|
Review: 'For Richer or Poorer' is painfully poor
December 19, 1997
Web posted at: 11:15 p.m. EST (0415 GMT)From Reviewer Paul Tatara
One of my best friends, who worked on the new Tim Allen/Kirstie Alley movie, "For Richer or Poorer," recently told me about an incredible event that occurred during filming. A great deal of the story (which is supposedly the comic flip side of "Witness") takes place on an "Amish" farm outside of New York (Baltimore in real life), so there were a lot of animals running around the location.
One day when no one was looking, a sneaky dog was able to quickly lunge and sink his teeth into an unfortunate chicken's neck, promptly killing it. A duck that was standing nearby saw the whole thing take place, rocked on its little webbed feet, and flipped onto its back. It had fainted. The animal wrangler had to give it mouth-to-beak to revive it.
I didn't faint while watching "For Richer or Poorer," but I sure would have welcomed a sudden blackout. Or maybe getting taken out by a collie. The only reason I mention the duck anecdote is because it's about 10 times funnier than anything that happens in the actual movie. Note to the producers -- You know you're in trouble when a water fowl with a weak constitution can generate more legitimate laughs than your multimillion-dollar star.
This movie is woefully, horribly, painfully unamusing. It's like one of those "Saturday Night Live" skits that you know is dying after about 90 seconds, then you have to sit there and watch, embarrassed, while the whole awful thing unfolds before you. Pad that sensation out to movie length, insert "jokes" about imbecilic city folks having to milk cows and plow fields, and you've got yourself "For Richer or Poorer."
It's a movie that's designed for unquestioning TV-zombies who immediately bust a gut over every gesture and grunt Tim Allen makes, a mindset that's completely alien to yours truly. Now, I know them are fightin' words in lots of homes around this fine country of ours, so I'll give you a specific reason why I find Allen's shtick to be thoroughly anti-comical: he's not funny.
For Richer or Poorer 1.5M/23 sec./320x240
808K/23 sec./160x120
QuickTime movieThat oughta do it.
Allen is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of the comic-nist party. His performance in "For Richer or Poorer" consists almost entirely of him wildly gritting his teeth and looking askance at Alley whenever she says something idiotic. It's like a spit take, except that Allen isn't drinking anything, so he doesn't spit. He also sounds like he's completely unconvinced of the worthiness of the lines he's delivering, as if the lack of humor in the script was something to be endured for the paycheck, rather than corrected for the sake of the audience.
This is what you eventually get when you make one-too-many (two too many?) movies starring a man who's built a career out of suggesting that women are too stupid to use screwdrivers. At long last, has he no decency?
Speaking of stupid women, let's get around to the character written for poor Kirstie Alley, who deserves a lot better than this (and gets it in the recently released "Deconstructing Harry"). Not that it matters, but Allen and Alley play a feuding, super-rich couple who have to high-tail it from the IRS when it's discovered that they owe millions of dollars in back taxes. They decide to pretend to be distant cousins of an (evidently just as stupid) Amish clan, and hide out on the farm until the heat is off.
For Richer or Poorer
The problem is that Alley, in particular, is too hoity to put up with these simple, hard-working people. Hilarity ensues as she whines, cries, and breaks her nails while being forced to learn needlepoint, pound the dirt out of rugs, and, yes, milk cows. She and Allen get very tired and dirty, which is, you know, funny. Because they don't normally get tired and dirty. Get it?
I should point out that Bryan Spicer, who also brought us the highly memorable "McHale's Navy," directed this one, and I honestly question whether he has the slightest idea what he's doing.
As I've already stated, Allen grits his teeth and looks askance. Or askew, depending on the situation. Here's an example of the kind of verbal humor that's been concocted by screenwriters Jana Howington and Steve Lukanic (this took two people, in case you're not counting): When Allen, disguised as the Amish cousin, sits down for dinner and is asked to say grace, he's momentarily at a loss. Then he says, "Good food, good meat. Good God, let's eat." I said this at the Thanksgiving table when I was 9 YEARS OLD!
And it wasn't funny then.
Guess what the Amish people do when Allen says this. They look questioningly at each other. Some askew, some askance. The Amish, of course, are basically unaffected folks who wear funny clothes and have funny beards and they get up way too early in the morning for Allen and Alley, who like to sleep in because they're rich. It's funny when rich people have to wake up before they've gotten enough sleep. If you think about it.
When all is said and done, the most Amish thing about "For Richer or Poorer" is that it eventually drove me buggy.
"For Richer or Poorer" contains no nudity, maybe a couple words of bad language, and dialogue that would offend any thinking being, child or otherwise. Amish people are lucky in that there's no chance they'll be attending. PG-13. 122 minutes. That's right -- this thing is two hours long!
Related sites:
Note: Pages will open in a new browser windowExternal sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.
|
Sound off on our message boards You said it... |
|
© 1997 Cable News Network, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.