Customer Reviews

National Lampoon Presents: One, Two, Many

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

Does John Melendez really think people were interested him as an actor? "Many" is a disquieting testament to Melendez's massive ego, for he not only acts, but scripts, produces, executive produces, and writes/performs about half of the soundtrack. Impressive feats, until you find out just how dreadful "Many" is.

"One, Two, Many" is atrociously unfunny and Melendez reveals himself to be a man of zero charisma and artistic capability.

The director here is actor Michael DeLorenzo ("New York Undercover"), and I use the term "director" ironically, since there's nothing in this film actually being led. Essentially a vessel for Melendez to remind the world how hilarious he thinks he is, DeLorenzo's sole job appears to be making sure the camera is in focus. Even that is a challenge during the film. Why Melendez didn't direct the picture himself is mystery, since the movie is a love letter to his talents (or lack thereof). Perhaps blocking a scene while also having to dream up new ways to mug shamelessly for the camera would've been too much for Melendez to juggle.

The pain starts with opening titles no more impressive than the introduction to grandma's vacation video and extends to: Thomas calling his genitalia a "vagining rod," an unintentionally hilarious sequence where Thomas defends the local stutterer from bullies, an embarrassing cameo from Mark Cuban, the use of what looks like "Tonight Show" offices to sub for apartment and hotel hallways, and an extended straining-on-toilet diarrhea gag that accurately sums up both John Melendez's talents and the film's vast ambitions.

In fact, "Many" is packed with unimaginative, juvenile humor. "Many" is pointlessly crude; Melendez has no actual perceivable wit, so he uses fecal jokes and sexual come-ons to cover the script's dead spots. It's a curious choice because the screenplay eventually attempts to provoke sympathy, leaving the weird vulgarity up there with other unexplained touches like: the brief use of animation to embellish Thomas's fantasy world, why Melendez thought anyone would want to watch a film where he's cast as an object of sexual desire, and why his character wears a strange, unexplained frizzy wig.

FINAL THOUGHTS

What really irritated me about "Many" wasn't the rampant stupidity and laziness of the endeavor; with Melendez's participation, that was to be expected. Rather, it's how the film wants the audience to care about these characters in the final reel. It's screenwriting 101 at its most obvious. After 70 minutes of sex jokes, lousy (if present at all) production values, and a moment where Thomas wipes his rear with money after a potent bathroom engagement, I think it's insulting to ask the viewer to give a damn about the psychological damage inflicted on these idiot characters. But then again, this is a film that believes seeing John Melendez naked is a concentrated strike of hilarity, so clearly "One, Two, Many" was doomed from the start.

Also, check out this movie's page at www.IMDB.com to see more reviews.

I'm a huge fan of John, I loved him on Get Me Out of Here, on the Tonight Show. Watching this movie just made my life 90 minutes shorter though. There was nothing funny about this movie though, and there wasn't anything really sexy about it either. Don't waste your time on this one.

I loved when Stuttering John was on the Stern Show, and I looked forward to this film. However, this could be, no, it has to be, the worst movie I have ever saw. Nothing, and I mean nothing, was funny about it.

If you think you have to watch this movie then d/l it off the Internet, because this isn't worth the shipping and handling charges.

National Lampoon used to put out some good movies, I don't know what happened to them, but there is a reason why this went straight to DVD.

Plus, can someone tell me what Stuttering John does on the Leno show. I betcha Leno could shot himself for hiring this talentless hack. It goes to show what talent Stern has if he could take this hack and make him amusing.

While John Melendez is not a particularly good actor (he seems to have the screen presence of a squirrel), this is still a movie with a few funny parts here & there. Bellamy Young has far better acting skills than Melendez, and she also seems to be too much of a sophisticate for this movie. That, of course, makes her perfect as the role of the g/f who is open to F/F/M threesomes. I've always been a fan of Hudson Leick's ever since her recurring portrayal of Callisto on Xena Warrior Princess - Complete Series (Seasons 1-6).

So, with all that said, why am I hammering this movie so hard with just 1 star? Well, the answer is pretty basic: it seems that National Lampoon simply doesn't understand its client base. With an NL movie with threesomes as the subject matter, one would expect (if not demand!) a great deal of gratuitous nudity. I mean, if you can't make a movie like this w/out excuses for having a slew of topless babes, then what is the point?

Instead, this movie strikes out altogether in this department. In the climactic scene in which he gets this threesome wish, the girls only strip down to their underwear. How lame is THAT? Basically, this film is something like a Corvette with a Yugo engine. Sure, it looks good on the cover, but....

The sad thing is, this could have been a terrific movie. The concept was sound and the subject matter could easily be used for myriad humorous situations. This is one of those NL movies that had potential, but ended up being half-baked. Oh, where are the makers of National Lampoon's Van Wilder - Unrated (Two-Disc Special Edition) when you need them! sigh

So John is still trying to ride on Howard Stern's coat tails and has reached new lows by thinking he can actually write and act. Like another reviewer, I rented this unwatchable "straight to DVD" dreck after seeing Jay Leno pimping it. 15 minutes in I was yawning...I ejected the DVD at the 45 minute mark because I just couldn't take it anymore. Most unbelievable to me someone actually financed this POS. I see that comedic impostor, Jackie Marlow ("F" Timmy BTW), posted a predictably glowing review...'nuff said on that front.

You guys had it made on the Stern show because he carried all of you. Your day in the sun is LONG gone. Don't think you have any talent to do anything else but act as the stuttering buffoon John...that is all you are capable of. Howard is a distant memory since he lost his mind and disappeared into satellite oblivion (yup...he clearly picked the wrong horse) so you should thank Jay Leno every day for that sweet & easy gig and keep a low profile so no one notices you are a talentless hack.

a real embarrassment, sounded like a great idea for a movie, but turned out to be unwatchable. Saw him interviewed on Jay Leno, so I grabbed a copy, then returned it....I am pretty sure that Jay didnt watch a second of it.

This was the worst National lampoons movie ever. If Stuttering John thinks this is gonna create an up and coming film career, he's got another thing coming. The acting is horrible and you can predict how each scene is going to turn out. They should show this movie at film school as "How not to make a movie". Shame on you John.

I've been a fan of Howard Stern's shows on TV and radio, so when I came across ONE, TWO, MANY at my local video store, I decided to see what Stern's sidekick "Stuttering John" is up to these days (he seems to have cured his stuttering, by the way). I noticed that John had written the screenplay himself, and while I found the idea of the movie to be worthwhile (don't mess up your relations with your girlfriend by trying threesomes), really the script to this needed substantial polishing by some accomplished screenwriter(s). As I watched the movie I felt like I was watching an amateur production, although unlike some reviewers I thought the acting in this was decent. There are some funny scenes and lines, like the one where John and his GF had called in a hooker to be their threesome partner, but as the hooker kept upping the price John had to keep going to the nearest ATM machine to get more cash, and obstacles kept slowing down the return to his apartment. What was most puzzling to me was the lack of eye candy in this movie. There are several hot babes in it for sure, but there is only one brief nude scene (about 1 minute) as John visits a strip club. Beyond that nudity is obviously avoided, such as when said hooker (played by the bodacious Sandra Taylor) comes over and everyone strips, but the ladies don't even get topless!! Geez, were they trying to appease the far right or something?? Overall, I was very disappointed with ONE, TWO, MANY, and in fact I've been disappointed with most National Lampoon movies in recent years.

the product was great and in great condition and lastly arrived in a timely fashion

well i'm not bothered about the film or what happens just care about the fact the Bellamy Young is in it! (and she's on the front cover AND has her name on the front of the DVD! cool way to go babe!) and this may be a low budget porn film type! well most of this type are nowadays I know she will be very clean and not f*ing and b*ing or get necked on screen just got to see it to see how she gets on Bellamy rulez..x