The Ringer: Review By moviegeek

Oct 17th, 2010 by moviegeek
THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS OF FILM-MAKING #1: "Bad Ideas from the Start"
  • OVERALL
    2.5
    WORTHY
  • Story
  • Acting
  • Directing
  • Visuals
**This begins a series of reviews I will be writing on what I find to be the seven causes of a film's demise. All of the films reviewed I have either disliked or entirely despised. The "sins" are in a semi-specific order of how much it hurt the respective film.**

I sympathize towards films that have potential to be so much greater than they were. I do not, however, show any sympathy towards films that were just terrible ideas to begin with. The Ringer is such an idea. Johnny Knoxville stars as a man who must earn $28,000 to pay for a friend's surgery. In desperation, he decides to try out for and fix the Special Olympics to get the money. As Knoxville's character makes friends with some of the athletes there, each with unique comical problems, he also begins to fall in love with one of the staff workers there (Katherine Heigl). She is kind to who she thinks is another challenged person, but who really is a liar.

I want to say firstly that, the problem with this comedy isn't that it isn't funny. There are plenty of surprisingly strong laughs in this picture. Having the Farrelly brothers behind this movie was also a big plus for the film. They do well with creating characters and comedy amongst them. The problem began from day one, though, when the idea to make a comedy about mentally-challenged people was brought up. Epic fail.

I don't mind a comedy that laughs AT characters or groups every once in a while to freshen up the comedy. But I do have a problem when a movie is built around laughing AT the mentally handicapped. There are many laughs in this picture, but it's an uncomfortable laugh. The screenplay uses each of the truly handicapped people as comedic devices and not as characters. I never got the sense that the makers valued the people behind the disability.

At the very end, after what I'm sure you can guess to be the conclusion, there is a final scene that really demoralizes the picture. Knoxville's desp*cable act is basically pawned off as being the lesser of two evils. There is no restitution or ownership for what was really a mean stunt. Even if the comedy had bad taste, I would have forgiven it if, in the end, it owned up for it.

The Ringer is also stunningly predictable. I am usually the last person to figure out obvious things in films, but I have never called each upcoming scene so clearly before. As each climax unwound, I had a mental checklist of what each outcome would be, and I was completely correct. I was debating between making the first deadly movie sin to be either "predictability" or what I eventually decided upon: "bad ideas from the start." I decided against predictability because I think it is an overused criticism. I don't mind knowing where a film is headed, especially in inspirational dramas and the such. The Ringer, however, is destructively predictable. I haven't seen a film this obvious before.

The Ringer was not a good idea for a comedy. It has no class in its approach; it has no depth to its material; it has no heart to its bullying. All of the funny moments feel like they were written by a bunch of college guys standing in a circle making fun of the kid in a wheelchair. Funny? Yes...until the kid looks up at you with tears in his eyes. Funny still? Not to me.

Other Sinners: See No Evil, Hear No Evil; Napoleon Dynamite

Do you like this review?

Comments (20)

  1. Jimthar

    ah gotcha. that makes a lil more sense. :D

    2 years agoby @jimtharFlag

  2. Diaigma

    Nice review, Sir! ;)

    2 years agoby @diaigmaFlag

  3. moviegeek

    I KNEW someone would ask that. It's because I thought it was about something else :P Someone had recommended this as a hilarious movie. To a degree, they were right. Moments like the ice cream thing WERE pretty funny.

    2 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  4. Jimthar

    "WHEN THE F*CK DID WE GET ICE CREAM"?? ha! sorry dude but i like this movie. it's funny as hell, despite it's predictability. but then, there are very few movies nowadays that AREN'T predictible.
    my question is this, if you have such a problem with movies that 'make fun of the mentally challenged' then why did you watch this to begin with?? it's very plain what this is about, yet you sat through it, knowing you have a problem with the premise. i dunno, that seems a bit hypocritical to me.

    decent review though.

    2 years agoby @jimtharFlag

  5. The Soylent Green Monkey

    Thanks, man.

    2 years agoby @soylentgreen2Flag

  6. moviegeek

    Haha, alright. Well lemme know when you put something up. I do like your reviews.

    2 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  7. The Soylent Green Monkey

    No, of course I have. I just didn't feel like writing a reviews, or finishing them. I had a review of "The Social Network" halfway finished, but I haven't finished it and posted it yet. I might finish that eventually but, again, busy. And lazy.

    2 years agoby @soylentgreen2Flag

  8. moviegeek

    Yea I've read that ONE review :P

    You haven't seen a movie since then? Or just in theaters?

    2 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  9. The Soylent Green Monkey

    Well, I have a review of Wall Street 2 up.

    But, there are two main reasons behind me not writing reviews for a long time:

    1. Too preoccupied.
    2. Too lazy.

    But, I promise, the next movie I see/watch will be reviewed. I've missed it. lol

    2 years agoby @soylentgreen2Flag

  10. moviegeek

    And what happened to you writing review?! I've seen you post very good reviews under older accounts.

    2 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  11. moviegeek

    Thank your for the discussion though. I like how you don't just attack me and call me names. I'm getting the feeling that by the time I finish writing all seven of these I'm gonna piss some people off. meep.

    2 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  12. The Soylent Green Monkey

    Huh. That makes sense.

    2 years agoby @soylentgreen2Flag

  13. moviegeek

    They're laughing at him because he's weird. We're laughing at him because he's weird. Everyone is laughing at Napoleon. Who cares why? I'm all for a geek to headline a movie and be dorky. But Napoleon is used simply to BE dumb as the humor for the film.

    I didn't abhor Napoleon Dynamite btw. It was just a dumb movie with little taste or respect.

    2 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  14. The Soylent Green Monkey

    People aren't laughing at Napoleon because he's slow (they never showed him acting slow, really), people are laughing just because he's offbeat. The weird geeky kid gets to be the star of the movie and that's why the movie is funny. It's just supposed to be a movie about the geeks of the world.

    2 years agoby @soylentgreen2Flag

  15. moviegeek

    I realize he was medically classified as 'retarded' or, better, "mentally challenged". I was using retarded (inappropriately) as the slang for the offbeat, slower people. Napoleon was such.

    And that stupidity was used to get laughs.

    2 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  16. The Soylent Green Monkey

    Whoa, whoa, whoa, man.

    Napoleon Dynamite (the character) was not retarded (pardon). He was just a nerd. A total geek. He wasn't slow, or anything. He was just the kid who was interested in things like Nessy and Ligers. And because of this, he was made fun of in school by the jocks. The typical jock/nerd relationship in high school movies.

    2 years agoby @soylentgreen2Flag

  17. moviegeek

    ... In Napolean himself?

    2 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  18. The Soylent Green Monkey

    Where was the retardation in Napoleon Dynamite?

    2 years agoby @soylentgreen2Flag

  19. moviegeek

    Trust me, it WASN'T as bad as it could have been. I don't for a moment think this film was hateful or anything. It was just all in bad taste.

    And Napoleon Dynamite is a waste of my time. It uses the retardation as a comedic device, much like this, only MUCH worse.

    2 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  20. The Soylent Green Monkey

    I don't think they were making fun of the disabled people in this film at all. The only scene where I felt they were the butt of the joke was when Knoxville tried to explain what he was doing to them and it took him a ridiculously long time for them to get it. Other than that, it seemed like they were in on the joke. And at least Knoxville's character knew what he was doing was terrible and he got the sh*t kicked out of him by a priest. And he NEVER looks down on them, he's treating them like real people.

    And, yes, I will agree that this does sound like a REALLY, REALLY bad idea for a comedy (or film in general), but I thought it wasn't nearly as insulting as you're making it out to be.

    Also, Napoleon Dynamite?

    2 years agoby @soylentgreen2Flag