ViewGuide

Created Jan 29, 2008 03:30PM PST • Edited Jan 29, 2008 03:30PM PST

1. Quality

2. Summary

   Barely OK 2.0

   John (Scott) and his best friend, Neddermen (Suplee), had traumatic experiences as children cause by their gym teacher, Mr. Woodcock (Thorton). Mr. Woodcock was a mean teacher who took joy out of humiliating and torturing the young boys in his class. These things really stayed with John. With his father dying and his bad memories from gym class, John grew up and he realized that he had to leave the past in the past. John did just this and even found a way to help others through a self help book he wrote. He has become very successful and has book signings and appearances. When the opportunity to receive an award in his small home town comes up, he jumps at this chance against the advice of his editor, Maggie (Phoeler).
   When he comes home, John is welcomed by his mother (Sarandon). Soon she hits him with the news that she is dating someone, and not just any one but Mr. Woodcock. John is absolutely horrified by this. All of those memories come back to haunt him. What is worse than anything though, is that he just can’t bare that deviant being with his mother. John makes it his duty to break them up at all costs. Nedderman helps him try to track down dirt on him. Meanwhile, he is putting his career as an author in jeopardy by refusing to leave while Mr. Woodcock seems to be winning just like old times.

4. Acting

   Barely OK 2.0

   The acting really wasn’t bad. However, it is clear that all of the actors involved with the film could benefit much more from a solid film. Seann William Scott does fine in his role as the calm guy gone crazy. Nearly everything else I have seen him in, was more impressive though. He hasn’t done much since the American Pie series, although I am glad he hasn’t resorted to the far inferior sequels that have followed after American Wedding. Hopefully, he will find some good roles that are worth his efforts. It was really frustrating seeing Billy Bob Thorton here. Not because he was bad, he was fine, but he has really become type casted. He is always the bad guy. At least with Bad Santa and Bad News Bears, his character added heart to the film. It was a reason to feel somewhat of a connection and to care for him. It seems that his role in School for Scoundrels was a lot like that in Mr. Woodcock. His roles are becoming more stereotypical and the line of emotion is getting smaller and smaller. The best thing for his career right now would be to get away from this and actually be a unique character again.
   Susan Sarandon did well as she remained to be pretty likeable as a caring mother and girlfriend. At least she remained to be her own person rather just the center of conflict. The best performance here was from Ethan Suplee. He was the funniest one hands down and he actually put expression and energy in to his role. He does well as the sidekick as he has perfected it already in My Name is Earl, as well as in more serious material like, The Butterfly Effect, The Fountain, and American History X. Suplee has the presence and potential to do great a lead role and I hope to see that from him soon. Amy Phoeler played the mean and demanding editor of John’s book. The mean factor was really piled up between her and Mr. Woodcock. It could have worked if it would have been more casual but that was the majority of the basis for the jokes, which got pretty old.

5. Male Stars Barely OK 2.0

6. Female Stars Barely OK 2.0

7. Female Costars Barely OK 2.0

8. Male Costars Barely OK 2.0

10. Film

    Bad 1.0

    Mr. Woodcock is an average movie at bests that really wastes its’ talents. I really have to wonder what the actors even saw in the script, as it is the weakest part of the film. As the base of the film, that is just a recipe for disaster. It is really a recipe that has seem to be repeating itself in Hollywood, which leads me to believe that the incentive here comes back to the money. With a name like Mr. Woodcock it should have been obvious that it was just begging to get people in the theaters rather than giving the audience a quality movie. Clearly I didn’t hate Mr. Woodcock given the rating, it was simply okay. It was enjoyable to watch, but it is not a film that has very much re-watch value. The situation was comical and the presence of the actors did help. However, a comedy not producing laughs is not a good sign. The conclusion to the film also seems very forced as if there had to be some sort of compromising factor, but it really doesn’t work very well.

11. Direction Bad 1.0

12. Play Bad 1.0

13. Music Bad 1.0

14. Visuals Bad 1.0
15. Content

16. Edge

    Risqué 2.0

    Some of the lanaguage is a little edgy whether it be because of profanity or sexual suggestions. The main sex scene is when Susan Sarandon and Billy Bob Thorton are having sex on the bed where Seann William Scott is hiding under and across from the closet where Ethan Suplee is peeking through. Practically nothing is shown but the intamacy and awkwardness of the situation is what makes it stand out.

17. Sex Titillating 2.0

18. Violence Fierce 2.0

19. Rudeness Salty 2.0

21. Reality

    Surreal 2.4

    I think part of the problem was that the film didn’t seem realistic. I never knew anyone like Mr. Woodcock, so it just seemed like he was an overly angry bad guy. The character of Mr. Woodcook seemed to rely on a steretype of a bitter old man. The character of John was more belieavable in the begginning, but the farther the film went the more fake he seemed. The situation is something that could be very possible, but the characters, actions, and for the most part the poor dialogue is what ruined it.

22. Circumstantial Surreal 2.4

23. Biological Surreal 2.4

24. Physical Surreal 2.4