Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Bad News Bears (2005)

This is topic Bad News Bears (2005) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000955

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-21-2005, 04:42 AM:

If you are thinking about seeing this movie, you really should heed the title a little more seriously because this movie is bad news.

THIS MOVIE IS JUST FARKING HORRIBLE!!!

Seriously, I haven't seen quite the train wreck of a movie in some time...and I watch a lot of crappy movies. In this day and age of having movie scripts rewritten 40 times before the production gets green-lighted, I have to wonder...did this script get even ONE rewrite?

Then again maybe the director is just lousy at his job. Given the performances of the actors, I'm going to have to lean toward this theory. I mean come on Mr. Director, when the kids are yelling and pushing each other in a supposed fight, have them HIT each other. This fake hitting nonsense just comes off as being obviously staged for the camera. [Roll Eyes]

There were sections of the movie where even the editing was a mess. One example that comes to mind is a scene where someone is introducing 3 different teams. Because of the way the line of dialogue was delivered on the third team, it should have been re-edited to be the second team and the Bears should have been third. As it is the cut to "play ball" is awkward and it didn't need to be. There are tons of bad judgment editing calls in this flick like this.

There were only two good things about this movie.

#1 Billy Bob Thornton, who pretty much reprised his role in one of the greatest movies of all time Bad Santa. While Billy Bob's performance was good, it certainly didn't happen due to anything the director did. Mr. Thornton is just a damned good actor.

#2 Greg Kinnear, who again is just a solid actor.

Now before I state my actual rating of this turd, I must pose the question, just who is this movie targeted for? Seriously, we have LOTS of drinking, LOTS of sexual references and LOTS of bad language in what I *thought* was supposed to be a family movie. What the heck? (Edit - after seeing this movie I shall more appropriately say "what the fuck".)

This movie sucks baseballs. 1 out of 5 and ONLY because of Billy Bob Thornton and Greg Kinnear, neither of which could save it. For a good family movie about baseball, go rent The Sandlot on DVD.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-21-2005, 04:56 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
I *thought* was supposed to be a family movie.

And there you have the problem. The original Bad News Bears was NOT a family movie, it was a movie about a drunk (Walter Matthau) being redeemed by kids who were "bad," but good underneath the bad exterior. The vehicle for the redemption was baseball. That's far too intelligent a plot for today's Hollywood. This movie is trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole -- trying to take a story meant for a NON family film and make it fit the family film mold. Result: Bad movie. Even the trailer sucks on this one.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-22-2005, 02:59 AM:

True. Even with the duo stars of Tatun O'neal (coming off of her "Paper Moon" supporting actress award two yrs earlier) and Walter Matthau, the original was pretty campy and a no-brainer movie.

It had the laughs, but as will this new one will probably will follow suit, the original one faded quite quickly later on that summer of '76.

-Monte

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 07-23-2005, 04:01 PM:

CINEMA: Cinemark Movies 12, Ames, IA
AUDITORIUM: 1
PRESENTATION: Mystery Meat Digital
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None [Cool]

RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four)

WARNING: Spoilers in this review may have come in contact with peanuts during manufacturing

There were notices on the box office windows warning that "Bad News Bears" is rated PG-13 for language. It may have gone further into warning parents about content, but I didn't pay that much attention.

Basically, this is the original movie updated by adding more colorful language and throwing out most of the original's character depth. This is a movie that feels like half the movie was left on the cutting room floor, though you'd HATE for it to be longer. A lot of the musical soundtrack was horrible. And the running commentary through the movie was really annoying...but that wasn't actually IN the movie. That was the eight-or-less-year-old sitting behind me, whose questions included "Mom, what is that shit?" when Thornton spiked his non-alcoholic beer.

None of this matters, because Thornton was ten kinds of awesome. Easily worth the price of admission alone. But without him, and to a degree Kinnear, there isn't much here. I can't blame the kids for it...they were largely good and some had some funny moments, they were just not explored much.

In any case, the audience liked it. Lots of laughter throughout this one.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-24-2005, 04:19 PM:

Today, 11:50AM, Regal Cinema World 8 in Eugene, House #4, prolly SR-D. Very good presentation, no complaints. Attendance: Exactly 5.

Mostly what Sam said except there was no running commentary in this show, owing to the sparse attendance. I did hear one other person laughing quite a bit. Maybe they never saw the original. That might explain why they found this remake amusing.

Myself, I think this is an embarrassing and forgettable failure, notwithstanding Billy Bob's best effort to make it otherwise.

Only 1.5 stars from me. [thumbsdown]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-25-2005, 01:31 PM:

The interesting trend that is coming around is that with these "bad" movies coming out that people aren't going to pay the megabucks to see this kind of trash, thus why the decline of this year's ticket sales.

Yet, the plus side with these "bad" fliks that these will draw the crowds to the 2 buck houses, for people will spend a couple of bucks to see this when they figure that these sorts of movies are only worth just that - 2 bucks.

"Hollyrock" needs to get their act together, find better writers and make movies with more "meat and potatos" in the middle to attract the movie going public if they're going to pull themselves out of this trashmire that they seemed to go themselves into.

-Monte

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 08-13-2005, 02:06 PM:

This was more like an out-of-season "Bad Santa" that couldn't get a PG rating to appropriately market the film to its supposed target audience. Linklater directs the kids very well, but the film runs too long, dragging out and devaluing the lesson the supposed audience should have taken away if Billy Bob Thornton had any charm at all.

And for being rated PG-13, it's actually less vulgar than the original (of which, the 1976 original's screenwriter was present on this production). Didn't the kids drink real beer in the original?

So much potential in having a great troupe of young actors who fit the original characters' profiles relatively well, wasted on a typically burned out, uncaring Thornton and a desensitized modern sports-rage audience.

Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 12-16-2005, 06:44 AM:

Oh dear

What a disaster.

The colorful language is right out of context for a kids flick and largely a put on for the show. The story is basic but the acting unconvincing. I can't think of any age group this film woudl appeal to.

Why do kids films have to suck? Why do they have to have gratuitous language and unnecessary sexual references thrown in? Why can't they have old fashioned things like a solid plot and good acting?

cheers Peter