Once again we journey for laughs to the now-familiar neighborhoods of Los Angeles, to be with young African-American men of indeterminate age and employment. Again they are slightly better spoken than last time, their homes are in slightly better condition, with MUCH deeper set-backs. But now there are far fewer guns, hardly any swearing, predicaments that are sterile and more like I Love Lucy, less like the 'Hood" of the early 1990s.
I'm rating this a "4" for an earnest first effort. The writer - director - lead, who identifies himself only as "Pierre", plays the role of "Dre", a plain young man to whom life happens. During this one day, his friends and neighbors think he has become special because they think that a robber on the run has stashed stolen money in his back yard garbage cans--and that he knows it, and therefore has control over that "found wealth".
"Dre", an unfortunate name choice in my opinion, given the cross-over between rap stars and film stars, doesn't know anything about this cash, and thus the set-up. Men and women alike want him for what he has. Although he doesn't know where the sudden "love" is coming from, he is sturdy and centered enough--like the characters Ice Cube often plays--not to be bowled over by their attentions.
But how funny is it to see these extreme neighborhood stereotypes, one after another, fling themselves at Dre, each with their "schtick", only to fail miserably? The formula is somewhat analogous to scenes in those martial arts films where the hero or master stands in the center of an imaginary circle. One by one, any number of ferocious losers attack from the outside of the circle with some specialized move or physical technique that is bound to fail.
So there were these problems in the film. The feeling conveyed that "we've seen this all before", the derivative nature, the pallid, washed down, sanitized, cleaned-up quality; the production line appearance of the skits.
But then, as the film went on, valiantly endeavoring to amuse us, it turned the other way, it got a bit gross. Having established its own standard of boyscout cleanliness, it suddenly did a reversal. It dipped too far into dirty jokes, including a radio announcer who said he he would play a piece that would make the ladies "wet" and pull their pants off. I won't give away all the jokes, except to say that the seduction scenes were truly bad.
So why a "4". why not go lower? Because this is a first effort. Because this is a field with very high standards, including the works of Paris Barclay, John Singleton and Ice Cube's FRIDAY series. There have been other entries in this sub-genre, and, compared to those lesser lights, this one should be given its due.
I'm rating this a "4" for an earnest first effort. The writer - director - lead, who identifies himself only as "Pierre", plays the role of "Dre", a plain young man to whom life happens. During this one day, his friends and neighbors think he has become special because they think that a robber on the run has stashed stolen money in his back yard garbage cans--and that he knows it, and therefore has control over that "found wealth".
"Dre", an unfortunate name choice in my opinion, given the cross-over between rap stars and film stars, doesn't know anything about this cash, and thus the set-up. Men and women alike want him for what he has. Although he doesn't know where the sudden "love" is coming from, he is sturdy and centered enough--like the characters Ice Cube often plays--not to be bowled over by their attentions.
But how funny is it to see these extreme neighborhood stereotypes, one after another, fling themselves at Dre, each with their "schtick", only to fail miserably? The formula is somewhat analogous to scenes in those martial arts films where the hero or master stands in the center of an imaginary circle. One by one, any number of ferocious losers attack from the outside of the circle with some specialized move or physical technique that is bound to fail.
So there were these problems in the film. The feeling conveyed that "we've seen this all before", the derivative nature, the pallid, washed down, sanitized, cleaned-up quality; the production line appearance of the skits.
But then, as the film went on, valiantly endeavoring to amuse us, it turned the other way, it got a bit gross. Having established its own standard of boyscout cleanliness, it suddenly did a reversal. It dipped too far into dirty jokes, including a radio announcer who said he he would play a piece that would make the ladies "wet" and pull their pants off. I won't give away all the jokes, except to say that the seduction scenes were truly bad.
So why a "4". why not go lower? Because this is a first effort. Because this is a field with very high standards, including the works of Paris Barclay, John Singleton and Ice Cube's FRIDAY series. There have been other entries in this sub-genre, and, compared to those lesser lights, this one should be given its due.
