MovieChat Forums > Little Fockers (2010) Discussion > 10 Reasons Why Little Fockers Wasnt As G...

10 Reasons Why Little Fockers Wasnt As Good As The First Two

posted 14 years ago by thiscrazydancer
60 replies | jump to latest

10 Reasons why Little Fockers wasnt as good as the first two

1.Harvey Keitels character.Really?What was the point of that or any of his boring scenes.Felt like they just put him in there with DeNiro just to pay homage to their past movies together.

2.Owen Wilson(Kevin)Liked that he was in the film but they made him too over the top in this one.Kind of liked the way he was more laid back in Meet The Parents.

3.Fart and Poop Jokes.Really.Sorry but in a comedy that is supposed to be a sequel to a comedy classic CMON!

4.Dustin Hoffman and Barbara Streisand.Really excited when I heard they would be returning for this film but not in the movie enough for me initially.What 15 mins of total screen time but in a way I also felt like the only angle that I got from Bernie Focker was tango lessons from Spain and Roz Focker was a sex therapy show.

5.Kids.A little bit more natural comedy from them would have been funny like a scene in which Gregs son could have had a bring your dad to show and tell day and the kids would have laughed at him being a male nurse.

6.Jack and Gregs fued had good storylines like the misunderstanding about the affair with Andi due to the Sustengo endorsement but I still felt at times like it was just a retred of the first two films in sometimes an unrealistic way that had me thinking?At what point will Jack Byrnes truly trust his son in law?

7.Dr.Bob I actually liked that there was a scene involving him and Greg talking at the hotel bar but would have been better if there conversation would have been longer and Jack would have seen Dr.Bob there.

8.Dina and Pam Byrnes.I wish that they would have had more lines and a few scenes together more talking about the realities of raising kids or a memory of Pam has a child.

9.Loved the You Tube clip of Gregs Sustengo speech about Jack on the credits but could have been a longer clip through all the credits.

10.Jay Roach should have directed this.

[–] Tvisfun 14 years ago

Reason 11. Randy Newman's Music

[–] Charlie_Strom 13 years ago

i thought it was ok, i just have to chime in. I liked the first film the best. and uh...

Bad Santa WAS F$%KING AWESOME!!!

[–] filmmekker 13 years ago

Because Greg Glienna and Mary Ruth Clarke, who wrote the original, didn't work on the past two films.

Open the door for Mr. Muckle!!

[–] ness978 13 years ago

I thought this movie sucked badly, all these good actors and not really a storyline if you know what I mean, everything was overdone in this one like it was rushed so they could make money but I guess that blew up in their own faces lol

[–] mimosa_mirabella 13 years ago

That probably explains it.

Meet the Parents was great. But Little Fockers was weak.

http://vincentandmorticiasspeakeasy14846.yuku.com/directory

[–] 06986 13 years ago

I think if Jay Roach directed it he would have demanded a better written script and got better performances and reactions from the actors. When I saw he was not going to be the director I know it was not going to be very good. It had some moments but it felt too rushed and like they did not care to make a good movie, just an acceptable sequel which I don't think Jay Roach would have allowed to happen.

[–] jajceboy 13 years ago

For me the biggest disappointment was the fact that Dustin and Barbra were there for like 10 minutes. To me, they were the best characters in the entire trilogy. I loved them in the second one, they were so natural and sweet. Of curse I was excited to have them back.

But now I prefer they weren't back at all. They had nothing to do, nothing to work with. Their appearances felt a bit forced and rushed, as if they didn't want to do it, but felt obliged to or something.

And the movie itself felt forced and rushed, and not as well-thought through as the first two.

The last thing that bugged me was the the new characters were completely pointless, except for Jessica Alba's character. They had no relation to the plot what so ever.

[–] coachgig 13 years ago

i thought this movie was good but it would have been alot better if jay roach was the director instead of paul weitz. that scene where the kid threw up on ben stiller made me wanta puke. the beginning of when robert deniro was on the machine and said he was going to do it jinksy was really terrifying. but i still thought the story had went really well. it's just that those scenes just needed to be taken off and possibly replaced with something else. question today is what could they have done instead of having those two parts. plus they didn't have jinx in very much at all. and they didn't bring back the dog from the second one. it was just way off a little. but like i said i still thought u know they tried whatever they can do to make it worth seeing. and i give them credit for it.

[–] kennellygerard 11 years ago

1973 .....mean streets

2010 .....little fockers

37 years

wow

[–] ravi02 11 years ago

As good as the first two? I thought Meet the Fockers was terrible.

[–] Penske_Material 10 years ago

the first one was the only really good one, the second one and the 3rd one are closer to each other in style. If they make a 4th one, which they could because it was financially successful, I hope they make it more down to earth like the original movie, the over the top humor is not that good.

[–] spanny1 10 years ago

I agree with everything you wrote above. I rated Meet the Parents as 9/10 stars, while I rated Meet the Fockers as 7/10, and Little Fockers with 6/10.

I enjoyed the 2 sequels, mostly because I loved the original, and I wanted to spend time with Gaylord Focker and Jack Byrnes again. I also liked the addition of Hoffman and Streisand to the franchise, and I enjoyed their characters in the 2 sequels. But both sequels suffered very much from sequelitis, and they were a bit long.

If another Focker movie is made, I hope it would return to the vibe of Meet the Parents. It should focus a lot more on the tension between Greg Focker and Jack Byrnes, which is the whole core of this comedy concept. I suspect the writers of Little Fockers thought they were going back to the Greg Focker/Jack Byrnes dynamic in the third movie, because it showed many hints of the old tension. But Little Fockers was awash in too many other tangents, and should have had more tight scenes between Greg Focker and Jack Byrnes.

High Concept pitch for 4 Fockers: Greg Focker and Jack Byrnes' families go on vacation to Cuba, shadowed by real CIA agents, and hilarity ensues! 😀

[–] Anton_Kreitzer 9 years ago

For me, this one seemed far racier and a lot less funny than the first two.

[–] cheryllchance 8 years ago

Totally agree with everything you said.

[–] WrepDrep (386) a year ago

The first one is a classic.
Impossible to match in sequels.
The sequels are okay, nothing more. Low potential, but it reached it.