Treize à la douzaine

I did like this movie in general. There are some funny moments and the performances are spirited from the entire cast. Unfortunately, although as a remake it is acceptable it does have its weak spots. I didn't feel as though it had the charm of the original, by that I mean that doesn't quite have the irreverence and likability that made the original so endearing. There are some pacing problems and major discrepancies in the screenplay, plus the direction wasn't as strong as it could have been. On the whole though, it is not too bad. There is some nice scenery and camera work. The performances from the cast are fun; Steve Martin does very well in the title role, and the ensemble of children have strong chemistry. And despite the weak script, there are some funny moments, like the mince-in-the-trousers part. And there are some heart-warming parts like the ending. Overall, flawed but acceptable. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Tom (Steve Martin) and Kate Baker (Bonnie Hunt) had big career dreams and big family dreams. The family wins out and they leave the big city. The kids don't stop coming until number 12. The oldest being played by Piper Perabo, Tom Welling, and Hilary Duff. There are also twins, lookalike girls, sad little boy, other girl, cute boy, chunkier boy, and smaller cute boy. Tom is a high school football coach who gets a chance at a bigger job. The family is forced to move to the city for his job where Nora (Piper Perabo) lives with her boyfriend Hank (Ashton Kutcher). With less time with the big job, Tom has to deal with everything else after Kate gets a book tour to NYC.

Let's be obvious. There are too many kids. It becomes chaos not just in the house but in the story. It's just a series of wacky slapstick. It's general harmless family fun. If you don't have enough fun, the characters will keep smashing things up until you laugh. It's a lot pratfall fluff and not a lot of seriousness. There are some good silly fun pushing Kutcher around. Steve Martin and Bonnie Hunt are definitely game for all the craziness.

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.

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.

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.