I did like this movie in general. There are some funny moments and the performances are spirited from the entire cast. Unfortunately, although as a remake it is acceptable it does have its weak spots. I didn't feel as though it had the charm of the original, by that I mean that doesn't quite have the irreverence and likability that made the original so endearing. There are some pacing problems and major discrepancies in the screenplay, plus the direction wasn't as strong as it could have been. On the whole though, it is not too bad. There is some nice scenery and camera work. The performances from the cast are fun; Steve Martin does very well in the title role, and the ensemble of children have strong chemistry. And despite the weak script, there are some funny moments, like the mince-in-the-trousers part. And there are some heart-warming parts like the ending. Overall, flawed but acceptable. 6/10 Bethany Cox
262 Reviews
Disasters by the dozen
Andrew-1189 May 2004
As a child, I read and loved the book, "Cheaper by the dozen", so I rented the movie expecting an on-screen adaptation of the book. I think the only similarities are the title, and the fact that they have 12 kids. The movie does the book a huge injustice.
Expectations aside, the movie had some plot holes, but I would have appreciated this kind of film if I was a parent looking for a family film. It reminded me of the old Disney classics my family rented when I was growing up. I'm sure that kids would love the mess and destruction that seemed to be the focal point of the movie. They tried to cram too many sub-plots into it when they could have focused strictly on the family dynamics and had a great movie.
I'm just glad I rented it and didn't spend $$ at the theater.
Expectations aside, the movie had some plot holes, but I would have appreciated this kind of film if I was a parent looking for a family film. It reminded me of the old Disney classics my family rented when I was growing up. I'm sure that kids would love the mess and destruction that seemed to be the focal point of the movie. They tried to cram too many sub-plots into it when they could have focused strictly on the family dynamics and had a great movie.
I'm just glad I rented it and didn't spend $$ at the theater.
Not very impressed
mjw230529 December 2006
Cheaper by the Dozen Sees Steve Martin and Bonnie Hunt thrust together as the parents of 12 rambunctious kids. I can't deny that they both play their respect roles convincingly and Martin is typically slap-stick and humorous throughout.
I just found the idea and the execution a little dull and predictable, and it could definitely have been funnier. No single person or thing lets this film down at all, it just feels boring and tired after only 30 minutes of viewing, which means you'll probably be waiting for it to end for over an hour.
I'm sure it has an audience who will love it, but seriously if you want a good family comedy, try 'Freaky Friday' 'Elf' or 'Bend it like Beckham' to name just a few.
Not awful, but trying it's damnedest to get there 5/10
I just found the idea and the execution a little dull and predictable, and it could definitely have been funnier. No single person or thing lets this film down at all, it just feels boring and tired after only 30 minutes of viewing, which means you'll probably be waiting for it to end for over an hour.
I'm sure it has an audience who will love it, but seriously if you want a good family comedy, try 'Freaky Friday' 'Elf' or 'Bend it like Beckham' to name just a few.
Not awful, but trying it's damnedest to get there 5/10
'Name Only' Remake of 1950 Classic is Warm, Funny Film...
cariart28 March 2004
While the CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN opening titles credit the authors of the best-selling book the original 1950 film was based on (Frank B. Gilbreth Jr. and Ernestine Gilbreth Carey), don't expect to see a remake of the charming, early-20th century comedy about two efficiency experts (Clifton Webb and Myrna Loy) running a complex but happy family...and this is not a BAD thing!
While the 1950 production is a minor classic, the thrust of the earlier film was with the parents, and oldest daughter (the late Jeanne Crain). Clifton Webb was a gifted, acerbic actor, best known, previously, as 'child hating' author Lynn Belvedere, who proved he was as adept at raising children as he was at EVERYTHING he attempted, in the 1948 hit, SITTING PRETTY. The film was such a success that two sequels were made, and Webb would do several more 'family' comedies before his death in 1966. Playing Frank Bunker Gilbreth, the father of twelve, was a 'natural' for the actor, and the 61-year old Webb 'stole' the film with his self-effacing, 'scientific' approach to child rearing. As his wife, Lillian, Myrna Loy, who had graduated from being 'Nora Charles' in the "Thin Man" series, to being Hollywood's favorite wife/mom, shared Bonnie Hunt's sweetness, sense of organization, and dry humor, but lacked a sexual chemistry with Webb that would have actually produced twelve children (perhaps because of the less 'permissive' time the film was made, or perhaps because of Webb's screen persona). Jeanne Crain, one of 20th Century Fox's favorite ingénues for over six years, had a large fan base, which the studio capitalized on (She was actually second-billed in the film, behind Webb). Her scene at a 1920's prom, with Webb as her 'date', is a film highlight. While the eleven other children were given 'moments' in the film, they barely registered, individually.
Would 2003 audiences have gone to see Martin in a period comedy set eighty years earlier? I doubt it. And had the original story had been simply 'updated', would it have been truly faithful to the source, even in spirit? Unlikely, as so much has changed over the years. Ultimately, the film makers erred, I believe, in using the title of the earlier film, but not in the approach of making a 'family-friendly' comedy about a household of massive proportions.
With Steve Martin, who has become Hollywood's quintessential 'Dad', as a loving, unconventional father/football coach given an opportunity to head his alma mater's team, he displays the same kind of sensitivity that made PARENTHOOD such a wonderful film. Bonnie Hunt, as his wife, is completely believable as a successful author who could handle her large family and still-frisky husband equally well. She is, as always, a treasure!
The children are really the stars of the film, though, and each is special, and individual, from the eldest daughter (Piper Perabo), who, at 22, wants the family to accept the guy she's living with (Ashton Kutcher, in a funny, brief role), to the youngest pair of twins (Brent and Shane Kinsman), who make an art out of wreaking havoc. Tom Welling is quite likable, and proves that he is more than just 'Clark Kent' (For you trivia fans, Kutcher almost got the part of 'Superman' in an upcoming film, which would have put two 'Men of Steel' in the cast). The only discordant note is Hillary Duff's annoyingly brittle second daughter; she may be a 'teen idol', but she is more grating than endearing.
Director Shawn Levy's previous film, JUST MARRIED, was a loud, unpleasant, clichéd bore; in CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN, he redeems himself with a more enjoyable, richer film.
While the movie will never earn the 'classic' status the earlier film achieved, it stands very well on it's own merits!
While the 1950 production is a minor classic, the thrust of the earlier film was with the parents, and oldest daughter (the late Jeanne Crain). Clifton Webb was a gifted, acerbic actor, best known, previously, as 'child hating' author Lynn Belvedere, who proved he was as adept at raising children as he was at EVERYTHING he attempted, in the 1948 hit, SITTING PRETTY. The film was such a success that two sequels were made, and Webb would do several more 'family' comedies before his death in 1966. Playing Frank Bunker Gilbreth, the father of twelve, was a 'natural' for the actor, and the 61-year old Webb 'stole' the film with his self-effacing, 'scientific' approach to child rearing. As his wife, Lillian, Myrna Loy, who had graduated from being 'Nora Charles' in the "Thin Man" series, to being Hollywood's favorite wife/mom, shared Bonnie Hunt's sweetness, sense of organization, and dry humor, but lacked a sexual chemistry with Webb that would have actually produced twelve children (perhaps because of the less 'permissive' time the film was made, or perhaps because of Webb's screen persona). Jeanne Crain, one of 20th Century Fox's favorite ingénues for over six years, had a large fan base, which the studio capitalized on (She was actually second-billed in the film, behind Webb). Her scene at a 1920's prom, with Webb as her 'date', is a film highlight. While the eleven other children were given 'moments' in the film, they barely registered, individually.
Would 2003 audiences have gone to see Martin in a period comedy set eighty years earlier? I doubt it. And had the original story had been simply 'updated', would it have been truly faithful to the source, even in spirit? Unlikely, as so much has changed over the years. Ultimately, the film makers erred, I believe, in using the title of the earlier film, but not in the approach of making a 'family-friendly' comedy about a household of massive proportions.
With Steve Martin, who has become Hollywood's quintessential 'Dad', as a loving, unconventional father/football coach given an opportunity to head his alma mater's team, he displays the same kind of sensitivity that made PARENTHOOD such a wonderful film. Bonnie Hunt, as his wife, is completely believable as a successful author who could handle her large family and still-frisky husband equally well. She is, as always, a treasure!
The children are really the stars of the film, though, and each is special, and individual, from the eldest daughter (Piper Perabo), who, at 22, wants the family to accept the guy she's living with (Ashton Kutcher, in a funny, brief role), to the youngest pair of twins (Brent and Shane Kinsman), who make an art out of wreaking havoc. Tom Welling is quite likable, and proves that he is more than just 'Clark Kent' (For you trivia fans, Kutcher almost got the part of 'Superman' in an upcoming film, which would have put two 'Men of Steel' in the cast). The only discordant note is Hillary Duff's annoyingly brittle second daughter; she may be a 'teen idol', but she is more grating than endearing.
Director Shawn Levy's previous film, JUST MARRIED, was a loud, unpleasant, clichéd bore; in CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN, he redeems himself with a more enjoyable, richer film.
While the movie will never earn the 'classic' status the earlier film achieved, it stands very well on it's own merits!
Steve Martin's entertaining vehicle with young people and agreeable actors
ma-cortes25 April 2006
The film deals about a happy family , the father (Steve Martin) is a notorious coach and the mother (Bonnie Hunt) is a writer and with twelve sons (Tom Welling, Piper Perabo, Hilary Duff..) . He receives a new offer as a trainer of a famous football team . She obtains her dream for the publishing the book titled : ¨Cheaper by the dozen¨. With the new job , they must change from a small city to the big town . Steve Martin ought to keep the familiar order involving in his own home while at the same time training the team .
The picture is pretty entertaining and amusing , the film contains bemusing scenes and continuous laughters and various chuckles with lots of fun . It's a new version of the classic film with similar title featured by Clifton Webb and Myrna Loy adding episodes from ¨Home Alone¨ as when Ashton Kutcher (uncredited) , being the Pier Perabo's boyfriend , suffers numerous jokes and misfortunes in charge of the brothers , likeness to thieves from former film . The picture belongs to numerous family sub-genre whose maxim representation is ¨Yours , mine and ours¨ with Henry Fonda and Lucille Ball and recently remade with Dennis Quaid and Rene Russo . Steve Martin , as always , plays as excessive manner , making an authentic recital , if you like Martin's crazy interpretation , you'll enjoy this one . Besides , there appears as sons , known and young actors as Tom Welling (Smallville) , Hilary Duff (LizzyMcGuire) , Piper Perabo (Bar Coyote) and Ashton Kutcher(Guess) . The motion picture was well realized by Shawn Levy and with the same equipment was shot the second part . The flick will appeal to familiar films enthusiasts and Steve Martin fans.
The picture is pretty entertaining and amusing , the film contains bemusing scenes and continuous laughters and various chuckles with lots of fun . It's a new version of the classic film with similar title featured by Clifton Webb and Myrna Loy adding episodes from ¨Home Alone¨ as when Ashton Kutcher (uncredited) , being the Pier Perabo's boyfriend , suffers numerous jokes and misfortunes in charge of the brothers , likeness to thieves from former film . The picture belongs to numerous family sub-genre whose maxim representation is ¨Yours , mine and ours¨ with Henry Fonda and Lucille Ball and recently remade with Dennis Quaid and Rene Russo . Steve Martin , as always , plays as excessive manner , making an authentic recital , if you like Martin's crazy interpretation , you'll enjoy this one . Besides , there appears as sons , known and young actors as Tom Welling (Smallville) , Hilary Duff (LizzyMcGuire) , Piper Perabo (Bar Coyote) and Ashton Kutcher(Guess) . The motion picture was well realized by Shawn Levy and with the same equipment was shot the second part . The flick will appeal to familiar films enthusiasts and Steve Martin fans.
Not a Hilarious Comedy,but a Fun Family Movie,
lesleyharris307 October 2014
Cheaper by the Dozen is a good movie with a well written storyline and a talented cast.The movie is nothing hilarious or outstanding,but is certainly very fun and enjoyable,it's a good family film that contains enough jokes for both children and adults.Steve Martin is without a doubt the movies highlight and the person that holds it together from being a complete mess,although the entire child cast are actually quite good and are all of very high standards for their age.Cheaper by the Dozen is nothing fantastic,but it's still a fun ride and I would recommend it to anyone looking for a good family film.
While his wife is gone to New York,Tom Baker (Steve Martin) must take care of their twelve children all on his own.
Best Performance: Steve Martin Worst Performance: Steven Anthony Lawrence
While his wife is gone to New York,Tom Baker (Steve Martin) must take care of their twelve children all on his own.
Best Performance: Steve Martin Worst Performance: Steven Anthony Lawrence
Average Comedy Movie..
enzo-maestri17 June 2005
Now a days the movies are more, and more without a complex view of things and have the main idea on giving a entertainment option to the public. Not just the comedys movies, but action and even the Horror ones..
Cheaper by The Dozen, is in this description, is not a movie to get a laughing headache, but it has some fun moments. As I said, a entertainment movie, to have some fun during a family program, with popcorn and a soda, nothing especial. So having in mind that this IS the objective of the movie, and it feels right on it,I gave it a 7. Enzo Maestri
Cheaper by The Dozen, is in this description, is not a movie to get a laughing headache, but it has some fun moments. As I said, a entertainment movie, to have some fun during a family program, with popcorn and a soda, nothing especial. So having in mind that this IS the objective of the movie, and it feels right on it,I gave it a 7. Enzo Maestri
Not as good as the original, but still very good
BrandtSponseller22 January 2005
Tom (Steve Martin) and Kate Baker (Bonnie Hunt) have a Baker's dozen--children, that is. When Tom, a football coach, gets a job offer to coach a college football team just outside of Chicago, and Kate's book about raising 12 children finally gets a publishing offer, they see bright things for their future. The only problem is that their 12 children do not want to move from their rural Illinois home, and things become nearly disastrous when Kate has to leave for a couple weeks to promote her book.
While I didn't enjoy Cheaper By The Dozen as much as the original version of the film from 1950, the 2003 "re-imagining" is still a 9 out of 10 for me (the original was a 10 out of 10 for me). It's a re-imagining rather than a remake because although the overall plot arc has some similarities, these are two very different films, with very different messages, and very different kinds of families. Both are rather cartoonish, which works for me--I don't require much realism in my films. For anyone who is looking for something primarily believable, Cheaper By The Dozen may not fit the bill.
The major change from the original to the new film is a change from control to near-chaos. In the Baker's case, it doesn't take long to realize that the chaos arises from their lack of disciplining their children. While this may not be realistic (surely anyone planning to have a family this large would realize that discipline and control would be necessary to not have one's home destroyed), it does lead to a lot of comic situations, and that's really the point here. Yes, there is a message in the end about putting family first, but what director Shawn Levy really wants you to do is laugh. My wife and I laughed quite a bit while watching the film, so Levy accomplished his goal with us. My only slight complaint on this end was that some of the funniest material involved the eldest Baker daughter's boyfriend, Hank (Ashton Kutcher), and he just wasn't in the film enough. The material about the Shenk's, neighbors of the Baker's, was also funny and a bit underused. This was the reason for lowering my score 1 point.
The rest of the cast is good, although like the original Cheaper By The Dozen, we barely get to know some of the children, but that's understandable when we have to deal with 14 characters as well as ancillary characters. Steve Martin was excellent, as always (I enjoy his work in even his less popularly appreciated films), and although Hilary Duff (as daughter Lorraine Baker) seemed a bit odd in the context of the family, I enjoyed her performance a lot, also. There's something about her that I like, and it's not just her looks.
While I didn't enjoy Cheaper By The Dozen as much as the original version of the film from 1950, the 2003 "re-imagining" is still a 9 out of 10 for me (the original was a 10 out of 10 for me). It's a re-imagining rather than a remake because although the overall plot arc has some similarities, these are two very different films, with very different messages, and very different kinds of families. Both are rather cartoonish, which works for me--I don't require much realism in my films. For anyone who is looking for something primarily believable, Cheaper By The Dozen may not fit the bill.
The major change from the original to the new film is a change from control to near-chaos. In the Baker's case, it doesn't take long to realize that the chaos arises from their lack of disciplining their children. While this may not be realistic (surely anyone planning to have a family this large would realize that discipline and control would be necessary to not have one's home destroyed), it does lead to a lot of comic situations, and that's really the point here. Yes, there is a message in the end about putting family first, but what director Shawn Levy really wants you to do is laugh. My wife and I laughed quite a bit while watching the film, so Levy accomplished his goal with us. My only slight complaint on this end was that some of the funniest material involved the eldest Baker daughter's boyfriend, Hank (Ashton Kutcher), and he just wasn't in the film enough. The material about the Shenk's, neighbors of the Baker's, was also funny and a bit underused. This was the reason for lowering my score 1 point.
The rest of the cast is good, although like the original Cheaper By The Dozen, we barely get to know some of the children, but that's understandable when we have to deal with 14 characters as well as ancillary characters. Steve Martin was excellent, as always (I enjoy his work in even his less popularly appreciated films), and although Hilary Duff (as daughter Lorraine Baker) seemed a bit odd in the context of the family, I enjoyed her performance a lot, also. There's something about her that I like, and it's not just her looks.
Charming Family Movie
2_Singles3 September 2005
I was very excited for this movie to come out and I went to see it right on Christmas day. I was not disappointed. It's a fun-filled, family movie with a great cast, a cute storyline, and likable characters.
When Tom, the head of the Baker clan, gets offered his dream job at his alma mater, he, his wife, Kate, and their 12 children relocate to Evanston, Illinois. While Tom and Kate are excited about the move, the new job, and the raise that comes along with it, the kids are less than enthused. This, combined with Kate's absence while promoting her book, and Tom constantly busy with work, sends the family into chaos. The kids get into fights at school, 2 of them run off, and any order the family once had, is gone. By the end of the movie, the family finds the missing member, makes amends, and go on with their new, happier lives.
Steve Martin and Bonnie Hunt make a fun couple. They have great on screen chemistry and both gave great performances. Piper Perabo plays the oldest daughter, Nora. Nora lives in an apartment with her boyfriend, Hank, played by Ashton Kutcher. Kutcher's ability to poke fun at himself makes his character the funniest one in the movie. Tom Welling ("Smallville") makes his movie debut as the oldest son, the moody teenager Charlie. He does well in this role, proving that he's not just a (very) pretty face. Hilary Duff plays Lorraine, the fashion/beauty obsessed one in the family. I, personally, could've done without her in this movie. She and her acting have no appeal to me. The younger kids were played by mostly unknown kid actors. It was refreshing to see a bunch of new faces. They all played their roles wonderfully. The performance that stood out the most to me was Forrest Landis's as the misfit of the family, Mark "FedEx" Baker. All the children were enjoyable and with 12 kids, there's always something going on.
Look out for the Shenks (the Bakers' next door neighbors) and the electrician (played by Wayne Knight) who all add some fun to the movie.
The gag reel at the end was a nice surprise and finished the movie off well.
Overall, a great family movie. Funny, yet clean. Clean, yet different.
Best part of the movie: Tom Welling as Charlie. He gave a great performance and he isn't bad on the eyes. ;)
Worst part: Hilary Duff. Again, she/her acting don't appeal to me at all.
When Tom, the head of the Baker clan, gets offered his dream job at his alma mater, he, his wife, Kate, and their 12 children relocate to Evanston, Illinois. While Tom and Kate are excited about the move, the new job, and the raise that comes along with it, the kids are less than enthused. This, combined with Kate's absence while promoting her book, and Tom constantly busy with work, sends the family into chaos. The kids get into fights at school, 2 of them run off, and any order the family once had, is gone. By the end of the movie, the family finds the missing member, makes amends, and go on with their new, happier lives.
Steve Martin and Bonnie Hunt make a fun couple. They have great on screen chemistry and both gave great performances. Piper Perabo plays the oldest daughter, Nora. Nora lives in an apartment with her boyfriend, Hank, played by Ashton Kutcher. Kutcher's ability to poke fun at himself makes his character the funniest one in the movie. Tom Welling ("Smallville") makes his movie debut as the oldest son, the moody teenager Charlie. He does well in this role, proving that he's not just a (very) pretty face. Hilary Duff plays Lorraine, the fashion/beauty obsessed one in the family. I, personally, could've done without her in this movie. She and her acting have no appeal to me. The younger kids were played by mostly unknown kid actors. It was refreshing to see a bunch of new faces. They all played their roles wonderfully. The performance that stood out the most to me was Forrest Landis's as the misfit of the family, Mark "FedEx" Baker. All the children were enjoyable and with 12 kids, there's always something going on.
Look out for the Shenks (the Bakers' next door neighbors) and the electrician (played by Wayne Knight) who all add some fun to the movie.
The gag reel at the end was a nice surprise and finished the movie off well.
Overall, a great family movie. Funny, yet clean. Clean, yet different.
Best part of the movie: Tom Welling as Charlie. He gave a great performance and he isn't bad on the eyes. ;)
Worst part: Hilary Duff. Again, she/her acting don't appeal to me at all.
Only something like the original
suessis18 April 2004
There is some resemblance to the original movie in this film (as well as some elements borrowed from the sequel "Belles on their Toes"). The writers did include various ideas such as the move for the father's job, the family council, the father being offered the opportunity of his dreams, the father being a somewhat eccentric and unusual character, the mother being the calm one, etc. It also borrows just as much from sixties family comedies such as "Yours, Mine, and Ours" (i.e. the son that feels left out in the family group, the older brother who give "cool" advice to the younger ones, the kids trying to "sabotage" various events, etc.).
This version lacks something that the original one had. The original moved along with the pace of the changes in the family's life as normal life does. It also seemed to capture better the idea of trying to raise such a large group of children and the sacrifices and choices one has to make. There is also some semblance of what it is like to be a child in this family by keeping that focus on only one of the children, while still giving us glimpses of what the other ones are like.
The film, however, seemed to be more of a showcase for the comedic talents of Steven Martin than anything else. It also didn't move along in the same way that the original making the story somewhat unsatisfying.
Frank Gilbreth never lost the idea that his family was the most important thing where as Steve Martin's character has to be brought back into the fold. It is understandable that he would want something for himself, but to get him to the point where he sees his children as a burden and a liability is a problem. Thankfully in the end he comes back to being a part of his family, but the fact that he had to be causes the story to loose some of its charm.
The thing that made Frank and Ernestine Gilbreth want to write about their family was the joy that they knew in living in it despite the trials and tribulations. In this version of their story the joy seems to be lost and has to be recaptured. The director and writer are lucky enough that at least a little bit does.
This version lacks something that the original one had. The original moved along with the pace of the changes in the family's life as normal life does. It also seemed to capture better the idea of trying to raise such a large group of children and the sacrifices and choices one has to make. There is also some semblance of what it is like to be a child in this family by keeping that focus on only one of the children, while still giving us glimpses of what the other ones are like.
The film, however, seemed to be more of a showcase for the comedic talents of Steven Martin than anything else. It also didn't move along in the same way that the original making the story somewhat unsatisfying.
Frank Gilbreth never lost the idea that his family was the most important thing where as Steve Martin's character has to be brought back into the fold. It is understandable that he would want something for himself, but to get him to the point where he sees his children as a burden and a liability is a problem. Thankfully in the end he comes back to being a part of his family, but the fact that he had to be causes the story to loose some of its charm.
The thing that made Frank and Ernestine Gilbreth want to write about their family was the joy that they knew in living in it despite the trials and tribulations. In this version of their story the joy seems to be lost and has to be recaptured. The director and writer are lucky enough that at least a little bit does.
Above Average Big Family Comedy
tabuno25 January 2019
18 January 2004. This updated, contemporary comedy about a big family his plenty of laughs and warm post-holiday season spirit to make it entertaining. The blend of humor and drama seems to be getting better as the American film industry proceeds into newer territory with more harder edged comedies. Cheaper by the Dozen does struck credibility unncessarily and exaggerates situations to the point of disbelieve...the ensuing chaos while funny, it gets to be a bit nauseating...with some many children (twelve of them) many of the plotlines get papered over and a lingering sense of disappointment descends on the individual plotlines that seem only half played out. The movie has good interaction, great chuckle scenes, good use of drama and emotional conflict and is a much more grown up motif than past children movies. The industry standard is moving upwards though its still has a way to good in terms of quality features. This movie is above average and a good vehicle in the family comedy genre. Seven out of ten stars.
fine slapstick family movie
SnoopyStyle3 August 2014
Tom (Steve Martin) and Kate Baker (Bonnie Hunt) had big career dreams and big family dreams. The family wins out and they leave the big city. The kids don't stop coming until number 12. The oldest being played by Piper Perabo, Tom Welling, and Hilary Duff. There are also twins, lookalike girls, sad little boy, other girl, cute boy, chunkier boy, and smaller cute boy. Tom is a high school football coach who gets a chance at a bigger job. The family is forced to move to the city for his job where Nora (Piper Perabo) lives with her boyfriend Hank (Ashton Kutcher). With less time with the big job, Tom has to deal with everything else after Kate gets a book tour to NYC.
Let's be obvious. There are too many kids. It becomes chaos not just in the house but in the story. It's just a series of wacky slapstick. It's general harmless family fun. If you don't have enough fun, the characters will keep smashing things up until you laugh. It's a lot pratfall fluff and not a lot of seriousness. There are some good silly fun pushing Kutcher around. Steve Martin and Bonnie Hunt are definitely game for all the craziness.
Let's be obvious. There are too many kids. It becomes chaos not just in the house but in the story. It's just a series of wacky slapstick. It's general harmless family fun. If you don't have enough fun, the characters will keep smashing things up until you laugh. It's a lot pratfall fluff and not a lot of seriousness. There are some good silly fun pushing Kutcher around. Steve Martin and Bonnie Hunt are definitely game for all the craziness.
Poor Steve Martin
MovieAddict201610 December 2005
"Cheaper By the Dozen" would have at least been an amusing film if it hadn't already been made about a hundred times before. In the early stages of production I was actually misled into thinking it was a direct adaptation of the book, and was excited to see how they'd pull that off. Little did I know the title is all the film has in common with its source.
Steve Martin plays Tom Baker, an average Joe with twelve kids who drive him insane. When he decides to chase after the money and head out to the big city, his kids throw a fuss and protest by performing "hilarious" physical comedy that will "have you in stitches." I suppose we're meant to sympathize with the little brats. The problem is that it's hard to find sympathy for the spawn of Satan. I felt like slapping the kids and throwing them out the window of a thousand-foot skyscraper.
Ashton Kutcher makes a "delightful" cameo. Just what we need - another ugly mug from MTV grinning at the camera.
What happened to Steve Martin? Why on earth did he feel the need to star in this film? Was it just the money? Was it the prospect of pretending to have Bonnie Hunt as a wife? Or was it trying to appeal to the masses again and using children's familiarity with Hilary Duff to reintroduce himself into the family market and therefore appeal to his own children? Is he really that pathetic? Please, Steve...come back...we miss you. Stop doing this. Do you really want to end up like Eddie Murphy? Oh, wait. Too late.
Steve Martin plays Tom Baker, an average Joe with twelve kids who drive him insane. When he decides to chase after the money and head out to the big city, his kids throw a fuss and protest by performing "hilarious" physical comedy that will "have you in stitches." I suppose we're meant to sympathize with the little brats. The problem is that it's hard to find sympathy for the spawn of Satan. I felt like slapping the kids and throwing them out the window of a thousand-foot skyscraper.
Ashton Kutcher makes a "delightful" cameo. Just what we need - another ugly mug from MTV grinning at the camera.
What happened to Steve Martin? Why on earth did he feel the need to star in this film? Was it just the money? Was it the prospect of pretending to have Bonnie Hunt as a wife? Or was it trying to appeal to the masses again and using children's familiarity with Hilary Duff to reintroduce himself into the family market and therefore appeal to his own children? Is he really that pathetic? Please, Steve...come back...we miss you. Stop doing this. Do you really want to end up like Eddie Murphy? Oh, wait. Too late.
Has to be the very worst picture ever
drh-811 April 2008
Whilst the direction, filming and production of this movie are all professionally fine, the story has GOT to be the most frustrating I have ever seen! Guaranteed to make the sanest viewer totally paranoid about ever having children (fortunately, I was all done with that years ago!). Steve Martin is a star but, when one considers that he doesn't actually have any children of his own, the very fact that he accepted this part gives cause for head-scratching. This film should be compulsory viewing for any two people contemplating being irresponsible enough to want to replace themselves with more than the two that they are. 6 out of 10 is for technical professionalism. For the story, minus 20! The Chinese sure have got it right!
Amusing family comedy
Spanner-231 December 2003
A fairly amusing family comedy, with almost no relation to the book or the earlier film with this title. Steve Martin plays the father of the group of 12 kids who uproots them all to move to the big city where a football coaching job awaits.. suddenly the mom (an amusingly bemused Bonnie Hunt) gets called away on a book tour and dad has to raise all the kids himself. Interesting casting has Piper Perabo (star of the gloriously underrated "Coyote Ugly") as the oldest daughter, Hillary Duff as the teenage daughter, Tom Welling (of TV's "Smallville") as the oldest son and Ashton Kutcher taking an unbilled role as Piper's live-in boyfriend.. and poking fun at himself in the process. The rest of the kids are mostly of the unknown but cute variety,... and the kids get most of the laughs with their various schemes and screw ups along with Martin's reactions to it all. The ending drags a bit as things start to get serious and the family is on the verge of falling apart, but as long as it sticks to the pratfalls the film can be very amusing. GRADE: B
Good if you're under 8.
TOMNEL31 July 2006
This is one of those films that people in situations that are unrealistic, and saying corny things that nobody would say, doing things that people don't do, just to amuse young children. Too much of the dialogue in this is cheesy, and it builds up making this film just annoying to watch. Kids probably won't mind because they don't expect much from a movie. I think Steve Martin and Bonnie Hunt are quite good, but they have so little to work with, especially since neither of them has very funny material and all of the humor goes to the kids, and to my next high point, Ashton Kutcher. He was very funny in this movie as the lazy boyfriend who wants to be an actor. I recommend this to the kids, but adults can just sleep through it.
My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 100 mins. PG for crude humor.
My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 100 mins. PG for crude humor.
Dozen do it for me
tqnohe6 August 2004
Let's see if this film has all the necessaries of a modern film.
1) Classic title 2) Dad is an idiot 3) New script bearing no resemblance to the original. 4) Male lead cannot droll without instructions from female 5) Children are out of control 6) The man is incurably stupid 7) Mother is a wise saint 8) Father has no clue about his own home (have I covered that already??) 9) Large families result from irresponsibility
I saw and loved the original. I held no illusions that this would be nearly as good. In fact I knew it would require some updates. The world of the 1950s when the original was made and the 1920s when it was set are dramatically different.
The story is weak, the comedy is poor, the new plot is bigoted.
In the original, Clifton Webb play an efficiency expert Frank Gilbreth. In fact, Frank Gilbreth's principles are still taught in course on efficiency in industry. He was a real person. And a competent one. His son John Kenneth Gilbreth, went on to become one of the world's leading economists. To this very day.
In this one, Frank Baker (Baker's dozen ... get it? Hit me over the head with a joke why doncha?) is a small time football coach who is so inefficient that he can't get breakfast on the table and wipe up a spill at the same time. And it's hard to imagine his wanna be drop out son becoming anything but a bum.
The scene from the original where the woman from Planned Parenthood came to the door to humorous results was morphed into the yuppy neighbors, the Shenks, essentially scolding anyone who has or wants more than two kids. Tina is so obsessed with having only one that Bill is portray as sexually frustrated ... he ain't getting none lest she conceive again.
I grew up in a family of 13. While my Dad was not the modern hands on type, he was aware of where things were and how things worked. He could cook and do the laundry and get us off to school on time. And he worked hard to be able to pay for us all to go to Catholic school. He had to be efficient; every 18 months or so, Mom was squeezing out another sib.
We were well behaved. We had to be. If not, 13 children turn into the unruly mob shown in this stupid film. I knew other families like ours. From nine to fifteen kids. They were all self disciplined families. I cannot tell you how many people, my sister-in-law included, who have asked me if it was "that way in your house." People came out of this movie thinking that large families are rude and out of control.
1) Classic title 2) Dad is an idiot 3) New script bearing no resemblance to the original. 4) Male lead cannot droll without instructions from female 5) Children are out of control 6) The man is incurably stupid 7) Mother is a wise saint 8) Father has no clue about his own home (have I covered that already??) 9) Large families result from irresponsibility
I saw and loved the original. I held no illusions that this would be nearly as good. In fact I knew it would require some updates. The world of the 1950s when the original was made and the 1920s when it was set are dramatically different.
The story is weak, the comedy is poor, the new plot is bigoted.
In the original, Clifton Webb play an efficiency expert Frank Gilbreth. In fact, Frank Gilbreth's principles are still taught in course on efficiency in industry. He was a real person. And a competent one. His son John Kenneth Gilbreth, went on to become one of the world's leading economists. To this very day.
In this one, Frank Baker (Baker's dozen ... get it? Hit me over the head with a joke why doncha?) is a small time football coach who is so inefficient that he can't get breakfast on the table and wipe up a spill at the same time. And it's hard to imagine his wanna be drop out son becoming anything but a bum.
The scene from the original where the woman from Planned Parenthood came to the door to humorous results was morphed into the yuppy neighbors, the Shenks, essentially scolding anyone who has or wants more than two kids. Tina is so obsessed with having only one that Bill is portray as sexually frustrated ... he ain't getting none lest she conceive again.
I grew up in a family of 13. While my Dad was not the modern hands on type, he was aware of where things were and how things worked. He could cook and do the laundry and get us off to school on time. And he worked hard to be able to pay for us all to go to Catholic school. He had to be efficient; every 18 months or so, Mom was squeezing out another sib.
We were well behaved. We had to be. If not, 13 children turn into the unruly mob shown in this stupid film. I knew other families like ours. From nine to fifteen kids. They were all self disciplined families. I cannot tell you how many people, my sister-in-law included, who have asked me if it was "that way in your house." People came out of this movie thinking that large families are rude and out of control.
Its True
ShamelessAngel24 March 2006
Coming from a family of 8 i can relate completely to the struggles of life in a large family.
I am the oldest of the 8 so I'm probably the Nora character then there's my brother who would be Charlie and the youngest is five.
We create so much mess and mayhem and our parents can totally relate to the Baker parents. We have the bathroom problem where one person takes longer than the others, we help make each others breakfasts and we cannot all fit in one car but i love it.
A refreshing movie showing the trials and tribulations of having a large family.
Definitely worth watching if only to see Tom Welling.
I am the oldest of the 8 so I'm probably the Nora character then there's my brother who would be Charlie and the youngest is five.
We create so much mess and mayhem and our parents can totally relate to the Baker parents. We have the bathroom problem where one person takes longer than the others, we help make each others breakfasts and we cannot all fit in one car but i love it.
A refreshing movie showing the trials and tribulations of having a large family.
Definitely worth watching if only to see Tom Welling.
Effective birth control
cricketbat8 January 2020
Not a quite good family comedy...But,well done...
killbill_tarantino20034 October 2005
Rent this film or watch it at cinema theater seems not the worst mistake you do(especially,if you're intend to entertain you child).You pick one of the funniest comedy family ever made.That's okay!In here,i'm just only want to give a comment about the Casting,Directing and anything else.Maybe,there wasn't bad cast in this film.Steve martin:great,Bonnie Hunt:Attractive,Tom Welling:Cool(Beside he's so sexy!),Hillary Duff:Not bad and the kids:Nice and cutes!But,Maybe,because the script wasn't good enough and them it made them looks tacky or just not as good as usual!Directing also not the greatest one but it quite interesting.So,Just watch it!You'll laugh and enjoy it.Keep my Words!
Rupugnant Pig Swill
Blooeyz200124 May 2008
I wasn't expecting much & I got even less. Watch this movie if you enjoy looking at a bunch of useless, selfish, snarling brats mouth off & sabotage their parents goals & aspirations. This film pulls out as many clichés as it can. We've seen all of this before. It's so boring! Like a too long, awful sitcom. Bonnie Hunt really annoys me, & Steve Martin is as tired as the day is long. His schtick is way past it's expiration date. Another thing that irked me was casting Tom Welling & Ashton Kutcher who look too similar. The laughs are non-existent & the "feel good" moments will make you nauseous. Check out "With Six You Get Eggroll" (with Doris Day), or "Your's, Mine, & Ours" (with Lucille Ball) instead.
Cheaper by the devils
acaul10 January 2006
Tom Baker is a football coach who receives a call from his college friend,Shake,to be a new coach for Shake's team. But,he must move back to Chicago.His family(the wife Kate,and twelve children)have to make a decision:will they move to the Chicago.Their children don't want to move,because they don't want to leave their friends and school.But Tom doesn't want to leave his new job,and then they move.The children aren't happy to see a big town.They think that they don't fit in 'big' town. If you want to know what happens then,watch the movie. This is a simple,family comedy movie.It isn't bad,but also it isn't very good .But it's better then 2nd part.
I hate this film for two reasons.
graphicstyle722 January 2013
I hate this film for two reasons:
1. Steve Martin is in it. Why? Why? Why? When did this very talented and funny man go from innovative genius to doofus in a stupid family movie? Really ruined his image for me.
2. OK, take a TRUE STORY which also happens to be an interesting piece of American history as well. Then take the (extremely well made) movie version from 1950, throw in the (also well done) sequel in as well. Chuck them all down the toilet and mix in stupid jokes, and you get this dreck.
Ew Ew Ew
When people look up the phrase "the dumbing down" of America, they should have a picture of the 2003 version of this film next to that phrase. Sums it up perfectly.
1. Steve Martin is in it. Why? Why? Why? When did this very talented and funny man go from innovative genius to doofus in a stupid family movie? Really ruined his image for me.
2. OK, take a TRUE STORY which also happens to be an interesting piece of American history as well. Then take the (extremely well made) movie version from 1950, throw in the (also well done) sequel in as well. Chuck them all down the toilet and mix in stupid jokes, and you get this dreck.
Ew Ew Ew
When people look up the phrase "the dumbing down" of America, they should have a picture of the 2003 version of this film next to that phrase. Sums it up perfectly.
It's great the way it is!
UniqueParticle30 March 2019
I love this rambunctious family comedy just how it is. I noticed it got a lot of hate which is unfortunate & Steve Martin really did an outstanding job in my opinion. I think it's heartwarming & fun in many ways; it's good to appreciate things the way they are instead of what isn't.
Children will love it
frosty-4443110 February 2021
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
