Ben Stiller plays an uptight normal guy with bad luck!
Jack Black plays a funny and lazy wildman who falls backwards into money!
Yeah, they really stretched on this film.
I've got to say I envy the people who churn out crap like this and still keep their jobs. Not just keep them, but get paid well to do them.
Not that everything here sucks. Stiller is Stiller and Jack is Jack, hell there's even Walken. Its just that the writing sucks.
The story goes that Ben and Jack are neighbors, best friends, and co-workers. Well, Jack invents a spray that makes dog shit disappear and becomes a trillionaire overnight. Ben gets present after present from Jack, but is still envious. This leads to a mistake and Walken at which point hilarity is supposed to occur. It doesn't.
Why is Stiller always the guy whose charactr has everything go wrong despite his best efforts and attention? Couldn't they at least have tried to cast Jack and Ben opposite their normal typecasts in this film? That would've at least added a bit of interest.
The storyline is just really, really bad. Walken's character is completely worthless and could've been written right out of the film. Also, there's a running question/joke that never gets resolved. That's just sloppy.
Jack and Ben seem to have a nice chemistry, but the film doesn't put them in scenes together nearly enough. In fact, there's a lot of Ben and little Jack.
These two should do another movie together, but they should pick a better script and director.
If you've seen a Stiller film where everyday things go ridiculously crazy, yet it all works out in the end, then you've seen this...expect for all the poop.
Everyone in the film is great, but the story SUCKS.
3 out of 10.
Envy
Where are the board nazi's when you need them. I reviewed this one a long time ago, and mine was way better. This one is just WRONG!! Leisher has a huge . . . something. . . against Stiller. He's tired of Stiller and doesn't like seeing him. Justifiable in a way cause Stiller is always the same character (or 2). However, if you DO like Stiller, or he doesn't bother you, then this is a really funny movie. Many parts had me cracking up, as well as others. And write out Walkin? The "J" Man? Are you insane? No, are you FREAKING insane? Now, this isn't just Walkin love. He was REALLY funny! In my opinion, he made up for Stiller being Stiller. . . again. "Good for you!! Good FOR you!!" "I hear you man!" Great meeting, and Walkin was funny. I'm glad Walkin was in it. Jack was being Jack, and that's ok cause it hasn't been over done. . . yet. I whole heartedly disagree with Leisher's review here. Envy is well worth watching, and has many funny moments, and Walkin is indispensible in this movie. Could the movie have still happened without Walkin? Sure. Did he add alot to the film? Absolutely.
Wow, Cake had a lot of caffeine this morning.
Seriously though, read my review again. I didn't dislike the people in the film, I disliked the writing. It was boring and unoriginal. Ben, Jack, and Walken are good, but their characters aren't. Walken's in particularly is very poor. He does fine, but its like the writers just made the guy weird and then cast Walken figuring it'd all work out. It didn't.
I think Hollywood is lazy and has been churning out uninspired shit lately. Envy is uninspired shit. Considering it made about $10 at the box office, I'm not alone in that thinking. Besides, this seemed to be a "fulfill the contract" film.
I have nothing against Stiller, but I'm tired of seeing him in the same role all the time. I enjoyed Dodgeball more because he wasn't cast as the same guy he's played in every other movie he has made, including Envy.
FYI: Even Ben Stiller makes jokes about how all of his characters are the same person. So who's right? Ben or you?
Seriously though, read my review again. I didn't dislike the people in the film, I disliked the writing. It was boring and unoriginal. Ben, Jack, and Walken are good, but their characters aren't. Walken's in particularly is very poor. He does fine, but its like the writers just made the guy weird and then cast Walken figuring it'd all work out. It didn't.
I think Hollywood is lazy and has been churning out uninspired shit lately. Envy is uninspired shit. Considering it made about $10 at the box office, I'm not alone in that thinking. Besides, this seemed to be a "fulfill the contract" film.
I have nothing against Stiller, but I'm tired of seeing him in the same role all the time. I enjoyed Dodgeball more because he wasn't cast as the same guy he's played in every other movie he has made, including Envy.
FYI: Even Ben Stiller makes jokes about how all of his characters are the same person. So who's right? Ben or you?
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
OH my lord. . . Walkin was awesome. It DID work out! I LOVED the parts with him in it. "You know, I like you. . . I'm. . I'm glad I came here." I was crackin' up every time I saw Walkin.
And I never said Stiller wasn't the same character. I think he has two characters. Dodgeball = Zoolander. Only difference was one was a good guy, other was a bad guy. Both were ignorant, some power, and used dumb words all the time. Other character is Envy, Meet The Parents, etc. Starskey and Hutch fell in the middle and doesn't count as a new character. Anyway, never argued that he's ground breaking every time. My first post was riddled with me agreeing with you that Stiller is always the same character.
And lastly (for now), I'm not saying you don't like Stiller as a person. But when you see him play the same roll, you automatically take points away from a movie. So, if Envy was the first time you ever saw Stiller, would it be a better movie? The story was fine. Far fetched? Sure. But hell, it's a movie. . .
And I never said Stiller wasn't the same character. I think he has two characters. Dodgeball = Zoolander. Only difference was one was a good guy, other was a bad guy. Both were ignorant, some power, and used dumb words all the time. Other character is Envy, Meet The Parents, etc. Starskey and Hutch fell in the middle and doesn't count as a new character. Anyway, never argued that he's ground breaking every time. My first post was riddled with me agreeing with you that Stiller is always the same character.
And lastly (for now), I'm not saying you don't like Stiller as a person. But when you see him play the same roll, you automatically take points away from a movie. So, if Envy was the first time you ever saw Stiller, would it be a better movie? The story was fine. Far fetched? Sure. But hell, it's a movie. . .
Aren't yall like the same person?
What does that even mean?
Although, I'll admit to having some confusion about you and Thib when you first joined.
As for the film, no, it wouldn't be better if I had never seen the Stiller act before and I think you may have a crush on Walken.
In fact, he may want to seek a restraining order against you.
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell