MovieChat Forums > Tiptoes (2004) Discussion > Did anyone else not know to laugh or tak...

Did anyone else not know to laugh or take this serious?

posted 19 years ago by saschuel
23 replies | jump to latest

To me, this movie was caught halfway between a Farrely Brothers comedy and a serious drama. Beckinsale's lines were so cliche and her character way too understandingly humane that this movie left me in stitches most of the time. Come on, this chick is a hip, hot artistic babe, and she has no problem with this adjustment? And what's with her lines, they are ridiculous. I kept laughing when McConaughey kept correting her about them being dwarfs and not midgets. Was that supposed to be funny? This movie was all around a "what the hell?". McConaughey did a good job playing a self indulged jerk, and Oldman played one hell of a dwarf, but I couldn't help but wondering how this movie got made and why these actors agreed to be in it? Was this one of those things that when they signed a contract with a studio that they had to agree to do another film, and the studio had nothing else to give them but this? Wierd stuff.

Also, what was with the famous guy played by David Allen Grier (I think). Was he just really into dwarfs? Who was he supposed to be? Some guy who likes to pork Dwarfs?

And what was the point of McCaughney inviting the two chicks from his fire fighting class to the party?

[–] Gromit26 19 years ago

If this movie was in the 50's and instead of being about his family being dwarves it was about them being black would you be asking those same questions?

bad man make cody cry hurt.

[–] poopiscrispy 17 years ago

Haven't seen the movie but black people can be funny... Just not as funny as dwarves... unless they are black dwarves.

[–] mitzibishi 12 years ago

^^^ Bingo!

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PathoftheDragon 19 years ago

I agree Saschuel, i think the movie had way too many parts that left the viewer going "huh?"
So, here's a list of problems i had with the movie (sorry if im repeating what other people already said):

1. Beckinsale doesn't tell her parents about McConaughey's parents being dwarves... and yet, she makes this huge deal out of McConaughey never telling her. It's almost like she wanted to get a good reaction out of her parents and find something to get upset about.
2. Eww, Who puts a used pregnancy test on top of a cup of good coffee??
3. I know someone did already mention this, but Arquette and Dinklage seem to just exist there for no reason. I thought there performances were great, but I honestly feel if they hadn't of existed in the movie at all it would've been a lot better (and Beckinsale ending up with Oldman in the end would've been a little more surprising) I feel like they left out parts of the evolution of the story to put in other, trivial characters.
4. I would've liked to have seen more moments between Beckinsale and McConaughey to get a better idea of the dynamic of their relationship, the characters never really developed.
5. It ends with a kiss... how nice... but also how boring. This movie had the potential to be so much more, it finally gets good with the twist of McConaughey leaving... but from there I think they should've pushed it and the movie would've been outstanding. As it was the moments at the end seemed forced and unbelievable just because they came out of the blue.
6. As Saschuel pointed out.. Beckinsale's character had no problem with being pregnant?? Her hip clothing, lifestyle, rebellious nature all go against her actions and mannerisms which show a much softer, simpler stable woman.
7. Why does she go from one scene in which she's calling them midgets and seemingly moderately aggitated about him not telling her to the next scene where she's all fine and dandy with them and calling them dwarves? The progression happened way too fast...so fast there was no progression.
8. Ok, so Oldman's character lost the woman he was having sex with... but there was no plot evolution of his conflicted feelings for Beckinsale, it just relied on Oldman's brilliant acting to convey it.. at the end i felt almost like she was using him.

[–] thetheeyecreature 19 years ago

Just saw the movie on cable. I agree, there are some elements that either don't fit, or feel extraneous. (Why were the two students introduced and then forgotten? At first I thought maybe Steven was having an affair with the tall blond girl, but apparently not.)

My biggest question is why, in a movie with so many good dwarf actors, they cast a normal-sized actor as Rolfe? Gary Oldman is great, of course, but I was always aware that there was trickery going on to make him seem to be a dwarf. (Must have been physically demanding.) Might have been a better movie if Maurice and Lucy (Peter Dinklage and Patricia Arquette's characters) were left out, and Rolfe was played by Dinklage.

[–] gapeach1 19 years ago

A couple of things. I saw Dinklage previously in The Station Agent - he could have carried off the Rolfe part with no effort - except he looks less like Matthew than Gary and they are supposed to be twins (although not identical) - right?

Also - regarding the subject of this post - I haven't seen the whole movie yet - only the last 45 minutes (it comes on again during the night and I'll record it then) - but on my cable system they showed it on the Starz Comedy Channel - and from what I've seen it didn't really look a comedy. Although the scene when Kate's mother brings up the Jewish question was pretty funny.

From what I have seen and some of the previous comments - it looks like the writing wasn't too great - which is why it went directly to DVD.

[–] samanthaseaotter 19 years ago

Hollywood is frequently obsessed with making rotten remakes like "The Dukes of Hazzard," then of course it has no time for charming, well-played comedy-dramas like "Tiptoes." Peter Dinklage is amazing and Gary Oldman totally and completely creditable as a sensitive little person, so different from his more common SOB roles. So sad that they'll waste time and energy pushing crap like "Bewitched" when a more original piece of work is neglected.

"Nobody's perfect."

[–] DayDreamer7 19 years ago

i completely agree with you. i think this is a great movie, and i don't know why the writing is such a big issue with some people. i think everyone is getting to used to movies that try too hard to be viewed as deep and insightful directly through the dialogue, causing every conversation to play out like a philosophical discussion. i thought the writing was genuine and made the situations unfold in a realistic way, so the characters seemed like they could be ordinary people in a sense. the blend of drama and comic relief worked well in my opinion, and i agree that a charming movie that actually has a message does not desrved to be overshadowed by the cookie cutter films that are being released now...

"Those who sit on a high horse have that much farther to fall"

[–] Vincen7 19 years ago

This movie is awful,boring...I watched it only because of Kate Beckinsale

[–] ninnio23 19 years ago

This was by far the worst movie in the history of movies.

[–] louloutrixiebell 18 years ago

I agree - this film is terrible. The characters and their dialogue was underdeveloped, lots of things unexplained (the blond girl, Sally's behaviour, the point of Maurice and Lucy, etc). Why have Gary Oldman play a dwarf when there are so many dwarf actors around (marketability is the answer I suspect - but it didn't help the film anyway!) It would have been good to see Steven tackle why he feels the way he does about his family and come to terms with it - that would have been a much better film.

Everything I have seen with Matthew McConaughey has been pants or he has been pants, and this is no different.

Thought it would be funny or so bad its funny, but it was just bad, bad, bad!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rmasirnille 18 years ago

I totally agree I absolutely loved Tiptoes!!!!!! but don't I feel stupid I had no idea Gary Oldman was of normal size. I did get the feeling that I had seen him before his voice was very familiar. Now the problem I have is why did they not cast a littl person in role of Rolfe. Peter Dinklage would have been great in that role.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FlorenceLawrence 19 years ago

all really good points, I think actors and editors are so much in partnership in a good film, but maybe they didn't shoot enough here, and just chucked what they had together, there must be a storyboard somewhere with loads of parts missing, such a shame as it was a good premise.

Kayak free yourself from image-consciousness worry about waterproofing, warmth and adventure

[–] qrazygirl 18 years ago

i noticed that part about the coffee cup too.. it wasn't a huge part but i was a little grossed out lol.

a bunch of people are saying that Arquette and Dinklage have no real relevance to the story line. however, if you look at this movie as being an experience with little people (or dwarfes), then those two show another aspect of their lives. not everyone would embrace their culture and the problems that occur with that condition. Dinklage's character showed the different life that one may lead while being a dwarf. it was almost a more interesting twist than the rest of the movie, and i believe the movie would have fell short without those two characters. otherwise, it would have shown just one side of the culture of these people and been just propoganda.

[–] kgustum 18 years ago

I thought the same thing. Why did he invite those girls? I thought he was having an affair just by the way she came out of the dark when he threw the phone. I think these characters were all underdeveloped. I think this is one of the worst movies I've seen. (i'm partial to matthew mcConaughey and i didn't like the outcome). I think this movie could have been better if it had had a happier ending. It ended so open.

[–] an_borneo 18 years ago

I agree with the original poster. It could have been a really, really good film, especially with such a fantastic cast. But the script was dodgy - I commented whilst watching it that it's like an educational video on the experience of stigmatised people. Which would be fine - but that's not what movies are ONLY meant to be. Where was the craftsmanship? Kate was lovely but her character's development was unrealistically sudden. So - yeah - I didn't know whether to take it seriously either. It was really patronising to the audience.

And don't you think her partner's family would have been a tiny bit cross about the fact that she doesn't know if she wants a baby 'like them'? Even though she mentions this herself...

[–] stot4321 18 years ago

"Why did he invite those girls? I thought he was having an affair just by the way she came out of the dark when he threw the phone. I think these characters were all underdeveloped."
I think they edited out some on this line of thought.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316768/photogallery has some pictures of Matthew and the blonde that wasn't in the film.

[–] pheaho 18 years ago

I suppose the intention was to create a triangle to show that KB's character's acceptance of dwarfism was not something that MC's character was ready for. It forced him to actually face the issues he had with his brother's differences and so he brought Blondie in to create that 'safe' place where he didn't have to deal with the ramifications that his lover was pregnant and that he might be father to a child afflcited with dwarfism...just my two cents :)

It was terrible - my galpal and I rented it out as we like MC and were in a chick flick mood - the movie ended with us going 'huh?' It's no wonder we were confused - it's like the movie couldnt decided whether it was comedy or drama.

And to address an earlier post - it's not really nitpicking - there are many movies which successfully blend the two and imitate real life or at least make it easy for you to suspend disbelief :)

~~~~
Blackadder: The path of my life is strewn with cowpats from the Devil's own satanic herd.

[–] chassall 18 years ago

Hey, thanks for that link. It made the problems with this movie a bit more clear to me; it just seemed like either something essential was missing, or something extraneous was included. Would this be an editing issue?

[–] afhick 9 years ago

They couldn't film Oldman from the waist down because, truly, the man has no bottom.

"The Mountain Has Wings"