The Old "Start Out With a Bad Script and You End up With a Bad Movie Trick!"

Updated: November 17, 2008

Peter Segal's Not Smart opened on June 20th to a solid box office and poor reviews, a combination Hollywood will take every time. When it comes to reviews, Roger Ebert and Entertainment Weekly liked it; Variety, Time, Newsweek, MTV, The Hollywood Reporter, and most everybody else didn't like it. Clearly, it failed to generate any buzz, as summer smashes, Wall E, The Dark Knight, and Sex and the City did. On the other hand, it made money and that's all that the studios really care about. As it did make money and all of the main participants had sequel clauses in their contracts, I am expecting a sequel to be announced by the end of the year. NEW -A studio source has informed me that Get Smart 2 is in "active development." The same cast and crew will be involved, including, unfortunately, the same writing team. Given that every Peter Segal movie is basically the same, I would expect the sequel to be exactly like the first movie, but without The Rock.

Steve Carell & Anne Hathaway as Max and 99. Photo copyright Warner Brothers and used with their permission. It may not be used on any other website without the explicit permission of Warner Brothers.

     This site has put me in touch with many professional comedy writers and performers over the year, both in and out of the Get Smart family, and all of them felt appalled by the movie. The credits of these people have more successes, monetarily and award-wise, then any of this movie's creative team.  Here's a brief review from a well-known professional screenwriter, who must remain anonymous:

10. When dealing with classic characters, update the times without altering the characters. For example, Sherlock Holmes was taken from Victorian London to a WW2 milieu in the films starring Basil Rathbone, but was still the Sherlock Holmes who smoked a pipe,  played the violin and quipped “Elementary” a lot. When Indiana Jones was taken from the thirties to the fifties, he still taught at a university, wore a fedora, cracked a whip and was a topflight archeologist. 

There was no good reason to turn Maxwell Smart into a nerdy analyst, childish as opposed to childlike, make him competent one minute then bumbling the next, diluting the character and turning him ostensibly into a supporting player. The same goes for changing Agent 99 into an underage harpy that castrated the main character at every turn, further diminishing him as a compelling figure.  Either cast an age appropriate actress, or simply make 99 an “Alias” style younger agent.  She became “a feathered fish,” neither fish nor fowl.  If they wanted to add a bit of charm, she could have also been a deskbound agent who was thrust into the position of being a field operative in this emergency, thus preserving Maxwell’s seniority which the original 99 would often defer to.

9.  For a main character to be dynamic, just like the original Maxwell, he must be active.  This ludicrous “Smart” distortion is a subordinate with all the traits of an inconsequential supporting player.  He gets the field assignment by default as oppose to heroically volunteering, which would have invariably led to the Chief describing all the imminent dangers and setting up “And loving it.”  Smart does nothing of significance throughout the movie until the obligatory action scene at the end.  It was too late. Part of Max's charm is his overt confidence and bravado that his own bumbling undercuts.  Nevertheless, it makes his victories resonate all the more and also his "everyman" status.  He's one of us trying to be James Bond and finding himself over his head.

8.  The dialogue was uniformly awful, but particularly egregious during the Max and 99 exchanges wherein they stated the obvious and never progressed the scenes or their characters.  During the second act, they get involved in pieces of action... then repeatedly take a break to walk around and comment on either what we’ve just seen or describe what’s about to come.  “We make a good team, don’t you think?”  “I feel good about the mission so far.”  These scenes are some of the most amateurish dialogue in any major motion picture within the last twenty five years.  They’re also beneath the standard of the original TV series.

7.  Avoid treacle.  While “Get Smart” had heart, it wasn’t maudlin or grossly sentimental.  Maxwell Smart was on the side of right and played by a gifted comedian, which made him imminently likable.  To make Maxwell Smart have a weight problem as a means to engender sympathy was cheap and obvious, as well as bizarre.  Even worse, his dance scene with an obese woman was an overt play for the audience’s affection that would embarrass Jerry Lewis at his most mawkish.  The original series was considered hip.  This film is ham-fisted and dumb.

6.  There was no plot, which tends to help espionage stories as there was nothing for Smart and 99 to investigate.

5.  While the original series had action, it was first and foremost a comedy.  The action scenes in this film were an attempt to camouflage the fact that neither the writers or directors had the chops to invent or sustain comic set pieces.  In fact, this is like a Michael Bay version of “Get Smart” wherein CGI and explosions are used out of desperation as opposed to actual cinematic talent.  Compare this to Blake Edwards' "The Pink Panther Strikes Again" or the first "Fletch" to see how a comic character should handle action and production values.

4.  The original series was a satire, that was its point, and the toothless writers of this film, as well as its safe director and lowbrow producers, failed to lampoon the current political scene and missed the obvious target of any espionage based comedy.  Stephen Colbert’s oblivious conservative has more in common with Maxwell Smart than this witless knockoff.  Instead of “Dr. Strangelove” we got “Dr. Doolittle.”  The animated “Wall-E” actually presents a closer approximation of Max and 99’s dynamic, through two robots, amidst an environment that comments on our current world situation.

3.  A spy agency must be depicted as such, with a useful purpose and credibility.  “CONTROL” in this film lacked even the verisimilitude of the MIB organization.  This was a frat house with bullies picking on nerds, lowering not only the intelligence organization, but the intelligence of the film overall.  It was a joke in a film that lacked any.

2.  Forget just this version of“Get Smart,” as these screenwriters failed on the basics of competent writing that's worth paying an ever higher priced admission to watch.  The ultimate failings of this film all point to what was on the page, just like the hallmark of the original series was some of the best comedy writing TV has ever seen from now legendary purveyors.  The screenplay for this film is a textbook of what not to do at every turn.  Those responsible have already been skewered in the reviews, so no need to retread scorched earth.

1.  They made this film.

    Though not a "professional," I pretty much agree with everything that the above comedy legend stated. Actually, I think that person might have been too kind. As regular readers of this site know, I was disappointed with the quality of the scripts and many other things about this production, despite a stellar cast, and have not been shy about stating my disapproval. After receiving criticism for being "unfair" by reviewing scripts and being accused of "bias," I decided to hold off with posting my personal review until the movie was about to leave first-run theaters. Now that it's at that stage, I'm comfortable releasing my review. I felt that the movie was not just bad, but terrible and it all goes back to the script, which made Mr. Belvedere look good. I am biased, in that I am a fan of quality comedy, but given the horrible reviews this movie received from multiple sources, I'm clearly not the only person doesn't like the movie. I have always been in favor of a high-quality, funny, Get Smart movie and I sure wish we had gotten one. I'd also like to mention to all those who accused me of reviewing a "fake script" or "too early a draft" that the scripts I reviewed were pretty much identical to the finished product and that the flaws I've been mentioning were also mentioned by most professional reviewers. My review:

I thought it was awful - unfunny, boring, and pretty much plot-free. The opening scenes (besides being virtually identical to Johnny English) were snooze central. Once Max and 99 embarked on their mission, it got even worse. This castrated version of what was supposed to be Max and the hyper-aggressive 99 were caricatures, not real characters. There wasn't an ounce of believability or humanity in either character. I was told by people who spent significant time on the set that Peter Segal is a technical director in that he spends a lot of time with the lighting, composition, and other technical aspects and very little time with the actors on their performances. It really shows in the inconsistent and shallow characters of this movie, which looks great and has less depth then a Three's Company episode. The flashback scenes where Max and 99 look back on each other to realize their true feelings towards each other were ridiculous because there was no foundation to them. 99 looks back with love on her motorcycle ride with Max? She spent the entire time berating him, not having fun with him. The flashback scene of the motorcycle ride lasted longer onscreen then the actual ride did. It was harder to find the villain in a Scooby Doo episode then to figure out that The Rock was a double agent.

Larabee and Siegfried? Pathetic. I was told that Peter Segal excitedly told several people to let me know that I should be excited because they had added Larabee, Siegfried, and Hymie. No, what Segal did was take characters already in the script and give them the name of Get Smart characters. In fact, since I have several versions of the script, that's exactly what they did with Siegfried and Shtarker. The villains were just written as villains and given names of basketball players with no effort made to create an original or interesting villain, let alone one that resembled Siegfried. Did the writers of The Dark Knight just write a generic villain and then name him the Joker? Of course not. Larabee as a mean bully? Larabee and Agent 91 as dumb, rude guys who insulted their co-workers instead of working with them? Please. Just awful, with dialogue out of King Frat. Saying the movie Larabee and the show's Larabee were the same because both were dumb CONTROL agents is like saying Mark Texiera and and Marv Throneberry are the same because both are first basemen. Siegfried was a completely generic villain with no charm or charisma, which is tough to do with such a great actor as Terence Stamp. A friend of mine called this movie's version of CONTROL a frat house, with it becoming Revenge of the Nerds and he is right, only Revenge of the Nerds was funny. They even did that with Hymie, having him suddenly become streetwise and bullying back the bullies. Hymie is an innocent and that innocence and naiveté was the source of his humor. He wasn't a mechanical bully working as a tool of revenge for nerds. The only portrayal that was true was Bill Murray, even though he was more Agent 44 then Agent 13. However, they really could have made that role funny by giving the role to Dave Ketchum and playing up how "I've been in this tree for 40 years." Of course, that would have meant recognizing the original series so that concept was out.

It's not just that it wasn't Get Smart, but that it wasn't funny at all. That's the greatest sin of all. If you want to change Get Smart and its characters, that's fine, but to be unfunny, that's just a complete failure. I went in with low expectations because in his career Pete Segal has shown that his idea of subtle comedy is a kick in the crotch and there were more of them in this movie (six) then laughs. The funniest line in the movie was when Carell tells Anne Hathaway that "your boyfriend is a very bad person." The audience burst into laughter at that one and it was an unintentional joke. Don't even get me going about the dance scene or the adolescent "are you looking at my butt?" as if now 99 is 16 years old. The airplane bathroom scene (again, in addition to being lifted from another movie) is appalling and irritating to me. It's similar to Segal's sperm bank scene from Naked Gun 33 1/3. Both were pointless and reminded me of jokes done by middle school boys.

The soundtrack was great. I loved how the composer worked in the original theme in the action sequences. It'd be nice (and right) to mention that the movie's theme is clearly based on Irving Szathmary's original theme, despite Szathmary receiving no credit in the movie. I also want to point out that the no credit to Szathmary is NOT something the composer is responsible for. It's the studio and producers and it's not surprising seeing as how they also tried to not give credit to Mel Brooks and Buck Henry as well.

I thought it failed as a comedy, an action movie, and as a Get Smart movie. I could do paragraphs on that, but I won't. It's not the worst movie I've ever seen - that goes to Nothing But Trouble, but it's the worst I've seen in years.

Now, let's take a look at what the major reviewers had to say:

• " Staggeringly bad. It's a movie that spoofs intelligence in the most unintelligent way possible and stretches the boundaries of plot-free filmmaking into frontiers until now explored only by former cast members of 'Saturday Night Live.' (Austin Powers) is one of many reference points for a movie that also cribs from 'Entrapment,' 'Fahrenheit 9/11' and the recent 'Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay' without ever bringing anything new or comedically competent to the table. - Glenn Whipp, LA Daily News

• " Rather than the laugh a minute promised by old comedies, "Get Smart" generates approximately one laugh per hour, and I can't remember either one. True to the TV series that spawned it, the production looks cheerfully tacky, but all other traces of cheer, let alone sophistication, have been expunged. " - Wall Street Journal

• " As a reworking of one of the great 1960s TV comedies, you'd think being funny would be its main goal. But you would be wrong. Very, very wrong. Like its protagonist, in-over-his-head secret agent Maxwell Smart, "Get Smart" yearns to be something it's not. Unaccountably eager to walk in the footsteps of James Bond, "Get Smart" neglects the laughs and amps up the action, resulting in a not very funny comedy joined at the hip to a not very exciting spy movie. Talk about killing two birds with one stone. One has to wonder what the late Don Adams, one of the people the film is dedicated to, would have thought of this concoction. If you've never experienced the pleasures of the original yourself, it's fair to say that brief clips available free on YouTube provide more laughs than this entire benighted enterprise. " - Los Angeles Times

• " Remaking "Get Smart" for the big screen might have sounded like a bad idea, but the movie shows it to have been something else: a really bad idea. As it stands, "Get Smart," the movie, is an action comedy that represents the worst of both worlds. Like a bad action movie, it's bloated, confused and convoluted, relying too much on extended action sequences that are heavy on computer effects. And like the worst comedies, "Get Smart" is about as funny as a gently smiling mime. It couldn't buy a laugh in a nitrous oxide factory with a fistful of clown noses. " - San Francisco Chronicle
   
• " It's funny, exciting, preposterous, great to look at, and made with the same level of technical expertise we'd expect from a new Bond movie itself. And all of that is very nice, but nicer still is the perfect pitch of the casting. " - Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun Times

• " 'Get Smart' got lost. Max Smart is played by the admirable Steve Carell, who is desperately looking for deadpan jokes in all the wrong places. His sidekick is played by the lissome Anne Hathaway, who also seems willing to go along with a gag if only she could find one. They are all strapped to a hurtling plot line that is heading from one fireball to the next, with only a few not-so-hot Bush-Cheney jokes to divert them. And us. " - Time

• " This clumsy adaptation of the beloved espionage series stumbles more than its bumbling hero. Sadly, gags fall flat, one-liners lack pizzazz and the leads generate little chemistry. 'Get Smart' is just another big, dumb summer movie and should have heeded its title's advice. " - Matt Stevens, E! Reviews

• "In this distressingly generic spy spoof, it's not Maxwell who's clueless, but the filmmakers. I knew the movie was in trouble when Smart is mistaken for a terrorist on an airplane and gets tackled by a security agent- it's almost identical to a gag in "Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay," except this time it isn't funny. Director (Pete) Segal is a comedy specialist lacking any apparent sense of humor. Making 'Smart' smart is a classic example of missing the joke." - Newsweek
   
• " 'Get Smart,' version 2008, surrounds skilled, likable players, and a handful of solid belly laughs with $80 million worth of formulaic summer-movie mediocrity. The problem is the script by Tom J. Astle and Matt Ember ("Failure to Launch"), which mistakes boilerplate pee-pee jokes for the enthusiastic toilet humor that was Brooks's later specialty. (When in doubt, someone here always seems to get a paintball to the crotch.) Another offender is Richard Pearson's stop-and-start editing, consistently halting the comic momentum before it can build to real lunacy. The calculus for each scene is unwavering - TV show reference, slam-bang action, wisecrack - and it wears thin fast. " - The Boston Globe

• "'Get Smart' the movie has precious little to do with 'Get Smart' the iconic TV series from the 1960s, but then again the movie has precious little to do with screen comedy, either. This is a slap-dash effort whose producers threw money and stunts onscreen instead of the satirical gags and one-liners that made the old spy spoof so memorable. The overriding factor here is that the filmmakers -- this would include ham-fisted director Peter Segal and the punchless writing team of Tom J. Astle & Matt Ember -- don't know what the joke is. ...familiar lines crop up in the wrong places and the timing of gags, so indelibly rendered in the series, misfires on nearly every occasion." - The Hollywood Reporter

• "(A) cookie cutter comedy. Peter Segal's formulaic takeoff is neither fish nor fowl, not quite faithful to the show, but not quite bringing it into the 21st century either. It may ride Carell's star to major box office, at least initially. But it's nothing you want to take off your shoe and call home about." - Variety

• " Instead of the show's wacky, slapstick tone, Get Smart presents itself as an action-filled spy movie that just happens to be really funny. And for the most part, it succeeds. Credit much of that success to Steve Carell, who as a reconstituted Maxwell Smart strikes just the right tone and manner. " - Dallas Morning News

• " The Spy Who Bored Me. The movie is a time-killer without a killer instinct. You never get the sense that the director, Peter Segal, knows where the funny is, whether in his star or in the story. Even if it lolls you into a pleasant mood, Get Smart evaporates the minute you leave the theater, and the same can be said of Carell's performance. Get Smart doesn't give Carell enough to do, or not to do. " - Baltimore Sun

• " I was pleasently surprised with the film. It was actually, to me, very funny and a well made movie. I don't feel comfortable reviewing the movie piece by piece, I will just advise you to go see it and don't expect much, and you'll have a good time. I heartfully recommend it. " - Jeff Platt (son of Ed)

• " 1.5 stars out of 4. "'Get Smart,' which began its life on TV as a classic sitcom that cleverly satirized Cold War espionage, has been transformed for the big screen into just another standard action picture. Pity, too. Because Agent Maxwell Smart himself would have made a more entertaining movie, just by picking up a camera and bumbling his way through it. As for the plot, it feels like an afterthought, something cobbled together once all the pratfalls and sight gags were lined up. It all plays out in big, loud, obvious fashion -- as if the filmmakers figured the audience wouldn't be interested in the sort of sly absurdity that gave the show its original charm." " - Christy Lemire, Associated Press

• " Director Peter Segal dispenses with just about everything that made the series fun in the first place. Oh, the film credits Brooks and Henry as "Creative Consultants" (a likely story), and the script reluctantly trots out the catchphrases. But then it just throws them away. And in changing the IQ of the lead character, the movie ends up playing like a Pink Panther movie without the bungling Inspector Clouseau. If Max is no longer Max, why resurrect the property in the first place? We watch the movie version wondering whether anyone involved actually watched, liked, or cared about capturing the spirit of, the TV series. Segal (Anger Management, 50 First Dates, The Longest Yard) never finds a tone that both celebrates and updates the original. His neither-fish-nor-fowl approach leaves us in a limbo that's neither fresh nor nostalgic. And his climax, featuring explosions and a car chase, is monumentally unfunny. " - All Headline News

• " I liked it. I liked it a lot. I thought he (Steve Carell) was the perfect choice. " - Mel Brooks (Ain't It Cool News)

• " Missed it by that much. Get Smart (* * 1/2 out of four) is bright enough, but stops short of being clever. This contemporary remake of the iconic '60s TV comedy could have used more of the sly wit of show creators Buck Henry and Mel Brooks and less of the antic humor and overblown action sequences that typify Hollywood's summer output. " - USA Today

• " Steve Carell is wasted in flick that forgets it's supposed to be funny. Every now and then, you get a flash of what "Get Smart" might have been if Carell had cut loose -- or if the writers had gotten off their duffs and broken a sweat at being clever. Mostly, though, the film's general lack of imagination is insulting. " - Detroit Free Press

• " Maxwell Smart would say, "Missed it by this much," but I'm holding my hands really far apart. Despite what seemed (in the trailers, at least) like inspired casting of Steve Carell, the perpetrators of "Get Smart" almost entirely miss what made the Cold War TV spy comedy funny. It's a good thing Don Adams isn't around to see this overblown, overlong Bay of Pigs. Barbara Feldon, not so lucky. " - Seattle Times

• " The comedy is only so-so, and the espionage action isn't much of a thrill either. It's obvious that there's no clear vision behind who Max 2.0 is and what he's about. 'Get Smart' won't be a horrible stain on the rising film careers of Carell and Hathaway, but it would behoove both of these charming performers to find scripts that live up to this film's title. " - MSNBC

One More Review

"As one of the writers of the original "Get Smart" TV series, I was dismayed by the new, flawed "Get Smart" movie--I never understood why remakes don't at least talk to the original material writers. Maybe it's a kind of immature tantrum, 'I want to do it myself, mom.' That said, for the writers of the next remake, here's a bit of advice: The essence, the fun of the Don Adams character was his child-like confidence and his bravado (not unlike the character often played by Bob Hope) presaging the inevitable catastrophic blunder. 'Sorry about that.' Any writer charged with vetting agent 86 should start by studying the origin of the character, Don's early nightclub routines. His defense attorney bit: 'Look at those trim ankles, the well turned calf. Now I ask you. Are those the legs of a homicidal maniac?'"
         - Joseph Cavella, author of How to Write Comedy in Hollywood.

What's This About the Movie and Legal Trouble?

Industry trades have been reporting that famed intellectual property lawyer Marc Toberoff was planning legal action against Warner Brothers and this movie. Toberoff has stated that he does not represent the Adams estate in their dealings against WB on this movie. However, as I reported earlier, he did represent Mel Brooks and Buck Henry when WB tried to deny that they created Get Smart and he did get that settled in their favor. However, a studio source has reconfirmed that there is legal action against the movie on the behalf of the estate of Don Adams. As Adams often talked about how he took ownership rights for Get Smart in lieu of a large salary, the legal situation probably involves the degree of rights and compensation involved.

More importantly, let me review the legal action Toberoff did take when representing Mel Brooks and Buck Henry. In a purely financial move dictated by studio lawyers, Warner Brothers claimed that Mel and Buck created the show as a "work-for-hire" for Talent Associates, and therefore did not deserve credit or any financial compensation for creating the show. The legal eagles behind this move forbid any contact between the movie's creative team and Stern, Brooks, or Henry. When the movie began shooting on March 21, 2007 this edict was still in effect. Then, on April 11th, Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere released this story as a rumor substantiated by a very reliable anonymous source. The negative backlash was immediate and intense. Within 48 hours of Wells' bombshell, the lawsuit was dropped and Warner Brothers signed a deal with Mel and Buck to be "creative consultants" to the movie. However, the script had been completed and over three weeks of principal photography had been completed, so their input was not major, nor did they have any say in the creation of the script or the movie, as there was NO CONTACT between the original creative team and the movie's creative team until April 12th at the earliest. It's a shame that a ridiculous legal fight (not endorsed by the movie's creative team) to increase the studio's profits stood in the way of allowing Stern, Brooks, and Henry the chance to consult before the major characterizations and plot points were established shooting started. I firmly believe that if there wasn't such a negative backlash about their ignoring the original creative team, including the 10,000+ of you who signed my online petition, that none of this would have come about. I find it fascinating to suddenly hear the "new" history of this movie's creation, which includes a completely different attitude towards the original and its creators, as they backpedal quicker than Bill Clinton after they found Monica's stained dress. It's quite a different story from what they were saying when production on this movie began, but it's gratifying to hear this turnaround. However, let's be quite clear - this movie's concept was created and written WITHOUT ANY INPUT from the original creative team. Despite what publicists are trying to get you to believe, this movie will feature Pete Segal's Get Smart, not Mel Brooks', Leonard Stern's, or Buck Henry's. It will be up to you to decide whether Segal's version has the same style, class, and wit that characterized the original.

A Movie Sequel Already?

A mere ten days after Get Smart opens in theaters, Warner Brothers released Get Smarter: Bruce and Lloyd Out of Control on DVD. This will feature the two nerdy analyst friends of Max in their own "comedy." This is part of what may become a new trend of capitalizing on big-budget features with small budget direct-to-DVD features. At least, that's what they hope to happen if both movies are successful. This movie was also written by the same writing team that wrote the Get Smart script and has received generally poor reviews and lackluster sales. As mentioned above, the "movie" sold horribly and is considered a failure by the studio. In fact, its poor revenue has led several similar projects to be rethought and/or canceled. The studio's research showed that even though people went to see the Get Smart movie (due to the quality of the original series) they left not wanting to see any more (due to the poor quality of the movie).

Tell Me More About the Movie

Given the casting of Carell and the quality of the producers and director, I was hoping for a funny, biting, parody that would energize the fanbase and perhaps create a new franchise. What I've seen is another horrible Hollywood remake, like The Honeymooners, I Spy, or Bewitched. Like the over 10,000 of you that have e-mailed me, I'm sick of bad remakes that insult our intelligence. Get Smart won two Emmy Awards as the best comedy in TV and the unbelievably positive reviews of the DVD release show how funny and well-respected the original product was. It stood out. It used superior writing, dialogue, and characterization to create laughs, not Max groaning in a bathroom. It never went for the cheap laugh, the fart joke, or the obvious Hollywood clichés.  This movie unfortunately does that way too much, like with Max and 99. Oh gee, Max meets 99 and is an idiot, 99 immediately hates him, yet magically falls in love with him by the end of the movie. Oh boy, how original. That's the kind of thing the original Get Smart parodied brilliantly. To see it reduced to following those clichés is sad to me, especially when it could be so much more, given the quality of the cast and producers.

There's a tendency among many in Hollywood that a funny actor can make a bad script funny, and so you'll often see great comedic stars in unfunny movies (remember The Three Amigos or Steve Martin in The Pink Panther?). Though it sometimes can happen that a great comic can make a bad script funny, why not try and give him the best possible script? Unfortunately, this isn't the best possible script, but something that makes The Facts of Life look witty and brilliant. Let me make this clear - I HAVE NEVER BEEN opposed to a Get Smart movie and I would have loved to see a modern re-invention of the concept and its characters that is also funny. I also realize that the concept and its characters can't be exactly the same as the TV series. However, above all else, a Get Smart movie must be funny and satirical. Though there are some laughs in the script, they're of the Tommy Boy variety, not subtle or sophisticated at all. There's not even a hint of satire in it. I've been told by people associated with the movie that I'm "out of it" for insisting that the movie have the same quality of humor as the original and I think it's important for me to state that I'm not looking for humor that is exactly the same at all. I'm looking for high-quality humor, which is possible at any time. The original series won two Emmy Awards as the best comedy of its time - I guarantee you this movie will not win any Academy or Golden Globes Awards as the best comedy of its time.

Hollywood judges success by whether or not a movie makes money and this movie made money, though not as much as planned. I judge success as something more than making money (call me idealistic and naive) and remaking Get Smart isn't like remaking The Dukes of Hazzard, as Get Smart has a track record of critical acclaim and major awards. Hollywood's track record of TV show remakes is pretty pathetic (The Honeymooners, Bewitched, Sgt. Bilko, among many). Just as the TV show's quality set it apart from the pack, I had hoped that the movie's quality would set it apart from the ordinary dreck like Tommy Boy and Failure to Launch that make money but leave no lasting impression. Instead, we're left with another mediocre showing by Peter Segal that is forgotten as soon as the audience leaves the theater. If they had just consulted Stern, Henry and Brooks at the start instead of mocking them and trying to take their earned money and credit, maybe it could have reached that lofty level of a movie to be preserved. There's an audience out there that's desperate for quality comedy and this was a great chance to provide that. It's like waiting for the new Beatles album and getting one from Yoko Ono.

WouldYouBelieve.com Contents

Copyright 1995-2008 Carl Birkmeyer