Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star Review
Posted by Jeremy Wilson on 09.11.2011
I saw it so you don't have to.
Directed by: Tom Brady Written by: Adam Sandler, Allen Covert & Nick Swardson
Bucky Larson: Nick Swardson Kathy McGee: Christina Ricci Miles Deep: Don Johnson Dick Shadow: Stephen Dorff J. Day: Ido Mosseri Gary: Kevin Nealon Jeremiah Larson: Edward Herrmann Debbie Larson: Miriam Flynn
Rated R for pervasive crude sexual content, language and some nudity. Running Time: 96 minutes
I thought about how I was going to start this review for a long time. At first, I was going to list all the movies that have come out in the last 2 months, or that are still in theaters, that are better than Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star. However, that proved to be too long and so I am going in the opposite direction. Here are the films released (wide-release and limited) that are worse than Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star.
To describe Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star as bad is an insult to bad movies. There all all kinds of those and some of them are so bad, they're good. Hell, most of the Happy Madison productions (of which this film is one) are bad, but Bucky Larson is something beyond even that low bar. This film makes Apollo 18 look like Apollo 13 (NASA jokes help ease the pain). In fact, I cannot recall the last time I personally saw a film this bad in theaters, but it has definitely been years. So having said all that, where do we start?
The film immediately starts with an offensive and unfunny montage of what life must be like in rural Iowa. It is disgusting and stupid, the worst of it involving peanut butter and bestiality. We then cut to the Larson family as Bucky has dinner with his parents and then heads on over to his neighbor's house to watch a porno. His friends “teach” him to masturbate and have fun mocking him until they all discover that Bucky's parents are the stars of the porno they are watching. Bucky just thinks this is swell, since “they're movie stars!” So Bucky takes all this to mean that it is his destiny to head to Los Angeles and become a “movie star.” The rest of the film consists of small penis jokes and gags. I stopped counting at around 100.
So much is wrong with Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star that I'll start with the most surprising and sad negative – the supporting cast. One of the great mysteries one ponders during the hour-and-a-half of the film's run-time is how in the world this movie got this cast. The answer, I would guess, is two-fold: 1) Actors need money as much as everyone else, and 2) Adam Sandler has some serious pull. This has “paycheck movie” written all over it for good, (mostly) talented people such as Christina Ricci, Kevin Nealon, Don Johnson, Stephen Dorff and Edward Herrmann. Ricci is hypnotically pretty and she is a very talented actress. She also has shown a willingness to stretch as an actress and do films that are a little off the beaten path (Pumpkin comes to mind). The nicest thing that can be said is that she tries. Really, really hard.
She plays Bucky's love interest, Kathy, as the most pure-of-heart, genuinely earnest girl in all the land. It just doesn't work. It clashes with the rest of the film and she tries a little too hard, especially in comparison to her co-star. The obligatory romance between she and Bucky is laid on so thick, not to mention being completely ridiculous, disingenuous, creepy and lacking in any entertainment value whatsoever, that it and she actually manage to make Bucky Larson worse. Ricci is starring in her own movie separate from Bucky Larson, one that happens to be a touching, uplifting drama in which a young Jersey girl has her dreams of being the best waitress in all the land shattered after a terrible hot soup incident banishes her to some crummy diner in L.A. Only when her porn-starring, idiotic, man-child “white knight” comes (literally) riding on his white horse to rescue her and open their very own steakhouse in the middle of Iowa will all her dreams come true. I kid you not.
Kevin Nealon plays the really angry roommate/neighbor who doesn't have one funny line in the entire movie. He pops up screaming something half-incomprehensible, cussing as much as possible and is simply uncomfortable instead of uncomfortably funny. How do you make Kevin Nealon unfunny? I didn't know that was possible. Don Johnson is utterly ludicrous as Miles Deep, the director who befriends and uses Bucky to rejuvenate his career. Apparently, a nebulous pill addiction and saying the “f-word” as a noun, verb, adjective and name is the film-makers' attempt at providing a little character development for Mr. Deep. Stephen Dorff as Dick Shadow is standard, over-the-top sleezeball, simply with more – many more – references to his genitalia and its shadow.
And then there is Nick Swardson. I am told that he is a stand-up comedian in addition to being a supporting and bit player in shows (Reno 911) and films. I have never seen Swardson's stand-up routine, but I have seen the extent of his career as a Hollywood leading man. This film is it; beginning, middle and end. To describe it as inauspicious would be a kindness that this film and Swardson's character/performance do not impart on its audience. Swardson is a fortunate man, having friends in high places who have a lot of clout and money, in addition to sharing comedic instincts. Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Son has Adam Sandler's worst instincts written all over it (again...literally; Sandler is a credited co-writer with Swardson and Allen Covert). This film is like the much worse, more sickeningly sweet cousin of Sandler's very own Little Nicky. It also reinforces the inherent risks in stretching one of these sketch comedy “characters” into 90 or so minutes of Hollywood magic. It just doesn't work, especially for a completely unfunny character such as this.
Tom Brady (not that one) is as culpable as Swardson, Sandler and the rest of the cast and crew, as he fails at every turn to wring any laugh from the film's numerous running gags, slapstick setups or even the easily satirized porn industry. Eight years after directing The Hot Chick it seems Brady has learned little to nothing. There is an excruciating scene where Bucky wins a ton of awards at the big porn industry awards show, that includes Bucky thanking his parents, Kathy, Miles and the state of Iowa in what I suppose is an attempt at being overly heartfelt in hope of being funny. Like the rest of the film, it fails, yet goes on longer than 10 minutes. The “best” scene consists of a montage involving Bucky helping Kathy hone her waitress skills through various obstacle courses and a shot of Bucky starring as a Chaplin-esque character in a black-and-white porno. When a brief montage in the middle of your movie is the best sequence your film has to offer, you shouldn't get to helm another movie. If Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star is the end of Nick Swardson's career as a leading man, it should also herald the end of Tom Brady as a director. Three strikes (The Hot Chick, The Comebacks) and you're out.
The script is so lazy, it fell asleep about a half hour into the film. The overgrown man-child is nothing new to recent Hollywood comedies, but the stink of Bucky Larson may herald the end of that run. As mentioned above, I would estimate 2 out of every 3 “jokes” and “gags” were related to the smallness of Bucky's penis, including a bizarre condom-from-a-cut-off-straw bit that has to go down as one of the weirdest safe-sex plugs in history. The other third mostly have to do with Bucky's buckteeth. If that is your thing, then this is your movie, but be forewarned; there is very little funny or entertaining about this film. “90 minutes of silence” is how I'd describe the theater in which I saw it, where about 20-25 of us endured every excruciating minute. Other terms that come to mind are: vile, putrid, creepy, crude, repetitive, stale, one-note and boring. Bucky Larson is rated R, although lord only knows why they didn't go for the PG-13 and the young male audience that are always the target demographic for these kinds of pictures (see: every Happy Madison production of the past decade-plus). I would certainly not recommend this film for 10-year-olds (two of whom were behind me during the movie).
In conclusion, this movie sucks. That's about all I've got, but I'd like to quote the thoughts of one of the premier film critics in the country, A.O. Scott, whose review of Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star simply gave up about halfway through and sums it up better than anything I could think of ending on:
“This may be the worst movie Pauly Shore has ever been in. Think about that.”
Jeremy Wilson can be found on Twitter @Jpwilson1984 and contacted via email at Jpwilson1984@gmail.com
The 411: Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star is...ugh, why bother. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! When you are talking about a film this awful, scores tend to be a bit arbitrary. So here's mine: (1/3 of a point for Christina Ricci...bless her heart she tried...a little too hard perhaps) + (1/3 of a point for the number of times I chuckled in 90 minutes) + (1/3 of a point for Don Johnson's hair...it's gloriously ridiculous) = 1.0. So there you go. When a film manages to make me feel sorry for Pauly Shore, something has most definitely gone awry. Whatever is BEYOND Not Recommended. “Super Duper Not Recommended” sounds about right.
this movie was great! well, better than grown-ups.
Posted By: Guest#9315 (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 01:02 AM
You should have just spoiled the ending because who really gives a fuck?
Posted By: Guest#6533 (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 02:22 AM
you deserve a medal for sitting through that abomination...
Posted By: oneofakindjustin (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 05:57 AM
Yeah, I could tell straight away from the trailer that this was going to be horrible.
Posted By: I Am King Tony (@IAmKingTony) (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 06:14 AM
One thing I've learned over the years is when a critic hates a film...especially one with this kind of review...then it must be great. That said, I will be seeing this movie this afternoon or tonight. Thanks for helping me see the light on this one! :D
Posted By: Sarge (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 08:13 AM
You want to torcher people in prison...put this film on a loop.
How these idiots got money to make this monstrosity is beyond me.
Posted By: Guest#1309 (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 08:31 AM
the commercials were annoying and any moron that likes this movie should go play in traffic
Posted By: Guest#6129 (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 08:56 AM
i loved it
Posted By: silencer (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 10:12 AM
Based on the trailers, I could tell this would be a turd.
Posted By: Justin Weinblatt (Registered) on September 11, 2011 at 11:43 AM
"You want to torcher people in prison...put this film on a loop.
How these idiots got money to make this monstrosity is beyond me."
Does this movie 'cause people to catch on fire?
Posted By: G-Walla (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 01:11 PM
Reading the bad reviews and news that it bombed horribly make me happy. Those ads are SO annoying!
Posted By: Guest#9545 (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 04:14 PM
One thing I've learned over the years is when a critic hates a film...especially one with this kind of review...then it must be great. That said, I will be seeing this movie this afternoon or tonight. Thanks for helping me see the light on this one! :D
Posted By: Sarge (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 08:13 AM
Sarge has been out in the heat running drills way, way too long I think.
Posted By: Private (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 05:49 PM
"You want to torcher people in prison...put this film on a loop.
How these idiots got money to make this monstrosity is beyond me."
Does this movie 'cause people to catch on fire?
Posted By: G-Walla (Guest)
Ha! You beat me to it, bro!! Well done!!
Posted By: BlueOyster (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 06:00 PM
The premise seems interesting but then those GD commercials! Are they targeting the guy who is stoned out of his mind and thinks he should run right out and see it? WTF dude?
Posted By: Guest#4074 (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 06:13 PM
"'You want to torcher people in prison...put this film on a loop.
How these idiots got money to make this monstrosity is beyond me.'
Does this movie 'cause people to catch on fire?"
Would it honestly surprise you if it did? Perhaps it's that bad.
Posted By: Joseph Lee (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 06:22 PM
You want to torcher people in prison...put this film on a loop.
How these idiots got money to make this monstrosity is beyond me.
Posted By: Guest#1309 (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 08:31 AM
Really? Thats how you spell TORTURE??
Fuck, no wonder America is leading the world in education . ..
Posted By: Guest#3488 (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 10:36 PM
the commercials were annoying and any moron that likes this movie should go play in traffic
Posted By: Guest#6129 (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 08:56 AM
Ha! thats what i say about people who like the hangover. will definitely be seeing this!
Posted By: Guest#9472 (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 11:14 PM
this movie was great! well, better than grown-ups.
Posted By: Guest#9315 (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 01:02 AM
I don't get the hate for Grown Ups. It was a much better movie than I ever expected it to be.
Posted By: Charles (Guest) on September 12, 2011 at 01:05 AM
WHY CHRISTINA WHY?????!!!!!!!!
Posted By: Guest#3265 (Guest) on September 12, 2011 at 08:39 AM
It's pretty sad to say that this claptrap was co-written by Nick Swardson; who apparently is the genius behind all the jokes on Tosh.0 and happens to be from my homestate of Minnesota.
I guess it means that Louie Anderson is still the funniest thing to come out of this state; minus the Vikings and the Twins and the Timberwolves...and, oh yeah, KDWB.
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on September 12, 2011 at 08:41 PM
Nick Swardson just isn't cut out for acting. Better for him to stick to standup and simple sketch comedy.
Posted By: Guest#9004 (Guest) on September 12, 2011 at 10:13 PM
$1.4 million in the first week. And it was shown in 1500 theatres. Perhaps now people in Hollywood will say no to Adam Sandler's dogshit ideas to get his buddies a paycheck.
Posted By: Satan Smiles (Guest) on September 13, 2011 at 06:31 PM
You want to torcher people in prison...put this film on a loop.
How these idiots got money to make this monstrosity is beyond me."
Does this movie 'cause people to catch on fire?
Posted By: G-Walla (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 01:11 PM
Yes, yes it does.
Posted By: riggins (Guest) on September 13, 2011 at 07:24 PM
"You want to torcher people in prison...put this film on a loop.
How these idiots got money to make this monstrosity is beyond me."
Does this movie 'cause people to catch on fire?
Posted By: G-Walla (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 01:11 PM
I don't think it becuases anyone to catch anything.
Posted By: Darth Mortis (Guest) on September 16, 2011 at 06:02 PM
You want to torcher people in prison...put this film on a loop.
How these idiots got money to make this monstrosity is beyond me.
Posted By: Guest#1309 (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 08:31 AM
Really? Thats how you spell TORTURE??
Fuck, no wonder America is leading the world in education . ..
Posted By: Guest#3488 (Guest) on September 11, 2011 at 10:36 PM
You must know guest1309's exact address. You must be in the same bed with him.
Posted By: SS87 (Guest) on September 16, 2011 at 11:10 PM
I am more worried at how it is possible for 10 year olds to get into a R rated movie (especially one as stupid as this one). No wonder the US is as fucked up as it is...
Posted By: Guest#5378 (Guest) on September 17, 2011 at 12:45 PM
As to the 10-year-olds, they were with an adult, but I couldn't tell if that was their father or not. Even if it was, there is absolutely no way it was appropriate for them to see.
Posted By: JeremyWilson (Registered) on September 17, 2011 at 06:18 PM
Final Score: 1.0. So it's the worst movie in the history of mankind, but still better than Dark Of The Moon? Get fucked. At least Dark Of The Moon achieved what it tried to do (ie. decent action), but this movie was trying to be a comedy and wasn't even funny. Should be a 0.0.
Posted By: Really? (Guest) on September 18, 2011 at 02:14 PM
...and this is how we launder money in hollywood ;)
Posted By: Bobbay (Guest) on September 18, 2011 at 02:24 PM
Final Score: 1.0. So it's the worst movie in the history of mankind, but still better than Dark Of The Moon? Get fucked. At least Dark Of The Moon achieved what it tried to do (ie. decent action), but this movie was trying to be a comedy and wasn't even funny. Should be a 0.0.
Posted By: Really? (Guest) on September 18, 2011 at 02:14 PM
FYI: I did review DOTM but did not give it a 0. That was another writer. Are you really to argue about whether a shitty movie like this should have gotten a 0 or a 1? It's all bad whatever the score.
Posted By: JeremyWilson (Registered) on September 18, 2011 at 11:09 PM
A couple of days ago I saw Edward Herrmann in the 1974 adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic The Great Gatsby. And now, Herrmann appears in THIS? Yikes.
Posted By: Earl (Guest) on September 22, 2011 at 08:16 AM
Tom Brady should stick to football I guess.
Posted By: Guest#3838 (Guest) on September 26, 2011 at 12:19 PM
this movie was hilarious. it reminds me of the first time i watched "grandmas boy". also- i cant believe you said kevin nealon didnt say anything funny in the movie! you are an unoriginal, bandwagon critic. i bet the reason you said it took u awhile to write a review is because you wanted to see what other critics said about it. bottom line is, if you didnt think grandmas boy was hilarious, you arent gonna like this movie either
Posted By: henny (Guest) on October 05, 2011 at 06:04 AM
Copyright (c) 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.