Balls of Fury - Palle in gioco

I laughed at this movie. I laughed a LOT. True, some of the laughs were simply because some people were in this movie that had NO BUSINESS being in it, because they are considered to belong to a higher echelon of movies. Christopher Walken and Maggie Q are usually seen in LARGE blockbusters or high-profile indies; George Lopez has a very successful TV series, not to mention MANY cameos from well-known comedic actors. These people are GOOD. When they are on the screen, funny stuff happens. The script is an obvious parody on the movie "Enter The Dragon", but with ping-pong in lieu of kung-fu or karate. It also spoofs the "underdog" motif like the "Rocky" movies. I dunno, all I can say is that I REALLY enjoyed this movie. I didn't expect much, and I got a lot back because of that. True, I was a little liquored up, and a second sober viewing might not pay off repeat dividends, but I had a good time. Isn't that really what it's all about? Honestly, it ain't Citizen Kane, but I've seen crappier movies... a contemporary comparison: I was NOT disappointed by this movie, and comparatively much more disappointed with the 3rd Pirates of the Caribbean movie...

Yaaarrrr, thar be worse things under the sun, matey...

Taxi. The Pacifier. Herbie Fully Loaded. Let's Go to Prison. Night at the Museum. If this list of movies is an accurate representation of your DVD collection, then my friends, you either have a young child in the house or a strange fetish for average-to-below average comedies. Or "absolutely dreadful" in the case of Jimmy Fallon's Taxi. *shudders* I'm still trying to erase memories of that steamer from my mind.

Other than being part of the aforementioned pathetically sad DVD collection, do you know what else each of these movies has in common? They're all written by Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon, the duo who wrote, produced, and directed Balls of Fury. Are you trying to decide whether or not this is a film worthy of your time and money? Please let my above revelation stand as "enough said."

In all honesty, what can you expect when you take a poor man's Jack Black and give him the starring role in a poor man's Dodgeball? A little thing I like to refer to as "not much." Dan Fogler gives it the ol' college try, but perhaps the material is to blame for his mostly forgettable performance. He delivers a couple of laugh-out-loud moments, but by the time he's lip-synching to Def Leppard you'll be asking yourself, "So who's this guy, and why is he doing a bad karaoke impersonation of 'Jack Black Meets Sam Kinison'?"

I will give Balls of Fury three credits - 1) Maggie Q is adorable, 2) The film rightfully never takes itself too seriously, and 3) It's nowhere near as filthy as I expected. At the top of my notebook I wrote, "Balls/Genitalia References" and I was set to keep track. I just knew they were going to fly off the screen fast and furious, especially judging by the "a huge comedy with tiny balls" tagline. So I was quite shocked when the grand total was only one, and that one was merely Maggie Q's character disgustedly relaying an example of the comments she was forced to deal with from male players.

What more can I say about a film whose crowning achievement is, "Well, I didn't expect much, and it wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, so whatever"? That certainly doesn't send you rushing to purchase a ticket, now does it? It'll be on TNT or TBS soon enough so just have patience and watch a few legitimately good comedies in the interim. There'll come a time when you're flipping channels, nothing else is on, and you'll cruise across this. You can decide then whether you want to sit through all of it. The end result will likely be a long email thanking me for saving you $8.

Before I commence, let me once again bring attention to my above "poor man's Dodgeball" quote. I overheard several disappointed people say, "I thought it'd be like Dodgeball." What's that? Yeah, they said it in unison, Wisenheimer. Now shut up. The consensus? It's not even close. So if that was the opinion you formed after watching the trailer then dismiss that notion immediately. It's an interesting concept that probably contains about ten minutes of solid comedic material.

What ultimately happens when you stretch that over an hour and a half? Unfortunately, the jokes suffer from what I like to call the "Kate Moss, Heather Mills McCartney, and post-2000 Muhammad Ali Syndrome." In other words, they're flat, lame, and they pack no punch. Let's see them put THAT on the DVD cover.

What are people whining about? Balls of Fury was quite funny! A few years ago, the people who are now trashing this movie would have been going gaga and adding a 100 million to its gross revenue...but that's part of the problem. Tastes have changed.

I'm going to go on the record as saying that this movie is at least as funny as anything Adam Sandler or Will Ferrel has ever made. Why is it doing worse then? People just don't want silly, stupid comedies anymore, which is why Superbad is doing much better instead.

Balls of Fury is a very funny movie with a wonderful cast (especially Christopher Walken and Thomas Lennon), and if some of the jokes fall flat, or gave themselves away in the trailer, the movie moves quickly enough that it doesn't matter. They're already onto another joke.

Times have changed, and unfortunately for the movie, so have tastes. These days, even silly spoofs are expected to meet a required level of maturity, and for those that were raised on Naked Gun, Hot Shots and Police Academy movies, that's a little sad.

Go ahead, say the movie is juvenile. Say it's stupid. Just don't say it isn't funny. There were at least three moments during the movie when the entire theater was rolling in the aisles. I've never seen a SNL alumni movie do that.

For the most part, "Balls of Fury" is an excuse to be silly. It could just as easily star Adam Sandler. Clearly the point of the movie is just to have a good time, and the cast is certainly doing that every step of the way. It's not rip-snorting humor by any stretch, but definitely a good way to enjoy oneself for two hours if there's nothing else to do. As can be expected, Christopher Walken is the best character in the flick. His role reminded me of Han in "Enter the Dragon" (or any James Bond villain, for that matter).

So, if you just want to laugh at something completely ridiculous for a while, this is the movie for you. Like "A Night at the Roxbury" and "Dude, Where's My Car?", it proves that movies can be funny and stupid at the same time.

It is not that bad. I am one of the guys who like this. It is not bad comparing to the movies that were recently released in Singapore. Underdog is not very good, can't even be a superhero movie. Shoot em' up is for hard-core action fans and basically is very violent and bloody. Then it is Balls of fury which I enjoyed watching. I thought it was something like Prince of tennis, the live-action movie and the ping-pong ball fights scenes are something like that. That, the ping-pong ball fights, is the thing that attracted me to watch it. But Prince of tennis is better than this. Balls of fury got the comedy and the simple action which becomes a harmless fun movie. I like movies as long as they are fun or entertaining. Balls of fury, though fun, is considered quite dumb for some mature adults or teenagers, the director used stupid jokes like always get hit in the groin and banging into the wall. It has to be stupid to be funny. Sometimes, I admit that it is quite dumb in some of the scenes but it is fun, it got slow-motion ball fights, it got Maggie Q who is hot and it got dumb-a** jokes so what more you want for a dumb comedy.

Overall, it makes a harmless movie that you can watch in your free time. It can be funny sometime and it too can be dumb sometime. You may laugh or smile at some scenes. I don't know but I smiled when watching it even at the stupidest jokes. Best to leave your brains at home while watching. This movie is not to be taken seriously.