Disappointing is an understatement

If you verbalise the title of Mr. Woodcock out loud, does it make you giggle? You see, applying the word "cock" to the title is ostensibly intended to be a humorous entrée to the juvenile, immature main course of laughs to follow. If you don't find the title at all funny (I mean it uses the words wood and cock...isn't it just so original and hysterical?), then it's recommended you give this one a miss. If the title makes you laugh uncontrollably, clearly you have the underdeveloped sense of humour and mental capacity that will therefore allow you to enjoy the trite humour within.

Mr. Woodcock had irrefutable potential. Billy Bob Thornton is an Oscar-winning, first-class character actor who has shown his talents as a comedian and as a serious performer. Highlights of his career include A Simple Plan, Sling Blade, Monster's Ball, Bandits and the excellent dark comedy Bad Santa. Even though Billy Bob handles everything thrown his way with equal aplomb, Mr. Woodcock is one irascible comic character too many and perhaps the actor's biggest misstep of nearly twenty years in front of the camera.

At face value, Mr. Woodcock should be perfect for Thornton. A merciless and hard-assed P.E. teacher with a sizeable sexual appetite? It's hard to imagine any actor but Billy Bob taking this role. Even without seeing the film one can easily imagine Billy Bob Thornton bombarding young children in the head with basketballs or clobbering little boys in the groin with a bat. For the first few minutes of the movie, Mr. Woodcock works. Thornton's sense of comedy is impeccable and his sadism is hysterical. But after a while the single-note movie fails to establish any degree of true depth outside mushiness and clichés. In the space of a few minutes, all potential is irreparably shattered.

The story tracks self-help guru John Farley (Scott) whose latest book has sparked a cult following worldwide. Due to this unexpected success, John's hometown offers him the prestigious honour of the "Corncob Key to the City". Delighted with the notion of receiving such an award, John is more than happy to return home and visit his widowed mother (Sarandon). Alas, upon arrival, John discovers his mother is dating his jackass former P.E. teacher - Mr. Jasper Woodcock (Thornton). Adding insult to injury, Woodcock's harsh and inhumane methods don't faze anyone else...and he's about to be rewarded with the title of "Educator of the Year". John remembers the physical and mental anguish he suffered in high school thanks to Woodcock. After all, Woodcock is a man who delights in torturing students and anyone else who strays within his sphere of influence. He physically beats up his students, he psychologically demeans them as well (calling them names and humiliating them in front of others) and he generally behaves like a total jerk to everyone around him. John doesn't want his mother mixed up with such a man, and sets out to reveal what a jerk Woodcock truly is.

There was a very prolonged and troubled production process for Mr. Woodcock. After initial test screenings were quite negative due to its darker tone, a new director was hired and re-shoots were undertaken. Despite this long process in an attempt to salvage a quality product, the film still fails. With Billy Bob Thornton's prior experience with these types of characters, the screenwriters (first-time screenwriters...by golly it's obvious!) and the director have seemingly left everything up to Billy Bob. As a consequence, the poor actor is left to flounder while cameras capture him doing so. At times, Mr. Woodcock is hilarious. The first few minutes of dark humour (during which Billy Bob physically and emotionally attacks students) provide insight into what the film could've been. It seems these initial few minutes of superior dark humour might've permeated the rest of the film before re-shooting commenced.

Mr. Woodcock fails for two specific reasons. The first (and most significant) flaw is the screenplay courtesy of Michael Carnes and Josh Gilbert. It's the basis for an entertaining film, but a script tidy-up is sorely required. The film is typically an American mainstream studio comedy: clichés breed furiously and predictability abounds. It's a cliché-ridden mess! Seann William Scott's character, John Farley, should have remained the self-helping, uplifting character all the way through. Instead he turns into a total mean-spirited jerk who's impossible to care about. Mr. Woodcock is an awful character. It's stupid, nonsensical, unbelievable and almost offensive that his methods of teaching go unnoticed. The harsh nature of his teaching is illegal. It's not possible for someone to bully students like that while going unnoticed. Every student in his classes would've complained about their treatment to their parents, causing the parents to contact the school and have Woodcock sacked. From experience, I've had bad teachers who got the sack after treating students badly. Compared to Woodcock, these teachers are saints. And it's impossible to think people in the local community just accept such a jerk as Woodcock. He's openly horrible to everyone he meets! He even tells John "I don't do sorry. Sorry is for criminals and screw-ups, and I'm neither one". Uh huh...

The lovely and gracious Susan Sarandon is given a terrible character to work with. What could possibly prompt her to love Woodcock? What do the whole town see in Woodcock? Everyone in the film is an idiot - from the main characters to the supporting players, to John Farley's old friends and the little cretins in a burger joint. The script offers two cruel characters vying for the honour of being the biggest asshole in town. All the dramatic mush should have been axed. Billy Bob Thornton's golden moments as a gym teacher should've been further exploited. If his character hasn't been given the sack for his awful teaching methods, there should at least be additional moments of utter hilarity showcasing Woodcock abusing students in amusing ways. The right actors have been placed in the right roles, but the writing lets them down.

The other substantial problem with the film is the diluted content for the acquisition of a PG-13 rating from the MPAA for heightened ticket sales. If Billy Bob Thornton is playing a mean-spirited, bitter old gym teacher (almost a facsimile of his character from School for Scoundrels) then a few f-bombs and other obscenities must be used. Billy Bob is simply a poet when it comes to profanity. Bad Santa, for example, wouldn't be as brilliant if it weren't for the foul language and explicit content. If that form of dark humour pervaded Mr. Woodcock we'd have a Bad Santa clone...but at least it'd be a fun and enjoyable clone as opposed to this depressing nightmare. There are sub-plots of a heavy sexual nature, and adhering to a family-friendly rating further handicaps the film. In a PG-13 guise, Mr Woodcock is far too tame to be interesting given the nature of the central character. For its short runtime, the film is too bland and meek to be enjoyable. It isn't memorable, and you won't want to watch it again. You'll forget you even saw the film merely hours after watching it.

Seann William Scott basically plays an adult version of Steve Stifler; reprising his American Pie chore of complaining about his mother having sex with someone. Billy Bob appears to sleepwalk...well, sleepact throughout the film. Susan Sarandon is mediocre at best. There's also Ethan Suplee who appears to be putting in an effort, and Amy Poehler who tries but is underused as the film's voice of reason.

Mr. Woodcock had considerable potential, but at the end of the day it's a cheap by-the-numbers Hollywood comedy that lacks bite. The actors try their hardest, but are let down by the mundane screenplay. There's no excuse for anyone to waste their time on this fluffy piece of crap. Not the cast + crew who poured so much effort into it, nor the studio who misused money to fund this, or the audiences forced to endure this irritating experience. It's only more depressing to think of all the endless delays, re-shoots and different directors who tried to do something with it. It's occasionally enjoyable and it passes the time, but it could've been so much more. 40% of the film is watchable (sometimes worthy of a chuckle), but the other 60% makes it too hard to recommend.

3.8/10