It would be easy to overthink "Starsky & Hutch." This is a profoundly unambitious movie, a '70s cop show spoof that aims to provoke a few giggles, and that's about it.

Still, as you watch, you may not be able to stop those inner voices from asking: What's the point? Who is this movie for...40-year-olds who grew up watching that dumb show? They don't exactly represent the key demographic for goofball comedies. And teens won't get the cultural references.

Ah, stop analyzing, fussy critic man! Did you laugh?

Sure. Sporadically.

OK, then. You hardly laughed at all at "Zoolander," which also starred Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson.

True. But you're not raising the bar very high. This is a movie built around one fairly funny hook: Stiller and Wilson are "Starsky & Hutch." For those who remember the show, replacing Paul Michael Glaser with Stiller and David Soul with Wilson makes for a good sight gag. But that's an idea to carry a sketch or pictorial spread, not an entire movie.

Don't be a killjoy. The hook gets you to funny places, like that bit with shooting the iguana's tail off - and the ensuing discussion of tail regeneration - or the scene with the pony.

That's two cruelty-to-animals gags. Classy.

Did you laugh?

Um, uh … (cough, cough)

Thought so. And what about that bit with Will Ferrell as the prison inmate who, in exchange for information, demands that Hutch be a "dragon"?

Give away all the funny parts, why don't ya?

I didn't even mention when Hutch sings -

Stop!

And, c'mon: Snoop Dogg as Huggy Bear. Funny.

Snoop Dogg as Huggy Bear is funny - slightly - only to us oldsters who remember that Huggy Bear was the cops' informant on the original stupid show. And Snoop Dogg is no natural comedic actor.

Don't be doggin' Snoop.

Look, "Starsky and Hutch" was never one of the great '70s cultural touchstones, like, say, "The Brady Bunch" or even "Charlie's Angels." I can defend the "Brady Bunch" movies because they played off of the way that show warped an entire generation.

And the "Charlie's Angels" movies could be sold to modern audiences by having Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu dish out the cheesecake while blowing stuff up. Need I mention that those movies weren't exactly good?

The TV "Starsky and Hutch" isn't worth spoofing, and director Todd Phillips ("Old School") and his gang of writers don't provide enough action to get the thrill-o-meter going. So where does that leave you?

You get to see Stiller and Wilson puttin' on the funny. That Wilson is one droll dude.

Yeah, though he does the same slacker-surfer bit in almost every movie. I didn't realize Hutch was almost identical to Wilson's crooked gunsman in "Shanghai Noon." What's the point of making Hutch corrupt?

Oh, now you want fidelity to the "stupid show"?

And by now, Stiller might as well play the uptight guy in his sleep. Him disco-dancing intensely here isn't much different from him salsa-dancing intensely in "Along Came Polly." And that movie stank.

OK, score one for you.

And Carmen Electra's acting …

Don't even go there. But how about Vince Vaughn, eh? Isn't it nice to see him cut loose as the mutton-chopped drug dealer the duo is trying to nab?

Sure.

And his scheme to sell "new coke" …

There, you gave away another one. You know, there aren't that many laughs left.

Sorry.

That's the problem, you know. "Starsky & Hutch" works only as a string of gags. It's not like you ever feel anything resembling suspense or true involvement with the characters or story.

Your point?

If a movie rises and falls solely on the basis of its laughs, it better have a lot of them. "Starsky & Hutch" doesn't. It's no "The Naked Gun."

True.

It's no "The Naked Gun 2-1/2."

I get it.

It's not even -

OK, OK, do you have to get the last word?

Of course. I'm the critic.