User Score
3.1 out of 10

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 28 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 28
  2. Negative: 17 out of 28

Review this movie

  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 28, 2012
    2
    An unrelenting vortex of forced slapstick and contrived emotion.
  2. May 29, 2012
    3
    It has only few laughs and the whole story here is absolute mess, even if the plot knows where its going. Kinda lame for a family movie. Its just a Cheaper by the Dozen rip-off.
  3. Apr 6, 2011
    7
    A good movie but nothing we haven't seen before, it can be downright hilarious at times, but the acting is pretty bad, and the story is predictable, but if your looking for a laugh look no further.
  4. Dec 23, 2012
    1
    I saw this movie while babysitting two kids. One of them is 5 and the other is 10. They both hated it. My opinion is much lower than theirs. First off, the acting is...well, dammit, it's awful! The child actors are extremely annoying and I hoped at least one of them caught the Swine Flu or something (not a good thing to wish on anybody) The plot is predictable, boring, and incredibly dull. The screenplay is...like the acting, choke worthy. The direction...basically everything, is horrible. Never before has a movie gotten a 1 from me. This film sucks. Don't see it. Please. I beg you! Expand
  5. GregS.
    Nov 26, 2005
    1
    Absolutely unfunny and downright awful. The leads should take a long break from films. The director should take a pay cut.
  6. MorgiS.
    Dec 3, 2005
    1
    That was the worst movie....ever.
  7. JamesB.
    Jan 1, 2006
    3
    Definitely for the family; kids will like it best. It wasted way too much time with slapstick aimed at getting laughs from 5 year olds. It's a shame that it was not truer to the original. (POSSIBLE SPOILER) One of the best moments of the original was when Helen North met the Beardsley children and she unwittingly drank too much. This was left out
  8. johnf.
    Nov 20, 2005
    7
    A funny movie, good for the family...but has no true potencial.
  9. lilym.
    Jan 1, 2006
    4
    It was good,but quite lame.Nothing funny.
  10. DevinD.
    Mar 4, 2006
    7
    Looks pretty good but the acting is really good at all. I never seen it but by far the acting doesn't look that good.
  11. AnonymousMC
    Apr 15, 2006
    0
    Horrible.
  12. Chrissy
    Feb 11, 2006
    1
    Lame? Boring? Annoying? Tiresome? Played-out? Yes, all of those words do describe this movie. A cheap rip-off of the terrible "Cheaper by the Dozen" movies in my opinion. A great family movie if your children are blinde and deaf.
  13. FredG
    Sep 18, 2006
    0
    This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I would have walked out, but couldn't. Russo and Quaid should repent by doing charity work, because they ripped us off.
  14. ConorS.
    Jun 26, 2007
    0
    This movie is terrible. The acting is bad all around, the plot is a rip off of the already bad "Cheaper By The Dozen." The humor isn't bad- it's NONEXISTENT!
  15. sagee.
    Dec 10, 2005
    6
    I liked it but it was too much like Cheaper by the Dozen and it was mostly screaming and fighting.
  16. [Anonymous]
    Nov 24, 2005
    1
    Awful. Took my sister to see it and wasn't able to crack a smile for three days after waching. It's awful and not at all funny. Don't see it. Don't punish your kids by taking them to see this either.
Metascore

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 25 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 25
  2. Negative: 12 out of 25
  1. Even as slapstick, it's a major snoozefest.
  2. Reviewed by: Joe Leydon
    70
    Generally pleasant family-friendly fare.
  3. Unable to decide whether it wants to be a rambunctious family comedy or a tender romantic comedy, the Dennis Quaid-Rene Russo vehicle strains to be both and ends up falling short of both marks.