Life-support machine for DreamWorks.

Rating: 1/10 (15 January 2005)

Like virtually all mainstream releases, *Meet the Fockers* is, of course, really too awful to warrant an amateur review: only the professionals should be forced to deal with the dreary task. But a movie whose cast includes Robert De Niro, Dustin Hoffman, and Barbra Streisand would SEEM to invite discussion. Thirty years ago, such a cast would have indicated a Major Motion Picture. In 2005, I'm sorry to report that these living-legend actors have been inducted -- however profitably to themselves -- in the ongoing mission to Keep DreamWorks Afloat. The Stiller/De Niro "franchise" has officially joined the *Shrek* series as an anomalous money-maker for the studio. The creative bankruptcy of Messrs. Spielberg, Geffen, and Katzenberg resulted in the demise of both the TV and music units of the company; and as for the movie-wing of the operation, that creative bankruptcy has never been more clearly demonstrated than with *Meet the Fockers*.
But, as I've said, *Fockers* appears to be making a lot of box-office dough, so the sheer awfulness is likely to continue. Expect *Fockers 3* and maybe even a *Fockers 4*. (Expect the same for *Shrek*, too.) In fact, the sequels may go on and on until somebody over at DreamWorks finds a way to concoct a good movie. Or maybe Spielberg will occasionally drag himself into the director's chair and put the aging Toms -- Hanks or Cruise -- through the motions of the occasional spurious blockbuster.
I realize I've not talked much about the movie itself, but why bother? The first film of the series, *Meet the Parents*, at least had the chemistry between De Niro and Stiller, and an overall funny premise: the nice Jewish guy desperately trying to fit into the suburban milieu of a pathologically WASPish family. The Stiller character's all-too-human propensity for telling white-lie upon white-lie complicated his troubles and increased the comedy. In *Fockers*, Stiller and De Niro are curiously muted in their (few) scenes together. One wonders if they were getting along on the set. But on the other hand, the movie isn't focused on their interpersonal dynamic anyway, choosing instead to make De Niro the put-upon character, overwhelming him with the stereotypical "earthiness" (i.e., "Jewishness", I suppose) of the Focker parents. This diminishment of De Niro totally misses the point of what worked in the first movie, which is that he was a larger-than-life maniac whose expectations were so high that nobody, especially not Ben Stiller, could hope to match them.
As for Hoffman and Streisand, they bring nothing unique to their stereotypical roles: any pair of aging actors would have sufficed. The fact that they're introduced by way of an answering machine only cements their irrelevance. I even doubt that they've enhanced the box-office profits, as most people under the age of 30 scarcely know who they are, anyway -- Hoffman and Streisand haven't been major screen presences for some time. Which brings me back to De Niro: he had better play *King Lear* or its contemporary equivalent, and do it fast. One tires of watching this great actor continue to trash his legacy with these god-awful comedies. He needs to remind us that he was once considered the greatest screen actor since Brando. (But then, Brando ended up as a joke, too. Curse of *The Godfather*, perhaps?)
1 star out of 10.