Mildly insulting with its use of stereotypes, just a bit sexist and a whole lot of stupid.
Tools:
Send to a friend »
Does anybody remember when the name "National Lampoon" actually referred to good movies? How about when that moniker was attached to Chevy Chase and Beverly D´Angelo? Those good times are gone since "National Lampoon" has been commandeered by half witted concepts produced on shoestring budgets by people who have no business making films. Case study number one? "One, Two, Many," a pandering mess of a comedy-and I use that term lightly-with none of the pinache or talent of the least of the Griswold films.
Thomas (John Melendez) has one aspiration in life: to be with a woman who welcomes another woman into their bed. Really, that´s the entire plot. Seriously. No, really.
I can´t imagine which demographic "One, Two, Many" appeals to. Certainly not film fans, nor comedy buffs hoping to see further adventures of Clark and Ellen Griswold. It´s not raunchy enough to be at the top of a parents banned list (and therefore their teenage sons "must see" list) or shocking like the original "American Pie." Maybe some college guys looking for light entertainment while they knock back a couple beers? But any number of other films have more skin on display than this one. So why make a piece of *shudder* film with no selling points, aside the "National Lampoon" name?
It´s a mystery. Not a mystery, though, is why the production fails so spectacularly. As with all things, it comes down to the subject matter. Quite frankly, Thomas´ "mission" isn´t grand or epic or even noteworthy. This isn´t Frodo saving Middle Earth or Luke Skywalker protecting the galaxy from the Empire. Hell, even "National Lampoon´s Christmas Vacation" has higher stakes than a man getting his rocks off with two women at the same time.
See, if we followed Thomas through the issues he has lining up a rendezvous, we might be able to sympathize with his situation. Maybe, just maybe, if he was anything more than a pretentious boob unable to grow up and act like a man, there might be some emotion on our part. Writer/producer/star Melendez (late of the "Howard Stern" show and a couple garbage movies) doesn´t have a knack for writing dialogue or compelling situations, nor can he bring an everyman to the screen in any compelling way. The story, such as it is, rushes headlong into the main event without building the drama, relationships or characters.
There is a distinct possibility the story itself is geared so much toward Melendez´s former audience with Howard Stern there is no way it would ever appeal to a broader audience. Not that I actively advocate tailoring a movie to mass appeal (some of the worst offenders in cinematic history were specifically designed to bring in every demographic); rather, make a good movie custom fit for a particular audience. "One, Two, Many" isn´t sexy "enough" of anything to warrant a look, regardless of taste.
Sans normal storytelling techniques, "One, Two, Many" is forced to rely on its comedic chops to sell itself. The problem is there isn´t any comedy to be had in the 87 minute running time. Each supposed gag needed another revision in the script stage to hone in on the inherent humor. Just about the only moment which truly works has nothing at all to do with the threesome plot. It´s toilet humor-literally-and that´s all I´ll actually say about it. Other supposed humorous moments run far too long (the quest to get enough money for an escort, for example) or fall completely flat based on the delivery.
"One, Two, Many" doesn´t deserve any in depth critique of the proper plot. If it can´t be bothered to take itself seriously, then why should we? Melendez himself is the prime offender here, not just because he´s an unsympathetic lead character. Oh no. He´s the one responsible for this cinematic trash dump. Without another voice to temper his own "vision," Melendez is never told or persuaded to go back to the drawing board for another pass. Even with director Michael DeLorenzo (in his-shock-first feature length directorial gig), he doesn´t have the resume or experience to reign Melendez in.
The next time out, everyone involved needs to remember character is key. Someone the audience can get behind, root for and want to succeed. Not a hopeless, self-centered, selfish schmuck who finds the light at the end of the tunnel after a merciless 85 minutes.
VIDEO:
It´s funny. My boyfriend, who normally doesn´t comment on technical issues, passed through the room while I was watching the movie and asked if it was shot on videotape. Yes, it´s that rough. Colors are completely washed out while it looks as though a window screen was put in front of the camera. Flesh tones are okay, I guess, though even they aren´t spectacular. Select shots even look blurry, betraying the age of the production. Even the outdoor scenes-of which there are precious few-are overexposed, leading to an ethereal feeling permeating the screen. I can´t recommend the transfer on the anamorphic presentation.
AUDIO:
Flat, in one word. The English 5.1 or 2.0 tracks have no life to them, no pop, nothing to make us sit up and take notice. No depth, as with the video. They just sit there, figuratively speaking. There isn´t a lot of difference between the two, to be completely truthful. The dialogue does come through clearly and there is no audio hissing, to be fair to the work done. I don´t expect whiz-bang mixes benefiting action movies, though I don´t want to be bored, either. English subtitles are included, for those who care.
EXTRAS:
The back of the case states, among other extras, "National Lampoon theatrical trailers and more!" Um, my disc didn´t get the "more" part. (It also lists bloopers and outtakes, photo gallery and commentary as extras.) No "more." Frankly, what is included turns out to be too much for a movie destined to hit the bargain bins fairly soon. The commentary with Melendez and DeLorenzo is lively enough, but it means you have to sit through the entire feature again. Their stories run the gamut from budget problems to casting, the script and casting.
Trailers include "National Lampoon Presents Bagboy" (2:03), "National Lampoon Presents The Beach Part at the Threshold of Hell" (2:27) and "National Lampoon Presents Electric Apricot" (2:28). Each is shown upon starting the disc and again in the Trailers section. (They run as one continuous stream without the ability to select them.) Bloopers and Outtakes consist of the cast flubbing lines for over four and a half minutes. And the Image Gallery has 25 promo shots showcasing barely covered breasts…and Melendez.
PARTING SHOTS:
There is no part of "One, Two, Many" I can recommend while maintaining a straight face. In fact, I don´t advise anyone trying to make it through this bottom of the barrel bore fest. Does anybody remember when the name "National Lampoon" actually referred to good movies? How about when that moniker was attached to Chevy Chase and Beverly D´Angelo? Those good times are gone since "National Lampoon" has been commandeered by half witted concepts produced on shoestring budgets by people who have no business making films. Case study number one? "One, Two, Many," a pandering mess of a comedy-and I use that term lightly-with none of the pinache or talent of the least of the Griswold films.
Average user rating (1-5):
Not yet rated.
Not yet rated.