Let me preface this with two things:
1. Unlike some other negative reviews I'm seeing here, my opinion of this movie has nothing to do with the subject matter.
2. I have not seen the original French version.
Maybe I just don't appreciate "farce", a term which everyone who loves this movie seems to insist on using to describe it.
In my own terms, I'd describe this movie as battle-of-the-stereotypes trapped in a 95-minute long "Three's Company" episode--you're forced to watch as incredibly unreasonable and/or unrealistic decisions cause "misunderstandings" and "wacky situations" to pile up on each other, and you have to suffer through it all with uncomfortable anticipation because you know full well that at some point the paper-thin house of cards will all come crashing down. I find this kind of storytelling to be unbearable.
I love(d) Robin Williams, and maybe I'm just accustomed to seeing him in other roles, but I just don't entirely buy him in this role. It's not that it's a bad performance, it just seems more like a straight person's circa-1996 interpretation of what being gay is. He's believable as a loving partner, and he's actually the straight man (pun alert!) of his coupling with Nathan Lane, but there's at least one moment that stands out like something from his stand-up act -- too over-the-top and almost mocking to be in character.
Lane is grating. Again, another actor I like, but the character that he plays is so completely turned up to 11 at every moment--he's somehow loud, emotionally stunted, practically bipolar and a gentle snowflake all at the same time. Other reviews I've read here find him funny (I completely don't), but once again, I don't understand what's so funny about playing the character so unrealistically stereotypical. It also hurts the suspension of disbelief in Williams' character -- why would Williams' rather reasonable, down-to-earth character put up with Lane's character's nonsense?
And, a note regarding stereotypes: I've noticed some other reviewers here citing the overdone stereotypes as the REASON it's funny, and I couldn't disagree more. Yes, stereotypes can absolutely be cleverly and successfully worked into comedy--I would argue that the underrated "Undercover Brother" proves that--but these characters, most notably Lane, are just so loud and in-your-face that you get to a point where you just want them to shut up.
Another reviewer mentioned the son being a somewhat unlikeable character, and with the actions and demands he makes in the story, to that end, I agree. This is yet another casualty of this movie's disconnect from reality -- the son of a gay couple could never actually expect his parents to do what he's asking of them. Granted, it's probably because this movie is based on a relic of the late 70s, but still.
Despite mostly hating this movie, the reason I'm giving it 3 out of 10 is because it has a COUPLE of bright spots. Hank Azaria has a few good moments as Lane and Williams clownish house boy, and there are a couple of random funny bits sprinkled here and there (Williams trying to teach Lane how to be less outwardly gay is pretty funny). Also, I love Christine Baranski--unfortunately, she kinda gets shafted on screen time (part of the build-up to the "wackiness"). Gene Hackman and Dianne Wiest are both fine actors and play their roles well, I just wish it was in the service of a better story.
Bottom Line: I am a Mike Nichols fan, I like everyone in the cast, but I just don't see this movie as successful on any level. Maybe it just lost something in the translation from French.
1. Unlike some other negative reviews I'm seeing here, my opinion of this movie has nothing to do with the subject matter.
2. I have not seen the original French version.
Maybe I just don't appreciate "farce", a term which everyone who loves this movie seems to insist on using to describe it.
In my own terms, I'd describe this movie as battle-of-the-stereotypes trapped in a 95-minute long "Three's Company" episode--you're forced to watch as incredibly unreasonable and/or unrealistic decisions cause "misunderstandings" and "wacky situations" to pile up on each other, and you have to suffer through it all with uncomfortable anticipation because you know full well that at some point the paper-thin house of cards will all come crashing down. I find this kind of storytelling to be unbearable.
I love(d) Robin Williams, and maybe I'm just accustomed to seeing him in other roles, but I just don't entirely buy him in this role. It's not that it's a bad performance, it just seems more like a straight person's circa-1996 interpretation of what being gay is. He's believable as a loving partner, and he's actually the straight man (pun alert!) of his coupling with Nathan Lane, but there's at least one moment that stands out like something from his stand-up act -- too over-the-top and almost mocking to be in character.
Lane is grating. Again, another actor I like, but the character that he plays is so completely turned up to 11 at every moment--he's somehow loud, emotionally stunted, practically bipolar and a gentle snowflake all at the same time. Other reviews I've read here find him funny (I completely don't), but once again, I don't understand what's so funny about playing the character so unrealistically stereotypical. It also hurts the suspension of disbelief in Williams' character -- why would Williams' rather reasonable, down-to-earth character put up with Lane's character's nonsense?
And, a note regarding stereotypes: I've noticed some other reviewers here citing the overdone stereotypes as the REASON it's funny, and I couldn't disagree more. Yes, stereotypes can absolutely be cleverly and successfully worked into comedy--I would argue that the underrated "Undercover Brother" proves that--but these characters, most notably Lane, are just so loud and in-your-face that you get to a point where you just want them to shut up.
Another reviewer mentioned the son being a somewhat unlikeable character, and with the actions and demands he makes in the story, to that end, I agree. This is yet another casualty of this movie's disconnect from reality -- the son of a gay couple could never actually expect his parents to do what he's asking of them. Granted, it's probably because this movie is based on a relic of the late 70s, but still.
Despite mostly hating this movie, the reason I'm giving it 3 out of 10 is because it has a COUPLE of bright spots. Hank Azaria has a few good moments as Lane and Williams clownish house boy, and there are a couple of random funny bits sprinkled here and there (Williams trying to teach Lane how to be less outwardly gay is pretty funny). Also, I love Christine Baranski--unfortunately, she kinda gets shafted on screen time (part of the build-up to the "wackiness"). Gene Hackman and Dianne Wiest are both fine actors and play their roles well, I just wish it was in the service of a better story.
Bottom Line: I am a Mike Nichols fan, I like everyone in the cast, but I just don't see this movie as successful on any level. Maybe it just lost something in the translation from French.