Curt
Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.
qfanatiq
You need to take this film at face value. It is not trying to be clever. It is simply out and out slap stick routine stretched out through decently scripted film.This films simple premise is to make you laugh. It certainly made me laugh. The over the top jokes, scenarios and pain really brought this to life as a silly belly laughfest.Nice light hearted comedy offering a laugh to all ages. I think a no brainer comedy is a good thing to lift spirits and raise a smile.I cant imagine anyone not finding this film funny in one way or another. If you like the comedy style of Jim Carey and movement of Lee Evans or Rowan Atkinson then I recommend you give this a go.Enjoy
elshikh4
In his famous TV show, At The Movies, film critic Gene Siskel said that this was the first film he walked out on in 26 years of reviewing movies. Well, maybe he was having intestinal problem at the moment ! When an important critic says that, it doesn't mean necessarily that he's right. Originally, you are the one who can make Siskel's reviews, or else's, look right or not. Because, any film critic is speaking his own mind, not yours. Sometimes it's the same thing. And sometimes it isn't. This time, obviously for me, it isn't ! Simply this is not a bad movie. The word "intolerable" got no relation with it whatsoever. It's a light and sweet slapstick. Nothing is too goofy or too zany. No one showed ridiculous performance. It reminded me with the work of Laurel & Hardy, yet in colors and with somehow thrilling plot. Chris Farley is doing his routine, and the chemistry between him and David Spade is working.The actual problem is that this movie came after (Tommy Boy – 1995) which's a better movie. So the disappointment must be powerful. And yes, you've got to ask yourself; why after a comic detailed breakthrough such as (Tommy..) the new dual goes and make something which's clearly not better, or as good ?! I believe the studio didn't know how to deal with the newly born star. So, they handled him any script just to exploit his success. But that wasn't for the sake of his career, us, and them; since the movie didn't hit the mark as its precedent.The easy plan to invest Farley this time was by the reoccurrence of (Tommy..)'s factors. And sorrowfully Farley accepted it. Therefore some gags from the original (Tommy Boy) were recycled however on a poor level with not much to support it either (the idea of idiot Farley and rational Spade, the problem of their sleep, even David Spade got nothing new to show this round; he was repeating the whole thing yet weakly. And for some it was hard to believe that the tongue-in-cheek was the movie's main, or only, goods ! Though, Black Sheep isn't really a Black Sheep. It is relaxingly uncomplicated, and has its moments. Just imagine that it was made before (Tommy..) and they had to release it later, and everything will be fine. I loved its innocent cartoonish sense, its running gags, the character of the old lunatic veteran (Oh God, so Gary Busey CAN do comedy !! WAW as long as you live, as along as you see and be surprised !) and the whole wacky time of it, where I didn't feel a single second of cheesiness or repulsiveness or bore.Dear late Gene Siskel. I admire many of your opinions. But, you were totally unfair towards this one. 1996 got some of the real agonizing comedies. Kingpin, The Cable Guy, Larger Than Life are little examples. Sometimes the critic, even the ordinary viewer, stands many movies good or bad one after another, to have no patience for more. So walking out on a movie could mean that one critic is being tortured by one movie. Or that one critic just, for a reason out of the movie, can't have a good time.
jeremy3
This movie didn't have the overall strength that Beverly Hills Ninja and Tommy Boy did. There were things I like, and things I didn't like. There were unnecessary, unexplained scenes. The scene with Farley doing drugs and talking about drugs with teenagers was not very funny. It was a pretty bad message. There were scenes like that, which really detracted from the movie. At times the movie seemed like too much of a Farley vehicle without much of a plot. The good points to the movie were how it made fun of politicians. Tim Matheson was excellent as a nice guy politician surrounded by political handlers and sleaze. The political clichés and the whole political process makes one really hate political campaigns. David Spade had some funny moments. He revealed some incredible acrobatics during one scene. Farley did have some very funny moments. He also had some acrobatic moves. I think that at times the movie was good, but at other times rather lame. Mixed review.
policy134
Have you ever seen this and thought it was great? From my point of view: Definitely no! It's amazing why a film that is virtually a remake of Tommy Boy can be so much worse but there you have it.Chris Farley was funny and his years on Saturday Night Live proves that he was more than just a bumbling fool as he is portrayed here. The movie starts out kind of strange when we see him working at some kind of civics center. In an attempt to make him kind of sympathetic, we see him bonding with some kid but that side of the story wouldn't have been that interesting and is left a subplot that eats only a minute more of screen time.So what do we get. We get Tim Matheson playing his brother running for governor (in a totally unnecessary part. Simply there because Farley's idol, John Belushi and he were friends). We get his sniveling campaign manager: another sleazy guy performance by Timothy Carhart (remember him from Thelma and Louise?). We get another of Belushi's compadres Bruce McGill as the opposing side's campaign manager and finally David Spade as himself. This setup could have been funny but is absolutely played as a setup to Farley's character messing everything up for his brother with slapstick sequences (or anti-slapstick as we feel every bit of pain that Farley feels). If we had seen Farley arguing with people for his brother's votes in the same vein he did with brake pads in Tommy Boy this could have been much better. Why rip something off and then completely screw up everything the original stood for?There are some scenes here that are so painful to watch that it makes you sick: 1) Farley's encounter with a bat. Spade covers him in a blanket and whacks the living crap out of him. This was probably a take on the scene with the bees in Tommy Boy. It falls flat on it's ugly face.2) Farley getting stoned and shouting out 60's slogans to cheers at a rock concert and screws it up by screaming: "Kill Whitey". It has never been funny not even sitcom funny.3) Spade's face off with a crazy Vietnam vet. This is like seeing the worst Police Academy movie you can think off. Spade was in one of the worst so maybe he liked it.Ready for the best part: Farley actually finds out that the election is rigged at the last minute. This is so unlikely after we seen him stumble through one blunder after another that I was scratching my head in disbelief. Of course, there must be some conflict that has to be resolved but the scene where Matheson tells Farley to keep out of the way is so unbelievable because we don't feel that they have any connection to one another in the first place.The film has a happy ending or sort of. The brothers are not a bit closer than they were before and Farley goes on his merry way again. It is hard to believe that director Penelope Spheeris was the director of Wayne's World as well. Maybe she just wanted to go home because she knew that this couldn't possibly be good anyway. Farley had less than one year to live and it shows that he was not in very good shape here. A shame he left us with two much bigger bombs than this (Beverly Hills Ninja and Almost Heroes)
