I wasn’t surprised to enjoy Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins, which I saw (and paid for) over the weekend. Even if I haven’t really been a fan of Martin Lawrence since his sitcom went off the air, I could tell the movie would be a stupid good time. I’m a not-at-all-secret fan of Mo’Nique (I was really disappointed that Phat Girlz was so tame), and I’ll watch James Earl Jones anytime, especially as a father figure (from Darth Vader to King Jaffe Joffer to Papa Jenkins). I was, however, surprised to like it as much as I did. And apparently I wasn’t the only film writer to think so.

For the New York Times, Matt Zoller Seitz wrote, “it’s a cut above other films of its type.” Jonathan Rosenbaum didn’t quite recommend the movie, but did call it, “a little better than formulaic,” while Slant’s Nick Schager said, “it’s not half bad,” Entertainment Weekly’s Clark Collis called it, “a decent enough way to spend two hours,” and Newsday’s Gene Seymour said it, “grows on you.” Meanwhile Kyle Smith of the New York Post took the words out of my mouth laptop by calling the movie a sure sign of the apocalypse due its being a Martin Lawrence movie he enjoyed. OK, so they aren’t tremendous raves, but considering the movie’s low, 31% critical rating on RottenTomatoes.com, I have to give these guys credit for not simply brushing this one off.

I figure that a lot of film critics review a movie like Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins negatively because they expect it to be bad. Most of them probably already have an idea of what they’ll write before even attending the screening. And then they’re already prejudiced against the thing and so can be neither open-minded nor relaxed enough to possibly laugh. These are the same sort of writers who don’t need to even see There Will Be Blood, because even if they dislike it, they will write about its brilliance anyway. It’s no wonder many newspapers are doing away with their own critical voices and consolidating with syndicated reviews. If a critic isn’t going to have a distinct voice, there’s not much use in him or her.

While I don’t imagine any students in the future writing essays, let alone papers, on how Roscoe Jenkins is a brilliant critique of the falsehood of “reality” shows and their respective “celebrities”, I’m happy to recognize the movie as a great showcase of bold, improvisational comedy. And I have to note it’s a picture that gets away with as much as a PG-13 could possibly allow for (did the MPAA not see the same movie, or did they just not get the jokes?). Sure, it’s got a terribly conventional story, complete with all the cliche trimmings (somebody needs to write a gag about not losing your luggage), but that’s how comedies are. And it’s damn funny, and that’s how comedies should be.