If You Enjoyed Actor Chris O’Dowd as Nathan Rhodes Avoid Him In These Other Roles – Re: Bridesmaids Movie
(This post has been edited several times to add new material)
April 2017 update:
With every new review I read of O’Dowd’s past movies (I just read several reviews of his 2012 film “3, 2, 1… Frankie Go Boom” this evening), I am stunned – and horrified.
I am stunned at how awful 99% of the movies are that he has appeared in. He plays creeps, sickos, deviants, or jerks in many movies.
I’m stunned that O’Dowd is willing to appear in such filth and unfunny, tawdry movies. That he has done so either speaks to how desperate he is to earn pay checks – because maybe he’s not getting offered any other roles?, or –
Or O’Dowd has sleazy, scummy morals right down there with child molesters. I cannot understand how any adult who does have good morals would willingly appear in some of the dreck he’s been in and be okay with it.
Are these the kinds of movies O’Dowd wants any of his children to sit through when they’re older and would he be proud of his kids seeing this trash?
I’m not a prude. I’m willing to sit through and laugh at a certain amount of “mature” humor, but some of the movies he’s been in have jokes, lines, and gags that are beyond tasteless.
And it’s sad, very sad. This was an actor I was honestly expecting to like in real life, and in other movie roles, from having noticed him as the cop in ‘Bridesmaids,’ when I began researching him and his movie career online.
O’Dowd may still be getting an occasional pay check in Hollywood (he has filmed at least three or four movies in 2017, according to IMDB’s site), but for any lady who enjoyed him as the ‘Bridesmaids’ cop, his career is dead, over, and buried.
I certainly have no interest in following O’Dowd’s career any longer, not as an admirer or well-wisher.
I certainly have no interest in watching O’Dowd in any future roles where he’s a sleaze ball, and given his 2012 or so magazine interview where he bashed people of faith, I don’t want to see him in any movies at all – my enthusiasm, or whatever you want to call it, is dead and gone.
This is a long post, and for that I am sorry. But here we go.
I liked the movie “Bridesmaids.” It was in theaters in 2011, but I did not see it until 2015, when it came on television.
I have other reasons for why I feel let down by the actor, Chris O’Dowd, who played the police officer character “Nathan Rhodes” in Bridemaids, but I’ll likely get to that in another, future post (though I did discuss one reason why in another post here and still intend on writing at least one more post later on. April 2017: you can now read that post here: Chris O’Dowd is a Great Big Jerk).
I figured since O’Dowd seemed so nice as the cop character in ‘Bridesmaids,’ that he would be just as wonderful in other movie parts (i.e., playing a likable, nice guy), so I watched the actor in some of the other movies he’s been in.
That turned out to be a big mistake.
After having watched O’Dowd in other roles, some that were pretty profane or had him play a sexist swine, I can’t really appreciate his scenes as the nice guy in ‘Bridesmaids’ any more (among another reason or two).
About the only movies of O’Dowd’s I’ve seen that didn’t tarnish the memory of the Rhodes character for me was his very brief part in the “Thor” sequel, and the voice work he did for a 2013 kid’s animated movie called “Epic.” (He did the voice of a goofy snail in that one.)
By the way, if you’d like to see what movies or TV shows O’Dowd has been in, or which one he’s scheduled to appear in, you can check out his page on IMDB here:
CRUDE OR OBSCENE HUMOR
I am not, nor have I ever been, a fan of humor that is obscene, sex-related, or anything vulgar or involving bodily functions.
I don’t find jokes about genitalia amusing – but some actors and movies have this habit of expecting the audience to laugh just from hearing words such as “dick” or “vagina.” They’re body parts, guys – get over it.
I find hearing the words “dick,” “balls,” or “vagina” about as funny as I do hearing the words “elbow,” “hand,” or “throat.” -Which is to say, not funny at all.
For some reason I do not comprehend, many movies that come out of Hollywood regularly use coarse humor. And I hate it. I wish the people who write scripts would stop with the trashy language and trashy jokes.
I usually find sex-based or bodily-function type humor crass, obscene, and pretty juvenile. I rarely laugh at such humor.
Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen of him in interviews, both in print that is reproduced online, and in video format on You Tube, and in some of the material he Tweets from his Twitter account…
(Link 1: his Twitter account –
and Link 2: one example from his Twitter of what I mean (a dick joke)),
…that O’Dowd’s real-life sense of humor leans to juvenile and of the mild bathroom or bodily function variety, as though he has the emotional maturity of a 12 year old who is stuck in the body of an adult (I believe he is currently 38 or 39 years old.)
RHODES IN BRIDESMAIDS (2011)
In ‘Bridesmaids,’ the Rhodes character was amusing, entertaining, and endearing without resorting to smut, bathroom humor, immaturity, or vulgarity (not much, anyway, aside from the scene where he cusses at the Annie character because he’s so frustrated or hurt), which is one reason I was so fond of that character.
The character was pretty much a gentleman.
The Rhodes character was not a crude, foul little cretin. He seemed fairly mature for his age, as well.
I don’t find O’Dowd physically attractive, personally. It was the personality of the guy he played in the movie (“Rhodes”) that made him so appealing.
Let’s take a stroll down memory lane.
Here are links from You Tube with scenes from the film featuring the Rhodes character:
2. The scene where Annie and Rhodes run into each other at a liquor store:
And there you can see some of the reasons why this character played by O’Dowd was so likable.
CUBAN FURY (2014)
Contrast those scenes from 2011’s ‘Bridesmaids’ with the following awful movie clip, with O’Dowd as a guy named ‘Drew’ from the 2014 movie ‘Cuban Fury.’
In this film – which I have not seen but have seen the trailers for and read numerous reviews of – O’Dowd’s character is a sexist, rude, obscene jerk.
If you watch this, be forewarned it may play a role in causing you to forever find it unbearable to watch O’Dowd as the ‘Bridesmaids’ cop ever again. Goodness knows that’s the impact these sorts of things have had on me. I’m serious. You may want to skip this trailer for Cuban Fury –
Cuban Fury (2014), Trailer 2:
This is just so gross. So gross and disgusting, and I don’t find it cute, funny, or even vaguely amusing (that is, the portions with the O’Dowd character).
I intellectually understand that this is an actor playing a part written for him by someone else, but on an emotional level, as someone who first became curious about his acting career from the nice guy he played in ‘Bridesmaids’ and who was expecting him to more or less portray decent characters in his other movies, this is beyond revolting and is a little shocking and heart-breaking.
It’s rather difficult to see the guy who was once Rhodes being a sexist, crude, slime-ball and uttering obscene lines such as, “Did you just lick my pussy?”
(That line is actually in the ‘Cuban Fury’ movie; it is in the trailer I have embedded above, or the other trailer that is on You Tube. It pains me to even have to type that line for this post.)
It’s difficult to watch O’Dowd (his character, “Drew”) sexually objectifying one of the women characters, which he is shown to do in one of the trailers I saw for this film.
According to one review I read, there’s another line in the movie, where O’Dowd, as Drew, makes a comment to the Nick Frost character, “Bruce,” that includes the phrase “premature ejaculation.”
The person who wrote this review found that concept or language “hilarious,” but again, I find it off-putting and sleazy:
[In the film ‘Cuban Fury’] Drew (Chris O’Dowd) is his [Bruce’s] crude work partner, hilariously telling him that a dry promotional video Bruce has made for a product is what he thinks about to “not ejaculate too quickly.”
About the only positive thing I can say about O’Dowd in this ‘Cuban Fury’ movie, from what I’ve seen of it, is that he is clean-shaven in this role. Apparently, the studio made him shave off his terrible facial hair. (I assume.)
O’Dowd’s ‘Drew’ character from ‘Cuban Fury’ is EVEN WORSE than that of “Ted,” the selfish, sleazy lover boy, played by Jon Hamm, who exploits Annie, in ‘Bridesmaids’- and Ted was pretty bad.
I am horrified and appalled to see what amounts to “Rhodes” playing a “Ted” type of character – very bad role choice.
Stay far, far away from ‘Cuban Fury,’ if you liked Rhodes from ‘Bridesmaids.’
Not only is it disturbing that O’Dowd is willing to play a sexist pig in a movie, but based on some of the reviews I’m seeing, the overall tone of the movie is one of sexism, in which male characters objectify women.
At the bottom of this post, you will find excerpts I’ve taken from various reviews of “Cuban Fury” which reveal that some movie reviewers are in agreement with my criticisms.
WHY THESE GOD-AWFUL ROLES OF SEXIST PIGS WITH VULGAR JOKES?
I really feel that O’Dowd has taken some career mis-steps in the movie or TV roles he’s chosen to take.
I don’t get it. Why would he want to appear in this trashy film as a sexist louse, or in other similar, sleazy roles?
A site or two I saw (including this one) said that O’Dowd is currently (as of 2016) worth something like $12 million (that’s TWELVE MILLION dollars).
As to his other roles, according to these celebrity salary sites I’ve seen, it appears that O’Dowd earns something like $500,000 to $700,000 per movie.
I cannot wrap my head around this, either.
-The guy is a Z-grade actor, not an A-lister, such as a Tom Cruise or a Brad Pitt (which I say as a matter of observation, not as an insult),
-He’s only been in a small number of movies, and
-He’s usually not on the screen more than about 5 to 10 minutes in total in most of the films I have seen him in.
How can someone doing so little film work, who is not as well-known as a Tom Cruise, a Robert Redford, or a George Clooney, be getting paid so much money for so little work?
I have no idea how much O’Dowd was paid to play Rhodes in ‘Bridesmaids,’ but he complained in one interview the pay was not much (he said, “the pay was not brilliant”).
Dude, if they paid you anything from $1,000 to $5,000 (one to five thousand) or higher to play Rhodes, you don’t have much room to complain.
What did they pay you for that role – $10,000? $20,ooo? Was it six figures?
Getting paid anything over one thousand bucks for what comes to what, two weeks to a few months of shooting a movie (I have no idea how long it took this guy to film his scenes for this film), and you’re only on screen for a total of like five minutes, is a blessing.
Most Americans have to toil away at tedious 9 to 5 jobs, Monday through Friday, sitting in a grey cubicle, where they may earn only up to $30,000 to $45,000 a year.
O’Dowd was in his early 30s at the time he was playing Rhodes, who was a state trooper – a state trooper’s yearly salary is something like $30,000 to $45,000.
If you, O’Dowd, were paid $30,000 to play Rhodes, you were making in the two weeks (or two months) it took you to shoot this film what it would take a “real life” Rhodes twelve months of straight Monday – Friday work to earn, so please, kindly stop complaining about the ‘Bridesmaids’ part not supposedly paying you enough.
Most people are not getting paid figures like $10,000 (or more) dollars to appear in a movie that only took three weeks of work to shoot, okay?
From Nov 2013:
The 34-year-old actor from Boyle, Co Roscommon explained that funding his move to Los Angeles to pursue his acting career left him with no money.
O’Dowd said: “I bought a house… I put all of my money into this house and then hadn’t worked for six months. I was just really broke so we got our cable turned off and all that kind of stuff.
“It was weird. I was more broke than I have ever been in a way, because I was in so much debt. It was really scary.”
O’Dowd added that his bank balance didn’t improve drastically after Bridesmaids as he became more “picky” with his roles.
I think O’Dowd moved to the Los Angeles area and is still living there (last I read) – well, L.A., like New York City, has a high rate of living expense – and even small homes in or around Los Angeles cost a fortune. You chose to move to a city that’s expensive to live in, O’Dowd. That’s on you.
Expatistan’s Cost of Living Map of North America (New York City and the Los Angeles rank very high, not surprising)
From Washington Post, 2015: The most expensive cities in the U.S.
If all that is so, if he’s currently worth 12 million, he’s not hurting for money.
Surely lack of funds and desperation for a paycheck cannot explain why he keeps accepting trashy movie roles.
I would assume O’Dowd could easily pass up terrible, crude roles such as the one in ‘Cuban Fury’ (which he got paid one million dollars for, so says one source) – but he chooses to take it any way? What the what?
He couldn’t insist they edit out the obscene lines and obscene gestures and clean up the language for his part?
Is O’Dowd worried about being perpetually typecast as “Mr. Nice Guy” after playing Rhodes in ‘Bridesmaids’?
Typecasting is not a bad thing (I have more to say about this point in the conclusion of this post).
If you’re good at playing sweet, lovable guys and that is what women viewers such as myself first appreciated you for, then stick with that.
I’m not interested in seeing this guy play jerks, womanizers, or sexist pigs or using profanity and other crude language – no thanks.
However, I’ve already sat through several of his crude performances in other films, so the damage has already been done, in my case.
I saw this in the comments under an article at The Guardian (2014), Chris O’Dowd: from TV nerd to unlikely heartthrob… to Broadway leading man:
He [O’Dowd] is absolutely brilliant in The IT Crowd but he really needs to stop making bad choices in Hollywood.
I totally agree with her. He keeps appearing in awful roles and/or awful shows/ movies.
THIS IS 40 (2012)
O’Dowd played a character name Ronni in the movie ‘This is 40,’ which was released in the year 2012.
I found this movie to be very tedious and did not enjoy it. It comes on cable TV every so often.
This is another one you will likely want to avoid if you liked the Rhodes character, though it’s not nearly as bad in the same way as ‘Cuban Fury.’
O’Dowd’s character in this movie was not on screen very long. I think the movie was about two hours long, and O’Dowd was probably in it for what seemed only about five minutes in total.
There is an early scene with the Ronni character (again, played by O’Dowd) where he has an exchange with an actress – who I think was played by Lena Dunham? – where she indicates that once in the past that she and Ronni has sex together, but it was bad sex because Ronni “couldn’t finish.” Oh vomit. Not funny.
There’s another scene in the ‘This is 40’ movie where Ronni (O’Dowd) attends a birthday party at the backyard of a friend’s house, pool side.
He and his buddy lust over Megan Fox’s character, who is in a bathing suit, the moment they spot her and try to get her attention. They then get into a conversation with her, where she makes comments about the size of men’s genitals.
Good lord, no, I didn’t need to see the guy who played stand-up, decent guy Rhodes acting cheesy and chasing after Megan Fox or sitting around having slightly obscene conversations about male genitalia. Barf.
Plus, I hated O’Dowd’s mustache in this film. (For the love of Joe, you do not look good with facial hair, lose it!)
FRIENDS WITH KIDS (2011)
This is another movie I saw on cable.
This movie was dreary, and I did not enjoy it.
The movie was meant to be sort of feel-good (at least at the end, where the guy finally realized he really does love the girl), but it totally failed at being feel-good or inspiring.
The movie was not sweet or cute. It was just so… dreary and unpleasant. You’ll feel as though you need to take some Prozac or Zoloft while watching it.
For one thing, one of the married couples in the film has a marriage that is falling apart, and we, the viewers, are forced to watch the husband scream at the wife in several scenes, while the wife falls apart sobbing.
Who the hell wants to watch that sort of depressing thing in a rom com?
After watching the film, I thought, “Maybe I should give it a second chance. Maybe I’ll like it on a second viewing.”
So the next time it came on cable a few weeks later, I watched it again, and found it just as dull and horrible the second time around.
This movie, “Friends With Kids,” reunites most of the cast of ‘Bridesmaids.’
However, in this movie, we find Kristen Wiig (former “Annie Walker” in ‘Bridesmaids’) married to a character played by Jon Hamm (who was the creep “Ted” in ‘Bridesmaids’).
Rhodes – I mean the character played by O’Dowd, who is “Alex” this time – is oddly paired off in this movie with the Maya Rudolph character. (Rudolph is the actress who played “Lillian,” Annie’s friend who got married in ‘Bridesmaids.’)
No, I don’t want to essentially see “Rhodes” married to “Lillian.”
Look, this movie was dismal and dull no matter how you slice it, but had they had the sense to pair up the characters of Wiig with O’Dowd – so that it played like a version of Annie with Rhodes, in effect – that would’ve been more satisfying for ‘Bridesmaids’ fans.
But I had to see “Annie” married to “Ted” in this monstrosity of a movie and “Rhodes” married to “Lillian.” NO THANK YOU.
There wasn’t too much objectionable with the O’Dowd character himself, who played a guy named ‘Alex’.
There were a few wince-worthy scenes involving Alex (O’Dowd) and others, such as an early scene where O’Dowd’s character steps out of a bathroom and his wife (played by Rudolph) immediately sprays air freshner into the bathroom, suggesting that he smelled the room up. I really didn’t need to see that. They could’ve left that on the editing room floor, or better yet, never shot the scene to start with.
Then there is another wince-worthy scene in “Friends With Kids” where another character, named Jason, tells Alex (O’Dowd) that the sex he’s been having with his new girlfriend (played by Megan Fox) is “really great.” Gross.
ATHEISM PROMOTED OBNOXIOUSLY IN ‘FRIENDS WITH KIDS’
Unless you’re a woman who is a die hard, anti-theist, cranky atheist herself, you might be turned off by this movie, as I was, for this other reason:
Early in this movie, one of the characters (I think it’s the Jason character) is shown waking up and getting out of bed. The camera pans over to his night stand table, where there is a copy of some Richard Dawkins book – “The God Delusion,” if memory serves me.
Dawkins, is of course, a famous atheist – and from what I saw of O’Dowd’s real-life, personal Twitter page once, he follows Dawkins on Twitter – barf. (More on that in a future post, if I can get around to composing it. Edit: As of April 2017, I now explain what I mean by that in this post.)
At any rate, the film establishes early on, it hints, that the Jason character is an atheist. (This point becomes pertinent in another post I plan on writing later – edit: you can now read that post here).
There’s another scene where O’Dowd’s character, Alex, is present at a table where Jason, Jason’s long time girlfriend Julie (played by Jennifer Westfeldt), and all the other actors are listening to Jon Hamm’s character yell and scream at the Kristen Wiig character.
(Remember, Hamm and Wiig are “married” in this movie, and their marriage is falling apart.)
Hamm’s character mentions at this gathering of friends, he just blurts out in front of everyone there, that the Wiig character “gave him an orgasm on a train once” (yep, that is pretty much a direct quote from the film), but now their sex life is dull ever since they had a baby.
-Jeezum Crow, people, no. No no no no.
I don’t need to hear ultra-personal, raunchy stuff like that in a movie, even if they’re all just a bunch of actors. What is it with Hollywood movies and inserting raunch into every other scene, and in a Rom Com of all things?
During this table scene, Jason starts screaming at the blond lady (Julie), including the line,
“And I could never marry a woman who believes in God.”
I myself am not an atheist, and I found that line rude and obnoxious.
And hypocritical. It’s hypocritical.
I’ve read so many atheists online get worked up over the fact that a lot of Christians try to avoid marrying Non-Christians (which obviously would include atheists), but this desire of Christians to avoid marrying Non-Christians is due to a religious belief Christians have called “equally yoked.” It’s nothing personal against atheists.
The “equally yoked” teaching is not a commentary against atheists or their value as humans, but about Christians believing they are honoring God by following that directive.
It’s a pro-God thing, not an anti-atheist thing, in other words, but a lot of atheists choose to assume or view it as being “anti atheist” (but it’s really not).
But in this film, we have an apparent atheist character screaming that he could never date or marry a theist. I’m unaware of any official atheist doctrine that forbids an atheist from dating a believer, so what is this guy’s excuse?
If it’s a personal preference, that’s fine with me, but to have a movie character scream it aloud during a movie and in such a loud, judgmental, insistent way, carries the message to the audience as though theists, people of faith, have cooties and are scum who are not worthy of marriage. It’s really arrogant.
It’s a very horrible way of viewing an entire group of people. Just lump all believers into one big pile and insist they are all idiots, jerks, rubes, and not worthy to date. Thanks so much, Hollywood movie!
And O’Dowd, who is himself an atheist in real life (more on that in a future post, time permitting – edit, April 2017: that post is now complete, and you can read it here), was actually happy to appear in this bigoted dreck.
This is supposed to be a rom-com (you know, a film with romance, fun, and laughter), but instead, the folks behind this movie are using it to make this serious, out- of- place, jarring, pro-atheist statement, and at the expense of theists? That is a lousy thing to do, and it’s not entertaining.
And hey, atheist Jason character, if you were a real guy, I wouldn’t date you, either. Because you are an atheist? No, because you are a smug, bigoted, arrogant little jerk.
Anyway, the whole movie was a bore. I didn’t enjoy the vague references to bathroom humor, bodily functions, the slam against people of faith, or the trashy sex talk.
O’Dowd’s “Alex” character was not on the screen too much in this movie. The problem wasn’t so much with “Alex” but the rest of the film.
THE SAPPHIRES (2012)
This movie came on cable TV late one night several months ago, and I watched it.
I don’t do “spoiler alerts” on my blog, so prepare to have plot details given away in this blog post when and where ever.
I’ve seen comments about this movie on IMDB by various commentators, and the people there liked it, and a few said it is a “feel good” movie. I don’t completely agree with that assessment.
Some aspects of this movie, such as the singing numbers, were okay.
It was set during the 1960s, or maybe early 1970s, and had a singing girl group in period costumes performing hit songs of that era. The movie starts out in Australia and heads into Vietnam, I think.
In this film, O’Dowd plays a character named “Dave.”
I didn’t like “Dave” much.
Dave is a more extreme, male version of the Annie Walker character from ‘Bridesmaids’ in this movie – he’s down on his luck, about broke, under-employed, and living out of his car.
Unlike the Annie character from ‘Bridesmaids,’ whose motivations are shown in the movie and that I understand, Dave does not come across as a sympathetic character to me.
I don’t recall the movie explaining exactly why Dave is down on his luck and living out of his car, and so forth. He has an unpleasant personality – he snaps at people.
The opening shot is his bare feet hanging out of the back of his car. He gets out and we see he’s got a shirt on and underwear, but no pants at all. I didn’t find that a pretty sight. It was more undignified than amusing.
The Dave character is a bit of a smart ass and insults people off and on in this movie, which did not make him likable.
Dave (O’Dowd) is apparently exchanging sexual favors with a woman over the age of 50 at the hotel he is working for to get free food from her (this is suggested in one scene – or perhaps I misunderstood that scene).
If I remember right, Dave also has an alcohol problem and is drunk in a few scenes.
The film ends up putting Dave in a romance with one of the lady singers.
Dave and the lady singer spend much of the movie fighting with each other. I buy them as “frenemies,” but not as lovers.
Unfortunately, about half way to three fourths in to the movie, the Dave character and singer lady end up as a romantic item. The Dave character proposes marriage in a letter to the lady.
The lady character and the Dave character have ZERO CHEMISTRY. None. There is no romantic chemistry at all with the two.
Also, Dave is over 6 feet tall, and the actress playing the lady character must be about four and half feet tall in real life (or barely five foot tall). They look totally mis-matched, physically speaking.
It was difficult to watch some of their scenes that were meant to show them bonding, including a slow dance number – where they dance together.
There’s a scene at the end where the lady character rushes into a hospital room to kiss Dave (he was injured in an earlier scene and is in a hospital bed).
I think the lady and the O’Dowd character (Dave) end up getting married and are shown together back in Australia towards the end.
I did not buy these two as an item at all. I could have lived without seeing these two as a romantic pairing.
If you’re a Rhodes fan, you might want to skip “Sapphires.”
DINNER FOR SCHMUCKS (2010)
It’s been awhile since I’ve seen this one.
From what I remember, O’Dowd played a guy with a very weird accent – I think he was supposed to be French.
His character was a blind guy with a saber, wearing a tacky track suit, who gets invited to a dinner for losers – because his hosts consider him a loser.
The character was rather moronic and eccentric, but at least there were no sex scenes, no sex jokes, no profanity (not from that particular character).
If you are a Rhodes fan, you might be able to stomach this somewhat, it’s hard to say.
Edited to Add: GULLIVER’S TRAVELS (2010)
I first saw “Gulliver’s Travels” on cable TV sometime around 2012. (I later saw “Bridesmaids” on TV in 2015, though “Bridesmaids” was originally released in movie theaters in 2011.)
After I saw this movie around 2012 or 2013, I sort of forgot about it. I didn’t take any special interest in O’Dowd at the time, when I saw him in this.
I re-watched about one hour or so of “Gulliver’s Travels” when it came on cable TV again about three or four days ago (around Feb. 21, 2017). I at first assumed this movie would be okay to watch if you enjoyed O’Dowd as Rhodes, but I think I may have been mistaken about that.
In the film, O’Dowd plays a bad guy named General Edward, if memory serves me. His country is visited by Gulliver (played by Jack Black), who is a giant in size compared to everyone else. It’s my understanding that this movie did not do well at the box office.
At any rate, there is a scene in the movie where Gulliver takes his trousers down to put out a fire in a building by urinating on it, and in the process, he manages to urinate all over O’Dowd’s character (and one or two other people).
And when I say urinate on, it is a lot of urine – I don’t know what the special effects people substituted for urine to film the scene, but it looks like it could’ve been a billion gallons of Mountain Dew soda, or some other yellow-colored liquid. There was a lot of it.
If you think you can accept seeing the same guy who went on to play Rhodes in the 2011 “Bridesmaids” movie get urinated upon by Jack Black, you might be okay with this. As for me, nope, no way.
O’Dowd’s character in this film once again sports facial hair. This is a guy who is not terribly good-looking to start with in real life or in movies, but he looks one hundred times worse with a mustache and/or beard. If these film people are not demanding that he appear in a role with facial hair, he needs to stay clean-shaven.
GIRLS – HBO SERIES
I do not subscribe to HBO, so I’ve never seen an episode of “Girls.”
From what I read over several reviews of the program, O’Dowd played a sexist, creepy guy named “John Thomas.”
One of his earliest scenes in this show, according to a review I read, was to bring two younger women home with him to have a three-way. Disgusting.
No, I don’t want to see Rhodes being sexist and having kinky, weird sex, and certainly not trying to hit on two women at once.
Edit. I found this clip from the “Girls” show. This is not a show I’ve watched before.
I can only go by what I see in this segment, but he’s an angry, yelling jerk who uses the “F” word a lot (a few F-bombs I can handle, but I recoil from liberal use of it), so he’s a total turn-off for me here:
(Link): Chris O’Dowd – Jessa And Thomas Break Up – Fights with Wife Character – Scene from TV show “Girls” (same video embedded in this post):
– scene comes complete with him dancing to some terrible song with the repetitive lyrics of “Pussy Be Yanking” (?)
And that character / those scenes is yet another thing that forever kills the “Bridesmaids” movie for me.
I believe Chris O’Dowd’s obnoxious anti-religious rants (more about that in this post on my blog) were published prior to the release of this movie, if I’m not mistaken.
In this movie (based on a few reviews of it I read online), O’Dowd plays a nasty-tempered butcher who is married to a woman who is having an affair on him.
The movie’s main character, however, is a priest.
In the small number of interviews I saw that O’Dowd gave to promote this movie, I noticed he spoke only respectfully of people of faith. He mentioned something about how when he was a kid, his parents took him to a Catholic Church, where he respected the priests as a kid.
Here is what O’Dowd says in part in that interview (August 2014, “Interview: Chris O’Dowd does funny and serious in ‘Calvary‘“):
His [O’Dowd’s] initial reservations:
“I remember when I learned that John Michael was going to do a film about the priesthood, I was a little wary. I had a very positive relationship with priests when I was young.
I kind of presumed — erroneously, it turned out — that it was going to be a hatchet job on priests. When I read it I was so pleasantly surprised that that wasn’t the case.
I would consider myself an atheist — or as John would call it, ‘a recovered Catholic.’ I felt it was very interesting to have a priest who is a hero in a story where organized religion is often the enemy.”
The cynical part of me says the only reason O’Dowd toned down, or hid, his anti-theist (anti-Christian) atheism while promoting this movie is that he likely felt the target audience for this would’ve been offended by his anti-religious views and stayed away from this movie.
I found this comment by a woman at a Chris O’Dowd fan page on Facebook (which, as of April 2017, had only about ten “Likes,” LOL), and I take it this woman is referring to O’Dowd’s appearance as the butcher character in “Calvary,”
U [Chris O’Dowd] LOOK LIKE A REAL JERK IN YOUR PHOTO…NICE SHOT, NO WONDEFR NO ONE WRITES U…
BESIDES, ANY BUTT HOLE THAT WOULD PLAY A ROLL IN A MOVIE WHERE HE WOULD SHOOT AN “INNOCENT” PRIEST JUST TO TAKE A VENGENCE AGAINST HIM BECAUSE OF ANOTHER PRIEST THAT “DESERVED” IT, IS A REAL JERK IN M BOOK.
I HOPE YOUR CAREER GOES DOWN THE TOILET FOR PLAYING THIS ROLL. JERK!!!!!!!!!
–(( end quote by Kristine K ))–
I don’t know if Kristine K. ever saw O’Dowd as Rhodes in ‘Bridesmaids,’ but in any event, chalk this up to another woman who is unhappy with a role choice by O’Dowd.
Women do not want to see you play a jerk or a sexist, crude creep, O’Dowd (and I don’t like seeing this sort of behavior from O’Dowd in real life, either).
I like how Kristine really rips into the guy and tells him, based on his photo, that he looks like a real jerk. Bravo, Kristine! He doesn’t just look like one, he pretty much is one in real life (see my other post about O’Dowd for more about that).
I don’t know much about this one, and from what little I’ve seen, I don’t want to know more.
O’Dowd plays some kind of sports team mascot in this film called “The Fist.”
This reviewer did not like the “Mascots” movie:
The guys over at A V Club had this to say about it (I have remarks below this long excerpt, so please keep reading):
Mascots, Christopher Guest’s first mockumentary since A Mighty Wind (and first feature as a director since For Your Consideration), offers up an unwieldy cast of familiar Guest-ian buffoons: ditzes, prisses, ignoramuses, bickering couples, over-sharers oblivious to their own eccentricity.
The formula is identical to Waiting For Guffman, Best in Show, and A Mighty Wind: same unseen but often addressed documentary crew; plenty of prop gags and improvised awkwardness; a big climactic to-do; mock-profile character introductions and a “Where are they now?” epilogue.
But to anyone who’s seen the actor-director’s earlier forays into the genre—which is to say, to the target audience of Mascots, the latest Netflix production to bank on over-familiarity and nostalgia—the lack of quality control should be apparent.
The only thing Mascots has to be is laugh-out-loud funny, and yet, most of the time, the only things it elicits are reflexive chuckles and a sense of creeping boredom.
But the Golden Fluffies, as the mascot awards are called, are the sort of idea that might have been a throwaway gag in one of his earlier films. (One can almost picture it as a framed photo and a participation ribbon on a mantle, being pointed out by some proud goofus to the camera crew.) And it’s not even that good of a joke.
As before, Guest starts by introducing the profilees, all hoping to take home the top prize with a showstopping routine: a henpecked philanderer (Zach Woods) and his abusive wife (Sarah Baker); a spacey Southerner (Parker Posey); a former cult member (Chris O’Dowd) who has found his calling as the controversial, hard-partying mascot of a small-town Canadian hockey team….
…O’Dowd’s character, “The Fist,” who lives in an RV beside a Manitoba strip club and occasionally slips into the teachings of his Highway To Heaven-centered upbringing, is the funniest in conception, but gets the least to do.
Via Indie Wire, May 2012:
[Interviewer question]: Just when everyone started thinking you were a nice guy!
[O’Dowd’s reply]: [Laughs] I’m going to be playing two or three dicks in a row! Anyone who found me attractive after “Bridesmaids,” this will undercut all of that! [Laughs]
So I’m delighted about that. I’m an asshole from now on. That’s it.
And I play a character on this show “The Crimson Petal and the White” which will be on Starz this summer, and that one is the worst. I don’t want to give it away, but he’s pretty disgusting. I was single until recently [when he got engaged to Dawn Porter], and now women around the world will be going, “Yeah, that’s okay, because we fucking hate you!”
— (( end excerpt )) —
O’Dowd really shouldn’t be laughing this all off, as though it’s funny and amusing (more on that in a moment, below).
By the way, in that same interview published at IndieWire, O’Dowd says of the “Friends With Kids” movie that he “loved the script.”
He has to be kidding. Please scroll up this page to see my review of “Friends With Kids” – it was such a dreary film, and one that took unnecessary swipes at religious people.
O’Dowd also says (in the article linked above) that his character in “Frankie Go Boom” (what a horrible movie title) is a total jerk, who drowns a live pig for kicks.
3, 2, 1… FRANKIE GO BOOM (2012)
Edit, April 2017:
So, according to reviews of this movie I just looked up, O’Dowd plays a narcissist named Bruce who torments his kid brother over a life time.
Via New York Daily News:
by Elizabeth Weitzman, October 2012
It’s especially disappointing to see O’Dowd — already hugely popular in the U.K. — so poorly used. His charming supporting performance in “Bridesmaids” set him on the right track over here, but he’ll have to choose projects more wisely if he does not want his promising movie career to implode.
–(( end excerpt ))–
Via Blue-Ray site:
by Brian Orndorf, October 2012
Bruce’s [played by Chris O’Dowd] insincerity (and O’Dowd’s brutal American accent) is more disturbing than humorous, infusing the picture with an unintentional grip of mental illness that comes to paralyze the helmer’s storytelling judgment.
–(( end excerpt ))–
by Joel Arnold, October 2012
Far from the pleasant policeman he played in Bridesmaids, O’Dowd leans into Bruce’s self-obsession, and he’s fully believable as the kind of son who would sell his parents’ cars for drug money — and the kind of sociopath who wouldn’t save a pet pig from drowning. (That’s not a metaphor. There’s an actual pig-drowning.)
–(( end excerpt ))–
As someone who is a strong advocate for animal welfare, I am disgusted any time a movie plays an animal’s suffering or death for laughs, even though it’s staged or fake.
I find it deeply disturbing that O’Dowd was willing to go along with this, to film a scene where he is either shown killing an animal, or sitting there passively while an animal is under duress and could use help.
I don’t see the humor in this sort of thing at all, and while my opinion of O’Dowd was already rock bottom when I found out about his atheistic screed against people of faith, finding out he was in a movie where he’s depicted engaging in animal abuse or animal neglect (resulting in the death of an animal, even if it was staged, fake) makes my view of him go even lower.
I didn’t think it was possible for my view of this guy to go even lower than it already was, but there it is.
Good grief, this guy, O’Dowd, is either very bad at choosing film roles, or else it’s slim pickings, so he has to take whatever is offered, no matter how bad it is. Maybe O’Dowd has a career suicide wish?
I have no desire to see the guy who played Rhodes abusing animals in a movie, I pass on that.
How clueless can this guy be.
O’Dowd already had a built-in fan base of sorts via women who found his Rhodes character charming, but then he throws that away by…
By (among other things, this is just a partial list), appearing as a jerk character in other movies, and by acting like an obnoxious, insensitive prick on his social media and in interviews, by insulting conservatives, Republicans, and people of faith, and making the occasional quasi-sexist quip or remark.
REAL LIFE GRATING PERSONALITY – STAND UP COMIC
By the way, O’Dowd has one of those grating personalities in real life – this keeps coming through in various interviews.
When I first read a few of O’Dowd’s interviews or watched them on You Tube, he seemed like an affable kind of guy (this was before I started finding out more stuff about him and finding out what a jerk he is).
If you read or watch O’Dowd in small doses (as I did at first), he does come across as a likable, regular Joe.
But after reading and watching much more as time went by, I’ve realized…
O’Dowd is one of those guys who apparently has to make EVERYTHING a joke.
And it’s so frigging irritating.
And you cannot have a strong, healthy, or lasting relationship with a guy who is “on” all the time, who behaves as though life is one big stand-up comedy routine.
I bet if his wife were to call him to inform him their two year old son Art was run over by a bus and flattened beyond all repair (yes, according to press reports I saw, they named their son ‘Art,’ a name which is guaranteed to get him bullied on school yard playgrounds in the future), he’d probably crack a joke about it, while the wife is sitting there sobbing.
It will be interesting to see how long his marriage to Dawn O’Porter lasts, if he’s like this all the time in private. I would not be surprised to see them get a divorce after several more years together.
O’DOWD TOO ENAMORED WITH CELEBRITY
Also, one of my pet peeves about this guy: O’Dowd is too enamored with celebrity and Hollywood. That is how he comes across.
From what I’ve seen in online entertainment articles that mention him or interview him, O’Dowd seems to think hanging out with other celebrities, getting to meet and greet them at restaurants, at movie premieres, or being in movies is a big deal, but it’s not, in the end scheme of things.
So far as movie-making is a very competitive business, I can respect an actor, such as, say, a Tom Hanks or Tom Cruise, making it to the top of their profession, but these actors put their pants on one leg at a time, just like the rest of us.
I just do not care for people who are overly impressed with being famous, being in show business, or who get too worked up over meeting another famous person. It seems like they are shallow, and their priorities in life are out of kilter.
I wish actors wouldn’t knock type-casting.
I sometimes read about actors getting bored playing the same type of character over and over, but if it’s something the public would prefer to see you do, and you’re good at it, then go for it. Keep doing it.
Actress Marilyn Monroe got tired of movie critics and the public viewing her as a funny, ditzy blond, and they did so because she usually played ditzy women in her comedies.
Towards the end of Monroe’s life, she became even more serious about acting and took acting classes.
Monroe wanted to take on more serious roles and started turning down scripts she felt beneath her. She wanted to ditch comedy and do drama.
Here’s the thing, though – Monroe EXCELLED at playing sweet, funny, ditzy women.
She was talented at it, and very watchable. The public loved her when she was in her “Marilyn” character in movies.
I don’t think Monroe appreciated how very good she was at playing the daffy women she did. And that was what the public wanted to see her as, at least publicly – and there’s really nothing wrong with that.
Monroe may have felt the public or the critics didn’t appreciate her as she truly was, or that she could play serious parts, but you know, I don’t think she appreciated how funny she could be. She seemed to take her talent at comedy for granted.
I’d say some of this holds true for O’Dowd.
I cannot figure out how someone who is capable of playing such a sweet, unassuming character such as Rhodes from ‘Bridesmaids’ feels compelled, or driven, to play sexist, smarmy, or obscene characters in other movies.
As much as I like actress Marilyn Monroe, I would have had no desire to see her go against her type (sweet, funny, ditzy blond) and play serious parts.
I suspect there are a lot of women such as myself who would prefer to see O’Dowd continue on in similar roles as the Nathan Rhodes character.
By playing these trash-talking, sleazy, sexist characters in other movies, O’Dowd has rather sullied the Rhodes character for me, and Rhodes was probably one of my favorite aspects of the ‘Bridesmaids’ film.
Among other things (which I may post about later – here is one other post – and here is the other post), O’Dowd’s willingness to play creeps and jerks in other movies also makes me wonder if he’s not as nice in real life as the guy he was playing on the screen in ‘Bridesmaids’.
O’Dowd should stick to playing friendly, genuine, considerate, non-vulgar characters. -Especially if he hopes to attract or keep any kind of female fan base among movie goers.
To recap, if you thought the Rhodes character from ‘Bridesmaids’ was sweet and thought you’d check the actor out in his other movies and assumed that he’d be just as pleasant to watch in other movies, then avoid the following, because you’ll only be disappointed or horrified:
- Cuban Fury
- This Is 40
- The Sapphires
- Girls (HBO TV series)
- 3, 2, 1 … Frankie Go Boom
- Gulliver’s Travels
- Dinner For Schmucks
- Friends With Kids
(not due to the O’Dowd character per se, but the rest of the movie is dismal, and one wonders how much O’Dowd endorses the anti-theist message in the film, given that he himself is an anti-theist atheist in real life)
CUBAN FURY REVIEW EXCERPTS
Here are some more thoughts about ‘Cuban Fury,’ or O’Dowd’s character, by movie reviewers – they feel the way I do:
Via Reeling Reviews:
… O’Dowd’s funny goes missing when cast as a bad guy.
“Cuban Fury” is like a new sitcom with a great cast that’s so badly conceived and executed it’s yanked after two episodes. Only the genuine sweetness between Frost and Jones and McShane’s wacky casting make this film remotely bearable.
Via One Guy’s Opinion:
But a more serious drawback is the excessive reliance on O’Dowd’s Drew, a singularly unfunny and frequently repugnant fellow who’s more creepy than funny.
The comedic dance-off between them, which is meant to be the movie’s comic highlight, comes off as more peculiar than amusing, especially since despite the obvious physical effort, Frost never convinces as a master dancer.
Drew [played by O’Dowd] is entirely despicable, exuding a kind of insincerity that any real woman would spot from a mile away…
Meanwhile, Bruce’s pal Gary offers plenty of his own distasteful observations about his buddy’s potential love interest, and the supporting characters’ repeated objectification and dehumanization of their female counterparts eventually just becomes gross.
Via Roger Ebert.com:
No full monty, alas, although a pantless O’Dowd does generously show off his saggy green undies while scratching his behind.
Via Roger Ebert.com (by someone who left a comment below the review):
This was an overly generous review, in my opinion.
This is a film that rests so heavily on formula, as you point out, that it’s impossible to view as anything other than hopelessly derivative.
I also wonder if you noted the mean streak in this film; the golfing scene, and the fact that O’Dowd’s character dices with attempted rape.
But, hey, English accents! Not that that’s, as a English person, a little bit patronising or anything.
Via Movie Mezzanine:
…to fall for Bruce’s jerky competitor, Drew (Chris O’Dowd).
O’Dowd plays completely against his previous film roles of aw-shucks gentlemen like in Bridesmaids or Thor: The Dark World.
Drew is vulgar and unpleasant, and of course, also knows how to dance.
In fact, the office scenes drag on a bit and don’t have nearly the punch as the dance-club ones. And O’Dowd (so amusing in things like Bridesmaids and HBO’s Girls) is a tad irksome.
Via A V Club:
Most of the ostensible comedy, meanwhile, is predicated on the sight of a big fat guy trying to be physically graceful—though that’s still preferable to O’Dowd’s unmodulated asshole routine, or to the sorry presence of another dancer (Kayvan Novak) inhabiting every gay stereotype in the book.
Nor is there any particular chemistry between Frost and Jones, whose characters are so lazily written that they have not one but two meet-cutes in which they collide—once while walking down a hallway, then again later when Julia accidentally hits Bruce with her car while he’s cycling.
There’s not an ounce of fury in the entire movie, nor any other strong emotion; it’s the sort of lackluster, amiable, doggedly unambitious film you tolerate when you’re too exhausted to pick up the remote and find something more worthwhile.
Via Madison Movie –
I have a few observations to make about this excerpt from a review by Madison Movie:
“Bruce’s main nemesis is a skeezeball co-worker, played by Chris O’Dowd. After playing so many nice guys in films like “Bridesmaids,” O’Dowd really seems to relish playing the bad guy, and he’s hilarious.”
Granted, I’ve not seen every movie O’Dowd has ever been in, but I’ve seen several and read reviews of the rest.
Online, I even watched an episode or two of some British TV comedy he was on called “The IT Crowd.”
NICE GUY TYPECASTING
Other than ‘Bridesmaids,’ I’ve never really seen O’Dowd play a “nice guy.”
O’Dowd’s character from ‘Thor: Dark World’ (I can’t even remember the character’s name without Googling it) was somewhat nice, I suppose, but that character was on screen so briefly and was so un-defined that he came across as more bland than ‘nice.’
The same can be said for O’Dowd’s role of “Alex” from the horrible and depressing ‘Friends With Kids’ atheist- propaganda- masquerading- as- a- rom- com. He was more bland and un-defined in that film than he was “nice.”
O’Dowd was in some movie some time around 2014 or so where he played a butcher who was married to a woman who kept having affairs on his character. The movie’s main character was a priest. From what I read of reviews of that film (the title of which escapes me), his character was a jerk, angry, and hostile – not the definition of “nice guy.”
So really, other than the cop in Bridesmaids, he’s not had a string of “nice guy” roles, so I’m puzzled that the Madison Movie reviewer or other reviewers think O’Dowd has this long movie resume’ consisting of “Nice Guy” parts. He doesn’t.
It’s just that his depiction of the Nice Cop from ‘Bridesmaids’ was such a stand-out performance (in that he was pretty convincing as being really that nice in that role) that people tend to associate him with that movie and think of him in terms of “nice guy.” (I know I did, and I think that turned out to be a mistake.)
And other than ‘Bridesmaids,’ and maybe ‘Thor 2,’ I don’t think his other movies have been widely viewed. Most people have probably either seen him in ‘Bridesmaids,’ or ‘Thor: Dark World,’ and British audiences would know him from “The IT Crowd.”
I doubt large numbers of Americans saw him in films such as “The Sapphires” or “This Is 40.”
Another point to the writer of the Madison Movie review: if you loved the Rhodes character from ‘Bridesmaids,’ like I did, you’re not going to find it “hilarious” to see “Rhodes” making obscene jokes or acting sexist and using phrases such as “premature ejaculation.” Sorry, but no.