This movie is like a laundry list of everything that can go wrong with a comedy. It is rife with unfunny situations, stultifying attempts at sincerity, overbearing and obnoxious performances, and ridiculous characters. Worse, it is stocked with actors who routinely do not fit their characters, causing the manufactured sense of this product to waft skyward like the polyurethane stench of a shallow kiddie pool.
While it is certainly possible that the world of kids entertainers is fertile ground for a comedy, this movie just isn't it. For some reason the screenwriter thinks that it is comedy gold to present a situation in which there are a bunch of kids waiting expectantly for something, and then an adult says something naughty. This gag is used numerous times throughout the film, and it is never creative or funny. Most of the other scenes consist of Norton spouting some New Age nonsense that isn't funny because it's meant to be funny, not sincere; or Robin Williams acting manic. Unfortunately after about 20 years of being manic Robin Williams, the routine's a little stale.
There is another adult-oriented movie about childrens' entertainers called "Shakes the Clown" that succeeds where this one fails precisely because that movie has the decency to wallow in its own crassness. Robin Williams appears in both movies; given the general lack of quality of his comedy as his years have progressed, it should not be surprising that "Shakes" is his better performance. Makes one wonder about the wisdom of giving up cocaine. I mean, I'm glad for his health that he's off the pipe, but he used to be funny. Remember Mork?
"Smoochie" never finds its tone, and thus fails as entertainment. I cannot think of a single film that has successfully blended adult situations, juvenile humor, feigned sincerity about the welfare of children, and violence. Possibly because there is no worthwhile story that would require such a recipe. In attempting to appeal to every demographic, every focus group, "Smoochie" succeds admirably in being a thoroughly mediocre and forgettable film in all respects.
Of the movie's many shortcomings, I must admit one in particular bothers me. Henry Rollins should have gotten the role as Spinner. I don't say this because I believe Rollins is a particularly good actor; the point is that the role required someone who was believable as a psychotic, punch-drunk retired boxer. Rollins has the energy and focus to deliver such a character. The guy they got just doesn't. He fails to take over his scenes, which is what a manic character is supposed to do - how can you be manic and be secondary in your scenes? Rollins tells a great story about how he lost this role by being too enthusiastic about it - that story is much funnier than anything in this fiasco.
Through the entire running time of this movie I encountered two jokes that made me chuckle: the stepfather song and a one-liner by a thug about the differences between law enforcement and mob violence. The rest is unbearable. Don't suffer my fate. Rent "Shakes the Clown" instead.
While it is certainly possible that the world of kids entertainers is fertile ground for a comedy, this movie just isn't it. For some reason the screenwriter thinks that it is comedy gold to present a situation in which there are a bunch of kids waiting expectantly for something, and then an adult says something naughty. This gag is used numerous times throughout the film, and it is never creative or funny. Most of the other scenes consist of Norton spouting some New Age nonsense that isn't funny because it's meant to be funny, not sincere; or Robin Williams acting manic. Unfortunately after about 20 years of being manic Robin Williams, the routine's a little stale.
There is another adult-oriented movie about childrens' entertainers called "Shakes the Clown" that succeeds where this one fails precisely because that movie has the decency to wallow in its own crassness. Robin Williams appears in both movies; given the general lack of quality of his comedy as his years have progressed, it should not be surprising that "Shakes" is his better performance. Makes one wonder about the wisdom of giving up cocaine. I mean, I'm glad for his health that he's off the pipe, but he used to be funny. Remember Mork?
"Smoochie" never finds its tone, and thus fails as entertainment. I cannot think of a single film that has successfully blended adult situations, juvenile humor, feigned sincerity about the welfare of children, and violence. Possibly because there is no worthwhile story that would require such a recipe. In attempting to appeal to every demographic, every focus group, "Smoochie" succeds admirably in being a thoroughly mediocre and forgettable film in all respects.
Of the movie's many shortcomings, I must admit one in particular bothers me. Henry Rollins should have gotten the role as Spinner. I don't say this because I believe Rollins is a particularly good actor; the point is that the role required someone who was believable as a psychotic, punch-drunk retired boxer. Rollins has the energy and focus to deliver such a character. The guy they got just doesn't. He fails to take over his scenes, which is what a manic character is supposed to do - how can you be manic and be secondary in your scenes? Rollins tells a great story about how he lost this role by being too enthusiastic about it - that story is much funnier than anything in this fiasco.
Through the entire running time of this movie I encountered two jokes that made me chuckle: the stepfather song and a one-liner by a thug about the differences between law enforcement and mob violence. The rest is unbearable. Don't suffer my fate. Rent "Shakes the Clown" instead.
