The Three Stooges The Movie: What Most People Get Wrong About This Reboot

The Three Stooges The Movie: What Most People Get Wrong About This Reboot

Honestly, walking into a theater in 2012 to see a modern take on Moe, Larry, and Curly felt like a recipe for a headache. Not the funny kind where a mallet hits a forehead with a perfect "clonk" sound effect, but the kind where you watch a beloved childhood relic get mangled by the Hollywood machine. Everyone expected a train wreck.

It wasn’t.

🔗 Read more: Patti LaBelle Isn't It a Shame: The Song That Proved Soul Doesn't Have to Be Loud

Actually, The Three Stooges the movie is one of the weirdest anomalies in recent comedy history. It’s a film that shouldn’t work—a 1930s vaudeville act dropped into the era of the iPhone and Jersey Shore—and yet, it’s arguably the most faithful tribute ever produced for the trio. But people still get a lot wrong about why it exists and why it looks the way it does.

The Decade-Long Casting Nightmare

You’ve probably heard the rumors. For years, this wasn't going to be the movie we eventually got. Peter and Bobby Farrelly, the guys behind Dumb and Dumber, spent over ten years trying to drag this project out of development hell. At one point, the cast was set to be a roster of heavy hitters that sounds like a fever dream today.

Imagine this: Sean Penn as Larry, Benicio del Toro as Moe, and Jim Carrey as Curly.

Carrey was reportedly ready to pack on 40 or 50 pounds to match Curly Howard’s physique. Then Penn dropped out to focus on his humanitarian work in Haiti. Carrey eventually bailed too, worried that the weight gain was too much of a health risk. Basically, the "A-list" version of the movie died so the "authentic" version could live.

Instead of movie stars pretending to be Stooges, the Farrellys ended up casting guys who could actually be the Stooges. Chris Diamantopoulos, Sean Hayes, and Will Sasso weren't household names at the time, but they were chameleons.

Why the Slapstick Actually Works (Technically)

The biggest misconception is that the movie just "copied" the old shorts. It didn't. It meticulously reconstructed the physics of them. If you watch closely, the timing of the eye pokes and the double-slaps is frame-perfect compared to the original Columbia Pictures shorts.

The actors didn't just show up and wing it. They spent months in "Stooge camp."

  • Chris Diamantopoulos (Moe): He used a specific, aggressive vocal register that mirrored Moe Howard’s exactly, right down to the nasal "Why, you!"
  • Sean Hayes (Larry): He captured the "human doormat" energy that Larry Fine was famous for.
  • Will Sasso (Curly): Perhaps the hardest job of all. Sasso didn't just do the "Nyuk-nyuk-nyuk"; he nailed the specific way Curly moved his feet and the high-pitched "woo-woo-woo" that came from the back of the throat.

The Farrellys even kept the sound effects traditional. When someone gets hit with a wrench, you hear that classic, metallic ping from the 1940s library, not a realistic bone-crunching sound. It’s a cartoon brought to life.

That Weird Jersey Shore Subplot

Okay, let's address the elephant in the room: the Jersey Shore cast.

A lot of critics absolutely hated this. They saw it as a cheap way to make the movie "relevant." In the film, Moe ends up joining the cast of a reality show, poking Snooki in the eyes and causing chaos in the hot tub. It feels jarring. It's meant to.

The Farrellys’ logic was actually kinda smart, even if it didn't land for everyone. They wanted to show that the Stooges haven't changed, but the world has. By putting the Stooges next to the "stars" of 2012, they highlighted how timeless (and bizarre) the Stooges' brand of idiocy really is. It was a clash of two different types of "lowbrow" culture.

📖 Related: Where to Watch Friday Night Tykes: Why This Texas Football Saga is Still Worth the Stream

Box Office Reality vs. Public Perception

People talk about The Three Stooges the movie like it was a massive flop. It wasn't. It didn't set the world on fire, but it did okay.

The production budget was roughly $30 million. It pulled in about $44 million domestically and finished with a worldwide total of around $54.8 million. When you add in the DVD and Blu-ray sales—which were substantial because the movie became a "babysitter" film for parents who wanted something safe-ish for kids—it actually turned a profit.

It wasn't a blockbuster, but it was successful enough that a sequel was actually announced in 2015. C3 Entertainment (the company that owns the Stooges brand) was pushing for it, and the main trio was signed to return. But as these things go in Hollywood, the project eventually stalled out during the pandemic and has been in limbo ever since.

Why It Still Matters Today

Most reboots try to "gritty up" the source material or make it edgy. The Farrellys did the opposite. They made a PG movie that felt like an earnest, sweet love letter to three Jewish comedians from the Depression era.

It acknowledges the "violence" in a way that’s almost meta. At the end of the film, two "producers" (actually the Farrelly brothers themselves) come on screen with rubber props to explain to kids that nobody actually got hurt. It’s a weird, fourth-wall-breaking moment that shows how much they cared about the legacy.

If you’re looking for a deep cinematic masterpiece, this isn't it. But if you want to see three actors pull off a miraculous impersonation that transcends mere parody, it's worth a re-watch.

What to do if you're a fan:

  1. Watch the "Episodes": The movie is actually structured into three short episodes, mimicking the old 18-minute short format. Watch it that way—take breaks between the "chapters" to get the intended pacing.
  2. Compare the Foley: Pull up an old 1934 short like Punch Drunks and then watch the hospital scene in the 2012 movie. The audio cues are nearly identical.
  3. Check out the "Biopic" instead: If the slapstick of the 2012 movie is too much for you, look for the 2000 TV movie The Three Stooges starring Michael Chiklis as Curly. It’s a drama about their real lives, and it’s surprisingly heartbreaking.

The 2012 movie is a time capsule of a specific moment when Hollywood tried to bridge the gap between vaudeville and the digital age. It’s clumsy, it’s loud, and it’s occasionally brilliant. Just like the real Stooges.