Funny, in spite of the gross out 8 year old comedy bits.

Rating: Null/10 (9 January 2005)

This would have been a great film if it had tried harder at being grown up, and would have cut all of the sophomoric "gross out" scenes. The Farrelly's always amaze me that they can pull off stupid comedy and generally give there movies a heart also, something that is missing from most comedies in the past 30 years. But it is a schizophrenic simpatico. It appears as if they are highly gifted comedic writers that are demon possessed, the latter causing them to delve into ridiculous situations that I did not laugh at even when I was 8. In scenes like the infamous "hair gel" bit, they drop the flow of the script to assemble what appears to be a studio contrived "set piece", scientifically developed to garner praise from teenage boys. Though this may work, I believe if they applied all their energy to improving the good thing they already have going, their movies would be taken more seriously and they would have a much more lasting (and lucrative) shelf life, not to mention broadening their market. I just don't get the way a lot of people think now days. Could someone please tell me why the Farrelly's thought giving Chris Elliot (a hilarious comedian no one has figured out how to use yet) whiteheads, blisters and itching hives would play as funny? What is wrong with you morons? And yet, the bulk of the film is very good.
I edited a version of this off the TV and removed about 5 minutes of stupidity and it didn't hurt the film at all. In fact, I think it is better. I give this film a 7 out of 10. It could have been a 9 or 10 if they just tried harder.