Doze é Demais

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.

The film deals about a happy family , the father (Steve Martin) is a notorious coach and the mother (Bonnie Hunt) is a writer and with twelve sons (Tom Welling, Piper Perabo, Hilary Duff..) . He receives a new offer as a trainer of a famous football team . She obtains her dream for the publishing the book titled : ¨Cheaper by the dozen¨. With the new job , they must change from a small city to the big town . Steve Martin ought to keep the familiar order involving in his own home while at the same time training the team .

The picture is pretty entertaining and amusing , the film contains bemusing scenes and continuous laughters and various chuckles with lots of fun . It's a new version of the classic film with similar title featured by Clifton Webb and Myrna Loy adding episodes from ¨Home Alone¨ as when Ashton Kutcher (uncredited) , being the Pier Perabo's boyfriend , suffers numerous jokes and misfortunes in charge of the brothers , likeness to thieves from former film . The picture belongs to numerous family sub-genre whose maxim representation is ¨Yours , mine and ours¨ with Henry Fonda and Lucille Ball and recently remade with Dennis Quaid and Rene Russo . Steve Martin , as always , plays as excessive manner , making an authentic recital , if you like Martin's crazy interpretation , you'll enjoy this one . Besides , there appears as sons , known and young actors as Tom Welling (Smallville) , Hilary Duff (LizzyMcGuire) , Piper Perabo (Bar Coyote) and Ashton Kutcher(Guess) . The motion picture was well realized by Shawn Levy and with the same equipment was shot the second part . The flick will appeal to familiar films enthusiasts and Steve Martin fans.

Steve Martin, the former "wild and crazy guy," stars in yet another remake of a classic comedy. This was exactly why the movie didn't do as well in the theaters, and that's a shame. There are movies that should not be remade, and yet are remade anyway. You would think that an old family movie which inspired "The Brady Bunch" nearly 20 years later would be one of them. Surprisingly this is a superior remake, unlike the 1999 version of "The Out-of-Towners."

Bonnie Hunt; No matter how good she is in anything, everything she touches turns to rust. Would somebody please give me a reason why? The whole movie seems to revolve around the success of Tom & Kate Baker(Martin and Hunt), as Kate finishes writing her book about that huge family of theirs and Tom is offered a job to coach football at his alma mater, the latter of which means they need to move out. Just as the original did, the remake works because of the antics of the kids. And here they are:

Piper Perabo, as the oldest daughter Nora, who doesn't have to suffer from the overcrowding of her family, but does have to suffer with Hank a vain actor boyfriend, played by Ashton Kutcher.

Hilary Duff tries to break her typecasting as "Lizzie McGuire," but it's going to be quite difficult. Still it should be noted that Lorraine is far more vain than Lizzie, although not as bitchy as Ashlie Brillault's Kate.

Tom Welling as the oldest son Charlie hates his father as much as he hates being in a big family, and being moved to a new school where all the snot-nosed kids insult and harass him & Lorraine make things much worse.

Forrest Landis is Mark(aka "FedEx"), the nerdy outcast of the family who when the family moves is left to sleep in his own room...and it's a COOL room. I was happy when I got my own bedroom at five years old, but with a secret escape and/or disposal hatch like that, who wouldn't be jealous?

Alyson Stoner. I MUST repeat that name --- ALYSON STONER! If you liked her in Missy Elliot's music video's, you'll lover her as Sarah Baker. Whether it's plotting against babysitters, dipping Hank's underwear in meat or defending her siblings from bullies, this girl is the coolest of the 12 Baker kids. Not even Mara Wilson compares to this girl, and she was one hell of a child actress.

An unfortunately deleted scene featuring Eileen Brennan as an ailing nanny who boasts "12 years with the FBI." It was actually good enough that they should've left it in. And how about the closing theme "What Christmas Should Be," by Miss Duff? A decent message, even if totally impossible.

All in all, it's still worth seeing despite the family sappiness and lack of an original storyline. Don't be ashamed to give it a try.

There is some resemblance to the original movie in this film (as well as some elements borrowed from the sequel "Belles on their Toes"). The writers did include various ideas such as the move for the father's job, the family council, the father being offered the opportunity of his dreams, the father being a somewhat eccentric and unusual character, the mother being the calm one, etc. It also borrows just as much from sixties family comedies such as "Yours, Mine, and Ours" (i.e. the son that feels left out in the family group, the older brother who give "cool" advice to the younger ones, the kids trying to "sabotage" various events, etc.).

This version lacks something that the original one had. The original moved along with the pace of the changes in the family's life as normal life does. It also seemed to capture better the idea of trying to raise such a large group of children and the sacrifices and choices one has to make. There is also some semblance of what it is like to be a child in this family by keeping that focus on only one of the children, while still giving us glimpses of what the other ones are like.

The film, however, seemed to be more of a showcase for the comedic talents of Steven Martin than anything else. It also didn't move along in the same way that the original making the story somewhat unsatisfying.

Frank Gilbreth never lost the idea that his family was the most important thing where as Steve Martin's character has to be brought back into the fold. It is understandable that he would want something for himself, but to get him to the point where he sees his children as a burden and a liability is a problem. Thankfully in the end he comes back to being a part of his family, but the fact that he had to be causes the story to loose some of its charm.

The thing that made Frank and Ernestine Gilbreth want to write about their family was the joy that they knew in living in it despite the trials and tribulations. In this version of their story the joy seems to be lost and has to be recaptured. The director and writer are lucky enough that at least a little bit does.

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.