Critics giggling in the corner
Step Brothers received mixed reviews. Rotten Tomatoes has a 50/50 split between people liking it and hating it so much they crawl back into their studio apartments and clutch a copy of Citizen Kane while whispering sweet nothings to the VHS copy until they fall asleep. I think the people who hated it are just as hilarious as Step Brothers. By no means is it a great movie, plot-wise it's no Peter Travers action comedy explosion fest but it has it's rewarding moments. Most of all, it's managed to keep me laughing sporadically throughout the day.
"Step Brothers is less ambitious than Anchorman or Talladega and taffy-stretches a sketch-comedy premise." - Shawn Levy, Oregonian - That's a pretty fair statement regarding Anchorman in relation to Step Brothers. Anchorman had slightly more plot, celebrities to gawk at and variety. But really, Talladega Nights? The only thing in Talladega that was rewarding was Amy Adams and an occasionally funny moment. I would rather watch Step Brothers over Talladega Nights any day of the week.
"...as much fun as being locked in a room with a pair of sexually precocious brats." - Laura Clifford, Reeling Reviews - Oh, Laura. Do you really hate your children this much that you have to vent your frustrations on Step Brothers? It's a comedy you walked into, not an independent foreign film that takes place in the 18th century. Ms. Clifford looks to be in her 40s from the picture posted at Rotten Tomatoes. There isn't much in the film for a 40-year-old, but the concept is pretty great. Judd Apatow gave Ferrell and Reilly a chance to do what they do best, which is improvise scenes and make one another laugh in hopes of the audience laughing. "Step Brothers is much better than being locked in a room with a sexually frustrated pretentious 40-year-old woman." - Mike Herman of a crappy blog.
"... a largely plotless exercise in grown men behaving with the juvenile irresponsibility and self-centered obsession of spoiled children." - Sean Axmaker, Seattle Post-Intelligencer" - Again, I tend to agree somewhat. There was very little plot. But what did Axmaker (also his World of Warcraft handle) really expect? Watching Ferrell and Reilly be responsible while taking care of homeless people doesn't make for a very watchable film. One of the major themes in the movie is irresponsibility because it makes for good comedy.
Critics aside the movie has it's valid points. Towards the end of the film both main characters eventually become normal stiffs like a majority of people who don't have the luxury of writing comedy all day or reviewing movies for a small town newspaper. Ferrell and Reilly get normal jobs, and ultimately lose whatever thread of childhood originality they were holding onto. Eventually, they return to their normal immature selves but have learned that being true to their own ideals is far more satisfying than going along with the expected ideals of society. Essentially the movie is saying, "don't become some rando business man just for the sake of fitting in with money; instead, find something you love to do and do it." More and more I find that message to be excrutiatingly true.
"Step Brothers is less ambitious than Anchorman or Talladega and taffy-stretches a sketch-comedy premise." - Shawn Levy, Oregonian - That's a pretty fair statement regarding Anchorman in relation to Step Brothers. Anchorman had slightly more plot, celebrities to gawk at and variety. But really, Talladega Nights? The only thing in Talladega that was rewarding was Amy Adams and an occasionally funny moment. I would rather watch Step Brothers over Talladega Nights any day of the week.
"...as much fun as being locked in a room with a pair of sexually precocious brats." - Laura Clifford, Reeling Reviews - Oh, Laura. Do you really hate your children this much that you have to vent your frustrations on Step Brothers? It's a comedy you walked into, not an independent foreign film that takes place in the 18th century. Ms. Clifford looks to be in her 40s from the picture posted at Rotten Tomatoes. There isn't much in the film for a 40-year-old, but the concept is pretty great. Judd Apatow gave Ferrell and Reilly a chance to do what they do best, which is improvise scenes and make one another laugh in hopes of the audience laughing. "Step Brothers is much better than being locked in a room with a sexually frustrated pretentious 40-year-old woman." - Mike Herman of a crappy blog.
"... a largely plotless exercise in grown men behaving with the juvenile irresponsibility and self-centered obsession of spoiled children." - Sean Axmaker, Seattle Post-Intelligencer" - Again, I tend to agree somewhat. There was very little plot. But what did Axmaker (also his World of Warcraft handle) really expect? Watching Ferrell and Reilly be responsible while taking care of homeless people doesn't make for a very watchable film. One of the major themes in the movie is irresponsibility because it makes for good comedy.
Critics aside the movie has it's valid points. Towards the end of the film both main characters eventually become normal stiffs like a majority of people who don't have the luxury of writing comedy all day or reviewing movies for a small town newspaper. Ferrell and Reilly get normal jobs, and ultimately lose whatever thread of childhood originality they were holding onto. Eventually, they return to their normal immature selves but have learned that being true to their own ideals is far more satisfying than going along with the expected ideals of society. Essentially the movie is saying, "don't become some rando business man just for the sake of fitting in with money; instead, find something you love to do and do it." More and more I find that message to be excrutiatingly true.