Are We Done Yet? (DVD)

...to show it hurts. There are plenty of gags that involve animals, but most are marred by poor effects; from the obviously rubber giant fish and bats to the poorly animated deer and a raccoon that speaks for no apparent reason.

Crucially there's no sense of time passing (no season-shifting montages or calendar flipping moments), so Nick's constant tantrums about the work at the house make him look childish instead of frustrated. Plus, ...
...a week. There are too many montages that show the family moving and various aspects of the house renovations. But there aren't any of Chuck becoming integral to the family's lives so Nick's annoyance and jealousy feel forced. Essentially this Do-It-Yourself-er feels like it's been built from bricks without straw. Though under-eights may enjoy the silliness of it, grown-ups will probably find themselves snoring through the ninety-two minute running ... more

Having impressed girlfriend Suzanne sufficiently in "Are We There Yet?" she and Nick have now married. He's determined to be the perfect father to her two kids, but is prone to being distracted by his work. When Suzanne announces she's pregnant, Nick decides it's time to up sticks and move to the country to give the family the best possible start. He's talked into buying an apparently ideal house by enthusiastic estate agent Chuck. But as soon as the Persons move in, it becomes obvious their new home is far from perfect. Nick swears he can fix it up himself, but a few minor repairs turn into a whole heap of big DIY mishaps…

Ah, here it is - the sequel nobody asked for. Apparently family audiences lapped up the slapstick shenanigans of "Are We There Yet?" so we're being subjected to more of the same by "Daddy Day Care" director Steve Carr. It is allegedly a comedy, though you wouldn't know it from Carr's woeful lack of timing. He pre-empts jokes so you can see exactly what's going to happen and when, then drags them out beyond their natural end, losing any chance of a laugh in the process. He always goes for the obvious sight gag, so they often feel forced. He relies too heavily on slapstick to carry the film, to the extent that there's virtually no character development, so you don't care about any of the players or what happens to them. He isn't interested in them as people, just stooges to the jokes. It might be okay if the slapstick was up to snuff, but it looks neither nasty enough nor realistic enough to have the ouch factor. The gags don't have any real consequences either - Nick falls through a porch roof, landing on his back and walks away unscathed. He doesn't even rub his back to show it hurts. There are plenty of gags that involve animals, but most are marred by poor effects; from the obviously rubber giant fish and bats to the poorly animated deer and a raccoon that speaks for no apparent reason.

Crucially there's no sense of time passing (no season-shifting montages or calendar flipping moments), so Nick's constant tantrums about the work at the house make him look childish instead of frustrated. Plus, it makes Suzanne's pregnancy look as though it lasts about a week. There are too many montages that show the family moving and various aspects of the house renovations. But there aren't any of Chuck becoming integral to the family's lives so Nick's annoyance and jealousy feel forced. Essentially this Do-It-Yourself-er feels like it's been built from bricks without straw. Though under-eights may enjoy the silliness of it, grown-ups will probably find themselves snoring through the ninety-two minute running time.

Hank Nelken's screenplay is based on somebody else's characters and yet another person's film (it is a remake of old RKO movie "Mr Blandings Builds his Dream House"). So to say it is unoriginal is an understatement. But what I don't understand is why it has been written as a sequel to "Are We There Yet?". It may contain some of the same characters but it doesn't do anything with them. You'd think Nick had moved out to the country on his own because you see so little of Suzanne and her kids. The relationships between him and the children in the first film might have been hackneyed, but at least they were borne of something tangible. Here the writer doesn't explore what it's like for a former bachelor to suddenly acquire a ready-made family. All we know about Lindsey is that she's likely to spend a long time in the bathroom and always has her mobile phone at the ready. But young Kevin is simply there to stand back and laugh at a couple of slapstick moments. Meanwhile Suzanne may have married Nick, but they don't appear to spend any time together. Even centre-of-attention Chuck doesn't have anything you could call a personality - he's just a load of hobbies and vague mania masquerading as a man. The pacing is so swift that we don't get to know anyone. The other problem is the straight man - funny man ratio. All the central players are straight men, so there's little comedy to be derived from them. Meanwhile many of the peripheral parts are funny men, so they seem at odds with the established world of the film. The dialogue is extremely lazy. Nelken's attempts at referencing other movies "We're gonna need a bigger boat!" (Jaws) and "I don't know karate but I know kar-azy!" (Shanghai Noon) are so obvious they feel like plagiarism.

Former rapper-turned actor Ice Cube is heading down the Eddie Murphy road - setting himself up as a family entertainer. It's a role that sits at odds with his on-screen persona, which is more suitable for action films. By that I mean he spends most of his time looking grumpy and shouting. He has no discernible personality and no rapport with his on-screen family. His comic timing is absent, though he takes pies relatively well.

"Scrubs" star John C McGinley tries desperately to bring some fun to the movie as wild-eyed Chuck. He's certainly bursting with energy as the jack of all trades. But if anything he over-eggs the mugging and mania, so he ends up just playing tics rather than emotions. Part of this is because the part is so badly written, but McGinley must also shoulder some of the blame because his performance is very superficial. Basically the character boils down to an over-enthusiastic smile and a bad ginger perm.

Nia Long is barely seen as the pregnant Suzanne. She's perfectly warm and pretty, but has nothing to hang her character on as a result of poor writing. As her son Kevin, Philip Bolden is little more than an extra who turns up occasionally, laughs and leaves. He's virtually invisible throughout most of the film. The same can be said of Aleisha Allen, who plays Lindsey. The only reason she appears to be in the movie is so she can get her singing party trick on screen. Other than that she's a standard whiny girl with too much attitude.

The original score by Teddy Castellucci is a fairly traditional orchestral affair. The only suggestion of innovation comes in the opening moments when a big brassy intro turns into funk. Otherwise it's scoring by the numbers, with tootling woodwinds that signal this is going to be a fun romp, flutes and strings for periods that are meant to be emotional, syrupy strings for bonding with the kids, cheddary flutes for sentimental times, sitar for yoga and triumphal brass when everything turns out alright. The other soundtrack choices are way too obvious, including M People's "Moving On Up" when the family are moving, a slice of "Duelling Banjos" for the locals and "I Can't Get Next to You" when things are rocky between Nick and Suzanne. The music even falls back on "Chariots of Fire" for a comic race against time. It's all startlingly unoriginal.

"Are We Done Yet?" is a lazy piece of filmmaking that underestimates the value of quality material when it comes to making a family film. In order for the entire clan to sit down and watch a movie together, there has to be something for everyone. Sadly this picture only caters for the under-tens who love slapstick and general silliness, but will leave adults bored out of their minds. Tell you what, if you are an under-ten, add another star. 

...less