Little Fockers

This is even worse than a repetitive rehash. These "Fockers" are just lazy, limp -- and lame.

This latest is grim stuff: Little Fockers hardly bothers with finding a reason to exist, although one might assume a focus on the abiding hilarity of life with small children. That assumption would be wrong.

A lazy attempt to milk a few more laughs and bucks from the enormously lucrative property spawned 10 years ago by "Meet the Parents."

The sole memorable scene involving a little Focker in Little Fockers, though memorable doesn't mean amusing, involves Ben Stiller's male-nurse character administering a needle full of adrenaline to his dyspeptic and unhappily aroused father-in-law Jack Byrnes, played by Robert De Niro.

It is incredibly tempting to resort to the implied off-color word play made possible by the Focker name and suggest that this third edition is totally - but I won't.

Upchuckingly unfunny.

A comedy abomination, tasteless and useless to a stunning degree, with storied actors smugly collecting paychecks for sullying their careers.

Great movie. Loved it. I thought it was much better than the other movies. Made me laugh. The one liners were better than the last movie as well. Will watch it again and again.

I thought it was mildly funny, but there were quite a few messes in the story and there feels like too much going on at once. It does have a few good moments, but nothing too interesting.

Stiller and De Niro return after their previous outing that was released what, 6 years ago? It still has the charm of the previous movies, but unfortunately, its 6 years too late. Some of their tried and true comedy antics seem to be outdated and lack substance. Still an entertaining movie, but Universal has ridden this pony as far as it could.

Unlike a lot of people on MetaCritic, I actually enjoyed the first two films, Meet The Parents and Meet the ****. As long as you didn't go into them with high expectations, they are fun movies to view. With that being said, Little **** cut from the same cloth. Many of the jokes fall flat, a lot of it's the same recycled stuff from the first two films, but in a way that feels like it's even less. The jokes aren't as funny and they don't hit nearly as hard. I don't know if that has to do with the movie coming from a new production company or what, but it didn't feel like the new director had a firm grasp of the franchise or what to do with the characters. And what's with the title name? I mean, I get it, I understand it's a play on words, but it doesn't actually work well. The title implies that the movie is going to focus on Greg's children, but they are actually a very minor part of the movie as a whole. It could have easily been any different number of title names, but they chose this one and it was a terrible decision. At the end of the day, I can't recommend anyone watching this unless it's on NetFlix or something, don't waste your money renting it or paying for it, because it's not worth it. This film is easiest the weakest link in the franchise's chain.

will you get out of here.. Little **** The maker takes too much time on setting the plot and characters (and there are so many in it) that neither the sub-plots nor the characters are interesting enough to hold to the thread.