Maybe I'm overreaching, but I feel like action-comedy tends to be a genre that's especially prone to bland genericness. What can be more simple than blending these two genres, neither of which necessarily require any finesse - least of all from its cast? That's not to say that such flicks can't be enjoyable, but it feels like especially in the late 80s and early 90s they began to proliferate, and everybody and their second cousin were getting in on the, er, action. Enter the so-called "Barbarian Brothers," Peter and David Paul, whose skill set was definitely weightlifting more than it was acting; John Paragon, directing his first full-length feature; and writer Jeffrey Kerns, for whom this seems to be their only credit. There's occasional cleverness peppered throughout 'Double trouble,' which would be great if it weren't counterbalanced by a lot of senselessly juvenile humor and otherwise outright dubious writing and direction. This isn't abjectly terrible, but it's also hard to earnestly recommend.
Too much of the comedy relies on the brothers bickering or otherwise carrying on like petulant schoolchildren, or cheapness like a man's posterior being exposed as he bends over, or crass quips about genitalia. In still more instances, too many to count, there's no sense whatsoever of comedic timing; there's no beat between the set-up and the punchline, so the joke rolls on past without making any impact at all. That some gags are reused is no problem in and of itself - repetition of absurdity, executed well, can be a key component of humor - but that repetition is rarely executed well, and it's employed too often.
Stunts, effects, or any bursts of action are done reasonably well, so 'Double trouble' at least has that going for it. Unfortunately, Kerns is a few kernels short of being an adept writer. Plot development is weaker here than in any other title to come to mind that I've seen, with ideas and story beats coming and going with astonishingly little meaningful connection, and sometimes no apparent storytelling logic; things happen because the narrative demands it, not because it's sensible in the course of events. In theory there's a cohesive story underneath that shoddy treatment, but it's hard to tell, and with so spotty a foundation, the dialogue, characters, and scene writing are just as likely to inspire skeptical bewilderment.
Paragon is no paragon of directorial capability, either. Scenes are constantly orchestrated with the same hopelessly unchanging, casual, tactless tenor as the humor, painted with one flat tone no matter what's happening on-screen. (A chief illustration of this is in the failure of characters to react realistically, if at all, to the events transpiring around them, whether an act of violence or an object to interact with. Even internal consistency is thrown under the proverbial bus in this regard.) The same can be said of the acting across the board, and considering some of the supporting cast members appearing here, there can be little mistaking that it's Paragon's guidance of the actors that informs both the utmost lack of color and flavor (the vast majority of the acting), and those instances of pure overacting. This is to say, for example, that whatever one thinks of 'Star Trek V: The final frontier,' it's not unreasonable to argue that 'Double trouble' is probably the worst thing that James Doohan has ever contributed to, and I wonder if the same isn't true of David Carradine, Roddy McDowall, and more. Paragon's inability doesn't wholly excuse the performances, however, for again, the Paul brothers hardly even seem to be trying.
Did I mention how bizarrely repetitive Kevin Nadeau's score is, repeating the same scant few things over and over again? All these many faults might be acceptable if this were a parody of the genre, but to be blunt, it's not smart enough to claim that tack.
If you're desperate for an action-comedy, or just supremely bored or curious, then I suppose there might be a reason to watch this. In fairness, 'Double trouble' is hardly the worst picture you could subject yourself to; again, there are fleeting moments when this seems to carry a minor spark of wit. Such moments are, regrettably, significantly outweighed by flailing, flimsy writing and direction, and performances that actively repel viewer engagement. I didn't have high expectations when I sat to watch, and still I'm a bit flabbergasted by just how poorly this was made. It's not a bad concept, but the end result is too troubled to really bother with in the first place.
