Tyler_Durden

Normally I wouldn't care to start a thread on a film like this, but Ebert's review got me thinking, and not just about the man's obvious (and humorous) obsession with mammaries: is it really a bad thing for a comedy, especially one of the romantic kind, to deviate from generally accepted formula?

I pose this question because Ebert praised Punch-Drunk Love, which has widely been commended for "shaking up" a commonly formulaic genre. I haven't seen "Punch-Drunk" but wonder why Ebert was so dissatisfied by the fact that Bringing Down The House ends differently than he expected. Is it only because he wanted the leading man to "win the boobies", or does he think these types of films, when not directed by an obvious genius like PTA and when the plotline itself isn't highly original, as it, to the best of my knowledge, is in Punch-Drunk Love, to end exactly according to the audience's expectations?

Are left-field twists and resolutions only expected and, indeed, permitted, in films with a distinct visual flair and a screenplay a world apart from the usual fluff? I'm not trying to defend Bringing Down The House as I haven't seen it (nor would I really care to), but reading Ebert's review I first got the sense that he was making ironic remarks about things in the movie being "all wrong", but in the end it seemed like he actually wanted a convoluted, predictable ending.

Shouldn't we be grateful for little surprises even in films that don't loudly proclaim their uniqueness with impressionistic colors and jump-cut editing?

Patman

Sometimes I think Ebert has seen too many movies, and has the genre cliches ingrained in his brain, so when films go counter to his intuition and expectations, his brain can't quite handle it, and he just blusters through his reviews nowadays.

GuessWho

I think Ebert sees PDL as a movie that's offbeat from beginning to end and sets a consistent tone throughout.

On the contrary, BDTH follows formula 95% of the time, so to have a "different" ending is jarring and seems out of place.

rabbit77

Yeah, he didn't think this way before. In his Splash review 19 years ago (just outside the sun-times database range) he complains that it would have been more inventive to have seen John Candy play Tom Hank's role instead of his brother (perhaps vicarious wishing on Ebert's part).

sundog

I too was a mite perplexed by his review. But he rips into the ex-wife character (her non-existance) quite a bit, right? I think he's just lamenting the fact that the last hope of pleasure from this movie (Latifah and Martin hooking up) gets squashed, essentially wasted on a cardboard character (the ex-wife).

p.s. P.T. Anderson an obvious genius? Hardly. Better than average with potential? Yes.

Groucho

I'd post more on this subject, but I've got POS.

GuessWho

To my point above... this would again be an example of a movie going against type from beginning to end. Ebert just doesn't seem to like the sudden switch from formula to non-formula in the final minutes of a film. Probably feels more like a bait & switch than a payoff.

Seantn

I always thought POS was "piece of ****". Anyone else think this? As in, "My car is a POS", or "Can't talk right now, my parents are POS!"

audrey

I haven’t seen the movie in question, but in general terms I agree that it can be jarring and unsatisfying to play against audience expectations---especially in a lighthearted comedy. In a thriller, people want to be surprised; it’s effective to begin with a well-worn plot, and then just when the audience has settled in, to take off in a radically different and unexpected direction. Formula comedy, however, is like a 12 bar blues tune--once the plot is set in motion, the audience can hum along; the song has to end on the tonic, otherwise there’s no feeling of resolution.

No doubt there are examples of effective formula comedy that turn against the expected clichés late in the game (though no come to mind at this moment), but I suspect this approach takes considerable skill to pull off.

Pants

I think that you're absolutely right.

Also Ebert probably feels, and I totally agree, that the filmmakers chose the ending not to be "quirky", "different", or "cleverly subversive of genre precepts", but rather as a "dodge" around the issue of pairing Stever Martin (the handsome white male lead) w/ a black woman. The filmmakers (perhaps wrongly, perhaps not) feared this wouldn't fly w/ the everyday audiences this film was aiming to attract.

It's easy for the pu**y studios to dodge criticism and potential audience discomfort by pairing her w/ the comic relief Jew character, and let "Handsome Steve" stick w/ his wasp-y ways.

I'll bet $100 that they filmed the ending two ways and the one we got tested the best.

Tyler_Durden

It had a third meaning in the (crappy) movie The 51st State (or "Formula 51" for you Americans), but I dare not spoil what it meant there...

As to a sudden shift in tone in a third act, I love Adaptation's treatise on this tendency that plagues many Hollywood movies. It was exactly what can be expected in your average movie, but was also exactly the opposite of what was expected in that particular movie. Those of you who've seen it know what I'm talking about, so I dare not say more on that either.

I guess it's reasonable to argue that a movie devoid of originality for most of its duration that pulls an unexpected "surprise" at the end is only using it as a last straw to go out with a band instead of the whimper it deserves.

LBPound

I use the word "bitch" after some hesitation, to make a point: The movie is all about different ethnic styles of speech. It uses the B-word constantly (along, of course, with lots of "hos"), and I argue that since the MPAA rates the "language" PG-13, I can use it in a review. You kids under 13 who are reading this better be getting parental guidance from a POS.

I'd like to see them put THAT in the newspaper ads!