Review of Mr. Woodcock (2007) by Thequietgamer — 30 Jun 2020

This is one of the more puzzling films I've seen. I'm honestly not sure what I was supposed to get out of it. Laughter? Quite frankly it's too dark for that. This is one of those lopsided rivalry "comedies" where a guy tries and repeatedly fails to get revenge on some alpha male stereotype who caused him harm in the past. The only difference here being that the untouchable jerkwad is the protagonist's old gym teacher, who used to beat the crap out of him back when he was a kid. It's hard to find any amusement in a dynamic like that.

I have nothing against slapstick. Case in point, I consider Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story to be among the funniest movies of all time. People falling down, getting hurt, and generally just beating the crap out of each other can be downright hilarious if done right. However, the way this tries to mine humor out of a grown man physically abusing a bunch of minors never works. Especially since you witness these moments through the main character's PTSD-style flashbacks that carry a bizarrely serious tone for what's supposed to be a lighthearted chucklefest. Also, please keep in mind all of this is coming from a guy who almost busted a gut guffawing at the playground beatdown at the end of Step Brothers.

The only things possibly saving this from being a total failure as a comedy are the few guilty giggles I found near the end of the film and Amy Poehler in a decidedly un-Leslie Knope role. The Parks and Recreation sweetheart shows just as much talent for playing a total scumbag as she does for portraying individuals that are nothing short of utterly affable, making me wish we could see more of that kind of stuff from her. Everything else is tired banged your mom jokes and the aforementioned attempts at making an adult assaulting children from a place of genuine cruelty tickle your funny bone.

So what does that leave? A message? Some kind of morals to be taken away? As to be expected with this kind of premise, the conclusion sees the two leads eventually putting their differences aside and becoming friends or something. Not over finding common ground or anything like that. Instead, Stifler just decides that having an authority figure hit him in the balls for forgetting his cup when he was growing up was actually a good thing because it made him a stronger individual years later, despite all evidence actually pointing to the contrary. That's some shady logic to try and sell to the audience. There's also no reason given as to why Woodcock is the way that he is, so it's impossible to view him as more than a honest-to-goodness piece of crap who deserves some legitimate comeuppance that never arrives. Why should we be willing to accept his life also ended up in a better place by the time the credits rolled?

As much issue as I take with, well, I guess ALL of this, I can't say I wasn't invested. I remained completely engaged in the highly questionable display unfolding before my eyes all the way through, even if it was solely to determine what the intentions of the people behind this were. It's a fascinating watch in a "why did they think this would be funny?" sort of way. Perhaps I'm giving it too much credit for holding my attention, particularly given all my complaining, but there are plenty of better options out there that have failed to do the same so I suppose I'll acknowledge the value in that.