I actually liked the sketch "Pat" on SNL. It was a fresh idea - honestly, how many other "andrognenous character-sketch" routines can you name? It had its limitations, and it sure as hell could have been pushed past the "Pat almost reveals his/her gender but then doesn't" joke that seems to have been the limit of its humor.
So when there was a movie, I thought, "Hey, they're finally going to push the character beyond the one-joke limit. I like Pat, sure, I'll like the movie!" Well, I was stunned at how ineptly and poorly executed the whole thing was. The Pat character is immediately portrayed as boorish, intrusive, insensitive, and a host of other undesirable characteristics. Who decided this is what Pat was about? Who thought this would be funny? And how does this relate to the SNL character, anyway? I see no resemblance at all.
Even Dave Foley, whom I love and who is well-known for his excellence at portraying long-suffering comic characters, cannot soften the unrelenting ugliness that Pat exudes. In addition, I really think they took the low road with the "Chris" character. Of all the androgynous names they could have chosen (Terry, Bobby, Sam, the list is long), "Chris" is so boring! And the style of androgyny that was chosen, "70's-esque flower child", complete with page-boy haircut, while certainly complimenting Pat's dowdiness, was just one more joke with a very short lifespan.
By the time you finally realize the ugly boorishness that Pat is all about is not going to be a short-lived bit, but is instead the main (and only) joke, and that you will get no reprieve at all, ever, through the entire film, it will be too late. You will have suffered through the whole film, with very few laughs, and entirely missed out on a "naive-but-loveable-doofus" version of Pat, that you might have expected to get.
So when there was a movie, I thought, "Hey, they're finally going to push the character beyond the one-joke limit. I like Pat, sure, I'll like the movie!" Well, I was stunned at how ineptly and poorly executed the whole thing was. The Pat character is immediately portrayed as boorish, intrusive, insensitive, and a host of other undesirable characteristics. Who decided this is what Pat was about? Who thought this would be funny? And how does this relate to the SNL character, anyway? I see no resemblance at all.
Even Dave Foley, whom I love and who is well-known for his excellence at portraying long-suffering comic characters, cannot soften the unrelenting ugliness that Pat exudes. In addition, I really think they took the low road with the "Chris" character. Of all the androgynous names they could have chosen (Terry, Bobby, Sam, the list is long), "Chris" is so boring! And the style of androgyny that was chosen, "70's-esque flower child", complete with page-boy haircut, while certainly complimenting Pat's dowdiness, was just one more joke with a very short lifespan.
By the time you finally realize the ugly boorishness that Pat is all about is not going to be a short-lived bit, but is instead the main (and only) joke, and that you will get no reprieve at all, ever, through the entire film, it will be too late. You will have suffered through the whole film, with very few laughs, and entirely missed out on a "naive-but-loveable-doofus" version of Pat, that you might have expected to get.