On this installment of Was Ebert Right?, we take a look at one of Roger Ebert's most infamous reviews and ask Was Ebert Right about Deuce Bigalow: European Gigalow.
Here is a link to Roger Ebert's full zero star review: Deuce Bigalow: European Gigalow
One of Roger Ebert's most infamous reviews was his review for the Rob Schneider comedy classic, DEUCE BIGALOW: EUROPEAN GIGALOW. When the film was released in the summer of 2005, Ebert gave the film zero stars, a rating reserved for the films he found had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. If he hated a film, he would normally give the film a half star. This was the lowest his ratings normally went. He did not like giving out a zero star rating as he felt that most films had something to offer the audience. He famously gave zero star ratings to films like the 1994 trainwreck NORTH, the rape reveange cult classic I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, and the 2005 rape revenge film CHAOS, which would see Ebert get into a fight with the film's director David DeFalcone (CHAOS was released the same year (it was reviewed on the very same day) as DEUCE BIGALOW 2 and would also feature Ebert getting into a fight with one of the main people on the film.) Ebert wanted to like all films but there were some he downright loathed.
DEUCE BIGALOW: EUROPEAN GIGALOW is the sequel to the surprise hit DEUCE BIGALOW: MALE GIGALOW. The film had some funny moments into it but, like many of the other films that came from Adam Sandler's production company, Happy Madison, the comedy comes from the side characters and not the main characters. This results in a film that is hard to get through because the lead is such an unfunny bore. It doesn't help that Rob Schneider has never been all that funny. Just look at his reoccurring characters on SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE. They are all one note bores that get a few chuckles the first time around by overstay their welcome but the next time. Schneider has had one funny film where he plays a prominent role and that is 1993's SURF NINJAS. He just can't carry a film while trying to be funny.
The film follows Biaglow as he travels to Amsterdam where he becomes a man-whore again to track down a killer of man-whores. The plot is stupid, but what would you expect from a film like this? This is a film all about jokes, and the film has plenty. Whether they are funny or not is up to you to find out. Let's see what Ebert thought of the film:
The best thing about it is that it runs for only 75 minutes.
This is indeed the best thing about the film. It is still far too long, or at least feels far too long.
Does this sound like a movie you want to see?
To be fair, plot isn't everything about a film and the plot to this film isn't bad. It is a stupid plot, but it could have been fun if everyone involved actually cared about the film they were making. I have to wonder if they didn't care and took the job because they got to spend a few months in Amsterdam. Actually, you don't have to wonder as this is exactly why everyone took this film.
The movie created a spot of controversy last February. According to a story by Larry Carroll of MTV News, Rob Schneider took offense when Patrick Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times listed this year’s Best Picture Nominees and wrote that they were “ignored, unloved and turned down flat by most of the same studios that … bankroll hundreds of sequels, including a follow-up to ‘Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo,’ a film that was sadly overlooked at Oscar time because apparently nobody had the foresight to invent a category for Best Running Penis Joke Delivered by a Third-Rate Comic.”
Patrick Goldstein is 100% correct. Studios don't care about the smaller films. They want to make films that only make money. This is the studio system of old. Money is the name of the game but there is that wonderful time at the end and beginning of each year where the studios do care about getting those awards but the rest of the year, they don't give a shit.
He is also right about Schneider being a "third-rate comic." As I said at this piece's beginning, Schneider is incredibly unfunny. Sure, he gets in a few good jokes every once in a while but a broken clock is right twice a day. He has the career he has today not because he is funny but because he is friends with Adam Sandler. There is no way he wouldn't be where he is today if not for Sandler. Have you ever see his standup specials? Pure dogshit. What about the sitcom he funded himself (because no one wanted to fund it for him) and then sold to Netflix who buried it? It is one of the worst sitcoms ever to have graced any TV screen. The fact that Schneider is now a washed up MAGA comic who gets booed off stage regularly makes me laugh.
Schneider retaliated by attacking Goldstein in full-page ads in Daily Variety and the Hollywood Reporter. In an open letter to Goldstein, Schneider wrote: “Well, Mr. Goldstein, I decided to do some research to find out what awards you have won. I went online and found that you have won nothing. Absolutely nothing. No journalistic awards of any kind … Maybe you didn’t win a Pulitzer Prize because they haven’t invented a category for Best Third-Rate, Unfunny Pompous Reporter Who’s Never Been Acknowledged by His Peers.”
This is Schneider's response. Was this written by one of his kids? It sounds like something you would scream at someone who just made fun of your mom. "I know you are but what am I?"
Reading this, I was about to observe that Schneider can dish it out but he can’t take it. Then I found he’s not so good at dishing it out, either. I went online and found that Patrick Goldstein has won a National Headliner Award, a Los Angeles Press Club Award, a RockCritics.com award, and the Publicists’ Guild award for lifetime achievement.
So, not only is Schneider terrible at comebacks but he also doesn't do any research hat so ever, like someone who prescribes to the MAGA way of thinking. I'll bet it only took Ebert ten seconds to find out everything he needed to know about Goldstein's actual awards record. Schneider clearly writes from his passion and not with his brain.
Schneider was nominated for a 2000 Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actor, but lost to Jar-Jar Binks.
No matter how unfunny and talentless Schneider is, he had no chance of beating Jar Jar Binks. Any other year he would have walked away with the prize but not the year of Jar Jar.
Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks.
Ebert is 100% right here. DEUCE BIGALOW: EUROPEAN GIGALOW does in fact suck. It is a miserable experience that you will regret doing. The film is without wit and surprisingly unfunny. You can tell jokes are being told. You recognise them as jokes. They have the same setup and payoff every joke has, but they are so unfunny you want to turn the film off and go outside to play with a stick. Hell, kicking yourself in the face is better than watching DEUCE BIGALOW: EUROPEAN GIGALOW.
So, was Ebert right? Hell yes he was. The fact that anyone thought this was a good idea should suffer from 100 papercuts. The idea of making a film to DEUCE BIGALOW is a decent idea. The first film was a sizable hit, but they waited far too long to make this sequel. They waited almost six years to return to the land of Bigalow. That is far too long for a film no one really remembers all that much. Thankfully, Schneider would make one more film under the Happy Madison brand where he was the star of the film. The rest of his time with Happy Madison has been spent in smaller roles, usually where he is making some very racist jokes. Just look at his role in I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU CHUCK AND LARRY to see racism at full blast. DO NOT WATCH DEUCE BIGALOW: EUROPEAN GIGALOW. You will hate yourself afterwards.
){kind=link}
0 Comments