# Is there any chance Chuck & Larry won't be dreadful? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [July 17, 2007, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084 "2007-07-17T03:34:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2007, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084/41 "2007-07-17T15:50:54Z")
[QUOTE=Billdo] For weeks I’ve been afflicted by commercials and previews for I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry. \ First off, there’s the idea that for some pension requirement that would require them to register to save a pension. \ [/QUOTE] That’s offensive enough for me right there. People are going to leave the movie convinced that there is such a requirement for pension or health care benefits, and there isn’t any. As I understand the movie’s contrivance from what I’ve gleaned from the frequent TV commercials, the King of Queens’ guy is trying to get health insurance or pension coverage for his own child, which he can do under all qualified American plans without resorting to the Adam Sandler gay fake marriage. ---
**Author:** ![norinew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb9ed0/32.png) [@norinew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/norinew)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2007, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084/42 "2007-07-17T16:00:37Z")
[QUOTE=Cervaise] I’m gay! I’m gay! [/QUOTE] Trust me when I say you don’t wanna see mine no matter what your persuasion is! I didn’t have much _before_ I lost weight. Now, 140lbs. later, I’m somewhere between an A and a B. Surely nothing to write home about, except possibly in the sens of “Oh, man, you shoulda seen that girls tits; _way_ funnier than any Adam Sandler movie!” 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Hampshire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hampshire/32/4887_2.png) [@Hampshire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hampshire)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2007, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084/43 "2007-07-17T16:02:48Z")
[QUOTE=CJJ\*] Guessing what will occur in this steaming pile will probably be far more fun than watching it. [/QUOTE] And in the end he will finally tell her that he’s not gay and how he feels about her. She’ll get mad and leave. He’ll be heart broken. Then after some music montage where she finds out he did it for all the right reasons she’ll take him back. Fast forward a year to their wedding day where everyone is happy happy and we close with the reception getting underway and everyone is dancing. And Kevin James is dancing really, really funny. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2007, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084/44 "2007-07-17T16:19:35Z")
I think I would rather watch “Master Of Disguise” TWICE again before seeing this… but like Click, when it finally hits cable, I’ll probably turn it on, just to remind myself that there is, in fact, a hell. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2007, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084/45 "2007-07-17T16:26:16Z")
[QUOTE=norinew] I will be shocked, really shocked, if this ends up with anything above 10% fresh on RT. [/QUOTE] It’s at 20% now. But that’s only 5 reviews. It’ll sink like a stone when the real critics weigh in. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2007, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084/46 "2007-07-17T16:32:13Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Without having seen the movie, I’m going to predict that it contains a scene in which Sandler wants to finally tell “the Girl” the truth. He will take her aside and say, “there’s something I really need to tell you.” She will then say she needs to tell him something first. What she tells him will make it harder for him to come clean. She will say “wasn’t there something you wanted to tell ME?” Sandler will then stammer out some mundane comment about liking her hair or her dress. She will not think this is strange. [/QUOTE] You’ve nailed one of the dumbest movie contrivances ever. Has this _ever_ happened in real life? When someone says they have something to tell me, I want to know what it is, immediately. I don’t interrupt and say “ok, honey, but first, I just want to let you know what a great time I had last night and how thrilled I am that we’re going to be getting married and living a long and happy life together, now that you’ve decided once and for all to put your ex-boyfriend behind you and settle down with me. Now what was it you wanted to say to me when you approached me with that really worried look on your face?” ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2007, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084/47 "2007-07-17T16:36:04Z")
Posters for this movie are just plastered everywhere. I was walking down St. Mark’s Place a few days ago and saw one. On it, somebody had taken a Sharpie and written “HOMOSEXUAL PANIC IS FUNNY!” ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2007, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084/48 "2007-07-17T17:12:22Z")
I guess I can submit my screenplay for _Pink Card_ now, which is based on _[Green Card](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099699/)_. At least I \*know \*they do investigate these marriages when it comes to immigration. Hilarity will ensue. ---
**Author:** ![dannyness](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b77776/32.png) [@dannyness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dannyness)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2007, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084/49 "2007-07-17T17:23:43Z")
I’ve been trying to figure out the premise for this as well. From the previews here’s what I can figure out. Kevin James wants to get the beneficiaries on his pension switched over to his kids. Perhaps his ex-wife is a bitch and won’t sign the forms to switch the pension to the children as beneficiaries. So he needs to get re-married so that he can list Adam Sandler as the beneficiary because he trusts Adam Sandler to give the money to the kids. It’s **Green Card** meets **Three’s Company** and as such, hijincks ensue. I have seen situations where your ex-spouse needs to relinquish beneficiary rights before you can change your beneficiary. So that could make sense. While I’ve worked both in insurance and retirement planning, I don’t know the particular laws governing New York where this film seems to be set. ---
**Author:** ![fusoya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecccb3/32.png) [@fusoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fusoya)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2007, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084/50 "2007-07-17T17:25:26Z")
This movie is just ripping off the premise of _The Drew Carey Show_, when Drew married Mr Wick so that he could become a United States citizen, and in return he gave Drew a promotion. There was even an episode where a hot woman came to the house to see if they were really gay. ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2007, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084/51 "2007-07-17T17:37:23Z")
What I don’t understand is why the heck they are promoting it so heavily. My only guess is they want to get whoever they can possibly hook to come in on opening weekend becasue there’s no chance that anyone walking out of the theater will say anything good about it. [QUOTE=I’m Ron Burgundy?] What’s more revolting is that it will most definitely be a hit. THe only time I wasn’t surrounded by laughs during the 6 or so occasions I’ve squirmed through the trailer was in _1408_’s audience. . . . It’s PG-13. It’s got her in a bra. You’re more likely to see frontal nudity from Kevin James. [/QUOTE] When I saw the trailer in a New York City theater, laughs were notably absent, though there may be a bit of a Red State/Blue State divide here. In any event, this seems to me one of those types of movies in which virtually all of the decent laugh lines are put into the trailer. And to all of those panting over Jessica Biel’s tits, I’m willing to bet that you won’t have to wait to rent it to see all you can get – the most you’ll see is what they’ve already shown in the trailer (and even on the TV commercials, for that matter). [QUOTE=Skammer] But, I just wanted to note that, at the large company I work for, you do have to be gay (or opposite-sex if straight) to qualify for domestic partner benefits. You have to sign an affidavit that you are living together “as a married couple.” Non-gay same-sex roommates – or platonic opposite-sex roommates – are not eligible for domestic partner benefits. [/QUOTE] To inject more research than this crapfest deserves, I looked up what the requirements for a New York City [Domestic Partnership Registration](http://nycmarriagebureau.com/MarriageBureau/index.htm?DomesticPartnership.htm) (emphasis added): A domestic partnership may be registered by two people who meet the following requirements: 1. Either both persons are NYC residents or at least one person is employed by the city of New York on the date of registration. 2. Both persons are eighteen years of age or older. 3. Neither of the persons are married or related by blood in a manner that would bar his or her marriage in New York State. 4. _The persons have a close and committed personal relationship, live together and have been living together on a continuous basis._ (Please note: As a practical matter this means both applicants must be able to truthfully state an identical residential address on the application form for the domestic partnership.) 5. Neither of them is currently a party to another domestic partnership or has been registered as a member of another domestic partnership within the last six months. _This local law recognizes the diversity of family configurations, including lesbian, gay and other non-traditional couples._ Notably, this does not require that domestic partners be gay or in a marriage-like relationship – indeed it “recognizes the diversity of family configurations” – but merely requires that they be living together in a “close and committed personal relationship.” Even if there were a requirement like that of **Skammer** ’s company of living “as a married couple”, given the breadth and scope of legally recognized marital relationships out there, including marriages of convenience of various stripes, I doubt that the anyone would really be able get into whether two registered domestic partners living together actually had same sex attraction if they otherwise appeared to be in a “close and committed personal relationship.” Indeed, New York seems to realize that “as a practical matter” the only thing they can really check in this area is whether the domestic partners are living at the same residential address. This, of course, points out the absurdity of sending out an inspector to examine Chuck and Larry’s “gayness.” [QUOTE=norinew] Oh, my 16y.o. daughter **EtherealFreakOfPinkness** and I just _cringe_ at that clip; she’s undressing in front of Sandler’s character, believing him to be gay; okay, I can buy that. Then, she turns around, indicates her breasts, and says “They’re 100% real; want to feel them?” Ummmm, what? In what universe is this an appropriate statement to make to _any_ platonic friend, of any gender or sexual persuasion?? [/QUOTE] More so, in what universe is that appropriate for an inspector employed by a government agency (the City, the Fire Department or who knows)? ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2007, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084/52 "2007-07-17T17:47:20Z")
[QUOTE=Marley23] You know what’s _really_ confusing about this movie? Not why it’s being made or anything - it’s why Alexander Payne has a writing credit. I’m not the biggest fan of _Election_ (I should watch that one again), _Sideways_ or _About Schmidt_, but shit, compared to this? [/QUOTE] I was shocked by this as well, and I love _Election_ & _Sideways_, which Payne co-wrote with Jim Taylor, who is also credited on _INPYC&L_. There is a 3rd writer, though: Barry Fanaro, whose greatest claim to fame was a few seasons of _The Golden Girls_. Yup, a 20-year old sitcom. I can only guess P&T wrote a version ages ago, the skeleton of which still remains (at least enough for the WGA to give them co-credit), but otherwise completely altered by innumerable “touch-ups” and “fixits” to better suit its 2 stars. The trailer is as bad as any I’ve seen this year, so I can’t imagine there being anything good about it (except that the residuals from the film will allow P&T to make an actual good film from the proceeds). Yikes. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2007, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084/53 "2007-07-17T17:54:04Z")
[QUOTE=dannyness] I’ve been trying to figure out the premise for this as well. From the previews here’s what I can figure out. Kevin James wants to get the beneficiaries on his pension switched over to his kids. Perhaps his ex-wife is a bitch and won’t sign the forms to switch the pension to the children as beneficiaries. So he needs to get re-married so that he can list Adam Sandler as the beneficiary because he trusts Adam Sandler to give the money to the kids. It’s **Green Card** meets **Three’s Company** and as such, hijincks ensue. I have seen situations where your ex-spouse needs to relinquish beneficiary rights before you can change your beneficiary. So that could make sense. While I’ve worked both in insurance and retirement planning, I don’t know the particular laws governing New York where this film seems to be set. [/QUOTE] With all due respect, under ERISA I don’t think ex-spouses have any say whatsoever over their ex’s beneficiary designations. CURRENT spouses have a say so, in that the current spouse has to consent in writing to another person being designated as the beneficiary. The only exception would be if the ex was awarded the pension in the divorce, in which case the point is moot because the pension would be the ex’s now and not Kevin James’ anyway. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2007, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084/54 "2007-07-17T18:00:21Z")
[QUOTE=Operation Ripper] Meh, I bet it will be better than a tax audit. [/QUOTE] I’m prepared to wager that _Chuck and Larry_ will be preferable to losing a toe in a blender accident. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2007, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084/55 "2007-07-17T18:35:38Z")
[QUOTE=I’m Ron Burgundy?] It’s PG-13. It’s got her in a bra. You’re more likely to see frontal nudity from Kevin James. [/QUOTE] On the bright side, he does have the larger breasts of the two. ---
**Author:** ![Wee\_Bairn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/90db22/32.png) [@Wee\_Bairn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wee_Bairn)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2007, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084/56 "2007-07-17T18:38:32Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] On the bright side, he does have the larger breasts of the two. [/QUOTE] Good one 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![dannyness](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b77776/32.png) [@dannyness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dannyness)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2007, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084/57 "2007-07-17T18:45:08Z")
> [@](#): > > With all due respect, under ERISA I don’t think ex-spouses have any say whatsoever over their ex’s beneficiary designations. CURRENT spouses have a say so, in that the current spouse has to consent in writing to another person being designated as the beneficiary. The only exception would be if the ex was awarded the pension in the divorce, in which case the point is moot because the pension would be the ex’s now and not Kevin James’ anyway. You are right. I wasn’t remembering it correctly. In the situations I was thinking of the couple was still legally married but were separated. Sorry for my foggy memory. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2007, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084/58 "2007-07-17T19:06:36Z")
[QUOTE=5-4-Fighting] …Hilarity will ensue. [/QUOTE] But will penis? I think we all know the answer. ---
**Author:** ![OneCentStamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/13edae/32.png) [@OneCentStamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OneCentStamp)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2007, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084/59 "2007-07-17T19:14:01Z")
[QUOTE=Cervaise] This movie has Rob Schneider trying to out-chink Mickey Rooney. Take a wild guess whether it’s going suck or not. [/QUOTE] Hey, at least Rob is 1/4 Asian; he _does_ have Mickey out-chinked, however narrowly. Not that that will save this film from being the worst movie of the year. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![Operation\_Ripper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/34f0e0/32.png) [@Operation\_Ripper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Operation_Ripper)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2007, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084/60 "2007-07-17T19:18:45Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] I’m prepared to wager that _Chuck and Larry_ will be preferable to losing a toe in a blender accident. [/QUOTE] Meh, I bet it will be better than a colonoscopy. Had to co-opt a line from C&L for that one. :o [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-chance-chuck-larry-wont-be-dreadful/412084.md?page=4)