women don’t like Three Stooges. Looks like something kids will eat up to me, until they find the real thing.

  11. Nezrite says:

    I was sure it was going to be the Battlefield movie.  But this is just as bad, albeit with a better cast.

  12. Halloween Jack says:

    It’s like a primer in how to make slapstick unfunny. Sean Hayes and even Will Sasso (who was pretty funny on MADTv, but has sort of disappeared since then) deserve better; whoever is playing Moe does a good Moe imitation, but so what? I’d compare it to Dumb & Dumber, but even D&D doesn’t deserve the comparison; love or hate Jim Carrey, at least he’s doing his own thing. When you’re reduced to doing sexy nun gags, you’re giving up well before the premiere.

    • EH says:

      You my friend are drawing a lot of conclusions based on a trailer.

      • lorq says:

        A trailer is meant to make you draw conclusions — about the kind of film it is and whether you want to see it.  In this instance: “Hmm, sexy nun joke.  Next!”

        • EH says:

          So you’re saying that there’s no good Sexy Nun joke? Could it be that we’re only seeing part of a good bit?

          • Halloween_Jack says:

            Yes, because the most logical approach to doing an updated version of an old, much-beloved comedy group that the remake will be inevitably compared to would be to put together a trailer in which 99.44% of the comedy had been carefully excised, because a full-length movie can’t bear to give away even a single joke in the trailer. Right.

  13. gamelab2021 says:

    Is Adam Sandler in this? Where is Jack Black? Tom Arnold? 

  14. reidmefirst says:

    …Where is the unicorn chaser?

    Please?

    • cellocgw says:

      Apparently the unicorn says “Pull my horn…”    And then Moe kills Kenny,…
      ahhh, forget it.  There is always a lower common denominator when it comes to the USA’s taste in movies.

  15. EH says:

    This is going to be awesome!

    • Kimmo says:

      Awesome like fnding a turd in your custard.

      • EH says:

        Are you kidding? Maybe you don’t like to laugh.

      • knoxblox says:

        Well, quite a few people seemed to like the “woman shitting a bridal gown while sitting in the middle of the street” scenario last year…

      • noggin says:

        “Awesome like finding a turd in your custard.”

        You, sir, are a true Zen master and I humbly bow to you.

        For those that do not yet see, The Three Stooges is Zen teaching for the masses, and Kimmo is trying to instruct us in a manner only a Zen master and true Stooges fan could do. And while Kimmo is truly a master and his succintness is sublime, I am no master and so please forgive my verbose explanation.

        Each Three Stooges movie was a cleverly disguised koan, or story, designed to enlighten us.  Kimmo gets to the heart of the matter when he said: “Poking folks in the eye wasn’t funny then, and it isn’t funny now.”  Exactly.  But then, why do we laugh?  This is the fundamental paradox so often found in the traditional koans.  From Wikipedia: ‘But to Zen Buddhists the koan is “the place and the time and the event where truth reveals itself” unobstructed by the oppositions and differentiations of language. Answering a  koan requires a student to let go of conceptual thinking and of the logical way we order the world, so that like creativity in art, the appropriate insight and response arises naturally and spontaneously in the mind.’

        In each film, Moe is a paradoxical character.  To Larry and Curly he represents Dharma–the Law in Zen philosophy. Dharma concerns itself with the things that bring about “correct, proper or decent behavior”.  Moe is always pointing out and correcting the shortcomings and uncouth behavior of Larry and Curly.  But the interactions of Moe, Larry and Curly are simply the first layer of the teaching.  For just as Larry and Curly strive to live up to Moe’s expectations, the Stooges are not part of the accepted (dharma-ruled) society–the upper-crust.  Yet, Moe is obsessed with this goal.  It is his main purpose for him and his companions to fit in to polite society and avoid the baser behaviors (adharma).  

        These koans use the paradox of Moe, wrapped in satire, to teach us the futility and uselessness of such aspirations. In other words, “Once you become Buddha it is no longer important to be Buddha.”  The Stooges are always failing, yet, in the end, it doesn’t matter because, at the end, the people representing the upper-crust are also covered in pie and cake, having yielded to their own, inherent adharma tendencies and joining the food fight.  We are all more Curly, than Moe.

        The pain/humor paradox (we call it slapstick) so prevelant in each Stooges film is trying to open our mind so that wisdom may enter.  Evidence of the Stooges Zen mastery is shown in their wushu and its demonstration in the slapstick.  Some see a poke in the eye, but the initiated see Moe’s masterful application of the  ‘Way of the Spitting Cobra’, followed by Curly’s counter-move, demonstrating ‘The Way of the Intercepting Palm’. The films are replete with examples of dim mak (pressure points) and holds.  

        Still doubting?  Then tell me if this is a kung fu style description from wikipedia or script notes for Curly from an action sequence of a Stooges film: ” …a lot of throat, eye and groin strikes as well as tumbling and falling … a lot of false steps to give the appearance of defenseless and uses a lot of off-balance strikes … waddles, takes very faltering steps and sometimes fall to the ground and lies prone while … a devastating attack is launched at the knees or groin areas of the opponent.’ 

        And this brings us back to our teacher, Kimmo.  In declaring his dislike for The Three Stooges, he challenges us with “UNLESS of course, you’re lowbrow enough to disagree…”.  Thus his assertion about eye pokes is conditional, and does not apply IF you are low-brow (savvy) enough. But if this was too subtle, he offers another opportunity to achieve insight with his own mental imagery eye-poke when he says, “Awesome like finding a turd in your custard.”   Finding a turd in your custard clearly isn’t awesome, yet Kimmo asserts it is. My mind cannot un-see the turd in my custard and so it has been effectively poked, yet Kimmo says this isn’t funny. Yet I laugh at the un-awesome awesomeness.  This is a most sublime paradox!  Jackass is funny and the Three Stooges aren’t?  Paradox! 

        Like Moe, Kimmo is completely serious, offering the funniest mental eye-pokes in his comments with no hint of irony and no sly winks.  But wait…maybe the name is a hint…Kimmo.  KIM-MO.  MO!  Kimmo IS Moe.

        Mind blown.

  16. Gordon McMillan says:

    This isn’t a remake, it’s a tribute. 

    I like slapstick, but not poke in the eye, hammer to head slapstick.  The 3 Stooges were no worse than Jackass (with probably comparable injury stats) and a whole lot better at the comedy shtick. 

    • Kimmo says:

      I laughed my arse off at some of the epically retarded stunts Jackass pulled off, because they. are. actually. doing. that. shit.

      A back tattoo of yourself, or even just snorting wasabi, is so far from a rehearsed and staged poke in the eye it’s on another planet.

      • geobarefoot says:

        Good slapstick requires talent.  Good wasabi snorting requires a nose and wasabi.  

      • OtherMichael says:

        I suppose you prefer Jersey Shore to Citizen Kane?

        Her tan and back tattoo aside, Snooki is really real, and so far from the rehearsed and staged black-and-white low-brow fare proffered by Welles it’s on another planet.

  17. Dave Haskins says:

    This seems like almost as bad an idea as adapting Lolita as a Saturday Morning Cartoon.

  18. ackpht says:

    Which one is Ted Healy?

  19. Warren_Terra says:

    I sort of can’t figure it out. It looks to be well constructed, the characterizations or impressions or whatever you call them are almost eerily well done, and as a kid I enjoyed the reruns … but it’s just somehow totally appalling. Maybe it’s just that the reruns are easier to accept as relics than as an active enterprise. Maybe the realism is too much in sharp focus and in color. But I found myself simultaneously impressed by the fidelity to the original and disgusted by the whole thing.

    • Halloween_Jack says:

      I got the same feeling from Man in the Moon–Jim Carrey obviously worshiped Andy Kaufman, and the impression was eerie at times (if Carrey had put in blue contact lenses, he would have been about dead-on, even though they’re very different physically), but it was sort of an Uncanny Valley-type eerie, not a “Did Andy fake his death” eerie.

  20. Bill Walsh says:

    It kind of feels like the real 3 stooges would actually hit each other but these guys feel like they’re doing a choreograph of classic bit. Which they are.

  21. But enough about the Coalition.

  22. agreenster says:

    I’ve never really taken The Stooges that seriously anyway, so this, to me, looks perfectly fine.  Kind of funny actually.  The singing when he gets pinched in the gonads was actually pretty great.

  23. Rephlex says:

    They should have just gone with a Short Circuit remake, would have killed 4 birds with 1 stone.

  24. tmccartney66 says:

    Yeah, this is a pretty uninspired idea, but quit being such freakin’ snobs.  And anyone who doesn’t at least crack a smile at the gag that starts at 1:17 is a little dead inside.

  25. wil9000 says:

    Cory, this is so far below the bottom of the barrel………

    • Xrayspecs says:

      Agreed. The new “Battleship” trailer wins that award.

      • euansmith says:

        Sententious Voice Over, “In a world at war with it self, two men will face a challenge where a single wrong move can spell total destruction… from the makers of Battleship the Movie and Tiddlywinks IV: The New Beginning, comes… Tic… Tac… Toe…”

        Sound Effects: The bottom of a barrel being scratched from below.

        There is no lower limit to quality.

  26. first that pepper spray thing, now this, what the hell is happening to the usa

  27. OakCliffClavin says:

    It might not be SO awful if it didn’t feel so anachronistic.  
    And shouldn’t making a Three Stooges movie be to comedians as spitting in the pope’s mouth would be to a Catholic?
    Not gonna lie, though.  I chuckled at the trailer.

    But let me join the tenor of many of the comments so far:
    I HATE TO LAUGH!

  28. JIMWICh says:

    This is less than one kajillionth as horrific as the remake of Wings Of Desire.

  29. It loox like alotta luv went in2 it Yay!

  30. traalfaz says:

    I’m more likely to go see this than about 90% of the crap Hollywood puts out.

  31. William George says:

    I snickered. It doesn’t look any dumber than an Austin Powers movie. I’ll probably watch it if I see it while channel surfing in a year or two.

  32. There’s so awful it comes out the other end, and then there’s so awful, it’s just awful. Awful movies are like a box of awful, you never know which kind you end up with.

  33. ROSSINDETROIT says:

    I would consider seeing this if it was anyone but the Farrellys.  I’ve never seen 10 minutes of a Farrelly film that didn’t leave me measurably stupider for the rest of the day.  And with what I have left to work with it’s not worth it.

  34. irksome says:

    It’s a trailer for a GOP debate, what’s the big deal?

  35. Genre Slur says:

         I both disagree with and am disappointed by the various “intelligentsia” salvos launched in this thread. I declare that ‘low-brow’ culture has greater pertinence and timelessness than most-yet-not-all ‘high-brow’ presentations, especially since the occidental Renaissance. I have little respect for credentials, though I will present (for those that do value anything which suggests ‘authority’) that I have degrees in Comparative Religion and Art History . I also make Taoist visual art, acousmatic music, was chosen to be artist in residence for 2001′s High Performance Rodeo (OYR), and have been commissioned to do installation pieces, albeit for locally-restricted (IE one city) galleries. Despite my experience and education, I still assert that there is cultural value to be found in many-but-not-all ‘low-brow’ creations (IE independent/underground/gutter musics, popular commodity packaging/marketing, ‘stupid’ comedy films, et cetera). Some of the comments in this thread remind me of why Nestle/San Pellegrino markets a Bulgari-sponsored version of their water — specifically because culturally misinformed individuals with a sense of social entitlement require phenomena to reaffirm their reality model. The appearance of luxury and refinement is all that is required, even if plebeians are actually consuming the same product.
         To sum up, I’ll take most of the Wayans brothers CV over two-thirds of von Triers oeuvre.
    Then again, there seems to be no ‘accounting’ for taste, so I’ll leave it to Robt. Williams to provide clarification…
    MULTI-MODEL AGNOSTICISM OR BUST!

    • C W says:

      “I declare that ‘low-brow’ culture has greater pertinence and timelessness than most-yet-not-all ‘high-brow’ presentations, especially since the occidental Renaissance”

      Yes, you eat at Applebees and Olive Garden and hate “culture” and craft. Why should we care about your onanistic preference for crass commercialism and mass market movies?

      Yes, you’re soooo much better because you appreciate hollywood blockbusters, Transformers tittysplosion 3D, Avatar, whatever.

      • Genre Slur says:

        C W, thank you for your response. I  will have to look up Applebees (I have not seen it in Canada), and I unfortunately know the Olive Garden.
             Yet I am rather fond of culture and craft, and I do not prefer the Spectacle. As you can see I specifically prefer Taoist art (regardless of medium), and acousmatic compositions. I have not seen Transformers, I dislike 3D (excepting the Creature from the Black Lagoon, part II), I have yet to see Avatar (though I like Piranha and Aliens), and ‘whatever’ really sums up the ‘flavour’ and ‘timbre’ of your response. I like it! Lo-brow, as it were :)

      • kringlebertfistyebuns says:

        I’m sorry…could you repeat all that?  I can barely hear your bons mots down here in the gutter with the rest of the plebs.  The human voice, it turns out, carries terribly from such a high horse.

      • EH says:

        Meanwhile, someone is telling themselves that Train is more underground than Coldplay.

    • jimh says:

      Superior person is disappointed.

      I believe most of the the objections are not to “low-brow” culture per se, but to Hollywood remakes that fail to improve upon, and actually sully the memory of, the original work. I was never a huge “Stooges” fan, but I’ll take the original over this fresh version any day. It just proves that Hollywood can’t even make an original stupid movie any more.

      By the by, I find your comment to be more condescending and pretentious than most-but-not-all internet comments. I find it hilarious that you were defending a Farrelly Bros. movie, and felt it necessary to provide your credentials in the process.

      • Genre Slur says:

        Thank you! I also find it funny that I have yet to see a Farrelly Bros. movie.
              I appreciate your point regarding remakes. I tend to find such pieces disappointing, generally. The recent ‘imagining’ of Carpenter’s The Thing is a fitting example — as his version (I feel) really added metaphorical resonance (while stripping the dialogue) of the original, while the third version especially pleaded (via marketing) to fans of the second version (as well as to fans of the story), then proceeded to produce a paint-by-numbers action job. Overall, Hollywood remakes mosdef don’t fare well, in light of the historical tendency for artists to creatively ‘re-imagine’ influences, to the benefit of the audience.
             I am glad that you found my comment pretentious and condescending. Given the comments I was responding to, I hope you appreciate the satire. I didn’t have the time to go into bibliographical detail, yet I felt it would have emboldened the effort.
             If you have any movie recommendations I would appreciate receiving them!

        • jimh says:

          I have lots of movie recommendations, but if you want to watch a Farrelly Brothers movie I’d recommend watching “There’s Something About Mary” long before you pay good money to see a 90-minute Moe Howard impersonation.

  36. fjsr says:

    I actually have been waiting for this movie for very long time. The New Yorker profiled this project way back in 2004. At that time they were trying to convince Russell Crowe to be Moe; that was their top choice. The article itself was interesting, and showed some real thinking by the Farrellis about the artistic challenges of the project. 

    After looking at the trailer I submit to you that this will be, at some point in the near future, a huge box office success. Not likely Aquaman level but still extremely well attended. 

    I am there! 

  37. BadIdeaSociety says:

    If this is the bottom of the barrel, count me on the side of barrel scrapping. I laughed. Will Sasso is a fantastic Curly and the was an unwanted remake (from me) but I will be going to see it.

  38. Mister44 says:

    I LOVE Will Sasso. This COULD even work as a reboot of the Three Stooges. Most likely it will be a 90 min crapfest-a-polooza.

  39. KBert says:

    ‘Bout time… I’d forgotten I’ve been really waiting for this!

  40. MrEricSir says:

    I’ll wait for the Rifftrax.

  41. foobar says:

    Er, why?

    If you want to watch the three stooges, why not just watch the three stooges.

    • microdot says:

      I was always a stooges fan…but the stooges were jewish boys and they worked like dogs for years in the comedy mines of vaudeville and short films. to create this, using their personas morphed into a sloppily stitched together unoriginal pastiche stealing from the best comedies of the last 30 years to try to create a commercial framework to exploit the obvious exploitative theft of the real stooges personas is pretty low.
      The nun aspect insults the real heritage of the Howard bros…but more than that…that’s the framework for the Blues Bros….
      Too bad, people will watch this and never know the real painful reality of the lives of the Howard Bros. Better go and dig up some Ted Healy shorts if you can.
      Curly had a pretty amazing little vaudeville routine before he joined his brothers…Shemp…what about Shemp? 
      I will always nyuk to the original stooges, but for me, so much of my appreciation is my love of black and white short films and the history of american vaudeville in the cheap stinking dives on 2nd Ave…the sweat of these guys who became comedians and worked like a factory dog at perfecting their craft…really broke bones on stage to get a laugh.

  42. sam1148 says:

    The Flintstones age actually came after the Jetson’s.

    They were a “modern” stone age family.

    After the sprocket/cog corporate wars. The earth was left in ruins. No more flying cars, no more high rise apartments.

    All Digital Media was lost..music, books, education texts. What remained was hard copy print films, books and LPs. Forgotten in the vaults of ground based libraries.

    Using that media which did not require specialized players the ground dwellers rebuilt a society based on the 50′s and 60′s decades of America. LP/Film Movies/and hard copy books were the template to imitate cultures and styles.

    Appliances were simulated using escaped bio engineered animals—and trained to preform specific tasks.

    This is how that started: “I got a Kindle”

    Nothing to do with Three Stooges..but that’s a remake I’d like to see.

  43. Brian Bara says:

    I’ve already blogged that I think this movie will stink worse than a Halloween pumpkin at Thanksgiving.

  44. Ambiguity says:

    I’ve never really been a fan of slapstick — so I probably lack the discernment of an aficionado   — but this doesn’t look all that much different than the original.

    • ackpht says:

      Seriously? Not much different? The originals were filmed 70+ years ago.

      Some things that were taboo then are OK for the screen now, and some things that were OK then are taboo now.

      Same premise, but different slang, different cultural references, different values, different people.

      Lowbrow, soitenly. But not the same. Couldn’t be.

  45. Guest says:

    Anyone who watches this movie, deserves to.

  46. knoxblox says:

    Lets’s see here…those godawful lowbrow comic writers. How about Shakespeare?

    Henry IV III, iii, 93-95

    Flalstaff speaking of his missing “copper ring”….think of your butt.

    Antony and Cleopatra I, ii,56-59

    ‘Not in my husband’s “nose”‘.    A previous version of “that’s not my belly button” replied to by “that’s not my finger either”.

    And also…The Taming of the Shrew. II, i 213-223

    “What with my tongue in your taile…”

  47. pipenta says:

    I really loved the Stooges when I was a kid. (Mom, of course hated them.) Laurel & Hardy weren’t as much fun and Abbott & Costello seemed downright mean, and the Marx Brothers didn’t get much play on kiddie TV at least not on the NY stations way back when. The Stooges were sweet, like pit bull puppies.

    I especially loved it when they played with their food. Pancakes, chowder, you name it, mealtimes with the Stooges was better for your health than watching Paula Dean and far less disgusting than Guy Fieri.And I might go see this. Not going to be first into the theater, mind you. I’ll let some suckers, er, other folks see it first and see how they fare.

  48. Ceronomus says:

    There was a biopic about a decade ago…a really good one actually.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0214698/

  49. oohShiny says:

    The worst part is that you just know this is perfectly true to the original… pretty good likenesses too O_O

  50. Love the Farrely Brothers, love Will Sasso, I’ll go see it. 

  51. Bass Trumbo says:

    I actually think this looks kind of promising. Low brow? Yeah maybe, but I don’t care what it is if its done *well*. The cast looked pretty spot on and, as was mentioned previously, this seems somehow much less insultingly stupid than any “scary movie” iteration. 

  52. Chevan says:

    It will sully the  memory of the originals? Really?

    Bull. Shit.

    Nobody is going to think less of the originals because of this movie. Just look at this thread; the existence of this movie isn’t making people stop liking the previous 3 Stooges films or making them forget they existed. If anything, it’s reminding people of how much they enjoyed the originals.

    Let’s break it down. Say the movie is bad. People go to the theater, people watch the film, and they’re either intrigued by the film and want to see more 3 Stooges or they leave it off. If they seek out more, then the 3 Stooges have another convert. If they don’t seek out more, that’s no different than if the movie hadn’t been made at all, because if hadn’t come out NOBODY would become a new fan.

    Maybe if this movie were better, you’d have more people turning to the franchise, looking to the old shorts for more Stooge action. But take this as an opportunity to evangelize. If somebody has a negative reaction to the movie, point them to the old shorts, saying, “Hey, the old stuff was golden, I think you should give it a try.” If they were at all open to being a 3 Stooges fan, that will work. And if they still don’t like it, they probably were never going to be a fan no matter how good the new movie was.

    Maybe the new film could be better, maybe it will be bad. But it will be bad on its own, just like any other film in a franchise. It won’t destroy your memories, your enjoyment of the originals. It won’t sneak into your homes and break your DVDs and VHS tapes. You will always have the originals to turn to.

    Saying this will sully the memory is just ridiculous.

    For comparison, just look at some contemporary franchises with poor sequels. Nobody thinks worse of the original 3 Star Wars movies because the prequels were crap. People still praise The Matrix while deriding the sequels.

    • jimh says:

      Okay, maybe I was hyperbolic with that comment- I don’t personally hold the Three Stooges as particularly sacred. I’m just saying that they were the best at doing what they did.

      Sequels are a different story. I’m talking about remaking successful film franchises because they have a built-in hook. Considering all of the brilliant creative minds that make up the MP industry, I don’t think it’s too much to ask that they come up with some new material once in a while. Doing remakes just screams, “we got nuthin”!

      • Chevan says:

        I believe everything I wrote applies just as much to remakes as it does to sequels.

        Also, I’m not willing to write something off sight-unseen just because it’s a remake. There have been some truly fantastic remakes in the history of movies. If we didn’t remake movies, we wouldn’t have (to name a few) the The Fly (80s), The Thing (80s), Scarface (80s), Ocean’s 11 (00s), Invasion of the Body Snatchers (70s), and the list goes on.

        Yeah, there have been bad remakes. But there have also been remakes that were just as good as, or completely surpassed, the film they were based on.

        My point is that we should let each movie, sequel or remake, stand on its own. If it fails, we will always have the original. If it succeeds, we’ve gained another wonderful movie.

  53. Antinous / Moderator says:

    Let me just get this over with:

    Anyone who doesn’t like this trailer is a Nazi, and Cory is Hitler for writing this post!  Can we relax now?

  54. rtresco says:

    This will be big in France. Avatar-big.

  55. coffee100 says:

    How well do these remakes go?  One word:  Underdog

  56. Palomino says:

    “Ogodogodogod” Too funny Cory. 
    I agree, UNHOLYWOOD.  

    And that’s why The Little Rascals (a.k.a, slapping tots) received horrible reviews, 5 out of 10, basically an “F”. 

  57. kingzilch says:

    I love how outraged people are getting, as if some fly-by-night fast buck merchant is pissing on the memory of a highbrow masterpiece.  Face it people, you knew this would happen eventually, and if it has to happen it might as well be the Farrelly Brothers.

  58. lsamsa says:

    My word…there certainly is an extreme amount of ‘hot air’ emanating from many of the comments here.

  59. My 10c: clearly this is a dreadful idea because three actors the stooges. 

    BUT the trailer was mostly funny.

    BUT I predict that that trailer contains 90% of the scenes that would make me laugh in the actual movie.  So I don’t have to see it now.

  60. librtee_dot_com says:

    So, what happens when we have re-treat and rehashed every last corner of our American cultural nostalgia? Where will the bankrupt idea people get their ideas from when they are done sucking, like a vampire, the whole history of our collective consciousness?

    Fuck. Fuck. I just realized the answer…

    Casablanca / Citizen Kane

  61. digi_owl says:

    The eye poking laugh effect could be a sympathy short circuit, as the moment after the poke itself your reminded that this is a gag show and so nobody actually got hurt. Then again, the best parts may be stuff like the lobster in the pants where nothing explicit is shown.

  62. gijoel says:

    I didn’t so much as snicker until Snooki got poked in the eye. Then I laughed my tits off. Am I evil?

  63. adamnvillani says:

    “Sexy Nun” may be a tired, easy gag, but Lord Almighty, that is one sexy nun (the one in the bathing suit, not the one played by Larry David).

  64. Deidzoeb says:

    Absolute blasphemy, but it actually looks funny. Good to see Sean Hayes getting work.

  65. journey46 says:

    If America had been truly interested in winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi’s we would have given them 24/7 electricity and air conditioned movie theaters showing  non-stop 3 Stooges flicks and Warner Brothers cartoons.

    Slapstick violence can be funny, profitable and a unite a nation when done correctly.

    I recommend Congress shelve politics for 2 weeks and watch some of these great old comedies to remind them that losing their sense of humor is disasterous to our nation.

  66. jimkirk says:

    For the biopic of the Three Stooges, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0214698/, and worth a watch.

  67. Hoocareswhadithink says:

    It’s BRILLIANT

  68. rrh says:

    Since the Farrelly brothers have been set on making this for so long, we can at least be assured they’re doing it because they like the Three Stooges, rather than just cashing in on the name, like some remakes/reboots/reimaginings produced lately.

  69. llamaspit says:

    I hope the DVD will have a trailer of the first pitch meeting. Or the auditions.

  70. byronne says:

    Look out ‘Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2′! Your days as Kings of the Crap are numbered!

  71. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

  72. tsa says:

    Movies that are supposed to be funny are not funny. I like humor you don’t have to laugh about.

    • EH says:

      Yeah, like that one part at 5:18:37 in Warhol’s “Empire.” I was busting a gut, but only inside because I didn’t want to do it wrong.

  73. teapot says:

    Fox Exec:
    “I know.. let’s permanently alienate existing Three Stooges fans by including some noisy, talentless ‘reality’ TV idiot in the cast!”

    Yes Men:
    “Great, idea, boss!”

  74. Dara Grey says:

    Given all the “ads inserted before the actual video” annoyance that YouTube is doing these days., it took me until the end of this trailer to realize that this was the actual video clip and not an annoying ad inserted before whatever it was you really wanted us to watch. >.<

  75. z7q2 says:

    I think they missed an opportunity here. Roger Rabbit had an interesting gig for a few years getting shorts attached to other movies, I think they could do something similar with new Three Stooges shorts. Make a series of good 15-20 minute shorts and attach them to other movies a few times a year. I think this would work better than trying to start a movie franchise.

  76. donovan acree says:

    Same as it ever was. You either love the Stooges or you hate em.

  77. privatedick says:

    I wanted to hate it, but I ended up  laughing out loud. That’s the Stooges for you. BTW, serious criticism of them praises their puncturing of societal class barriers and pretensions.

  78. Jellodyne says:

    Lowbrow remake of lowbrow material, works for me. You literally can not get stupider than the original Three Stooges. I mean that in a good way, or at least in a not insulting way. The bottom of the barrel was their nothing less than their goal, and they had fun there.

    Personally I’d take any one Buster Keaton film in exchange for the entire body of work from the Three Stooges, but I see no reason to fault someone for enjoying stupid slapstick.

  79. Uncle Geo says:

    Kinda the same reason bands need to always think twice before doing a Beatles cover. You are never going to be that good and you WILL be compared so you’re doomed before you begin.

    At least in music it’s easier to “make it your own”.

  80. Donald Petersen says:

    I wasn’t really looking forward to this movie.  I always enjoyed the Stooges, and I figured anyone trying to make a Stooges movie that wasn’t an actual biopic wouldn’t be able to avoid fucking it up, however sincerely they wanted to honor the memories of the originals. And, to be honest, I was more than a little intrigued by the prospect of Benicio del Toro as Moe, Sean Penn as Larry, and Jim Carrey as Curly… that would have been at least briefly interesting.

    But y’know what, I did laugh out loud at bits of this trailer, and for exactly the same reasons I laughed at the old Stooges’ gags… ’cause it’s the same stuff, and it appears to be done just about as well.  I never would have thought of Sean Hayes as Larry, but now I just want to see more of it.  I kinda doubt I’ll see this in a theater, but eventually I do want to see it.  Might end up being the first Farrelly Bros movie that I really like.

    Or, it’s possible that all the good gags ended up in the trailer, just like There’s Something About Mary.  But I’ll take that gamble at this point.

    I grew up in a trailer park, and I like Stooge comedy, and I’m ashamed of neither.

  81. ddh819 says:

    man, lot of comments for a 3 stooges remake

Leave a Reply