Just not funny

If the studios didn't interfere with the creative side of 'Mr Woodcock' then it would have been a better film. Originally it was to be a similar theme to 'Election' , which starred Reese Witherspoon, but instead the head honchos wanted a silly and outlandish comedy like Superbad or American Pie.
Director Craig Gillespie, who also directed 'Lars and the Real Girl' was so disappointed with this decision, yet he stayed on the film project and did the best he could with the crappy script.

Susan Sarandon, Billy Bob Thornton and Seann William Scott signed on earlier when they were informed it was to be a smart and sassy comedy.
Seann William Scott later apologised to fans for the film and Susan Sarandon said she still enjoyed working with the cast and crew.


I rather liked the film actually.


Susan Sarandon: "I believe in using words, not fists'

You know what the only funny parts were?

Corngratulations

Corntestants

Cornival

Thats IT!

To actually have a sadist continually come out on top and be seen as a sympathetic character is just never gonna work in the comedy machine.

And why did they slice they the film to 75 minutes, and then put major exposition scenes in the deleted scenes??

Really really poor and a waste of my valueable time

man this movie was painful. for a number of reasons:

1. the "evil character" was nice and genuine. sure he was a little blunt with kids, but he was romantic, thoughtful, respected, talented, etc. i'm supposed to dislike him?

2. the "good character" was annoying and dumb. breaking and entering? disruptive, whiny, selfish, intrusive. this guy is a best-selling national recognized star, worthy of oprah, and yet he's fixated on his first grade gym teacher? his friend was even more annoying and dumber.

3. the actors were wooden and one-dimensional. every time SS was on the screen, i thought to myself, "there's SS." never "there's Mrs. Farley." there weren't any natural mother son scenes, everything was a caricature. same with SWS and BBT. you could tell these guys were there to get a paycheck. i'm susprised they didn't let the actors read from their scripts on camera, because that's about how convincing the movie was. when the flying chair video was the best acted part of the movie, that's saying something.

4. the "suspenseful buildup" was for dummies. raise your hand if when the character said they divorced for "marital infidelities" you were unable to instantly figure out it was her cheating. why else would she speak in such unnatural vague terms? or if you thought the blonde was actually the guy's mistress. i mean, it was painful to watch someone be such an idiot and not be able to put this together. i'm surprised someone in this thread earlier actually thought woodcock died. that scene was as poorly acted and undramatic as the rest. trust me, that's not a spoiler. i thought it was before i got to that scene, but i was mistaken.

5. i don't think i laughed once this whole movie. jokes based on the word "woodcock" aren't funny, nor are jokes about "loving meat." i mean, don't get me wrong, they were in 4th grade. did people really laugh when a 30 year old pizza employee yells at a 10 year old? that was hilarious!!!!

overall, this was the most disappointing movie i've seen in the last 6 months. i thought it would be a funny comedy with talented stars. instead it was a poorly written, poorly acted snoozefest. even when i saw the 5.2 rating on IMDB, i thought - that's ok, i'm in the mood for a funny no-brainer. no matter how much i kept hoping it would get better, it continuously got worse. it really was a no-brainer. the two things it had going for it was the 1:27 running time and ridiculously abrupt ending. i should have trusted the IMDB voting masses.