BOOTY CALL
A Film Review by Brian Takeshita
Rating: *1/2 out of ****
I know there were times during this movie that I laughed pretty hard. The problem is, I can't remember them as I write this review. That's not a good sign.
In BOOTY CALL, Jamie Foxx is Bunz, a character whom I can't really describe, because I don't know that much about him. I only know that he likes to shoot dice on the sidewalk, and that he doesn't like relationships, just "booty calls" at three in the morning (no questions, no commitment). Bunz has a best friend named Rushon (Tommy Davidson), who seems to be Bunz's direct opposite: On the straight and narrow, and currently in a long-term commitment (a whole seven weeks, wow!). Rushon wants to finally sleep with his girlfriend, Nikki (Tamala Jones), but for a reason which is not totally explained, it's going to happen after a double date with Bunz and Nikki's friend Lysterine (Vivica A. Fox), who have never met. To make a long story short, the two couples pair off and spend the rest of the evening having their attempts to do the deed spoiled by Nikki's obsession with safe sex. First she wants condoms, so Bunz and Rushon go out and get them. Oh, no, they have to be latex, not lambskin. Back to the store. Now they've got to get dental dams, or there'll be no foreplay. Why are both couples stopped each time Nikki makes a demand? Nikki phones Lysterine, who lives across the hall, and tells her she'd better be making these demands, too. Talk about coitus interruptus.
BOOTY CALL is a film that does not know whether it wants to be a regular comedy or one of those over-the-top comedies. The difference between the two is that in the latter, things constantly happen which are so far removed from reality. In this category, for example, you have ACE VENTURA: PRIVATE EYE on the mild side, and AIRPLANE! at the extreme. There are times during BOOTY CALL where the film steps out of its shell and tries for this status, but then too often quickly retreats to the safety of convention. It is disappointing, and even worse, distracting.
There are also instances where the screenplay by Takashi Bufford and Bootsie Parker (are those real names?) does not live up to its potential, as jokes are left unexploited or even ruined by bad writing. For instance, there is a scene where our main characters are in a Chinese restaurant. Bunz goes up to an Asian gangster and speaks to him in fluent Cantonese, much to everyone's surprise. However, when asked how he learned the language, he goes into this explanation of how he started picking up words from late-night kung-fu films, and soon gained mastery. This negated the ludicrousness of the entire scene. If, on the other hand, when asked how he learned to speak Chinese, Bunz simply replied with, "kung-fu movies," and then moved on, the joke would have been much more effective. This is because it would have been totally unbelievable, but funny because we know it is unbelievable. By explaining the point and trying to make the ridiculous plausible, the film is not giving its viewers enough credit.
The inconsistency and uncertain believability unfortunately also raise other questions. Why are two such disparate people like Bunz and Rushon best friends? Why do Rushon and Nikki fix up Bunz and Lysterine? If Nikki is so obsessed with safe sex, why doesn't she have some condoms at her own apartment? These questions are not answered by the screenplay, but are overlooked for the sole reason of moving the plot forward.
A very noticeable quality of BOOTY CALL is the prevalence of unnecessary foul language. Some movies use a lot of swear words, but use them under very justifiable circumstances, as when they are employed consistent with a character's pattern of speech. Other films, such as the recent JACKIE BROWN, use them in ways that almost parody themselves. BOOTY CALL just sticks them in to get laughs, and it doesn't work. They stick out like sore thumbs because there is almost no reason to use them.
Half of the scenes seem to occur for no reason. The Chinese restaurant, a holdup at a convenience store, and a trip to the hospital seem to have nothing to do with the story, and are in there for filler. This is surprising, considering that the film is less than eighty minutes long. It's too bad that the core of the film isn't much better, since it is comprised of sometimes funny, but forgettable dialog. I refer you to the first paragraph of this review.
Review posted February 5, 1998
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews