What the Hell Happened to Matthew Broderick?


Matthew Broderick

Matthew Broderick is a triple threat.  He has been a star of stage and screen.  His filmography includes iconic roles like Ferris Bueller and the voice of the Lion King.  He’s even fought Godzilla.  But these days, you are far more likely to see the former Ferris Bueller on Broadway than starring in a hit movie.  The former A-lister’s film career is still active, but it has definitely cooled.

What the hell happened?

miller billoxi blues

Matthew Broderick – Biloxi Blues Playbill

Broderick started his acting career in theater.  He was noticed by a New York Times theater critic in an Off Broadway production of Torch Song Trilogy which led to roles on Broadway.

Broderick starred as Eugene Morris Jerome in two plays written by Neil Simon.  Brighton Beach Memoirs and Biloxi Blues were the first two-thirds of Simon’s Eugene trilogy.  The third play, Broadway Bound, starred Jonathan Silverman who would go on to play Eugene in the film version of Brighton Beach Memoirs.

The three plays were semi-autobiographical accounts of Simon’s life.  The successful plays lead to Broderick getting offers for film and TV roles.  Originally, Broderick was offered the role of Alex P. Keaton on Family Ties.  But he backed out when he realized bigger offers were on the horizon.

broderick - max dugan

Matthew Broderick – Max Dugan Returns – 1983

Brighton Beach Memoirs also lead to Broderick being cast in his first film role, Max Dugan Returns. The movie was written and produced by Neil Simon.  Max Dugan was released in 1983 and starred Marsha Mason, Jason Robards and Donald Sutherland.  Sutherland’s son, Kiefer, also appeared in a small role.

The film was not a hit at the box office, but it was a start.

Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy – War Games – 1983

Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy – WarGames – 1983

Later that year, Broderick co-starred opposite Ally Sheedy in the Cold War thriller, WarGames.

Broderick played a computer whiz who accidentally hacks into a top secret military computer which has unlimited control over the nuclear arsenal of the United States.  He thinks he is played a computer game, but he may have unwittingly started a nuclear war.  Sheedy played a classmate whom Broderick impresses by changing her grades at school and Dabney Coleman played the scientist responsible for automating the US nuclear defenses.

WarGames was inspired by Stephen Hawking.  The original script was titled The Genius and it was about a dying scientist and a rebellious kid.  The kid in the script is the only person smart enough to understand the scientist.  According to co-screen-writer, Lawrence Lasker, “I found the predicament Hawking was in fascinating – that he might one day figure out the unified field theory and not be able to tell anyone, because of his progressive ALS. So there was this idea that he’d need a successor. And who would that be? Maybe this kid, a juvenile delinquent whose problem was that nobody realized he was too smart for his environment.”

Beverly Hills Cop director, Martin Brest, was originally hired to direct WarGames.  But the producers found his take on the material to be too dark.  Brest was fired after twelve fays of filming and replaced by Saturday Night Fever director, Jon Badham.  According to Badham:

[Brest had] taken a somewhat dark approach to the story and the way it was shot. It was like [Broderick and Sheedy] were doing some Nazi undercover thing. So it was my job to make it seem like they were having fun, and that it was exciting.

Badham has said that Broderick and Sheedy were “stiff as boards” when he arrived at the set.  They were concerned about being fired along with Brest.  So, Badham tried to put his young actors at ease in order to give the film a lighter tone.  To lighten them up, he had them do things like race around the sound-stage with the loser having to sing to the crew.  When Badham lost the race, he sang The Happy Wanderer which he said was the silliest song he could think of.

Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy – WarGames – 1983

Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy – WarGames – 1983

Reviews were mostly positive.  Roger Ebert raved that the movie was a “masterstroke” and gave WarGames his highest rating.  But Vincent Canby of the New York Times wrote a dissenting opinion in his review.   He compared the movie to a video game that “once played, tends to disappear from one’s memory bank.”

WarGames opened in third place at the box office behind Psycho II which also opened that week.  Return of the Jedi was the #1 movie that weekend.  Although it never held the top spot at the box office, WarGames became the 5th highest grossing film of 1983 behind Trading Places.

1983 was an incredible year for Broderick.  He starred in a hit summer movie and he became the youngest actor to win a Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play for Brighton Beach Memoirs.

broderick - ladyhawke

Matthew Broderick – Ladyhawke – 1985

In 1985, Broderick co-starred opposite Michelle Pfeiffer and Rutger Hauer in Richard Donner’s fantasy film, Ladyhawke.

Broderick played a thief called The Mouse who helps a couple of star-crossed lovers.  The couple (played by Hauer and Pfeiffer) were cursed.  During the day, Pfeiffer’s character is transformed into a hawk.  At night, Hauer is transformed into a wolf.  With the help of The Mouse, they attempt to free themselves of the curse.

Originally, Kurt Russell was cast as Pfeiffer’s love interest.  Donner wanted to cast Hauer as the evil captain of the guard.  Hauer turned down the villain role, but when Russell pulled out of the project during rehearsals he was replaced by Hauer who had expressed an interest in the part.  Broderick’s role was originally offered to Sean Penn and Dustin Hoffman.

Ladyhawke received mixed to positive reviews.  But it was not a hit at the box office.

Next: Biloxi Blues and stage adaptations


Posted on January 12, 2013, in Movies, What the Hell Happened?, WTHH Actor and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 144 Comments.

  1. I like Broderick very much, and just seeing him makes me smile….but there’s a problem.

    Ferris Bueller is such an awesome, heartwarming and funny movie – everything else is going to be a step down. Bueller is my all-time favorite 80s film, and in some ways is sheer perfection. How can an actor so closely associated with the title character ever top that?


    • 10 Insane Movie Sequels That We Really Wish Had Happened

      Ferris Bueller 2: Another Day Off

      It’s A Sequel To: Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986)

      The premise driving this once considered sequel to ’80s comedy classic Ferris Bueller’s Day Off isn’t quite as far out as some of the other films on this list, but it might be deemed insane for another reason: it would have positioned Ferris Bueller, cult hero, as a depressed guy in his mid-forties who decides to take a day off work, ’cause he’s – wait for it -sad.

      Now, considering that the original film paints Bueller as this popular, care-free guy who walks through life and has the best time ever without thinking about any of the consequences, such a sequel would have made for an incredible change of pace (read as: seriously depressing).

      Thing is, Hollywood executives presumably poo-pooed the idea – the script was written by a guy named Rick Rapier – on account of its super downbeat nature, when in actuality it could have made for a serious interesting and unexpected follow-up that refused to indulge its frankly irksome main character’s tiresome whims any longer.

      Think about it: Ferris spent his early years thinking that everything in life would come easy, but this sequel would have revealed that after the events of John Hughes’ film, things didn’t pan out quite as he expected: life happened. Real life.


      • Why we never got to see a Ferris Bueller sequel

        Matthew Broderick was too busy

        Broderick was one of the biggest stars of the late ’80s, and a big part of that was because of his role in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. As such, in the five years after Bueller, Broderick starred in an eclectic bunch of movies, from contemporary dramas like Project X and Torch Song Trilogy to period pictures like Biloxi Blues and the Oscar-winning Civil War epic Glory, and comedies like Family Business and The Freshman. Broderick just wouldn’t have had the time to make a Ferris Bueller sequel…especially when he still would’ve been young enough to play the part convincingly. Broderick was 24 when Ferris Bueller was released, and probably already a little long in the tooth for, say, a college-set Bueller sequel.


  2. Ladyhawke was probabily not a hit in the US but here in Europe is something of a cult movie


    • The famous entrance of Isabeau turning into the light of the moon, shrouded in a black cloak is the single shot from Ladyhawke that I’ve never been able to shake.
      It’s completely burned into my moviewatching brain and it marked my introduction to the woman who would become my favourite actress.
      I rented Ladyhawke twice on VHS and was so hypnotized I completely understood the Bishop’s obsession and Etienne Navarre’s unshakeable romantic devotion.

      Fantastic write-up as always lebeau, you’ve certainly started 2013 with a bang!


      • In Ladyhawke the scene when Rutger Hauer and Michelle Pfeiffer almost touch themselves just a second before Pfeiffer returns to be an hawk is very powerful and emotional IMHO


        • I haven’t seen Ladyhawke since the 80’s. At least, I think it’s been that long. I remember enjoying it, but not falling in love with the movie. Pfeiffer, yes, but not the movie. I was surprised to realize it was actually a box office disappointment. I had always assumed it was a hit since Pfeiffer and Broderick both went on to bigger things.


      • Thanks as always. My 2013 goal is to have a new WTHH every other week. But I am building up a buffer early. In between new articles, I’m still scrubbing up the old ones. Both my real life and blogging currently entail a lot of house-keeping!


      • Well here Ladyhawke is a must on TV. I remember when I was a kid at least once a year Ladyhawke was in primetime during the 90’s. And even now sometimes TV show it on prime time. That’s why I said that here is a cult. Here everybody have saw it at least two or three times. I don’t know if it is one of the many case of a movie that was a hit in Europe and not in the US or if it developed a cult following later.


        • I can definitely see why that would be the case. It has more of a European sensibility. And Rutger Hauer was a much bigger star over there than he ever was over here.

          I think the movie has a cult following in the US as well. It’s just not a very big one.


  3. I’m a big fan of how Broderick was used in both “You Can Count on Me” and “Election.” Despite his signature role (Ferris) being kind of a smarmy con man, audiences have always trusted Broderick. So when he showed up in these deeply flawed and dishonest roles, I thought it was very effective.

    It’s really too bad that they hired Susan Stroman to direct the film version of the stage version of “The Producers.” She did great work on the play, but you only have to take one look at her film to know that her skill set does not fit the medium. I’m a big fan of the songs written for the show and Gary Beach was astoundingly good as the cross-dressing director “Roger DeBris.” I’m less enthused by the inclusion of Ferrell and Thurman. Neither has quite the musical theatre chops necessary and both were slightly wrong for their respective roles. Ferrell, while funny, did not communicate the danger inherent in the Nazi playwright. Thurman, while still fetching, is too modern and atheletic in a part that needs a lot more va-va-voom hootchie-cootchie. This film still has some great moments, but overall, it’s a big missed opportunity.


    • You Can Count on Me and Election are probably my favorite films Broderick has made. Yes, I like them better than Ferris Bueller (which I like but have always considered over-rated. Good but not great.) I’m also a big fan of The Freshman.

      More often than not, you could take Broderick out of the movie and it would not impact my enjoyment negatively. The exceptions to that are probably War Games and Ferris Bueller where the movies hinged on his charisma as a young man. Once he switched from winning con-man to put-upon loser roles, he became a less welcome presence.

      He also seemed drawn to the most inane, commercial movies imaginable. You shouldn’t have both Godzilla and Inspector Gadget in your resume. You just shouldn’t.

      I respect that he made such an effort to reinvent himself in independent movies. But The Road to Wellville was horrid. Most of his other independent films were mediocre at best.

      It’s amazing to me how many movies he made and how few of them are good.

      WTHH to Uma Thurman… coming in 2013.


      • Dear Lord….I forgot about The Freshman! I loved that film. I also forgot to say thanks for another great article.

        As for Bueller….for me, no other comedy has ever pulled off that tongue-in-cheek humor. But then, I still had a full head of blond hair and zero body fat back in the 80s….and optimism. Those were the days!!!!


        • If I’m ranking teen comedies from the 80s, Bueller ranks at or near the top of the list. I actually didn’t see that one in theaters but years later on video. So I don’t have as nostalgic of a view of it as others my age. It’s a fun movie, but it has always felt a little thin to me. Good. Even very good. But not really great.

          But what do I know? It has stood the test of time. It’s hard to argue with that.

          On the other hand, I loved The Freshman. Okay, sure. That has a lot to do with Penelope Ann Miller who was possibly my biggest cinema crush at the time. But as much as I liked that movie, most people have forgotten it as you just mentioned.


        • Those were different times and we were different people back then….you gotta remember, this was a time when I thought Highlander was the greatest film ever made. (Still a fantastic soundtrack, by the way….)

          I look back at the 80s now and am kinda embarrassed!


        • Well, the 80s were embarassing. Up until I got my driver’s liscense, I couldn’t get out to the movies very often. And by then, the decade was mostly over. I followed reviews, etc. But I caught up with a lot of popular movies later on video. By the time I could drive myself to the movies, I got interested in classics, foreign films and indie movies. In ’88 I don’t think I saw a single mainstream movie. But I went to the art house twice a week. Looking back, I’m embrassed by what a movie snob I was at 17.

          Highlander was another movie I never got. By the time I saw it, it had been hyped up to the sky. I had no idea why anyone even liked it. Like you said, different times.


  4. Danielle Charney

    well said Daffy- the film was all wrong I thought too- Ferrell was all wrong- as was Thurman- and the direction was way off- nothing can really top the original- tough call to start out with- I have always like Broderick- a fine subtle actor – would love to see him in more- perhaps with the better TV roles now going to so many that would have fallen behind we can look forward to seeing him again-thanks for the post LeB- always good


  5. matthew broderick did some good films and some crappy ones i will admit. i enjoyed lady hawke, wargames, ferris bueller’s day off, the freshman, addicted to love, cable guy and the last shot. inspector gadget was a mismash ripoff not just of the cartoon but also hit 80s and 90s films of robocop, dick tracy, top gun, who framed roger rabbit, etc. back then it was ok, but i enjoyed the cartoon better. matthew’s new films have sucked he hasn;t done anything good. if he was like billy crystal he would do stand up with jerry seinfeld and be making hit comedies after another.


    • He’s kind of doing his version of stand-up by going back to the stage. But it sounds like he is wearing out his welcome on Broadway with recent lazy performances. I’ll leave it to someone who knows more about theater than me to provide additional details. Daffy, have you heard anything about the state of Breoderick’s Broadway career?


      • I really haven’t. But I can tell you some things about the nature of the work.
        1) It is a young man’s game. The sheer physical endurance it takes to do 8 performances a week is daunting for older performers, which is why you will see “name” actors taking a couple of shows off a run, month, week even. This happened less often in the old days when there were fewer film and TV roles being mixed in on an actor’s schedule.

        2) The memorization is different. An actor really only needs to know his pages for a specific day when he’s shooting a film or TV show. Sometimes that can be a lot and sometimes it’s not very much at all. It depends on the day. But it’s a constant deadline and a rhythm the actor gets into. The most important difference though, is that when an actor is shooting film he only ACTUALLY has to know the lines for THAT SHOT. Which very very often means one or maybe two lines. On the other hand, when he walks on stage he has to know ALL of the lines for the show that night. Either way, memorization is like a muscle. Use it or lose it. Short term memory is a different muscle than long term memory.

        3) No audience member has a right to be pissed about anything they see at any preview. They did not pay to be there. If they did, they’re stupid. Previews are rehearsals. If Broderick is any kind of professional, he’s embarrassed by any line problems anyway. But when it comes down to it, tell me how his lines were when the crowd was paying. That’s all that matters.


  6. Wow. Lots of good points. I’ll try to take them all in order.

    1. I haven’t seen Max Dugan. I’ll have to keep my eyes open for it. I generally like Neil Simon.

    2. I’ve been concentrating on stars of the 80s and 90s because that’s really when I started actively keeping track of careers. It means less research for me. But eventually, I plan to move forward and backward. The scope of WTHH is always expanding.

    3. I wouldn’t describe Broderick’s movie career as strong. He can still get supporting roles like the one in Tower Heist. He can get leading roles in small movies. But he hasn’t been a sought-after actor in a long time.

    4. I’m no expert in stage careers, but my research also turned up some rather disasterous reports of Broadway shows where he was accused of being lazy or forgetting his lines completely during previews. They actually had to stop a preview last year because the guy just kept flubbing his lines!

    5. I didn’t want to dig in too deeply on the car accident. It was a tragedy. I obviously don’t know the details since I am reading about it on the internet decades latter. But it does sound to me like Broderick killed two people and got off with a slap on the wrist because he is rich and famous. A family member later said that he forgave Broderick for killing his mother and sister and was planning to meet with the actor for some resolution. That was years ago and the meeting still hasn’t happened. Again, I don’t know the details, but I don’t feel the least bit bad for Broderick. Not at all.

    6. I enjoyed the adaptation of The Producers well enough. But it went on too long. Thr original is roughly 90 minutes and it is 100x better.

    7. Were it not for Kill Bill, Thurman would have been over years ago. She’s on my short list for 2013.

    8. I agree that the definition of a star has changed. High concept has replaced star power.

    9. As I said before, the scope of these articles had broadened since I started. Originally, I was only looking at A-list actors who had disappeared from main stream movies. Now, I’ll do pretty much any body who has had a rise and fall somewhere in their career. Which means I can write up just about anybody who isn’t currently landing starring roles in big Hollywood movies. Why? Because these articles are popular and I want to write as many as I can. 😉


    • Matthew has a reputation for procrastinating and failing to memorize his lines accurately (meaning he often doesn’t know his lines word for word until weeks into the run of a show). However, there is an explanation to that “disaster” performance he gave a few years back. Personally, I think the media blew this story out of proportion.
      1. The play was about three hours long, and Matthew had multiple monologues, some of which lasted for three pages, nonstop.
      2. The director had dramatically changed the script right before previews started, giving Matthew no time to memorize what was changed.
      3. Matthew had his newborn twin girls at home, and I would imagine he was getting little sleep.

      And I have to clear something up about the car accident. There’s a lot of information that is fairly unknown, unfortunately. I won’t go into detail here, but the reason why he got off with a slap on the wrist is absolutely not because he was rich and famous, but because of the laws in 1987. He would have been charged with dangerous driving and put in jail for five years if and only if there was evidence of negligence. But Matthew tested negative for drugs and alcohol, so he was charged with careless driving. And in 1987, a fine was the penalty. There are so many similar cases that have happened where the driver didn’t get any penalty because it was simply an accident. It’s unfair, but there’s nothing you can do about it. Honestly, I do feel terrible for Matthew. This accident sent him into psychotherapy for many years and completely changed him as a person. He’s become kind of jaded about life and he’s probably the most cynical person I have ever known, and he was never like that before. I hope people don’t get the impression that Matthew doesn’t care about this accident or the people involved, because I’ve seen him torture himself over this many times, and it’s very painful to see. I’m not trying to convince you to feel bad for him, I just read so much inaccurate information about his accident and sometimes I just can’t keep quiet.


      • Thanks for sharing, TJ. I knew there had to be another side to the story. I’m glad you spoke up and put things into perspective.

        I hate it when I come away from researching an article with a lower opinion of my subject. And frankly, that was what happened here. Your comments make me feel a little better about this write-up.

        As I said before, the whole situation is tragic. Clearly lives were ruined.


        • Have you considered making video versions of the ‘What the Hell Happened’ series? It would probably do well on YouTube.

          For what it’s worth, I came across this page after looking at an article on “Celebs Who May (Or May Not) Have Had Nose Jobs”. It was about Jennifer Grey and how losing her famous nose made her completely anonymous. That lead to her wiki page… her dating Matthew Broderick and… the amazing shock of hearing of this car accident for the first time. Googling about the car accident brought me here to the main post and by chance I saw this very detailed comment about how it effected his personal life. It would be informative to add to the main post as this is really kind of exclusive stuff. .


        • This is the second time the You Tube idea has come up in two weeks. I honestly hadn’t considered it before someone brought it up last week. I am now considering it. But I would have a lot to learn before I could get up and running.

          I need to add Grey to my list…

          Good suggestion on the quote. I will bump it up to the main article for those who don’t read through the comments.

          Thanks for reading and for the great suggestions.


  7. I read the article, and all I can do is laugh at the person who chided the theatre for “using this as a rehearsal.” Previews are BY DEFINITION rehearsals. If it wasn’t a rehearsal, the show would’ve opened already. If people are willing to pay to see a rehearsal that’s their business, but they sure shouldn’t complain about not getting the same thing as opening night crowds.


  8. No one can play a charismatic teen when they are 40, and i have tons of respect for the sheer breadth of roles that Matthew Broderick has carried off. I really can’t think of another actor who can match his range. He is one of those rare types that command your attention with every word (like Christopher Walken) and can act with facial expression alone. I bet he will be working steadily as long as he wants to, either as part of an ensemble, on the stage, doing voice such as the bee movie, or, with the right vehicle, he could still open a movie,


    • I really don’t share your opinion of Broderick’s range. It seems to me that he has an extremely limited range. Once he outgrew the charismatic teen roles, his limited range was his undoing. He struggled to find a niche, but never realy found one that worked. I think at this point, he does much better in character roles.

      I have never seen him on stage, so I can’t comment there. But on screen, I find him kind of bland. Not remotely like Christopher Walken. He has talent to be sure. And I think he’s a skilled comic actor. But he never commands my attention. He enhances the other actors on screen which is a great talent for a supporting performer.

      But I’m glad you find his work so interesting. I do think he will be working for a long time in supporting roles and smaller films (not to mention stagework).


  9. We agree to disagree on some points. He did, as you pointed out, choose some truly dreadful projects. Some of the movies you mentioned were so awful that his presence was the only redeeming factor. Even Tom Hanks has a dud every once in a while, but MB did not succeed in finding a new audience after Ferris Bueller. However, I don’t think that says anything about his quality as an actor. To me the fact that he is a successful stage actor says a lot. It is also worth noting that he may have diverted some attention and energy towards his family, and supporting his wife’s career, which is commendable. Sometimes it boils down to, are you a fan or not. If not, you will find him, as you said, somewhat bland. If you are, like me, then you will hang onto every syllable onscreen. And maybe you’re correct that he has not displayed a wide range; my feeling is that he is capable of a wide range and has not had the opportunity to realize that, because audiences only see Ferris. Oh well differences in opinion make the world interesting. I liked him in Tower Heist, but then again, I was impressed with the entire film from beginning to end.


    • Good points.

      There’s no doubt that family life had an impact on his movie career. As was pointed out previously in the comments section, his twin babies had a direct impact on his performance on Broadway.

      We’re definitely of differing opinions on Broderick’s range as a movie actor. I’m more than willing to agree to disagree on that point. It’s hard to quantify an actor’s range and I find that people use the term to mean different things.

      It’s not that Broderick’s movie career faultered. He could be an actor with a lot of range who chose less commercial projects. The reason I say I think he lacks range as a film actor is that I didn’t find him to be very convincing in a lot of his adult film roles. It doesn’t help that he gravitated towards a lot of really banal movies.

      As an adult, he tended to play the flustered loser a lot. His role wasn’t to take center stage, but to give Jim Carrey someone to bounce off of. Or Meg Ryan. Or Godzilla. He was there to hold the movie together while not taking away from the star of the movie. That takes a certain kind of talent and I don’t want to diminish the importance of the straight man in a comedy.

      He also had a lot of supporting roles in smaller movies where I think he got to show a little more range. This is where I think he shines later in his career. But even these roles feel like variations on that smarmy guy persona to some extent.

      Since you brought up Hanks, I’ll continue the comparisson. Hanks has definitely had a more successful film career. But he is also an actor with a somewhat limited range. He has never been very convincing as a film nasty. He’s tried a few times, but can’t escape his “aw shucks, good guy” image. He’s more of a movie star than an actor with a lot of range.

      That’s common for lead actors in movies. Characters actors rely more on their range to survive. They will play more diverse roles in diffent kinds of pictures. Whereas the lead actor will have the entire movie built around their screen image. (I’m generalizing here.)

      Anyway, there’s no denying that Broderick is a talented actor. And I’m sure his stage career reflects a great range. But based on his film career, I don’t think he has displayed a very wide range.

      Thanks for the civil discourse. It’s always welcome round here.


  10. I posted this on your Facebook page, but I’ll bring it here too. By most accounts (just go on the trivia page for “Family Ties” on IMDb), the real reason why Matthew Broderick backed out of the role of Alex P. Keaton was because he wanted to be near his terminally ill father, James (who coincidentally, was on the show “Family” as Meredith Baxter’s father).


    • Thanks TMC!

      I haven’t gotten by the FB page as often as I would like. I have access to WP during the work week. But I usually only check the FB page on weekends. Like I have said elsewhere, my shedule will open up more in the spring and summer.

      I’m slowly working my way through the old articles and adding additional info here and there. I’ll need to flesh out the Family Ties bit when I update this article.


  11. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why Broderick is better known as “Sarah Jessica Parker’s Husband” Why is she more famous? She’s only done one thing worth remembering. Broderick’s filmography is nothing fancy but certainly far more diverse than hers.


  12. One thing of note regarding “Inspector Gadget” is how really little it had to do w/ the old cartoon from the ’80s (w/ Don Adams voicing Gadget). If you ever get a chance to watch Doug Walker’s reviews of Matthew Broderick’s movies (both “Inspector Gadget” and “Godzilla”) for his “Nostalgia Critic” series he lets it be known quite clearly that he isn’t really much of a fan of Matthew Broderick as an actor.


    • I have to admit, I was barely familiar with the cartoon. My younger brothers watched it. I never sat through the movie because I didn’t care and it looked plain awful.


    • Doug Walker further elaborates (at approximately the 1:37 mark) why he doesn’t like Matthew Broderick as an actor:

      It really all boils down to Doug finding Matthew’s acting bland and insecure. He adds that Matthew Broderick is the type of actor who doesn’t seem to be totally convicted to his characters.


      • 10 Terrible Actors Who Got Lucky Breaks:

        3. Matthew Broderick

        It pains me to say it, but Matthew Broderick really is not a very good actor. Though he’s widely-beloved for the excellent Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Broderick is another instance of an actor who just seems to be playing themselves.

        While this works wonders for a likeable, off-the-tracks character like Bueller, it’s not exactly something he could continue to play as he got older, and in failing to diversify, demonstrating his lack of range, the job offers dried up.

        Though Broderick enjoyed a brief run of successful post-Bueller roles in the 80s, he soon enough ended up playing Inspector Gadget in the widely-panned reboot movie, and basically saw his career swirl down the toilet.

        Why? Because he is, in fact, a bad actor. Nowadays he just comes across as stilted and awkward; the only remotely entertaining thing I’ve seen him in the last decade was an episode of Louie, but that was more down to Louie CK’s brilliant script more than anything. It pains me to admit it, but it’s true.


        • Ferris Bueller’s Day Off massive plothole:

          I enjoy War Games, Project X, The Cable Guy, and Election. They’re all good movies, but not because of Broderick. He’s an awful and very very limited actor. With the exception of War Games, I can easily picture someone far more talented do better with the material in each movie he’s been in over the last 30 years. Take Election, put someone like Jeff Daniels or Michael Keaton in the role, and the result improves tenfold.


        • I’ll take Keaton over Broderick most days. But I don’t think that makes Broderick a bad actor. There are certain roles Broderick is very well suited for. Early in his career, he was perfect for the smart, charasimatic kids he played in War Games and Ferris Bueller. Later in his career, he shifted to smarmy insecure middle-aged guys.


        • I have seen those videos in youtube :

          so I think that matthew broderick is talented


  13. Whoever this Doug Walker guy is, he isn’t making a whole lot of sense, and I turned off the interview. I enjoy lebeau’s writing style, analysis and criticism with humor, but Doug just sounds like he has a personal vendetta when he criticizes Matthew Broderick. Watching MB, I get the total opposite sense: that he gets way into his characters, but occaisonally, his own magnetism can threaten to overwhelm the character. Which is not the same at all as saying he ‘isn’t convinced” of the character. MB is often subtle and self-effacing; that just makes me respect him more. We have seen on here that there are vast differences of opinion, and for those of us who are fans, there is not a movie he can make that we won’t see. Example; I loved “Deck the Halls” and watch it a couple times a year, didn’t care what critics said. It is hilarious, good family comedy and MB absolutely delivered a KO punch in his “straight man” role. In fact he, Kristen Davis and Kristen Chenoweth even managed to make up for the annoyance of Danny DeVito’s character, which wouldn’t seem like an easy task. Now, to be clear, it does try to be “Christmas Vacation” and doesn’t measure up to that standard. But it’s watchable enough that I went out and bought the DVD. There are also movies that I NEVER would have wasted money on EXCEPT for the fact that MB was in them.


  14. Enjoyed the writing, but I truly despise Broderick (the actor) for too many reasons to enumerate.



  15. It’s All Downhill From Here: Ten Actors Who Will Never Surpass Their Earliest Roles:

    Matthew Broderick
    Seminal Role: Ferris Bueller (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off)

    Broderick had a couple successes early in his career: Ladyhawke, Project X, Wargames. He seemed the go-to guy for fragile, impish nerdlings. But John Hughes gave him the opportunity to play the greatest high school student of all time. Though he’s turned into a nebbishy, closeted version of Ferris, and though he’s simply mah-velous on stage, Broderick won’t ever be able to do better than that Wayne Newton singing kid in the leatherette leopard jacket.


  16. The writer of that piece doesn’t come as very credible to me because he makes sweeping statements about the actor that in no way do justice to his career. This is made all the more obvious by the jibe in the last sentence, “as much as it pains me to say it, it’s true.” If it pains the writer to take potshots then maybe he could refrain from doing so?


    • Someone needs a refresher on the difference between opinions and facts. I think many would disagree with the supposed fact that Broderick is a bad actor. I am not his biggest fan, but I certainly wouldn’t say Broderick is a bad actor.

      But hey, whatever drives hits to your site, amIright?


      • Bad actors don’t have Ferris in their work history.

        I’m no critic- but I get annoyed when people say “He was playing himself”- he almost certainly wasn’t.


        • In his youth, Broderick radiated charm. That allowed him to play mischievious in a way that would have been grating coming from other actors. Somewhere along the way, the charisma got turned down. Maybe it was age. Maybe it was the tragedy of his lethal car accident. Probably has to do with the passage of time and all of his life experiences. But the magic that was there in his youth drained.

          Doesn’t mean he isn’t capable of giving great performances. In the right role, Broderick is a valuable player. But I’d say he had a star power in the 80s that hasn’t been present in a long, long time.


  17. Disclaimer: RB is about to get overly excited. OK. So, over the weekend we were watching “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” (good, btw, but not if you like fast paced action movies!) Anyway, among the previews, a movie called “Margaret” I’ve never heard of. Must be from a few years ago, anyway in the preview there was Matthew Broderick! He appeared to be playing an English teacher as he was quoting a famous poem by Hopkins, “Spring and Fall to a Young Child” – specifically, the last line, “It is Margaret you mourn for”! In those couple of seconds, I saw the best of the stage actor, in a supporting movie role! I must get this movie ASAP!!


    • Good cast! Anna Paquin, Mark Ruffalo, Broderick, Matt Damon.

      It’s from Kenneth Lonergan who directed Broderick and Ruffalo in You Can Count on Me. That was a great movie. Reviews for Margaret aren’t as good, but it still has a 71% approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes. That’s respectable. I’ll have to look for it as well.



    Blowing the opportunity to comment incisively on the backlash against feminism

    Solidifying the reputation of screenwriter Paul Rudnick as a glib mechanical gag machine

    Regularly killing the comic momentum so stars Nicole Kidman and Matthew Broderick can hold painfully earnest conversations about the state of their marriage

    Combining comedy and horror in a way that detracts from both


  19. Matthew Broderick starring in CBS comedy pilot:

    The Broadway star has been tapped to headline the network’s untitled
    Tad Quill comedy pilot, The Hollywood Reporter has confirmed.

    The multicamera comedy revolves around Jack, a recently widowed father
    raising his 12-year-old son while jumping back into the dating pool.
    Broderick, who is currently starring on Broadway in the musical Nice
    Work If You Can Get it, will star as Jack, a confident and
    effortlessly charming self-aware dad who’s completely committed to his
    son, Sebastian. When the advertising executive finds himself pushed
    back into the dating scene by his well-intentioned son and married
    colleague, he’s initially hesitant but surprised when it goes well and
    he opts to sow his wild oats again.

    Scrubs alum Quill will write and executive produce the CBS Television
    Studios comedy, with James Burrows on board to direct.

    Two-time Tony winner Broderick, repped by CAA and Jackoway Tyerman,
    most recently guest starred on ABC’s Modern Family and episodes of
    Louie and 30 Rock. Broderick was previously attached to star in NBC’s
    2010 failed pilot Beach Lane. The casting comes as his wife, Sarah
    Jessica Parker, has been recurring on the fourth season of Fox’s Glee.


  20. Jeff Daniels is somewhat underrated as an actor, and as for Michael Keaton, his career is recapped nicely in this series 🙂 Both of them put together do not match the talent and charisma of Matthew Broderick. He did play a smarmy middle aged character in “The Tower Heist”, and he did so very effectively, the perfect contribution to the ensemble. Which proves to me he can transition to those roles, think Christopher Walken in “Blast from the Past.” Again, consider “Deck the Halls.” There would be no comedy if Danny DeVito didn’t have Broderick providing the platform. For this reason, I have to disagree with critics who go on and on about how they think he can’t act. I submit that not only can he act, he makes it look a lot easier than it is.


    • I think that’s part of it. Broderick has a very easy-going approach that some mistake for laziness. Compare Broderick to Eddie Murphy who frequently can’t mask his lack of interest in what he is doing.

      I do like Jeff Daniels quite a bit. Like Broderick, he has a very natural presence. Neither of them commands the screen per se, but they are great straight men. I think it’s not surprising both worked very well against a comedian like Jim Carrey.


  21. I just watched Election on cable again, damn I love that movie. It’s got a great cast, and Alexander Payne did a superb job directing, I’ve really become a fan of his over the years, with Election, About Schmidt and especially Sideways, which is one of my favorite movies of the last decade. I plan on watching The Descendants soon, I hope it’s at least half as good as his last few films.

    As far as Matthew Broderick, I’d list his role in Election as my 2nd favorite role of his, only after his iconic Ferris Bueller. Unfortunately, going over his career in your article I realized that Election turned out to be his last great movie.


    • He’s good in You Can Count on Me, but it’s a relatively small role. Great movie, though. After that, there’s not much.

      I need to rewatch Sideways. It got so hyped that I was disappointed when I finally got around to watching it. Expectations are funny like that. They can make an okay movie a pleasant surprise and a good movie a disappointment.

      The Descendants was a divisive movie among Payne fans. I really enjoyed it. But I know others who didn’t feel it was up to Payne’s usual standards. Seeing as you have enjoyed all his previous movies, I am sure you will enjoy this one too. It is at least half as good as his other movies.


      • Sideways definitely deserves a second viewing. It was a film that received a ton of awards and nominations at the time, but now with the hype long gone you may appreciate the film more for what it is. I find the film deeply funny, charming and touching and just can’t recommend it enough. Paul Giamatti in particular is just a treasure with his nuanced performance. I’ve come to appreciate Alexander Payne’s work in part because he’s one of the few working directors nowadays that actually makes enjoyable films for adults. Now I love the big popcorn blockbusters as much as the next guy, but I also want to see an involving, entertaining film meant for adults from time to time too. I should be watching The Descendants shortly and be tossing in my two cents.


        • It was the awards that set my expectations too high. Plus a lot of people I knew were inspired by it to get heavy into wine. Or were using it as an excuse for their excessive wine drinking. You decide. I suppose there was no way it could live up to the movie in my head. And then I watched it under less than ideal circumstances. It definitely needs a second viewing.

          Hope you enjoyed the Descendants. I know I did.


        • Even though (regrettably) Matthew Broderick isn’t in the movie, I am so glad you guys reminded me about Sideways. It’s back on my to-watch list! The presence of Thomas Haden Church as a supporting actor is bound to make a project interesting. There was a movie with Sandra Bullock and Bradley Cooper… she played a crossword puzzle writer.. name escapes me at the moment but anyway, Church with his unique flair for character, really made the movie hilarious.


        • Thomas Haden Church was just surperb in SIdeways. but then again, so were Paul Giamatti, Virginia Madsen and Sandra Oh as well. There’s such depth and nuance to all of their performances. I’m probably so passionate about the film right now because I just watched it again less than a week ago so it’s fresh in my mind, and it’s one of my favorite movies. I really need to shut up about this movie already! ha ha


        • I like it when people are passionate about movies. So, carry on.


  22. Glad to find this page, I thought I was alone in believing Broderick is the epitome of bland


  23. I think you people know RB isn’t going to agree with this “bland” stuff.


    • Yeah, I was pretty sure. 😉

      For me, it depends. Sometimes I do find Broderick to be bland. In something like Godzilla, man, he is so obviously cashing a paycheck.

      I don’t think he has the same type of on screen presence he did in his hey day. He couldn’t play a Ferris Bueller type anymore. There’s a middle aged sadness and frustration there now – which is natural given he’s no longer a cocksure teen.


      • What Went Wrong?: Vol. 47 – Timely Giant Lizard Edition:

        Posted by CultureCast-Z on May 13, 2014

        Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin have had, on the whole, successful careers in Hollywood. There’ve been a few flops here and there for sure, but for the most part the two have been able to make studios money on most of their film projects. Stargate, Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, and 2012 all grossed quite a bit of money, and Stargate even spun off several successful television franchises. Though their films don’t particularly stand out from the crowd, Emmerich and Devlin have had enough success in Hollywood to pretty much do whatever they want. Even their last film, 2013’s underperforming White House Down, was liked by more than a few people despite its box office failures (which can probably be more attributed to poor marketing and a crowded release schedule).

        But still, none of their projects have been all that good, with the possible exception of Independence Day. Independence Day is a competently crafted movie for the most part. I don’t think anyone could argue that it’s poorly shot or acted in most respects. The script could have used some work, sure, and the project feels outright dated in 2014. But in 1996, Independence Day was a smash hit, the summer’s number one blockbuster, and an incredibly entertaining roller coaster ride of a movie. It grossed an obscene amount of money and most people seemed to be genuinely interested in it. So how exactly could Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin’s very next film project, a remake/re-imagining of the classic Japanese product Godzilla that they personally handpicked as their next project go so very wrong?

        I remember going to the theaters in May 1997 to see The Lost World: Jurassic Park, the heavily hyped terrible sequel to one of my favorite childhood films. Before the film, the audience was treated to an incredible teaser trailer for a film that wouldn’t be released for entire year. That film was Emmerich/Devlin’s Godzilla, which was produced by Columbia Pictures, who had the marketing muscle to do something as audacious as previewing a movie still a year away from actual domestic release (something that’s more common nowadays but was basically unheard of in 1997). I remember being super excited, so excited that the teaser for Godzilla basically ended up being more entertaining than the crappy Jurassic Park sequel I was watching. I couldn’t get my mind off of how awesome a new Godzilla with amazing special effects and an enormous budget would be. It was going to be a long wait.

        The film was finally nearing release at the end of my freshman year of high school. A massive marketing blitz hit America by storm, with tie-in merchandise in stores everywhere. Taco Bell’s were transformed into advertisements for the film. Hype surrounded Godzilla in every corner of the culture. Puff Daddy, an enormously popular entertainer at the time of the film’s release, even had the audacity to re-record Led Zeppelin’s Kashmir, with actual guitar backing by founding Zeppelin member Jimmy Page, which was then and still remains awful. But it didn’t matter, because we were all so heavily invested in how awesome this movie was going to be. Everything about Godzilla was huge, and it was destined to become the greatest summer movie since Jurassic Park, and possibly of all time. And then, it was awful. It was just downright awful. A million things have been written about how bad Godzilla was, and none of them comes close to just how fucking dire the movie was. It was just such a huge letdown. So, what exactly went wrong?

        Expected to be the biggest film of the summer, Godzilla opened with a disappointing 44 million dollars during its Friday to Monday span. The film was expected to flirt with and/or destroy the weekend box office record set by The Lost World: Jurassic Park the previous year. Godzilla didn’t come close to breaking that record, as word of mouth sank the film after its first day in theaters. Reviews were atrocious – the film scored an aggregate 25% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. The worst of the worst was reserved for Maria Pitillo’s pitiful performance, as has been discussed on this site in the past. The film quickly petered out at the box office, leaving other 1998 projects like Armageddon and Rush Hour to pick up its slack. Ultimately, Godzilla grossed 136 million domestically against a budget of 130 million dollars, an obscene film production budget for 1998 (but sadly pretty normal for 2014).

        Godzilla might just be the most incompetently made massively budgeted summer blockbuster ever. Poor special effects, recycled shots, a dreadfully dumb script, characters with no motivation, plot points obviously ripped off from more successful sources… there are a multitude of problems with the film. The human characters, anchored by a bored Matthew Broderick and an awful Maria Pitillo, are uninteresting and outright unlikable. There is no protagonist worth rooting for, unless one counts the English-speaking French Special Forces soldier played by a slumming Jean Reno. So Emmerich and Devlin went from having the audience root for the good old USA in Independence Day to rooting for the French in Godzilla. That’s just kind of ill conceived. Whereas audiences found themselves genuinely intrigued by the characters and plot of Independence Day (no, ID4 is not a deep film, but Jeff Goldblum and Will Smith are pretty awesome in it), no one cared what happened to anyone or anything in Godzilla.

        It is actually kind of difficult to put into words just how much Godzilla sucked. Most bad films still have some redeeming quality to them. The recently discussed Super Mario Bros. has a genuinely interesting set design to it. The Lost World: Jurassic Park at least still had cool special effects and a great character played by Jeff Goldblum (even if that character wasn’t quite strong enough to be the lead). One year after Godzilla, Fox and Lucasfilm released The Phantom Menace, a film that many despise, but it has a fantastic lightsaber duel with a cool villain set to a fantastic score at its climax. There is nothing redeeming whatsoever about Godzilla. It’s not even so bad it’s good. It’s just flat-out bad. I have no idea what Emmerich and Devlin were thinking. Godzilla was so bad that the Japanese were downright embarrassed by it, and the reputation of Toho, the production company behind the films, took a hit that likely lingers to this day. I have no idea if the upcoming Godzilla film will be a good movie, but it has a 100% chance to be better than this piece of crap.


        • Retrospective / Review: GODZILLA (1998):


        • daffystardust

          I sort of walked away as they were discussing the 1998 film and came back just as the review of the newest Godzilla picture began. I don’t have time for a proper post on the movie, but I generally agree with their assessment of it. Some good spec FX and monster fight moments, but also some ridiculously bad dialogue and overall dull story.

          If you’re set on seeing the movie eventually, then definitely see it on the big screen. It will simply be dreadful on a TV.


        • The 1998 Godzilla remake went big, then proved bigger wasn’t always better:

          by Nathan Rabin


          When assessing the relative failure of Roland Emmerich’s 1998 remake of Godzilla, it all comes down to the tagline: “Size does matter.” That tag doesn’t just allude to the relative benefits of large male genitalia, or the size of the film’s titular thunder lizard. “Size does matter” is the film’s overarching aesthetic. Everything about the movie is huge: the budget, the size of the creatures, the sets, the number of ill-considered promotional tie-ins. (The most regrettable paired Godzilla with the Taco Bell chihuahua, in a gaudy mash-up of two of 1998’s preeminent irritations.)

          Even the insanely expensive soundtrack—speaking of gaudy mash-ups—promised to be huge, betraying a lack of taste and judgment. The Godzilla soundtrack features Sean “Puff Daddy” Combs hoarsely shouting over the monster riff from Led Zeppelin’s “Kashmir” on the single “Come With Me”—and since money was no object when it came to Godzilla and its ancillary products, rather than simply sampling Led Zeppelin, the filmmakers threw enough money at Jimmy Page to have him play guitar on the song and in the equally wasteful music video. The soundtrack’s other big single was a food-court-ready cover of David Bowie’s “Heroes” from The Wallflowers, the band fronted by Jakob Dylan, the human incarnation of a mediocre remake of a brilliant, beloved original.

          In 1998, The Wallflowers were huge, Puff Daddy was huge, the Taco Bell chihuahua was huge (culturally, if not physically), and Godzilla was obnoxiously, oppressively massive. Godzilla was so massive, and inspired such fevered commercial expectations, that the film grossed more than $135 million dollars domestically (good enough to be the ninth top-grossing film of 1998) and close to $400 million dollars internationally, yet was still considered a disappointment. Godzilla was too big to fail, but also too terrible to really succeed.

          Sony imagined, with good reason, that audiences throughout the world had a Godzilla-sized and -shaped hole in their collective heart, and it was just the studio to fill that hole. It was justified in that feeling. Audiences have long loved the big lizard, despite the often-negligible artistic achievements of the many spin-offs, sequels, and bastardizations that followed the success of 1954’s original Godzilla. Godzilla, along with his occasional adversary King Kong, were childhood cornerstones for multiple generations of film fans and filmmakers, looming large as fantastical, somewhat cheesy figures of fun and escape.

          The widely disparaged 1998 Godzilla, co-written by Dean Devlin and director Roland Emmerich, didn’t liberate its title character from the realm of cheese so much as it puffed up the campy elements of the Godzilla mythology to blockbuster proportions. The miscalculation begins with caricatures seemingly left over from a 1970s disaster movie, stock characters who don’t even need to open their mouths for us to know everything about them; their costumes and their jobs define them. Matthew Broderick leads an international cast as Dr. Niko Tatopoulos, a meek scientist sneeringly referred to as a “worm doctor” by his peers. But his worm doctorate lets him figure out that a mysterious creature leaving massive claw prints in Jamaica is actually the first representative of a new species, created partially by nuclear radiation.

          Niko next catches up with Godzilla, the culprit behind the clawprints, in New York, where the creature embarks on a campaign of destruction that prompts corpulent Mayor Ebert (Michael Lerner) to evacuate the city. Mayor Ebert is almost always seen consuming massive quantities of sweets and other foodstuffs, and he’s accompanied by an indignant assistant, a bald man named Gene. In case anyone misses the reference, Mayor Ebert’s mayoral campaign urges voters to give a “Thumbs up for New York.” (Gene clumsily gives his boss and his mayoral campaign a big thumbs down later in the film.) Emmerich and Devlin based their glib caricatures on Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel because the critics had the audacity to suggest that their previous collaborations, Stargate and Independence Day, were less than transcendent. But the way they attack their critics is so clumsy, it suggests the criticisms they resented so much didn’t go far enough.

          Emmerich doesn’t offer a proper glimpse at Godzilla until deep into the film, but the monster’s effect is felt well before he makes his first proper entrance. That’s a technique that works wonders in Jaws, but is far less effective here. Even before a third-act twist essentially transforms the Godzilla threat into a plague of Jurassic Park-style velociraptors, the film is shameless in its aping of Steven Spielberg. More than once, Emmerich borrows Spielberg’s signature shot of a group of people looking into the distance and trembling with awe as they contemplate something beyond the limits of their imagination. But these sequences fall flat, because the film does not earn a Spielbergian sense of wonder. The human stick figures who populate Godzilla are not encountering an instantly unforgettable character like Jaws, E.T., or the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park; they’re confronting a jumble of zeros and ones that computer technicians designed to resemble a strange, unsatisfying cross between a giant iguana, the xenomorph from Alien, and a super-sized velociraptor.

          Emmerich’s Godzilla has no personality. He isn’t the heartbreakingly human ape created by Peter Jackson and Andy Serkis for 2005’s King Kong, a film that only benefits from comparisons to Emmerich’s boondoggle. He isn’t the otherworldly threat of the 1954 original. There is no gravity, no substance, no physical weight to the creature as it races across the city, flattening everything in its path. This Godzilla only looks like the combined labor of hundreds of bored computer animators and CGI specialists typing code into laptops until carpal tunnel syndrome sets in.

          Godzilla’s tour through New York reconnects Niko with ex-girlfriend Audrey (Maria Pitillo, in the role that launched her to anonymity), a plucky reporter chafing at having to work under pompous, backstabbing anchor Charles Caiman (Harry Shearer). In the Godzilla attacks, Audrey finds a vehicle to reignite her dormant love affair with Niko and score the big story that will let her escape the shadow of her creepy boss and make her career as a hard-hitting chronicler of giant monster strikes. Godzilla consequently doubles as an epic action-adventure and the tale of how a generic blonde New Yorker achieved self-actualization and realized her goals with the help of a giant radioactive lizard.

          To help with her big scoop, Audrey recruits the services of cameraman Victor “Animal” Palotti, played by Hank Azaria, one of several Simpsons voice actors in the film. (In addition to Shearer, the ubiquitous Frank Welker, who does many of The Simpsons’ animal voices, also provides Godzilla’s voice.) On The Simpsons, Azaria and Shearer create fully fleshed-out characters using just their voices and a line or two of dialogue. Here, they accomplish the opposite effect, using their entire selves and plenty of screen time to create characters with the depth of bit characters on a cartoon. It’s as if Emmerich said to Azaria, “Hey, you know that hardboiled New York voice you do on The Simpsons sometimes? That’s it. That’s your entire character. Now leave me alone.”

          Godzilla arrived at a curious cultural crossroads. The Cold War had ended years earlier, and with it, the looming threat of mutually assured nuclear destruction that gave Godzilla its allegorical punch. And 9/11 hadn’t happened yet, so it was entirely possible for a massive destructive force to attack New York City, destroy famous buildings like a kid crushing Coke cans, and leave a massive pile of destruction in its wake without invoking memories of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Even viewed now, Godzilla has shockingly little contemporary resonance, because it doesn’t really take place in New York. The city it inhabits is a product of backlots, sound stages, and CGI, but it is most assuredly not the real New York where people live, work, and die. Godzilla is so divorced from even the fuzziest connection to reality that no real-world tragedy can penetrate its cartoon bubble of juvenile idiocy.

          After numerous false starts, the military seemingly succeeds in taking down Godzilla, who is felled by aircraft, and seemingly plummets to his watery death. Yet in time-honored horror-movie tradition, the dead monster isn’t as dead as it originally appears. Earlier in the film, Niko postulates that Godzilla isn’t a monster looking to wreak havoc so much as an animal looking for a place to nest and lay its eggs. So he and his intrepid team—Audrey, Animal, and a French operative named Roache, played by a sleepwalking Jean Reno—head out in search of the creature’s nest, and find dozens upon dozens of eggs deep within Madison Square Garden. (Nonetheless, Niko helpfully decides that Godzilla reproduces asexually, because how else would a male beastie, the only one of his kind, start popping out eggs?)

          This should be a terrifying moment: We’re now faced with an extinction-level event, not the mere trampling of the eastern seaboard. Instead, this revelation triggers the grim realization that this foolishness is doomed to go on for at least another half-hour. Godzilla boasts three distinct, and distinctly unsatisfying, endings. The first two disappoint in part because they don’t actually bring this monstrosity to a close, but instead prolong the proceedings until the film feels unmistakably like a dreadful revamp of a beloved monster and its unnecessary sequel.

          Once the heroes discover the multitude of Godzilla eggs deep within Madison Square Garden, the film devolves into a particularly shameless knock-off of Jurassic Park, with Godzilla’s babies taking the place of the fiendishly intelligent velociraptors of Spielberg’s film. Alas, in the five years since Jurassic Park dazzled the world and illustrated the creative and commercial capabilities of computer-generated imagery, the technology had evolved so dramatically that the fantastical—realistic dinosaur monsters that dazzle the eye and fool the imagination—not only became possible, it became boring.

          CGI is ultimately just a tool. Like any tool, it can be used for good or evil, to create masterpieces or waste everyone’s time. In the hands of an artists like Spielberg or Jackson, it can yield wonders. In the hands of Emmerich and Devlin, it’s a lazy crutch to overcompensate for weak storytelling and cardboard characters. Godzilla isn’t just less frightening than Jurassic Park, it’s also less frightening than the “Weird Al” Yankovic song of the same name.

          In a live report from Madison Square Garden that seemingly seals Audrey’s rapid ascent up the journalistic ladder—because what is Godzilla, ultimately, if not the plucky tale of an ambitious journalist cruelly denied opportunities, waylaid by some nonsense involving an oversized, outraged iguana-monster?—Niko warns that if the creatures escape and survive, the future of humanity will be at stake. But he must be on some really amazing tranquilizers, because he doesn’t seem particularly concerned. And if the milquetoast hero of Godzilla doesn’t much worry about baby Godzillas rampaging throughout the world, then why should the audience?

          The military blows up Madison Square Garden but good, seemingly ending the threat posed by Godzilla and all the mini-Godzillas, while miraculously sparing Niko, Audrey, Roache, and Animal, all of whom survive for the sequel that thankfully never arrived. Alas, this is a false ending as well, as Godzilla roars out of the deep after a long, restorative nap, with vengeance on his mind. He then sets about terrorizing the greater New York area one final time. Godzilla attains a single fleeting moment of grace when Godzilla finally, conclusively perishes (for real, this time), and not just because it finally brings this disaster to a merciful close. The mighty creature’s eyes close, and a film that’s been screamingly loud and obnoxious for nearly two and a half interminable hours becomes blessedly quiet.

          It’s too late, however, as the 1998 Godzilla had already squandered the public’s seemingly boundless goodwill for its subject. Godzilla’s simultaneously impressive and disappointing performance at the box office proves that size does matter: It’s impossible to imagine a much smaller film grossing nearly $400 million worldwide despite seemingly universal disdain. The filmmakers’ fatal mistake here lies in thinking that size was the only thing that mattered. With luck, Gareth Edwards’ apparently serious-minded 2014 reboot of Godzilla—which will once again set out to fill the Godzilla-sized and -shaped hole in the public’s collective heart—doesn’t make the same mistake.


        • Where the 1998 Godzilla movie went wrong:

          Writer Dean Devlin outlines the two big mistakes he made when writing 1998’s Godzilla movie, directed by Roland Emmerich.

          As part of the Reddit chat that saw him also discuss the infamous computer virus plot device in Independence Day, writer/producer Dean Devlin has also conceded problems with his much-maligned 1998 take on Godzilla.

          Devlin admitted that the film had two fundamental flaws, and they were both his responsibility.

          “The first is we did not commit to anthropomorphizing Godzilla – meaning we did not decide if he was a heroic character, or a villainous character. We made the intellectual decision to have him be neitherand just simply an animal trying to survive. This was a big mistake”, Devlin said.

          The second mistake? That would be “deciding to exposit the characters’ background in the middle of the film rather than in the first act. At the time we told the audience who these characters were, they had already made their minds up about them and we could not change that perception”.

          Would righting either of those two wrongs have turned Godzilla around? Maybe, maybe not. We suspect director Roland Emmerich needs to shoulder some responsibility too for the movie’s problems, as it’s hardly the best work of either of them. We do still like the Madison Square Garden sequence though…


        • Episode #211 – Godzilla (1998)

          At the request of charity contest winner Erik North, we discuss the classic (?) 1998 version of Godzilla. Meanwhile Dan tries to explain Dangerous Liaisons, Elliott surprises no one by reading a Godzilla-centered magazine, and Stuart gives you some advice about how to get milk.


  24. Mateo Broderick es un actor extraño, acabo de ver The Ferris Bueller day´s off y cuando terminó quedé convencida de que él y Ferris eran la misma persona, viendo sus películas tiene tres de culto que no es poca cosa, hay muchas como gozzila o el inspector gatget por las cuales debería ser azotado, pero tiene una personalidad tan única que yo solo puedo seguir confiando en él y estar pendiente de que será lo siguiente que sacará, no puedo quedarme indiferente a lo que haga, tengo que verlo para bien o para mal. A mi me parece que sus conflictos internos derivados del accidente de automovil son en algo responsables del estado actual de su carrera, se nota que le falta vida, él podría envejecer con estilo pero no quiere, simplemente deja las cosas seguir su curso y que su carrera este en piloto automático. Esto es extraño, no siento ese cariño por ningún actor actual, Caprio, Bratt, Clouny, y el resto no generan ese tipo de sentimiento…Muchos saludos desde Sud America.


  25. This Google translate thing seems to leave a lot to be desired….


  26. 9 Terrible Movies That Ruined Promising Careers:

    9. Inspector Gadget – Matthew Broderick

    Obviously, Matthew Broderick had a very promising career ahead of him. He is one of the faces of 80’s movies, and will forever be associated with Ferris Bueller. He was also the voice of adult Simba in The Lion King, the animated movie of our generation, and while it’s probably a more difficult sell, The Cable Guy is still underrated.

    But then, in 1999, Inspector Gadget came along and his career was practically halted. The key words “television remake” and “wacky violence” sum it up really. The whole thing smacks of desperation and anxiousness to make children laugh, but the pace moves so fast and the slapstick is so ridiculous that it doesn’t have any of the desired effect.

    The only halfway acceptable film that Broderick’s starred in since is The Producers, but we still get glimpses of his acting potential when he guest stars in TV shows like Modern Family and 30 Rock, and also on Broadway, where he showed off in Nice Work If You Can Get It. Hopefully we’ll continue to see performances of this calibre from him, even if they’re on a smaller scale.


    • 10 Blockbuster Leading Men So Boring They Almost Put Us To Sleep:

      1. Matthew Broderick

      Boring Blockbusters: Godzilla (1998), Inspector Gadget (1999)

      Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s flat performance in Gareth Edwards’ 2014 reboot may have served as the inspiration for this article, but at least the young Englishman was marginally more interesting that Matthew Broderick’s character in Roland Emmerich’s widely-maligned Hollywood redo of the iconic Japanese kaiju.

      Broderick’s Nick Tatopoulos is seemingly only given that name in the script for a series of poor jokes in which no-one can pronounce it correctly, which pretty much sums up the movie’s lazy writing. Given the occupation of a scientist investigating the effects of radiation on wildlife also gives him the chance to recite some thoroughly awful dialogue with little conviction. Broderick can be a charismatic presence on-screen, but in Godzilla his performance never climbs above thunderously dull.

      The following year Broderick took the lead role in the $90m live-action adaptation of the popular animated series Inspector Gadget, but for the second year in a row his performance in a big-budget studio movie was hugely uninspired. Lacking any humor, wit or personality, Broderick acts as if he knows the movie is going to suck, which it does. Even at less than 80 minutes, Inspector Gadget sure drags in.


      • I think maybe Matthew Broderick after a while, was seen as “box office poison” w/ stuff like “The Cable Guy” (even though technically, Jim Carrey was the actual “star”), “Godzilla 1998”, and “Inspector Gadget” under-performing (both critically and commercially). Hence, it got to a point in which, studios/producers felt that it wasn’t worth the risk of putting him in the the forefront of a major, potential blockbuster.

        Also, and I know that this has been brought up numerous times already, Matthew Broderick arguably as he got older especially, never really “improved” (so to speak as a leading man. It sort of makes you think of “Ferris Bueller” was simply a fluke (kind of like what ultimately happened w/ Alicia Silverstone and “Clueless”) or Matthew benefited from good direction and writing on John Hughes’ part. It’s as if, that Matthew couldn’t repeat or top playing such a charismatic and engaging character again if his life depended on it. As a result, Matthew (once he had outgrown his youthful, “boy next door” image or phase) became type cast as nerdy, wimpy (and dare I say, “bland”) “straight man”.


        • Absolutely. He became a bland, middle aged white dude. I was amazed Hollywood kept inserting him in as many lead roles as they did for as long as they did. In mainstream movies, he was like a charisma vacuum once he got out of his teens. Which is strange because as a teen, he was known for his charisma.


        • I think he’s anything but bland, I don’t think he ever lost his charisma, and I think he’s still a talented actor who likes living in NYC and has stage work whenever he wants it. He’s not a superhero or action hero type, he’s more execution and to go along with perpetually attractive facial features, he has a mesmerizing voice. “The Tower Heist” for example, MB’s role was supporting but even when he appears for a few seconds he commands the screen. Maybe we’re not used to discussing MALE actors who are more content to spend time with their families than try and hang onto the A list.
          I do like Craig Hansen’s neat sequel idea above – would have made for a better storyline than the original.


        • I knew I’d be hearing from you this morning. 😉

          We have a fundamental difference of opinion on Broderick’s later work. I feel like he is well-cast in unsympathetic roles. But if he is expected to play a sympathetic lead, I don’t think he is up to the task. In my opinion, he hasn’t commanded the screen since Ferris Beuller. When I see him starring in Godzilla or Inspector Gadget, I have to wonder what they were thinking. I’m assuming he got those roles because he was the cheaper alternative and they didn’t want to pay someone more money when the selling point was the concept. I find adult Broderick to be a charisma sponge. But I know you feel otherwise.

          As for Broderick as a family man, I don’t buy it. His infidelity has been well-documented.


        • Nostalgia Theater: Ferris Bueller: The Series — Yes, This Exists.

          In 1986, director John Hughes’ high school slacker comedy Ferris Bueller’s Day Off , starring Matthew Broderick in his most iconic role, earned a cool $70+ mil against a $5 million budget, and rightly came to be viewed as one of the classics of the genre and the decade. And while the mercenary route to pursue in the wake of such success would have been for the key creatives to embark on a sequel (“Ferris Bueller’s Second Day Off” or some such), cooler heads prevailed, and Ferris remained a one-off classic, unsullied by any imperfect follow-ups.

          Er, that is except for one little thing.

          In 1990, with both Hughes and Broderick most definitely out, home studio Paramount decided to sequelize the film their own way by bringing it to television with Ferris Bueller: The Series. While there are a handful of TV shows that have successful transitioned from big screen to small (MAS*H, for one), they usually come off as low-rent, dinner theater versions of their cinematic cousins. In that sense, Ferris Bueller was no exception, and it can’t have helped win over viewers when the first scene of the first ep involved the show taking the piss out of the very flick that got the whole thing started. Observe:

          That’s Charlie Schlatter in the title role, and while Broderick conveyed effortless cool as the movie Ferris, Schlatter seems to be stuck at “insufferably smarmy.” Also in the cast is Jennifer Aniston, still four years away from Rachel Green and independent wealth, stepping into Jennifer Grey’s shoes as sister Jeannie. Needless to say, TV’s Ferris Bueller was not received well. When the show premiered on NBC in August of ’90, critics already had their scythes out, but it didn’t help that the show as just kind of bad. So much of what made the movie unique was gone, including, perhaps most egregiously, the Chicagoland setting! Heresy!

          Instead the setting was uprooted to Santa Monica. Bah. and while there was a decent amount of tune-in initially, it dropped off pretty quick (as opposed to lead-in The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, which premiered that same season and did alright, I understand). By December of 1990, with just thirteen episodes produced and ratings starting to crater pretty quickly, Ferris Bueller was in for a lot more days off, as the Peacock pulled the skein from the sched. That’ll learn ’em to put the chainsaw to Matthew Broderick. The man’s a national treasure, dammit!


    • Re: Actors whose careers you would have thought would have been bigger

      Oh, here’s a good one: Mathew Broderick. Wow, he was fantastic in Ferris and his career just never really took off. He did a movie with Brando and then a bunch of other mediocre roles (Cable Guy where he probably took more from the film than he gave to it), Godzilla… yikes.


  27. Craig Hansen

    I’ve always regretted that Broderick never made a sequel to Ferris Bueller. It would have made perfect sense to follow Ferris into his last year of college, just as he’s getting ready to leave college behind and truly step into the adult world – getting ready to enter the workforce, facing adult responsibilites, etc. It think it could’ve been entertaining and a bit poignant, like the first film. Unfortunely there was a small window of opportunity for that, basically 4 or 5 years after Bueller was released. It’s a shame the sequel never happened, especially when John Hughes wanted to make it.


  28. he was original choice for breaking bad i think he should try drama in hbo maybe family drama he would be perfect there like the show parenthood a dad role lets face it his career is done


  29. In reference to glory denzel Washington won best supporting actor Oscar not best actor.on another level I d like to hear your opinion on the film as well as critical and box office reception.other than that keep up the good work ross wilkinson


    • Thanks for the catch. I have corrected the article. This is one of those articles that could use a fresh coat of paint.

      It’s been a long time since I saw Glory. I remember liking it well enough. Reviews were very positive and it was a hit at the box office. Not a smash, but it did well enough for a Civil War drama.


  30. glory was not a hit it did decent for its budget it was great movie but it helped denzels career more then matthew i can matthew in a sitcom he has charm lebeau would u say matthew never reached a list people didnt see buller for him its his breakout role none of his leading roles were hits after that godzilla bombed


    • Was is a hit if not a movie that performed well in relation to its budget? It didn’t fail at the box office. It turned a profit. It was the 45th highest grossing movie of the year on a modest budget. It certainly wasn’t a blockbuster. But if it wasn’t a hit (albeit a modest one) I don’t know how to define it.

      No doubt it did more for Washington and Freeman than it did for Broderick or Elwes.


  31. i always thought a box office hit is 100 million or over but i guess it out did budget but it did more wasginton and freeman broderick got good reviews though i still think a sitcom is more his speed hes funny in modern family


    • It’s never that black and white. A movie that cost $200 million but grosses $100 million is a disaster. A movie that costs less than a million and grosses $50 million is a huge hit.


  32. i guess thats true pearl harbour costner cost 200 millon and 112 million its considerd a flop yes it josh hartnet highest grossing movie glory cost 18 million made 60 world wide yes its a hit


  33. in that cast 3 days to kill cost 28 million made 56 world wide twice its budget yet peoople call it a flop


  34. Broderick in Top 10 Celebrities That Allegedly Killed Someone


  35. Derailed Film Stars: Can Matthew Broderick Rebound?

    During the ’80s, Matthew Broderick rose to the status of icon thanks to his part in one of the best loved films of the decade. In the ’90s, he became a mainstay on Broadway and married Sarah Jessica Parker, an icon in her own right. In recent years, though, Broderick’s most prominent roles have been cameos in movies like Trainwreck, or spoofing his own image in car commercials or on Louie. With a pair of film projects slated for 2016 — including Warren Beatty’s return to directing — the actor may be ready to come back on the big screen, but we take a look back at where he’s been.


  36. Matthew Broderick on embracing “the dog thing” in Broadway play “Sylvia”


  37. ‘The Freshman’ at 25: The cast and crew recall the madness and genius of Marlon Brando


  38. 15 Forgotten ’80s Heartthrobs: Where Are They Now?

    Matthew Broderick

    Matthew Broderick was a total cutie in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, with his boyish good looks and his carefree attitude. Although he isn’t quite as cute as he used to be, he’s still working in the entertainment business. In 2016, expect to see him in The Gettysburg Address and Look Away.


  39. The former A-lister’s film career is still active, but it has definitely cooled. When was he ever a list? Hes had 3 lead hits war games glory and Ferris.


  40. Nostalgia Critic Real Thoughts On: Inspector Gadget (1999)

    What dig Doug and Rob really think about 1999’s live-action Inspector Gadget?


  41. So whose idea was Matthew Broderick as Simba?

    Post by Jackie Chan: The Chan of Steel on yesterday at 1:01pm

    I get the idea that Simba is more laid back and less decisive than Mufasa. I accept this. But he sounds so whiny!

    I believe even Nathan Lane pulling double duty would have been more convincing in this role. Hell, Whoopi Goldberg pulling double duty might have been better… (:))

    To me, it’s the movie’s one glaring flaw.

    Post by mizerable on 10 hours ago
    Broderick is pretty underwhelming in just about everything that isn’t War Games.

    Yeah, I know he was Ferris and honestly I think they could’ve gotten about 20 other big name teen idols at the time to do a better job than he did.

    But that is Matthew’s movie legacy; most anyone would have been a better fit.


  42. Hanks has range. He was not nice in road to perdition he was amazing in it. Hanks is my personal favorite actor. He is reason i took drama. I am also huge costner fan too. Like hanks he plays a lot of everyman however he did wonderful in perfect world and mr brooks


  43. Jimmy Kimmel to unveil Trumped the musical starring Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick

    Their The Donald-themed takeoff on The Producers debuts after the Academy Awards.


  44. Some actors prefer stage over film but only do occasional film or tv work to make a living since their is not a lot of money in stage work. That way they can amke a nice living and do occasional stage work on the side. Broderick is one and david garrison is another. In case anyone did not know who he was he was steve on married with child he left show to focous on broadway. While he did land a supporting role on short lived sitcom working it out after his tenure on married with children most of his career was just littered with guest spots nothing big. But however given he prefers stage he is currently having the career he wants.


  45. Matthew Broderick was a rising star. Soon after Ferris Bueller’s Day Off he killed a mother and daughter when he hit them head on when he was driving in the oncoming lane.


  46. Musical Hell: The Music Man (2003)


  47. I am counting he had 4 leading hits in the 90s. Ferris buller bioxi blyes,and glory where the only hits that his name drew people in not sure if he was dubbed a list then.


    • And just what is your measurement of a “hit”!? To me, a movie is a hit if it makes back its budget, thus is profitable. It it makes over $100 million along the way, then it’s a certified blockbuster.


      • While film industry accounting is unusually arcane and often very “creative,” a common rule of thumb is that a movie needs to make at least double its reported production budget in box office receipts to be profitable for its producers. This is because 1) a large slice of box office receipts don’t go to the studio or production company and 2) movies usually have substantial advertising and promotion expenses that are not reported as part of the production budget. These days it’s even more complicated because you can’t be sure if a dollar of domestic box office is equivalent to a dollar of international box office–the agreements on how receipts, especially overseas receipts, are allocated can get very complicated, as I understand.


  48. basically godzilla under performed.


  49. yes movie has to double its budget but its all that blakc and white. back in 80s there where no marketing costs so movies has to just make back there budget to break even, it is a different tune now. Plus in some cases studios do not see as much profit worldwide as they would domestically. Depending on the gross and budget a movie can be considerd modest hit


    • Do you really think that “back in [the] 80s there where [sic] no marketing costs?” I would suggest that you are mistaken. I lived through that decade and can recall how much movie advertising there was. Justin Wyatt’s book High Concept gives a very good picture of how important marketing and advertising strategies were to the film industry during the 1980s.

      Also, remember the other point I made above–a sizable chunk of a movie’s box office receipts don’t go to the studios or producers. So if a movie’s box office is equal to its production budget, the producers do not recover their costs, even before taking marketing into account.


  50. not all that black and white . Another factor when looking if a movie is a hit is date it was released. Some movies that where considered modest hits now would been considered big box office hits then vice versa.


  51. true. I know marketing is a separate cost the production budget going on.


  52. Siskel & Ebert Review “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”

    We love the John Hughes classic, but what did the iconic film critics think of it?


  53. Cast Of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off: How Much Are They Worth Now?

    Matthew Broderick

    Estimated Net Worth: $45 Million. Matthew Broderick is without a doubt the biggest star to rise from Ferris Bueller‘s success which isn’t surprising given his starring role as Ferris. It was definitely his breakout role and led to more roles in Project X, Glory, Infinity, Godzilla and voicing adult Simba in The Lion King. He has had many more roles and was recently seen in the 2015 film Trainwreck and has had small parts in different TV series. He can definitely afford to be choosy about his roles considering he already has a net worth of $45 million.


  54. Iam currently watch you can count on me and must say broderick really is the weak link. He never transitioned into adult roles well. He shows no inflection in his voice. SHowed no emotion as an emotional adult drawn into an affair. he excelled better in playing teens in light comedy but has no flair for dramatic roles playing adults. His portrayal seems awkward and stiff.


  55. Another reason he never became bigger star if you noticed he tried to stray away from ferris type roles playing uptight guys.audience someitmes hate when actor tries to something else. They like actor having trademark role they can latch on to


    • In all honesty, I just think that Ferris Bueller was a diamond in the rough so to speak for Matthew Broderick. Please tell me if there were any other times he played a brash, effortlessly cool (borderline sociopathic), young hotshot? Matthew should be for a man of his otherwise questionable range, lucky that he landed/nailed what would become such an iconic character of ’80s cinema/teen movies. Maybe if he could’ve somehow, prolonged his working relationship w/ John Hughes I could kind of see where you’re going.

      If anything, Matthew perhaps really had nowhere to go but down. In other words, he was somebody who may have peaked too early. Like I said, Matthew Broderick’s main appeal was his otherwise inoffensive, boy next door image. Once he outgrew that, he really didn’t have much else to fall back on.


  56. I am sure he was probably offered other ferris like roles but turned them down so he was not typecast. roles like election and cable guy are taking 180 degree turn from feeris


  57. I Was here trying to find out if this is the same Mathew Broderick who is married to the actress Sarah Jessica Parker- But I’m no wiser- Is he or isn’t he?


  58. mattew was one of those actors like freddie prinze jr who never fully translated into adult roles. fans could not accept him in it. He does better in light comedy then drama. He does not have the dramatic chops. In you can count on me he was flat as a man in moral dilema over his affair. Laura and mark ruffalo where amazing in the movie but matthew was the weak link.


  59. What Happened to Matthew Broderick – News & Updates

    Matthew Broderick is obviously most famous for his starring role in the hit comedy film Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. However, he is a lot more than that one role. From voice acting to stage acting, this popular 1980’s entertainer has worked very diligently in entertainment following that one major success. You may be familiar with his work voicing adult Simba in the Lion King movies. Even that was a long time ago, though. What has Matthew Broderick been doing more recently? In this article, I’m going to be discussing how Broderick was able to become such a hit in Hollywood, while also making sure to address where he has taken his career more recently. Without further ado, let’s learn a little bit more about this guy.


  60. Ferris who? Matthew Broderick’s true calling is as a bit player for Kenneth Lonergan

    Nevertheless, there is a clarity and a consistency to the way Lonergan uses Broderick. He doesn’t appear in a great variety of character-actor guises; all three parts are, to some degree, milquetoast men more reminiscent of his character from Alexander Payne’s Election than the roles that made him famous: the teenage hacker in War Games and, of course, the titular flim-flammer in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. Ferris Bueller looms so large in his filmography that when Broderick has been cast as a teacher, as in Election and Margaret, it always feels to some degree like a metatextual move. Yet I’m not sure it should feel that way, because looking at the fullness of Broderick’s career in general and his character-actor parts for Lonergan in particular makes Ferris, not his adult schmucks, feel like the outlier.

    That’s backed up by Ferris Bueller’s Day Off itself, in which Broderick manages to seem both exactly like what writer-director John Hughes had in mind for his teenage hero and also bizarrely miscast. Ferris introduces himself to the audience in the midst of a scheme to fake illness and stay home from school so he can (eventually) go on a day trip into Chicago with his girlfriend, Sloan, and his depressed best friend, Cameron. He speaks to the camera conspiratorially as he goes about the business of deceiving his parents and school administrators. Yet Broderick doesn’t really sell Ferris as a consummate con artist; the movie’s screenplay does most of that work, having the principal huff and puff about how he’s gonna catch that wily Bueller. Broderick also fails to drive home something else the movie keeps claiming about Ferris: That pretty much everyone at school loves the sweet bejesus out of him. Broderick, while far from unlikable as a performer, pitches Ferris somewhere between cutesy dork and supercilious jerk.

    To some degree, this isn’t Broderick’s fault. His take on Ferris probably is what Hughes thought a slick, charming, beloved popular kid is like. Hughes possessed enormous sensitivity as a filmmaker, and it’s easy to see why his movies have been elevated above more hormonal, less nuanced teen pictures. But some of his weaker teen movies, like Ferris Bueller, pay lip service to that emotional side while celebrating a bland version of the status quo (as in the supposedly feel-good sequence where hundreds of Chicago citizens instantly fall in love with Ferris’ spirited lip-syncing). Though Broderick was well past his teenage years when he filmed Ferris Bueller, he still didn’t have the electric charisma necessary to enliven Hughes’ wan conception of a teenage trickster.

    Broderick feels more at home in movies like You Can Count On Me, though Lonergan was far from the first filmmaker to recognize Broderick’s normcore bona fides. Before even the aforementioned Election, Broderick had a run of mainstream studio movies where he played notes ranging from nebbishy befuddlement to nerdy discomfort: The Cable Guy, Addicted To Love, and the 1998 remake of Godzilla, for which he did sort of a poor man’s Jeff Goldblum routine. But the only good movie in that pre-Election bunch trades on the spectacle of Jim Carrey absolutely steamrolling his co-star, while Election necessitates Broderick not just playing kind of a dork, but indulging in self-deception leading to a downfall nearly as spectacular as possible for a mild-mannered Midwestern history teacher (short of engaging in the kind of teacher-student affair that fells his colleague early in the film).


  61. Matthew Broderick to do a heck of a job as Katrina: American Crime Story’s FEMA chief

    Matthew Broderick has made a multi-decade career out of his nice-guy persona, but he’ll have to put in some extra effort if he’s going to charm the pants off of viewers of his new TV gig. According to a press release sent out this afternoon by FX, Broderick is set to co-star as disgraced FEMA chief Michael “heckuva job, Brownie” Brown on the second season of American Crime Story, titled, appropriately, Katrina: American Crime Story.

    The real-life Brown resigned from his post as head of FEMA after becoming the face of the agency’s epic screw-up of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. Most infamously, then-president George W. Bush told him, “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job,” while touring the rubble of a ruined New Orleans, a sentiment that was, to put it mildly, not shared by the thousands of people trapped with no food or water at the Superdome at the time.

    According to NBC News, the Brown is now a conservative radio talk-show host in Denver, because of course he is. American Crime Story has yet to set a return date.


  62. Even though I’ve read this before, It doesn’t seem that I ever commented on Broderick (I enjoyed reading some other comments though). I’d say my favorite adult roles of his are “Election” and “The Last Shot” (the film is a little “The Producers” like though, now that I think about it). It’s understandable why his film stock diminished, as many of the films that he was in didn’t rate well, and I do agree with other comments that pointed out that he played many characters who were were kind of dopey sad sacks too often, which really differed from his early roles in “WarGames” and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”, which were more inspired. I thought he was good in “Glory” too, but like some comments said, I think there were just too many times in which he played a role which either didn’t have that much of an effect on the film’s story or could’ve been replaced by someone else and hardly anyone would’ve noticed.


  63. I’m watching him in the Christmas Story remake.Horrible. Dull as dirt and bland as milk toast. He changed into an old man at a very early age. He acts he’s 75 instead of 55. His personality split and he’s never been the same since the 80’s. .


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: