And your garbage, Mr. Valentine. Well, from my experience, it's not very homosexual garbage.

I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry

(2007)

A couple of years back, Adam Sandler pictures appeared to be critic-proof. Sure, there was Little Nicky, but he was a guarantee of $100m+ Stateside (much less in the world at large; he has always been a decidedly US phenomenon). But he’s just come out of a year of flops (Jack and Jill, That’s My Boy) and finds himself required to return to the well of Grown Ups for his first sequel (it should be noted that ‘toon Hotel Transylvania was a success, but we’re talking undiluted Sandler hits).

Chuck and Larry goes back to a period where anything that actor picked seemed to have hit potential. Mossad agent-turned-hairdresser? Hit! Macho firemen-pretending-to-be-gay-lovers? Hit! That’s the premise here, and the result is exactly the kind of bromantic, mildly homophobic attack on homophobia you’d expect from perpetual man-child Sandler. Widower Kevin James persuades the reluctant stud Sandler to pose as his better half in order to claim the necessary benefits (James has two children). Problems ensue as they are subject to a fraud investigation (Sandler films regular Steve Buscemi) and Sandler finds himself attracted to lawyer Jessica Biel (she’ll get those red-blooded man juices flowing, right?). Dan Aykroyd has an enjoyable supporting role as the fire chief while Ving Rhames gets to poke fun at his hard-man image.

The jokes here are mostly incredibly obvious, but that’s par for the course in Sandler films. I don’t especially like or dislike the comedian; he just rarely taps a vein of quality laughs (The Wedding Singer is a rare exception). Still, I’d rather see home mining the same tired shtick than attempting “meaningful” comedy in crap like Funny People. What’s surprising here is Alexander Payne’s (Sideways, The Descendants etc) screenplay credit. But, then, Sandler’s the guy who turned up in Paul Thomas Anderson’s Punchdrunk Love. There’s none of the sophistication that Payne’s name might suggest. This is a film with an extended “Don’t bend over in the shower” soap gag.

But you do get the sense, that for all his “have it both ways” sensibility in mocking what he wants to preach tolerance for, Sandler means well in his own clumsy, exaggeratedly-mincing manner. The tide of casual homophobia that rises towards them once Sandler and James are “out” is believable (even if the rousing finale is fantasyland), and the portrayal of James’ gay son shows awareness of the abuse he will likely receive at school (even if it only addresses this in a victorious moment for the boy). But it’s far too frightened of offending Sandler devotees to show him playing tonsil hockey with James at the climax (the only way this film would actually have been daring would be to have Sandler and James discover they did love each other, as that’s exactly where this kind of set-up would have led in a hetero-romcom).

Ultimately, though, this is no more or less offensive than your typical Sandler comedy. Which is to say, it’s lazily unrefined and thinks any target is a legitimate target. After all, we’re treated to Rob Schneider as a caricature Asian (Mickey Rooney eat your heart out), complete with prosthetics. So even if he thinks he taking one step forward, Adam’s likely taking three back without realising it.

*1/2

Comments

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

Now In Full Color, with a Happier Ending

Search This Blog