|Average votes grouped by age and by sex:|
|Total includes those who didn't specify sex.|
I was disappointed. I cannot believe the movie, the first 2 were much better than this. It was okay at some parts, and good at others, but don't waste your time.
|4/10||samshafiee@ - 53 reviews|
27.12.2011 - age: 13-17
Am I glad I rented this one. Although there was some humor in it. Bottom line it was a waste of time.
|6/10||shazjoao@ - 1728 reviews|
I really can't complain about this movie. It wasn't the best one of the three. "Meet the Parents" was indeed the best of them all. My co-workers at DISH told me about "Little Fockers" before I ordered it on PPV in HD and they said I may like it because I laughed or hate it because it was lame. I laughed so I wasn't mad about the movie. The best thing about the whole movie was Jessica Alba. I love everything she does but I feel in this movie she lowered her standards. I hope all of them come back with something better!
|5/10||ssaucedo20@ - first review|
14.5.2011 - age: 18-25
This is the worst movie in history. It represents everything that is wrong with this country today. It offends everybody, makes no sense at all. I burned the cd and I predict it will ruin these actors careers. It looked like everyone in the movie was either drunk or drugged to act out this pathetic pile horse manure.
|1/10||radiodud@ - first review|
16.4.2011 - age: 36-49
It's so horrible Even Robert De Niro joked about how bad "Little Fockers" was in his speech during the Golden Globes. The only reason this film was even made, and the only reason why people have an impulse to see this crap is because Robert De Niro, Ben Stiller, Jessica Alba, and Dustin Hoffman are in this film. Four tremendously popular actors whom also have stellar careers. First and foremost, the film was pointless, predictable, cheesy, weak, and every other term that can be used to describe a horrible movie. Simply enough, this is "the worst film of the year." Razzi contention.
|1/10||jaystar73@ - 26 reviews|
12.3.2011 - age: 13-17
Boring. Not funny like the first one and second.
|5/10||imangela1@ - 20 reviews|
I only went to see it because my boyfriend wanted to see it. I only seen the first one and it was funny, I didn't think this one was that funny. It was alright. My bf wasn't impressed either.
|6/10||k.il1@ - 7 reviews|
6.3.2011 - age: 26-35
The lawless series of good films is destroyed with the latest installment. Little Fockers only produces a brainless plot, bad performances, and negative laughs. A 'punch in the face' toward fans of the series and highly disappointing...
|4/10||hassan.ilahi@ - 36 reviews|
6.3.2011 - age: 13-17
Not a very good plot. The cast was very good, and dwell carried out, but it didn't hold togeather.
|5/10||orkelly@ - 80 reviews|
27.2.2011 - age: 50+
It's a good movie and a lot of pepole saw it today.
|7/10||molly121@ - first review|
27.2.2011 - age: 18-25
Not as good as the first one... but better than the second one. Not bad!
|7/10||cricket_ca@ - 8 reviews|
27.2.2011 - age: 36-49
If you are following the "Focker saga" you must see this one too. Sequels are never as good as the first; however you must not miss this one. I wish this one had been when Pam was pregnant and giving birth as I feel we have missed some of their life. Perhaps the next sequel will go back in time to that event as I think they missed an excellent chance. I love the Fockers and I hope to continue watching them go through life with their problems and surprises.
|9/10||sherry_jean_allard@ - 6 reviews|
16.2.2011 - age: 50+
I think it resembles Meet the Fockers in quality. I loved the series, and after watching the trailer for this one I though it would be extremely vulgar and full of dark humor. Hopefully, all the disgusting scenes are in the trailer, so no bad surprises, and the movie was actually cute and funny! Don't judge the movie with the trailer!!!
|8/10||i_medieval_star@ - 17 reviews|
13.2.2011 - age: 13-17
K this is the absolute funniest movie ever. You HAVE to go see it.
|10/10||aasdrianna@ - 9 reviews|
11.2.2011 - age: 13-17
I went to see this movie with one of my best friends. It was pretty good but I really thought it could have been longer. The movie was very funny in parts, the actor choices are perfect. There is no dought these movies are classics. Even though people gave this movie bad reviews, I think it's worth seeing. If you haven't gotten in on the focker trilogy it doesn't matter because this is a movie for everyone.
|7/10||leg@ - 16 reviews|
10.2.2011 - age: 13-17
The"Focker Series" is getting weak. If you enjoy the first and second one , you would find many parts of this movie has the same plot and jokes, it is nothing doing with "the littke focker", nothing new.
|5/10||shortytimmy@ - 34 reviews|
9.2.2011 - age: 26-35
It was funny, Not nearly as good as the first one or the second one though. They could have done much more with this film. It's worth a look but I recommend waiting for the dvd rental. Love the changes made to the site cinemaclock! Great Job!
|6/10||markus694u@ - 62 reviews|
9.2.2011 - age: 36-49
I enjoyed the interaction of Jack Byrnes with Greg Focker. Some of the scenes were quite funny. The ending was a little too predictable for me.
|6/10||jworobec@ - 5 reviews|
9.2.2011 - age: 50+
Unfortunately, I was disappointed with this movie as I thought the first, and second films of the "Focker Series" were by far much better. I thought the jokes, plot, and humor weren't funny. The only slightly funny parts were quite limited, and few. Therefore, laughter/comedy were a rare occurrence while watching it. I also found the plot to be a bit too dragged out, and I expected what would happen-or-what would be said next. There were some funny parts/situations. However, I think for how enjoyable, and funny the movie was on a whole/in general-it's worth it if you watch it online-watch it in a way that you don't pay.
|5/10||monica.aiello7@ - 5 reviews|
8.2.2011 - age: 18-25
Just as good as the others. If you were a fan of the other two you will love this one just as much I seriously don't understand the negative reviews.
|9/10||bam_morland@ - 48 reviews|
5.2.2011 - age: 18-25
Exactly what was expected of a sequel in this franchise. Predictable. Same line of jokes as the first movies. Small laughs here and there. Nothing extraordinary.
|5/10||celsi_2000@ - 8 reviews|
2.2.2011 - age: 26-35
They took a good air of movies and combined the suck from both to create this third movie in the series. The first movie was okay, the second was funny. This is not well done at all [...]
|4/10||hbnc69er@ - 27 reviews|
2.2.2011 - age: 18-25
Maybe it was our expectations but it just didn't do it for us.
|5/10||leprof@ - 2 reviews|
31.1.2011 - age: 50+
SO Funny!!! If you are in need of comic relief with not much to think about, then this movie is for you. I don't know if it matters, but I have seen the 1st two movies, and I definitely knew what to expect. This movie is by no means sophisticated, it is just comical.
|7/10||skye.woodrum@ - first review|
31.1.2011 - age: 36-49
Somehow, after the first two movies being so entertaining, I was expecting much, much more from the third. I was disappointed when it dwelt so much on the "adult" issues when it seemed to be meant to dwell on the "little Fockers". It is not one I will rewatch.
|5/10||telda07@ - first review|
28.1.2011 - age: 36-49
We walked out after 20 mins. Just awful, not even funny. Very disgusted with it... first 20 mins unrealistic, fake and disgusting.
|1/10||whitec1981@ - 9 reviews|
26.1.2011 - age: 26-35
It was not as good as It was expected like old versions...
|6/10||hagh0@ - first review|
25.1.2011 - age: 36-49
A funny and humorous story: worth seeing!
|7/10||j-sergenina@ - 226 reviews|
25.1.2011 - age: 50+
I enjoyed it. The older ones were funnier but it is still good. I can at least say I've seen it in the theatre! :P
|7/10||dmstyres@ - 15 reviews|
25.1.2011 - age: 36-49
This movie was disapointing. Wasn't as funny as I thought it would be. Most of the funny parts are in the trailer. Nothing too exciting.
|6/10||juss_a_fantasy@ - 2 reviews|
It was OK... I love DeNiro in comedic roles anyways... But you seen one Focker movie you've seen them all.
|5/10||teenahiltz@ - 22 reviews|
23.1.2011 - age: 36-49
Bad badbad!!! Horible slow movie, not funny at all.
|3/10||bvactank@ - 2 reviews|
22.1.2011 - age: 36-49
I admit sequels aren't that great, but I enjoyed this movie it was funny and enjoyable to watch :) would watch it again.
|8/10||holly868@ - 6 reviews|
22.1.2011 - age: 18-25
Rent it when it goes on the sale rack at the video store. Very disappointed:( 2hrs of my life I will never get back...
|4/10||krncmrn@ - 2 reviews|
21.1.2011 - age: 36-49
Go watch on cheap night or rent it! First two were MUCH better.
|6/10||eserena@ - 10 reviews|
21.1.2011 - age: 26-35
I loved the first one, they should have left well enough alone. The was not a great movie, had very little to do with the kids as the title may suggest. Stiller and DeNiro play off each other well, but this movie was full of the same old gags we have seen in the other 2. Plus a few other silly unrealistic scenarios. I was very disappointed in this one. Wait for rental don't waste your money in the theaters.
|6/10||daveferringo@ - 19 reviews|
16.1.2011 - age: 26-35
So funny!!! & nice to see the same cast together again! Loved this movie... Hope there will be a 4th someday!
|9/10||finally2011isouryear@ - first review|
16.1.2011 - age: 18-25
Horrific film don't even consider going to see it. It's horrible, I would've rather wiped my bum with the money I spent on this film.
|1/10||iamgayforzohan@ - first review|
15.1.2011 - age: 13-17
My friends and I enjoyed this movie. It was absolutely hilarious and we laughed through the whole show... Excellent and reccommend it to anyone wanting to see a funny show...
|9/10||carolross.scootergirl@ - 2 reviews|
15.1.2011 - age: 50+
If you've seen the first 2 then you've got to see this one as well. In my opinion the 2nd one is the best of the 3. If there was less Owen Wilson in the movie, it would have probably been better. I don't find him funny at all.
|8/10||matthew_lafrance@ - 7 reviews|
13.1.2011 - age: 18-25
Not even worth getting out of the house to go see... I will never... never go see this movie ever again even if I got paid to do so. It is a waist of time...
|2/10||latinakitten@ - first review|
12.1.2011 - age: 26-35
If you enjoyed the first 2 movies in this series, you will enjoy this one as well. It is predictible, which comedy isn't? All of the nay sayers who trash this movie because of the sexual humor and innuendos obviously did not watch the first 2! Worth watching.
|7/10||cbrown@ - 10 reviews|
12.1.2011 - age: 50+
Just as good as the other ones.
|9/10||bluegrizzly4@ - first review|
12.1.2011 - age: 18-25
The movie was funny for sure for an older audience. I took my 10 and 13 year old children and found myself having to answer too many questions. The content was a little advanced for younger audience. Otherwise it was pretty good.
|6/10||lorriegray@ - first review|
12.1.2011 - age: 36-49
A good performance and great addition to the focker series.
|8/10||www@ - first review|
11.1.2011 - age: 26-35
If you enjoyed the first two movies, you will enjoy the third. Gags and jokes and situations déjà vu but I still laughed at them. The cast is back with a few newcomers--Owen Wilson is Hilarious! Not recommended for the very young!
|7/10||vblackie5@ - 272 reviews|
The movie was not bad for a continuation of the first two. Same humor with some new and some old jokes.
|6/10||rebelace@ - 25 reviews|
10.1.2011 - age: 26-35
Heyyy I think this is awesome!!!
|3/10||cgoulard2@ - 7 reviews|
9.1.2011 - age: 1-12
Didn't laugh at all the whole time. This movie had no new material or creativity. Don't waste your money.
|4/10||richard_howard@ - first review|
9.1.2011 - age: 50+
Sometimes I see a movie and think: How can a producer not burn the script after page 2? This is one of them. The actors just do it for the money and obviously don't care about it. What a crap. It makes me want to flush my brain down the toilet.
|2/10||imago@ - 13 reviews|
8.1.2011 - age: 36-49
Note: User reviews posted on this page are personal opinions of our readers. We are not responsible for their content.