Una scatenata dozzina

As a child, I read and loved the book, "Cheaper by the dozen", so I rented the movie expecting an on-screen adaptation of the book. I think the only similarities are the title, and the fact that they have 12 kids. The movie does the book a huge injustice.

Expectations aside, the movie had some plot holes, but I would have appreciated this kind of film if I was a parent looking for a family film. It reminded me of the old Disney classics my family rented when I was growing up. I'm sure that kids would love the mess and destruction that seemed to be the focal point of the movie. They tried to cram too many sub-plots into it when they could have focused strictly on the family dynamics and had a great movie.

I'm just glad I rented it and didn't spend $$ at the theater.

Mom's parenting skills consist of having all the kids get into the bed with her like puppies. Indeed, when she goes away on tour and has to stay in a hotel, she rings up room service for a dozen pillows in order to get to sleep! Similarly, Dad's parenting skills amount to letting the kids do whatever they please, so the story is not about two parents with twelve children, but rather fourteen children, of which two are somewhat older. There is no structure to this family, and hence when Mom and Dad become distracted by new career choices, it starts breaking down rapidly into anarchy and chaos. The problem isn't the number of children or the new career choices, but that the parents have not provided a family structure sufficient to support any changes in direction or growth.

In short, the story misrepresents a poor example of parenting as though it was a good example, manipulating the audience with feel-good sentimentality at every turn, so that we will not notice how messed up and dysfunctional this family actually is. We are supposed to laugh at all their craziness and antics, the chandelier crashing from the ceiling, the kids slipping on vomit, the frog splattering breakfast on everyone, and so forth, and then feel good in the end, when love conquers all, and they return to the simpler life where they started. In other words, this is just mindless nonsense promoting stupidity and childish values. It has nothing in common with the 1950 film from which it takes its title.

This movie was pretty good. There were some funny moments and some okay acting. However, there were a couple of parts that were a little iffy. First of all, I think the twins (I think they were twins) were supposed to be super smart readers or something, but I totally missed that. I only sort of noticed when one of them started saying pretty long words. Second of all, I thought that Hilary Duff's role was not needed, except to make it twelve kids. I found her lines and character stupid and useless. Nothing against the girl herself, but I thought it was pointless. All of the character you got out of her was that she cared a whole lot about clothes and shopping and the like. Yet, there were plenty of moments in the movie that makes it better. Personally, I adored 'Mark' (I think. It was the redheaded one!) and a lot of the acting was great. I enjoyed watching Steve Martin and everyone else. All in all, this was a pretty good movie, but nothing too wonderful.

Let's see if this film has all the necessaries of a modern film.

1) Classic title 2) Dad is an idiot 3) New script bearing no resemblance to the original. 4) Male lead cannot droll without instructions from female 5) Children are out of control 6) The man is incurably stupid 7) Mother is a wise saint 8) Father has no clue about his own home (have I covered that already??) 9) Large families result from irresponsibility

I saw and loved the original. I held no illusions that this would be nearly as good. In fact I knew it would require some updates. The world of the 1950s when the original was made and the 1920s when it was set are dramatically different.

The story is weak, the comedy is poor, the new plot is bigoted.

In the original, Clifton Webb play an efficiency expert Frank Gilbreth. In fact, Frank Gilbreth's principles are still taught in course on efficiency in industry. He was a real person. And a competent one. His son John Kenneth Gilbreth, went on to become one of the world's leading economists. To this very day.

In this one, Frank Baker (Baker's dozen ... get it? Hit me over the head with a joke why doncha?) is a small time football coach who is so inefficient that he can't get breakfast on the table and wipe up a spill at the same time. And it's hard to imagine his wanna be drop out son becoming anything but a bum.

The scene from the original where the woman from Planned Parenthood came to the door to humorous results was morphed into the yuppy neighbors, the Shenks, essentially scolding anyone who has or wants more than two kids. Tina is so obsessed with having only one that Bill is portray as sexually frustrated ... he ain't getting none lest she conceive again.

I grew up in a family of 13. While my Dad was not the modern hands on type, he was aware of where things were and how things worked. He could cook and do the laundry and get us off to school on time. And he worked hard to be able to pay for us all to go to Catholic school. He had to be efficient; every 18 months or so, Mom was squeezing out another sib.

We were well behaved. We had to be. If not, 13 children turn into the unruly mob shown in this stupid film. I knew other families like ours. From nine to fifteen kids. They were all self disciplined families. I cannot tell you how many people, my sister-in-law included, who have asked me if it was "that way in your house." People came out of this movie thinking that large families are rude and out of control.

While the CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN opening titles credit the authors of the best-selling book the original 1950 film was based on (Frank B. Gilbreth Jr. and Ernestine Gilbreth Carey), don't expect to see a remake of the charming, early-20th century comedy about two efficiency experts (Clifton Webb and Myrna Loy) running a complex but happy family...and this is not a BAD thing!

While the 1950 production is a minor classic, the thrust of the earlier film was with the parents, and oldest daughter (the late Jeanne Crain). Clifton Webb was a gifted, acerbic actor, best known, previously, as 'child hating' author Lynn Belvedere, who proved he was as adept at raising children as he was at EVERYTHING he attempted, in the 1948 hit, SITTING PRETTY. The film was such a success that two sequels were made, and Webb would do several more 'family' comedies before his death in 1966. Playing Frank Bunker Gilbreth, the father of twelve, was a 'natural' for the actor, and the 61-year old Webb 'stole' the film with his self-effacing, 'scientific' approach to child rearing. As his wife, Lillian, Myrna Loy, who had graduated from being 'Nora Charles' in the "Thin Man" series, to being Hollywood's favorite wife/mom, shared Bonnie Hunt's sweetness, sense of organization, and dry humor, but lacked a sexual chemistry with Webb that would have actually produced twelve children (perhaps because of the less 'permissive' time the film was made, or perhaps because of Webb's screen persona). Jeanne Crain, one of 20th Century Fox's favorite ingénues for over six years, had a large fan base, which the studio capitalized on (She was actually second-billed in the film, behind Webb). Her scene at a 1920's prom, with Webb as her 'date', is a film highlight. While the eleven other children were given 'moments' in the film, they barely registered, individually.

Would 2003 audiences have gone to see Martin in a period comedy set eighty years earlier? I doubt it. And had the original story had been simply 'updated', would it have been truly faithful to the source, even in spirit? Unlikely, as so much has changed over the years. Ultimately, the film makers erred, I believe, in using the title of the earlier film, but not in the approach of making a 'family-friendly' comedy about a household of massive proportions.

With Steve Martin, who has become Hollywood's quintessential 'Dad', as a loving, unconventional father/football coach given an opportunity to head his alma mater's team, he displays the same kind of sensitivity that made PARENTHOOD such a wonderful film. Bonnie Hunt, as his wife, is completely believable as a successful author who could handle her large family and still-frisky husband equally well. She is, as always, a treasure!

The children are really the stars of the film, though, and each is special, and individual, from the eldest daughter (Piper Perabo), who, at 22, wants the family to accept the guy she's living with (Ashton Kutcher, in a funny, brief role), to the youngest pair of twins (Brent and Shane Kinsman), who make an art out of wreaking havoc. Tom Welling is quite likable, and proves that he is more than just 'Clark Kent' (For you trivia fans, Kutcher almost got the part of 'Superman' in an upcoming film, which would have put two 'Men of Steel' in the cast). The only discordant note is Hillary Duff's annoyingly brittle second daughter; she may be a 'teen idol', but she is more grating than endearing.

Director Shawn Levy's previous film, JUST MARRIED, was a loud, unpleasant, clichéd bore; in CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN, he redeems himself with a more enjoyable, richer film.

While the movie will never earn the 'classic' status the earlier film achieved, it stands very well on it's own merits!