elshikh4
What do you call a guy who does his job, makes what's needed, and sometimes, even if few, has his moments? I call him "good guy". Now this movie does its job, makes what's needed, and sometimes, even if few, has its moments? Well, I call it "good movie" ! This is nothing but a Hollywood product to entertain. And it is so frank about its identity. Many hated, cursed, and banned it. The main reason was being formulaic. However, it isn't a big mistake in my book, as long as that formula is filled with new, or amusing, stuff.Concerning "new" this time; Forget It ! It's a Not-a-kids-person who has to take-care-of-kids, and a buddy-comedy braided together. And so, you get the usual : A man who discovers that he has children, a very important deal that the leads want to make though kids got in the way, 2 friends disagree then make up, and – you bet – a climax where the working father has to prefer his family on his work (at least 100 American comic movies had that as a climax in the past 10 years alone!). Although none of that was new, it managed to be catchy and diverting. Since I laughed, then it worked. Enough defense I suppose !The comedy was so light, some moments did burst laughs. The soundtrack was mostly hilarious, with the right irony in the right situation just about every time. Nevertheless, the movie wasn't all *right* to tell you the truth ! Speaking about the wrongness leads naturally to the editing, Ahhhh the editing ! Torturing has to be a very good word to describe it. In the first 2 thirds I couldn't relish anything. It was crazily speedy, as if someone was pressing fast-forward sickeningly. Did you see how some moments were played that way? I don't know why to delay a fun moment like burning accidentally the old scout's statue, showing it as a swift flashback instead ??!! That weirdly miscarried what could have been the movie's biggest laugh ! Anyhow, I couldn't stand that "long trailer of a movie" technique. Its only logical reason could be a plan to shortening the movie from the producers' side. Unfair plan, shortening and producers then ! Robin Williams is good in anything. However, I positively believe that most of his choices don't deserve his talent. Every time I aspire to his next movie, thinking it the movie to express his uniqueness, to be multifariously disappointed. An old-fashioned Disney family comedy, such as this, was too easy for him or lower than his creative capacities. It was like asking David Copperfield to bring a rabbit out of a hat ! Moreover, face the fact : John Travolta wasn't so fit as the friend (Hated the hair, HATED IT!). Despite that he did his usual, and it wasn't bad, it proved, once more, that comedy isn't his tone. He doesn't have it to be an original comedian. He "acts" funny, with slight, very slight, original stuff; that's away from super. All the time I was wishing for (Billy Crystal) in that role. God, with (Crystal), the interplay, along with the comedy, would have been heavenly ! Couple of moments belonged to the toilet humor (or only the toilet !). They represented the movie's pure ugliness. I don't know who could enjoy such so-called humor ?! Sometimes you enjoy things, but don't enjoy seeing them. To make it clear; I enjoy being in the bathroom, but not seeing that cinematically, whether filmed me or others (and I'm not talking about taking a shower for sure !).The 2 kids didn't have anything to do. They were toys thrown around, being kids in the worst, most ignored, sense. Actually, the drama was unceasingly overshadowed or diluted. Seriousness was being fast-forwarded as well, whether by being put in a montage, or cutting it in the movie's distinct hysterical way ! A moment like seeing Williams's kid riding the bicycle for the first time should have been memorable, but this movie paid more attention to hearing the same kid farting on the toilet seat ! The whole line of "make me a robot to play with my kid" was between provocatively fabricated and utterly awful. OK, Williams could have made it on his own (He didn't need Travolta to be able of putting the tea cup on his lips !!). Then what kind of stupid emotional situation was produced by his fall? The kid had a psychological shock there, instead of simply laughing for god's sake ??! I can say, with great confidence, that this sequence will live long as a bizarrely idiot piece of drama ! I loved how the producers intended to fill the empty spaces with a list of cameos. Though they weren't special cameos, rather forgettable. The sole one that I'll personally remember is Ann-Margaret's. Ohh, believe it or not, she's still sexy (as for me, I can't believe it yet !).(Old Dogs) is a deal movie, where you smell the "deal" more than the "movie". It's predictable, flighty,.. however entertaining too. An old chestnut yes, but not entirely a dog's breakfast. It hits and misses, hits and misses, well, in the final outcome, it hits more.
