In his famous TV show, (At The Movies), film critic Gene Siskel said that this was the first film he walked out on in 26 years of reviewing movies. Well, maybe he was having intestinal problem at the moment!
When an important critic says that, it doesn't mean necessarily that he's right. Originally, you are the one who can make Siskel's reviews, or else's, look right or not. Because any film critic is speaking his own mind, not yours. Sometimes it's the same thing. And sometimes it isn't. This time, obviously for me, it isn't!
This is not a bad movie. The word "intolerable" got no relation with it whatsoever. It's a light and sweet slapstick. Nothing is too goofy or too zany. No one showed ridiculous performance. It reminded me with the work of Laurel & Hardy, yet in colors, and with somehow thrilling plot. Chris Farley is doing his routine, and the chemistry between him and David Spade is working.
The actual problem was that this movie came after (Tommy Boy - 1995) which was a better movie. So the disappointment had to be powerful. And yes, you have to ask yourself; why after a comic detailed breakthrough such as (Tommy..), the new dual goes and make something which's clearly not better, or as good?! I believe the studio didn't know how to deal with the newly born star. So, they handled him any script just to exploit his success. But that wasn't for the sake of his career, us, and them; since the movie didn't hit the mark as its precedent.
The easy plan to invest Farley this time was by the reoccurrence of (Tommy..)'s factors. And sorrowfully Farley accepted it. Therefore some gags from the original (Tommy Boy) were recycled, however on a poor level with not much to support it either. For instance: the idea of idiot Farley and rational Spade, the problem of their sleep, even Spade got nothing new to show this round; he was repeating the whole thing yet weakly. And for some, it was hard to believe that the tongue-in-cheek was the movie's main, or only, goods!
Though, (Black Sheep) isn't really a Black Sheep. It is relaxingly uncomplicated, and has its moments. Just imagine that it was made before (Tommy..) and they had to release it later, and everything will be fine. I loved its innocent cartoonish sense, running gags, the character of the old lunatic veteran (Oh God! So Gary Busey CAN do comedy!! WAW the more you live, the more you see!), and the whole wacky time of it, where I didn't feel a single second of cheesiness, or repulsiveness, or bore.
Dear late Gene Siskel.. I admire many of your opinions. But, you were totally unfair towards this one. 1996 got some of the real agonizing comedies. (Kingpin) and (The Cable Guy) are little examples. Sometimes the critic, even the ordinary viewer, stands many movies good or bad, one after another, to have no patience for more. So walking out on a movie could mean that one critic was being tortured by one movie. Or that one critic just, for a reason out of the movie, couldn't have a good time.
When an important critic says that, it doesn't mean necessarily that he's right. Originally, you are the one who can make Siskel's reviews, or else's, look right or not. Because any film critic is speaking his own mind, not yours. Sometimes it's the same thing. And sometimes it isn't. This time, obviously for me, it isn't!
This is not a bad movie. The word "intolerable" got no relation with it whatsoever. It's a light and sweet slapstick. Nothing is too goofy or too zany. No one showed ridiculous performance. It reminded me with the work of Laurel & Hardy, yet in colors, and with somehow thrilling plot. Chris Farley is doing his routine, and the chemistry between him and David Spade is working.
The actual problem was that this movie came after (Tommy Boy - 1995) which was a better movie. So the disappointment had to be powerful. And yes, you have to ask yourself; why after a comic detailed breakthrough such as (Tommy..), the new dual goes and make something which's clearly not better, or as good?! I believe the studio didn't know how to deal with the newly born star. So, they handled him any script just to exploit his success. But that wasn't for the sake of his career, us, and them; since the movie didn't hit the mark as its precedent.
The easy plan to invest Farley this time was by the reoccurrence of (Tommy..)'s factors. And sorrowfully Farley accepted it. Therefore some gags from the original (Tommy Boy) were recycled, however on a poor level with not much to support it either. For instance: the idea of idiot Farley and rational Spade, the problem of their sleep, even Spade got nothing new to show this round; he was repeating the whole thing yet weakly. And for some, it was hard to believe that the tongue-in-cheek was the movie's main, or only, goods!
Though, (Black Sheep) isn't really a Black Sheep. It is relaxingly uncomplicated, and has its moments. Just imagine that it was made before (Tommy..) and they had to release it later, and everything will be fine. I loved its innocent cartoonish sense, running gags, the character of the old lunatic veteran (Oh God! So Gary Busey CAN do comedy!! WAW the more you live, the more you see!), and the whole wacky time of it, where I didn't feel a single second of cheesiness, or repulsiveness, or bore.
Dear late Gene Siskel.. I admire many of your opinions. But, you were totally unfair towards this one. 1996 got some of the real agonizing comedies. (Kingpin) and (The Cable Guy) are little examples. Sometimes the critic, even the ordinary viewer, stands many movies good or bad, one after another, to have no patience for more. So walking out on a movie could mean that one critic was being tortured by one movie. Or that one critic just, for a reason out of the movie, couldn't have a good time.