Yeah, but which 1/4? Hey now.
No. Because you get to get high at most colonoscopies.
And if you’re lucky, short-term memory loss.
I think that this movie is going to be far more offensive in its dealings with heterosexuality by showing that straights will do anything including lying and stealing to get benefits that don’t rightfully belong to them. It’s going to create these stereotypes and bigotry, and penis, will ensue.
Seriously, it’s just a movie. Most likely a really, really, really crappy one. I’m not going to slap a “naughty Hollywood AGAIN” label on this one either as that’s a cheap cop-out. Hell, even Adam Sandler’s movie “Big Daddy” had a gay couple in it that were definitely not fulfilling the stereotypes. As for indy films, take a look some gay-made movies like “Lie Down With Dogs” and see some stereotypes. Let’s can the hyperbole and just mark this as a crappy movie.
To answer the OP, no. There is absolutely zero chance that Chuck and Larry won’t be dreadful.
This is, in fact, exactly how it works. The more insistently the advertising says “opening this weekend, you gotta see it, you gotta see it,” the less faith the studio has in the movie, and the more they want to pump up the opening before the inevitable dropoff. Take into consideration, also, the fact that box-office revenue division is heavily weighted toward the distributor (i.e. the studio for a movie like this) when it opens, and slide slowly toward a more equitable arrangement (sharing with the exhibitor) only over several weeks of a movie’s run. Based on these factors, it makes sense why the studio would want to make as much money as possible up front, before dumping the product on the new-release shelf at Blockbuster in a couple of months. Plus, with that ever-shrinking pause before video release, the heavier the saturation advertising, the less the studio will have to remind anybody what the movie is when it goes to DVD 90 days later.
I have to take exception to this, because the real-world BO reality is that whether a studio has faith in a movie or not, virtually all mainstream studio films live or die off of the opening weekend. Films very rarely have time to grow legs anymore, so if a high-visibility film (good, bad, edgy, commercial) doesn’t make an immediate splash, it’s labeled a “disappointment”, “failure”, etc.
Sure, positive word-of-mouth can boost a film that doesn’t find an audience, but that WoM has to happen fastfastfast, because within just a couple of weeks, more studio films are jockeying for position at the local megaplex, and if they have even half-a-reason to bump a film to free up a screen, they’re likely to do it. Even though things aren’t much rosier for indie/arthouse/foreign/doc releases, at least those distributors know that a limited release, high per-screen average, and gradual buzz can slowly allow a darkhorse to insinuate itself into the public’s consciousness if given enough time. But the studios are rarely that patient (and usually don’t think they can afford to be).
I’d say the killer indication is if a film hasn’t even been screened for critics by its Friday opening, and that’s certainly not true for C&L.
True enough. The opening weekend is absolutely king. The distinction I meant to make — about whether the studio thinks the movie is good enough to have any kind of staying power — is probably better seen by comparing the timing of the various components of the ad campaign. In this case, advertising was almost non-existent a few weeks ago; the campaign basically exploded at the last minute. And I can almost guarantee that they’ll disappear as of Sunday; there will be maybe a handful of those “now playing” spots in the first weekdays and a small surge of “#1 comedy in America” for the second weekend, and then that’ll be it, the studio will give up. By comparison, for some movies, the studios do make something of an effort to draw viewers after the initial big opening (see the campaign for Dreamgirls, for example, which of course is a very different movie but still presents an instructively different marketing approach). Movies like this, though, if the advertising is big and loud and very sudden, and then vanishes, you know how the studio sees the product.
I’ll bet it would be better than having abdominal surgery with inadequate anesthesia.
ooops, wait, I’ve done that and it wasn’t as painful as might be imagined. Maybe I’ll skip the movie. For some reason, JB’s tits really don’t do it for me…
Ah, but would you wager it’ll be better than a really bad fall in a cheese-grater factory?
Depends. Am I wearing clothes when I fall?
Listen, dude, I don’t want to know what you’re doing running around naked in a cheese-grater factory. Just don’t let OSHA catch you, or we’ll all be in trouble.
To be fair, one could say the same thing about Some Like It Hot, once of the funniest comedies ever made. But then, Sandler and James are not Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon, and Jessica Biel certainly isn’t Marilyn Monroe. Dennis Dugan isn’t Billy Wilder, and while I’m not really familiar with the work of screenwriter Barry Fanaro, I’m going to guess that he’s no equal to I.A.L. Diamond.
So yeah, given the principals, it’s pretty certain that Chuck & Larry will blow chunks.
I can’t raise an intense hatred, but I also don’t understand what is so allegedly appealing about her? She’s pretty in a plasticine sort of way, but in everything I’ve ever seen her in she has the screen presence of a potato.
Dude, check out the writing credits on John Sayles sometimes. Hell, even master playwrights like David Mamet and Tom Stoppard have some black marks on their c.v. Sometimes you just have to bring home a paycheck, art be damned.
Stranger
In fairness to I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry, it appears to be a fricking masterpiece compared to License to Wed, as measured by either the Rotten Tomatometer or the previews.
According to Rotten Tomatoes, the movie weighs in at 2 hours and 20 minutes.
Maybe so, but it’s also a ripoff of Strange Bedfellows, as mentioned in post #23. The degrees of separation are tracked here:
I feel really bad for John Krasinski.
Just a clarification: KJ is a widower, and for reasons that make no sense whatsoever, if he dies his kids will not get his death benift unless he is married / partnered.
(just want to clarify the premise)
FYI, I will not watch teh movie, I will not rent the DVD, I will not Pay Per view, and probably won’t watch it if it gets on free TV.
Brian
Nah, I’ve seen it and it’s only 30 seconds long.
Oh… New Sig line? May I?