Those 'Fockers' Stole My Money!

by Brett Parker

There are certain movies that leave room for sequels to be made and others that leave moviegoers scratching their heads as to how their premise could possibly live on from its self-contained state. Back in 2000, no one could’ve possibly guessed that a sequel could be made to the hit romp Meet the Parents. It was a likeable enough comedy, one that played upon anxieties and awkward feelings over meeting a loved one’s family. As the neurotic nurse Ben Stiller clashed with Robert De Niro in the form of his sweet girlfriend’s totalitarian father, madcap hijinks and manic slapstick put domestic formalities through the ringer. Yet the film had an undeniable American appeal, for almost every American can relate to the tension and peculiarities of interacting with another suburban family. It was a slight comedy, but cherished for its poppy and light-hearted appeal. It rung every laugh it possibly could out of its clever social angle.

The film’s shrewd use of Stiller’s awkwardness and De Niro’s self-kidding seriousness generated big bucks at the box office, leading Studio Executives to demand a sequel, creative juices be damned! This eventually led to Meet the Fockers, an inferior yet engaging sequel that threw De Niro in the whimsical and zany clutches of Dustin Hoffman and Barbara Streisand as Stiller’s oddball parents. It almost goes without saying that the sequel was less-than-inspired from the first time around, but our attention was sustained from the quirky jolts Hoffman and Streisand added to their roles. Not only was Fockers another hit, but it also became surprisingly cherished in hindsight from the moviegoing public. Countless suburbanites could relate to the plights of in-laws co-mingling and trying to function as one dysfunctional unit. The Meet the Parents series had emerged as a fun-house mirror of comic release anxiety for domestic anxieties.

Fockers box office run also hit the jackpot, leading to the announcement of yet another sequel. This announcement not only caused intelligent moviegoers to groan with dread but even the Fockers most devoted fans to scratch their heads. How could you possibly squeeze any more comic juice out of a worn-down premise? Are there any more stories to tell? Any gags that might’ve gone overlooked? When the title of the new film was revealed to be Little Fockers, it became instantly assumed that the film would deal with Stiller and De Niro tackling the world of child rearing. A little bit of hope was sensed, for Stiller and De Niro clashing over parenting methods was bound to produce….something.

As it turns out, Little Fockers has little interest in the subject of raising children. Its real aim is to revel in sitcom clichés of the lowest order. It’s a frivolous, laughless trudge in search of any kind of comic inspiration. To call the film’s gags unfunny and mind-numbing would be an understatement. The saddest sight is seeing such a talented cast sleepwalking through tired roles with such low energy. You can literally see them both yearning for and deeply regretting their apparent paydays. If the film does one thing effectively, it’s to demonstrate the epitome of shameless, money-grubbing sequel-making in all its bare essence.

The new sequel further follows the misadventures of the Fockers clan, in which trusty Nurse Greg Focker (Stiller) is trying to raise his own family with his wife Pam (Teri Polo). This time around, they’ve welcomed the addition of twins: the intelligent Samantha (Daisy Tahan) and the goofy Henry (Colin Baiocchi). While trying to raise their youngsters, they are constantly under the watchful eye of Jack Byrnes (De Niro), Pam’s overprotective father who tries to impose his retired CIA tactics on his family life. This time around, Jack’s health appears to be fading and he is hoping Greg fully has what it takes to be the new main patriarch of the family.

Greg wants very much to be a confident leader of his family, but complicated wrenches start to get thrown into his life from all different angles. He tries hard to get his twins into a distinguished boarding school, but Henry’s intelligence doesn’t seem to be up to par. He tries to get his newly-purchased home furnished, but a sneaky contractor (Harvey Keitel) is slow to get the job done. Greg has also been asked to front a new Erectile-Dysfunction drug by a sexy pharmaceutical rep (Jessica Alba) who plagues him with cheating thoughts and erection hijinks. Plus the re-emergence of Pam’s former fiancé, Kevin (Owen Wilson), doesn’t help matters either.

I suppose one could see the potential in a sequel such as this. If the first two films covered courtship and integration, then the only fruitful base left to cover is parenthood. Since raising kids can be a tricky, stressful, and delightful aspect of life that most moviegoers can strongly relate to, then this subject is ripe with comic opportunities. Getting ready for school, dinnertime hijinks, dealing with snooty teachers, teaching youngsters adult ways-all of these aspects could certainly supply big laughs for a suburban sitcom. Yet Little Fockers fails at every turn to find such laughs within its plot. The scary thing is that it doesn’t even appear to try. It seems more content with going through the motions of routine gags we’ve seen done endlessly and more confidently in past films. That the filmmakers think the audience is dumb enough to buy these flat routines is rather unsettling.

Most pointless sequels usually have a desperate need to jump-the-shark once the filmmakers realize there is little originality left to unearth. They typically find preposterous ways to go over-the-top, hoping we don’t notice how far the material has drifted away from the wit and charms of the original film. As Little Fockers begins, things seem grounded enough and there’s hope for a sequel that keeps things down-to-earth and about the characters. Stiller and Alba have a bizarrely sweet moment involving an uncomfortable medical procedure while De Niro and Keitel hold a small, heated argument that faintly recalls Mean Streets. But pretty soon, the plot jumps off the deep-end and we’re hit with a chorus line of stupid gags. There’s vomiting, blood-splattering, sexual nonsense, and, I kid you not, a scene in which Greg injects a shot of adrenaline into Jack’s penis. I’d explain how this comes about, but since there are no laughs or joy to be held from this development, why bother?

As I watched this super-talented cast doggedly go through the motions, desperately wishing they were elsewhere, unsettling thoughts began to creep through my mind: are big Hollywood paychecks really worth it to these actors for enduring crap like this? Can a price truly be placed on an actor’s dignity? For every Greenberg Stiller wants to make, does he also have to make a Little Fockers? In our youthful years, the idealists within us promise to always stick by our morals and tastes while never selling out to a big paycheck. Yet if you grow older, and fame and fortune is thrust upon you, must you compromise those very ideals to upkeep the paychecks and the lifestyle? Is it really worth it to do so? I ask because the Cast obviously could’ve been doing much better work and was obviously doing this strictly for the money (Hoffman tried to resist, but he was swayed by the studio into a minimal amount of screen time). I know this is deep thinking for a disposable sitcom, but so empty is Little Fockers that such troubling thoughts are bound to enter your mind.

So as we throw Little Fockers in the cinematic trash bin, let’s be optimists here. Let’s hope Ben Stiller recovers from this thud and goes on to deliver uproarious comedy as he’s done in the past. Let’s hope Robert De Niro wakes up, reclaims his artistic integrity, and stops sleepwalking through such laughable nonsense. And let’s hope Director Paul Weitz returns to the skill and inspiration he displayed with About A Boy, one of my ten favorite films of all time. And let’s hope and pray that the Focker clan is done once and for all with the big screen.

BY THE WAY: It’s become a thing of legend how dedicated a method actor the young Robert De Niro used to be. In his younger years, he slept in an open grave, mastered the Sicilian language, gained untold amounts of weight, and paid a dentist to mess up his teeth in order to get into various characters. If the younger De Niro had shown up in Little Fockers, he probably would’ve put a syringe in his penis for real! Then again, the younger De Niro would’ve balked at appearing in such dreck in the first place! Oh, the things time does to us!