Movie Experiment: Do I Remember the Movie 'Man of the House?'

Man of the House

Directed by Stephen Herek

Written by Robert Ramsey, Matthew Stone, John J. McLaughlin

Starring Tommy Lee Jones, Christina Milian, Cedric The Entertainer, Anne Archer

Release Date February 25th, 2005

Published February 23rd, 2005

Some movies aren’t made to be remembered. Most movies, in fact, are not memorable. You’ve likely forgotten most of the movies that you have seen in your life. Does this mean those movies were bad? Not necessarily, but it doesn’t speak well of those movies. I would much rather have a memorable experience than lose two hours of my life to something that is not going to linger in my mind beyond the time I spent with it. All of this is to say that I saw and wrote about the movie Man of the House in 2005 and even revisited it for a podcast. And yet, when I tried to recall the movie, it was nearly impossible.

Man of the House is such a desperately forgettable experience that trying to recall it is an effort, and probably not worth such effort. So, I decided to try an experiment. Without consulting my previous review and fighting with my own memory, I am going to try and recall the experience of Man of the House. Then I will actually watch this trivial movie while consulting my original and podcast reviews of the movie just to see whether I am capable of recalling a movie that does not ask to be remembered.

Recalling the Premise

Man of the House centers on Tommy Lee Jones as a Texas Ranger? Or, perhaps just some more general law enforcement officer. He’s investigating a crime that leads him to a group of cheerleaders on the campus of the University of Texas. The members of the cheerleading team have witnessed a crime committed by the criminal that Jones is searching for. In order to catch the criminal and keep the criminal from murdering the cheerleaders to keep them from testifying against him, Tommy Lee Jones must go undercover as the ‘Man of the House,’ a cheerleading coach who also lives with the cheer team so he can protect them.

Over weeks and months of protecting the cheerleaders, Tommy Lee Jones’s gruff exterior is worn away to reveal a big softy. He bonds with the cheerleaders, they teach him to be nicer and he teaches them how to defend themselves and value themselves. But will going soft cause Tommy Lee Jones to lose sight of why he’s with the cheerleaders in the first place? Will he miss a key piece of evidence that puts everyone at risk and forcing him to save the day?

Also part of the plot is a fellow cheerleading coach played by Cedric The Entertainer who becomes Jones comedy sidekick, handling the pratfalls and silliness that the dignified, stoic, Academy Award winning tough guy refused to do. And then, there is Ann Archer, the age appropriate love interest. Tangentially related to the cheerleading team, she’s skep[ical of their new Coach but begins to fall for him as he becomes nicer to the cheerleaders and more supportive and protective of them.

The film comes to a head at a Texas University football game where Jones knows that the bad guy is there and may be trying to hurt the cheerleaders. But it’s also the big game and the girls refuse to not be on the sidelines performing. So, Tommy must dress up in his full cheerleading coach uniform and protect his cheerleaders while proudly watching them nail the many routines they’ve been working so hard on while he watched and tried not to be impressed with. Something, something, the bad guy is caught, the girls are safe, lessons are learned all around.

Actually watching the movie and the actual plot of Man of the House

So, how did I do? Not bad, I was right that Jones was a hard nosed Texas Ranger and that he learned to like and respect cheerleading. The idea isn’t bad, the taciturn Tommy Lee Jones versus a bunch of giggly cheerleaders is a natural idea for opposing comic energies. But Man of the House has no ambition. Man of the House begins and ends with the idea that it is inherently funny to have Tommy Lee Jones pretend to be a cheerleading coach to a diverse group of stereotypical cheerleaders.

It’s all premise and no movie. Jones delivers professional work, as he always does and nothing about Man of the House, aside from the bizarrely boring performance of Brian Van Holt as a tertiary villain, is truly bad. The problem is that nothing is very good either. None of the jokes in Man of the House have any zing to them. The punchlines are telegraphed in the premise. He’s tough and gruff and they are girly and giggly, how will they ever get along? Ugh! It’s like a TV show from the seventies that lasted three episodes and was cancelled.

So, what does this all mean?

I was able to remember enough of Man of the House to tell you the very basic elements of the plot. I didn’t remember it well, I had completely forgotten the villains. These are not memorable baddies aside from Brian Van Holt who is only memorable because his performance is the only truly bad performance in the movie. The takeaway lesson, for me, is that not all movies are meant to be memorable. Some movies are merely disposable products to be consumed and disposed of. Man of the House is not supposed to be memorable, it served its purpose by existing, earning money, and disappearing into the dustbin of history.

Find my archive of more than 24 years and more than 2000 movie reviews at SeanattheMovies.blogspot.com. Find my modern review archive on my Vocal Profile, linked here. Follow me on Twitter at PodcastSean. Follow the archive blog on Twitter at SeanattheMovies. Also join me on BlueSky. Listen to me talk about movies on the I Hate Critics Movie Review Podcast. If you have enjoyed what you have read, consider subscribing to my writing on Vocal. If you’d like to support my writing, you can do so by making a monthly pledge or by leaving a one time tip. Thanks!