User reviews

One of the better biographical TV movies, "The Three Stooges" suffers from the main failing that most such movies do: taking "liberties" with the facts. There are few things more annoying than watching a movie about people you know something about, and seeing an incident or event portrayed as having occurred that you KNOW never happened, or information given as "fact" when you KNOW it is completely wrong, and that happens several times in this film. Overall, though, it was somewhat better than I expected it to be. Paul Ben-Victor was very, very good as Moe. He had Moe's "Stooge" character down pat, and was surprisingly effective with Moe's off-screen character, although he didn't play Moe as quite the savvy businessman he was in real life--most of the Stooges' real money was made in personal appearances, and Moe made certain that some of Larry's and Curly's income was invested for their future, as they were both notoriously loose with their money (Curly on women, Larry on horses). Although the film for some reason shows Moe as living a sort of lower-middle class existence after his career ended, in reality he had made some shrewd investments over the years and by the time the Stooges broke up, he was a very wealthy man.

Michael Chiklis had the most difficult job--Curly has always been everyone's favorite Stooge, and most viewers would be paying a lot more attention to how he played Curly than how the other two actors played their characters. To Chiklis' credit, he acquitted himself extremely well. Curly, like his fellow comics Lou Costello and Oliver Hardy, was quite graceful for a heavyset man--they'd have to be, to do the kind of physical comedy they did--and Chiklis shared that trait, too. He also had Curly's mannerisms and voice patterns down pat, although his voice wasn't quite as high-pitched as Curly's was. Overall, Chiklis did a terrific job.

The one thing that really did surprise me, though, was how badly Columbia Pictures, and especially studio owner Harry Cohn, came across--and deservedly so, given the studio's shabby treatment of the Stooges and how it screwed them out of untold amounts of money. I figured that the filmmakers would pretty much whitewash, or at best just gloss over, Columbia's almost criminal treatment of the comedy team that basically put the studio on the map, but they didn't do that at all, which was refreshing.

If you're a Stooges fan you'll definitely like this movie, and even if you're not, it's a pretty good story of one of the most beloved comedy teams in film history. Check it out.

The Stooges newsgroups were ablaze with postings that blasted the movie before even seeing it.

Paul Ben-Victor did a very nice job as Moe. He was stronger in the Life sections then in the On Screen sections.

Jon Kassir was very good as Shemp.

Michael Chiklis did the best he could with the toughest job; Curly is by far the most famous and sharply defined character of the bunch. Chiklis's main failing is one he really can't help: during the "Take Off Your Hat" scene, he was attempting to look puzzled and frustrated, but his own particular eye-squint came across as angry and mean.

Evan Handler was an absolutely wonderful Larry. As written, he is the most easy-going stooge, and only slightly hen-pecked by a blonde-bombshell of a wife. (Sidenote: Larry really was the only Stooge to have a babe for a wife, on whom he allegedly cheated frequently. *Larry*?!) Handler and Annalise Phillips, who played Mabel Fine, had a wonderful, complex rapport.

And there was a nice rapport between the Stooges. The movie took the usual liberties with time and space, but for the most part it had a very good feel for the Stooges and what they went through to survive in comedy.

Two bits of major criticism:

1. Sloppy Motivation. Upon hearing of Ted Healey's death, Curly snaps, "Healy's not dead." Larry: "He's not dead?" Curly: (indicating Moe, with whom he's been having a tiff) "He's right here." Nobody, upon hearing the news that someone you knew and worked with just died violently, is going to maintain a snit (even if, according to this movie, Curly never worked with Healy, which he did in real life.)

2. Bad Routines. The movie gives the impression that the Stooges, on their own after breaking with Ted Healy, went the Martin & Lewis nightclub route, winging it with no set routine. The Stooges had a complete, set act, which was meticulously timed and rehearsed. They *had* to, or they would have killed each other.

I will say I like The Three Stooges, they are very funny and never fail to make me laugh. This film is an affectionate, well played and efficiently directed memoir to Moe(whose perspective the film is told in), Shemp and Curly Howard. It details of how the comedy act made countless Columbia shorts with little award, the physical toll the trio's routines took and more obviously their comic legacy. This is all made possible by the efficient direction from James Frwaley, a good script and above average production values. The performances are excellent, Paul-Ben Victor and John Kassir are great as Moe and Shemp, but the real star is Michael Chiklis as Curly. Curly was my favourite Stooge, and Chiklis made every effort to stay true to what Curly was like, and I appreciated that, especially in the more poignant parts such as when Curly has his stroke and when he realises that his face is the property of the studio and not himself. Of course, the film is too short and the studio politics sequences with the monstrous mogul Harry Cohn don't quite work. That said though, I enjoyed this. 7/10 Bethany Cox

It's a fact of life: Men think the Three Stooges are hilarious, and most women just don't get them. But women might want to give them a second chance after seeing this touching biography.

The thing that struck me most about the Three Stooges movie was its tone. This was a film made by people who genuinely cared about the Three Stooges, people who wanted to express their appreciation by giving the world a glimpse of the men behind the laughs. The Stooges were comic geniuses, but they were human and fragile, just like the rest of us. Sure it was sappy at times, and sometimes seemed to gloss over or omit certain events, but hey--you can't show thirty years in two hours without missing something. Especially poignant was the relationship between Moe and his "little" brother Curly.

Told mostly in flashbacks, The Three Stooges follows the boys from their Vaudeville days with Ted Healy to their triumphant return to the stage after the first TV showing of their two-reel shorts. The reality was that Columbia pictures was making a mint off the Stooges films, but their contract cut them out of any profit-sharing. Anxious to get back to the stage and enjoy some of the fame they've earned, Moe, Larry, and Joe "Curly Joe" DeRita agree to make the first of many personal appearances at a TV station. The final scene has Moe, Larry, and Curly Joe taking the stage for the first time in years.

I'm not ashamed to admit it: When the curtain went up and the surviving Stooges looked out at the packed house, I cried. Maybe because the Stooges are a part of my history--a good and happy part--the way they're a part of the history of every kid who grew up watching their antics.

It's not perfect, but it's the best there is. At the very least, it's a good Stooges primer and a stepping stone to further Stooge research. The Stooges will never go away, because let's face it: As long as men are men, the Three Stooges will be their comic heroes.

Although the production value and the acting is great, the story- line keeps this movie from being great. Any die hard fan of the Three Stooges will want to watch this, but most fans will be left disappointed with how bad this movie got the story wrong. With what they could produce in under 2 hours, the movie showcases a multiple bio picture with thirty years of show business history thrown in. Still, how the Stooges are depicted and how history is depicted, leaves the audience the argument to disagree with every scene in the movie. Curly's health is touched upon, but his redemption as a Father and Husband is never discussed. Larry's back-story is hardly shown. This makes the movie central focus being Moe Howard. Still, much of Moe's background is never talked about. His depiction of a "has been" after the 1950's short series was far from the truth. Moe Howard was never un-employed or ever retired. The movie gets this wrong since Moe Howard was always working most of his professional career. In the end, the issue of money, fame or importance is never resolved. It is important that the movie mentions how bad the Stooges were treated by the Studio, but we never get to see the Studio's side to the story. The movie does show the human side to the Stooges which is good. Then again, depicting Shemp as a wimp and Joe Besser as a jerk is far from the truth. This is a fictional depiction of the three stooges and far from an accurate depiction of how these men truly were. Then again, compared to the 2012 Comedy the Three Stooges, this movie is much much better.

I did like the fact that the film didn't dwell so much on the comedy part of the Stooges.. although the re-creation of some of their classic routines was excellent.. The film was entertaining because it was a story about the Howard brothers.. Not to forget Larry.

I was fortunate to meet Larry when I was a child. He was doing a personal appearance at Hess's Department store .. and as a 7 year old who loved seeing the Stooges on TV.. he was a very nice and also a very gracious man.

I do think that it could have been a bit longer .. the film seemed to rush from Curly's stroke in 1947.. right to 1955 with very little about Shemp.. Also there was very little about Joe DeRita..

However all in all .. a very enjoyable film.. even for the non-stooges fan.. whoever you are :)

I don't understand why Hollywood insists on changing history with films like the Stooges. The portrayal of Moe (Paul Ben-Victor) was outstanding but the scene where Curly (Chiklis) has his stroke is a pure construction and not how his one of many illness came about. I personally think that the portrayal events "as they actually happened" is more interesting and less revisionist and deceptive. Other films with this problem are Biblical films and many Docudrama's (Frank and Jesse, Bud and Lou, Deadman's Curve, Mae West, Temptations, Karen Carpenter Story etc;)

Rick in Mpls

What movie could concievable take the Stooges we know and love and bring them into the real world - this one. It's a very heart warming film into the boys we thought we knew and a fresher look at the Hollywood of their day. Paul, Evan and Michael recreate the Stooges routines perfectly and even uncannily look like them in some scenes. I think they'd be a great trio to remake the old episodes for the next century even with John Kassir popping up as Shemp!

Well done biopic that condensed much of the Stooges long career, is still exceedingly good. The acting is top notch, and doesn't pull any punches when is comes to the often shabby treatment handed to these funnymen by the studio. Just about everyone can quote certain lines or a memorable scene from a Three Stooges short, and to show much these gentlemen are part of popular culture. It was great to see the movie explore their unique and very human complexities.

A touching and well-deserved tribute to some of the greatest comedic geniuses of the 20th century. This film lovingly recreated some of the Stooges most memorable moments while showing us their human sides behind the scenes. It is about time that the Stooges were recognized as serious and hard-working artists who deserve much more than they've ever been credited with.

Although the telepic is a real treat for Stoogephiles, it is ridiculously short. The actors do a creditable job re-creating classic and not-so-classic (Joe Besser, anyone?) Stooge shorts, especially Michael Chiklis--late of the horrible John Belushi biopic "Wired"--as Curly. I would have liked to have seen more of the period in which Shemp re-joined as the third Stooge, but overall, the movie was absorbing and heartbreaking. But what can you say when the Temptations get a two-night miniseries event, and these giants of slapstick are relegated to a one-nighter?

Stephen King TV movies can go 5 or 6 parts and no one complains, right? So why give the Stooges only 96 minutes? I'm not asking for a PBS mini-series, but would a two parter had killed anyone? The movie steamrolled over events that should have been mentioned and mentioned events that could have been omitted. I do want to give a salute to the performances of the stars...they had a tough job because they didn't really look like the Stooges, but the spirit was there. After watching the movie, I pulled out a tape from American Movie Classics that had the real deal on it and laughed myself silly. The movie was pretty tough emotionally, especially after Curly has the stroke and Moe needs to keep the business going. When Curley started crying I lost it...Like I said, the movie was good, but could have been and SHOULD have been much, much better. Maybe it's fitting though...the Stooges got ripped off when they were alive and now, 25 years later, it happens again.

Seeing this ABC TV Movie changed the way I looked at the Stooges. I still found them to be very funny (who didn't?) but this showed how they were really ripped off. Paul Ben-Victor, Evan Handler, Michael Chiklis and Jon Kassir do an excellent job of portraying the famous Stooges. This was a drama about the classic funny men. It really was a sad tv movie with not as much humor as you might expect. On the bright side, the film's ending was on a high note for the Stooges.

I liked this one a lot but found it to be to short. You really needed to be familiar with the history of the Stooges to follow the film. They could have developed Larry and Curly a lot more than they did.

They really glossed over the Healy years and could have done more there tool. They ended the film abruptly at the comeback but do not show the feature films or the cartoon series. The very end also told you what happened to each Stooge but it flashed so fast that I was only able to read about half.

They did an excellent job recreating scenes from the shorts that we know. It was interesting that the foley work was done instantaneously, unlike today where it could be done over a period of months in a studio.

One thing I remember in Moe's book which was not shown was the day Curly suffered his stroke, the heartless executives insisted that Moe and Larry finish the short they were working on later in the same afternoon! You might remember that one as a big pie fight that doesn't have Curly in it.

Curly did appear briefly in one of the Shemp shorts as a sleeping passenger on a train.

I know there was big animosity to Joe Besser and that Moe had always wanted Joe De Rita to be the third Stooge. This was shown well in the film.

I thought the film was trying to put way too much into 2 hours.Michael Chicklis was amazing as Curly Howard and deserves an Emmy for it.Besides that, the film was ok entertainment but not spectacular!It would be a good film for people who do not know much about the Stooge's history.Stooge fans will catch a few mistakes here and there!

This bio-pic of the Three Stooges was on for the first time on ABC last night. I quite enjoyed it, although it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

But then again, I AM a Three Stooges fan from way back. I remember watching them on TV from my early childhood, and I still catch them on the Comedy Network (they still run the old two-reelers here in Canada) when ever I can. I saw the Stooges live during their revival in the early 60's, and have read all the biographies that I could get my hands on. So you would really have to dig deeply to find anything that would be news to me...

For the average person, however, there was probably a lot to learn about the lives and times of the Stooges--their beginnings in Vaudeville with Ted Healy, their split with him and going on their own, how they had no idea how popular they were (and therefore were underpaid and underappreciated for decades at Columbia Pictures).

This could have been a better story if it could have been given more time, like maybe as a miniseries over a couple of nights. I'm not sure if there is enough interest out there in the Stooges for ABC to have committed to that though. Too bad--there really was too much story to tell in two hours (1 1/2 when you factor in commercials).

Acting was fine. The appearance of Curly and Larry were realistic enough that if you didn't know what movie you were watching you would have figured it out from these two. Moe and Shemp were pretty unconvincing although the haircuts helped a lot. As well, the actor playing Larry's wife Mabel looked just like the real Mabel, although I don't suppose too many people would have appreciated that.

All-in-all, a good film, and a worthwhile two hours. I recommend it when it airs again, or appears on video, especially if you are somewhat of a Stooge fan. But supplement it with a good biography to get the whole story and ALL the details.

I just stumbled upon this film on YouTube recently, I was pretty moved by the back story about their rise, fall and rise again career. Most of what the movie showed though was not totally accurate, but otherwise an excellent feature for anyone who wants to know behind the stooges. I'm surprised that Michael Chiklis pulled off Curly's likeness, his performance was simply amazing.

I did not know that this was a TV movie until I read about it even further, I'm a stooge fan since I was a kid, and their features never change. Overall, not totally accurate with certain events based on what happened on their heyday, this is a film for anyone who is a big Three Stooges fan and wants to see a real tearjerker.

I've been a life-long fan of the Stooges, and I'm glad I got to see a side of them that fans rarely saw. On the media side, I found striking similarities to this made-for-TV movie that compare to the recent showing of Audrey Hepburn's TV biography starring Jennifer Love Hewitt. Like with Hepburn, a TV movie doesn't do the Stooges justice. If you liked this show, watch 'Chaplin' the movie. Hopefully when the Marx brothers get their turn it'll be a movie movie like 'Chaplin'

On the other hand, I found the cast talented and refreshing (I especially loved Michael Chiklis' performance of Curly).

I remember vacationing in Florida when this movie aired. I had set up my VCR to record it. The anticipation was killing me. I had known about the movie ever since it was announced some half a year earlier. We came back from Florida 4 days after the movie aired, and I immediately watched it. I tried as hard as I could to like it, but I didn't.

I am a HUGE 3 stooges fan. And as such I know quite a bit about them. So it wasn't like I was expecting to learn anything from the movie, and I didn't. I was more interested with the portrayals and seeing how accurate their information was. There were many things wrong with this film. The actors, the script, the reenactments, ALL could have been much better.

Paul Ben-Victor is a tremendously talented actor. But let's face facts, Moe Howard was WAY out of his reach. He doesn't look like him, he doesn't sound like him, and thus, he can't act like him. Michael Chiklis is also very talented, but his portrayal of Curly didn't quite score with me, although when Curly becomes ill he did very well at that. John Kassir's portrayal of Shemp could've been rehearsed better. It was more of a bad impression than a portrayal. Worst of all was Joe Besser. They made him skinny, and more annoying than he really was. It was just plain laziness. I don't like the Joe shorts, because, as the movie illustrates he hardly EVER got hit. But he wasn't that annoying, and DEFINATELY wasn't that thin. The best performance belongs to Evan Handler. He had the most accurate stooge portrayal. The problem with Larry's character, his hair is WAY too frizzy and WAY too red. I know that's too technical, so I won't count that on my list of why I didn't like this movie.

Back to Shemp, who just so happens to be my favorite stooge. He is written as a whining, quivering, chicken. True, he had many phobias, but he wasn't that bad. He didn't leave the group initially because he was afraid of Ted Healy, although he didn't like him, Shemp left because he received an offer from another studio that he simply couldn't turn down. Instead of the truth, this movie chooses to make him wet the bed, on Larry no less, run into a closet, and shamefully bow out of the group. Another problem is that Shemp made nearly as many Columbia shorts as Curly did as a stooge, but only one, Fright Night, which was his first short, is shown. His career was almost completely ignored. Plus, lousy editing caused a terrible and most unforgivable error. Shemp was born in early 1895, and died in late 1955. That would make him how old at death? Well, here's a hint, it's not 59 as the movie states.

Now for the writing, which I think was flawed only because this movie was rushed out. Some of the lines are dumb and could be developed and/or introduced much better than they were. The one line that really got me was at the very end of the film, when Moe is showing the promoter how the eyepoke is done.

"That's how we do it, make contact with the brow bone, not the eyes, looks real on film though." this line was poorly written and poorly placed in the film. It's meant to be one of those lines that make the audience say OH! In amazement and I'm sure it did with some people, but the very end of the movie was not the place for this line. A better place you ask? How about when they show up at Columbia for the first time and are introduced to the sound effects machine. I know initially there was no sound for the eyepoke, but Moe for instance could have said, "What about this?" and eyepokes Curly or Larry. Jules White then says "Are you okay?" or "How'd you do that?" There were a lot of misplaced lines in this film which is a clear sign that the script was rushed out. Another one involves the origin of the name Shemp, although that one isn't as bad, and so I will let that one slide.

What does this film do well? It illustrates how the stooges were screwed by Columbia, which they were. I'm not sure if Moe was an errand boy, but that was the kind of dramatization stuff that is meant to get the viewer sympathizing with them. I know this film was a dramatization. I know not everything is going to be crisp and clean and absolutely perfect. However some of the stuff they made up and the real stuff that they ignored were in serious conflict with each other. For instance Curly's stroke is not even close to the way it happened in real life. I know, I know, dramatization, but the purpose of dramatizations is to make real events more dramatic. Curly's stroke in real life is more dramatic than what they showed in the movie. Here's what really happened. Curly was sitting in a chair off screen while a scene was being shot, they called him for the final pie fight scene but there was no response. Moe went to go get him and discovered his little brother head slumped, half paralyzed, unable to speak, and tears streaming down his face. Moe then said "Babe?" and tried to help him out of his chair. Poor Curly drops to his knees. Then the ambulance was called.

All in all, this movie wasn't terrible, but it certainly wasn't good, or even OK. This film portrays the stooges helplessly and inaccurately and sometimes goes overboard with dramatizations. There is a very, VERY long list of inaccuracies in this film. If you don't believe me, check out a fella named Stooge's list at the threestooges.com news forum. It is about a page and a half long. Some things in the movie I can let slide. But others were unforgivable. The Three Stooges were geniuses, and a lot of today's comedy is based off of what they did. Don't believe me? Check out the Simpsons, and more so Ren & Stimpy. But this film fails to capture their genius. It more so inaccurately captures their hardships, which is important, but if the title of the film is gonna be the Three Stooges, it has to portray their ingenuity and originality more than anything.

Surprisingly entertaining film for someone who never was a big fan of the stooges. Well acted by all, and well paced. Would've enjoyed more details about "the boys," but understand the time pressures of a TV movie. It made me want to read the book. Small bonus: after years of never being able to match the voice of HBO's Crypt Keeper to the face(John Kassir), this TV movie gives us a chance to see him as Shemp.

Sure, some of the great stooge routines are recreated but mainly this tells the story of their lives and film careers and does that well. As curly was the star of the real stooges so in this movie the star is the guy who plays curly (Michael Chiklis). He really does a great impersonation - both looks and sounds like the original. Makes me wonder why after the real-life curly died, the act didn't just get a curly impersonator instead of bothering with the unfunny shemp.

One complaint i have is that the movie covers 30-40 years of their career and yet they don't seem to age a day! Their wives do, but not the stooges.

My father always loved The Three Stooges. He would often pay full price at a matinée just because they were showing one of the Stooges shorts. So you might say that I grew up in a house where Moe Larry and Curley were a revered prescence. I recently got a chance to see this film on the AMC channel and it is a really fascinating biography of the comedy trio that has become one of our cultural icons. After all, when your talking about three stupid people you know, haven't you often said "they are a regular Moe, Larry and Curley". There was an auction a few years back of historical photos and I wanted to share an interesting tidbit. There was a photo of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and one of The Three Stooges. The Stooges photo brought four times the price of the Presidential photo! Paul Ben Victor gives a fine performance as Moe in this film. It begins in the late 1950's after the Stooges were considered "washed up". A young man tries to get him interested in a reunion and Moe rebuffs him at first but eventually warms to the idea. You sense Moe's bitterness at the way the Stooges were treated. Our greatest comedy teams like Abbott and Costello and Laurel and Hardy were allowed to make feature films while the Stooges were just "banished" to short films. I feel that the studio system, most notably Columbia's tyranical President Harry Cohn, were terrible in the way they treated Moe Larry and Curley. They cheated them out of a fortune and it is particularly galling when you think of the outrageous sums of money they pay people like Jim Carrey today. It was only in the 1960's that the Stooges were allowed to make feature films, in one of them, for you trivia lovers, they co-starred with Adam West. Can you imagine that, The Three Stooges Meet Batman! The person who really made this film for me is Michael Chiklis as Curly. The people who know him best as the brutal and corrupt cop on The Shield would get the shock of their life if they could see him as our favorite Stooge. He captures Curley perfectly to the smallest mannerism. The re-enactments in this film of the shorts are taken word per word and it is just amazing. The tragic thing is that Curley and Shemp both died very young, Curley of a stroke and Shemp of a heart attack. Chiklis should have gotten an Emmy for his great job, as they say at one point in the film, Moe may have been the brains of the act BUT Curley was the heart.