Originally posted by Blswylde: I owuld like to apoligize for the negative homosexual statements, I realize that I should have left my personal opinions to myself and wrote a nonbiased review more centered towards the movie and not the views it represented, this entire discussion has honestly shone new light on the subject for me and I just want to say i'm sorry to the people I offended
Blswyde, it's nice enough to apologise, but do you hear what you're really saying?
Maybe you should aknowledge that your opinions are despicable and not acceptable whether you're a Christian or not. Dude if you really feel the way you've indicated here, you should seek out some knowledge. Don't apologise for being a bigot, seek help for being one. I really hope the negative criticism you've rec'd here has opened your eyes.
Posts: 751 | Location: Nova Scotia | Registered: 31 May 2006
Well, to get back on topic, this movie stunk so badly, I actually started to gag! I wanted to stop the pain (it was a bootleg) well before they even introduced Jessica Beal, but the wife wanted to finish it. She wasn't laughing either, she just wanted to see where it was going. (Or so she says.) I wasn't expecting much, but what the crap?
I haveta disagree with Blswylde. Gays are NOT shown in a positive way at all! Every, single homosexual was a Wayans Brother skit. Not all gays are flamboyant & if I were gay, I'd have been pissed. There was an uproar over "Basic Instinct" because they thought it was saying lesbians are insane & unstable, but it was just a woman who loved sex with anybody & murder was her climax. "The Silence of the Lambs" was picketed because they thought it made gay men look insane, but it was just an insane serial killer making a suit outta women's skin, not a gay dude. But, none were upset at THIS movie for making every gay act like a pansy? I know some gays who hate those that behave that way! I KNEW they were going to make Ving Rhames gay, but why was he cool until he came out? Why couldn't he have been like James Gandolfini in "The Mexican"? At least HE had some friggin' dignity! When Julia Roberts discovered he was gay, he didn't suddenly start fluttering his eyelashes, flipping his wrists, or get up & begin prancing around.
They tried to get you to care about them by having protesters show up to interupt all of the fun gays seem to enjoy, but it was forced. Note the close up on the cowering/crying couple so you could see the results of Rob Corddry's assault. I guess if we never saw those 2, we'd never understand just how mean he was since it didn't seem to bother anyone else in the group. At least not THAT much. There wasn't a single gay character that was anything beyond being a stereotypical gay, so there was no one to care for. Adam Sandler's "enlightenment" was also riduculously forced. At first he's all "faggot talk", but when he's called one he's gotta kick your @ss. So, by the end, he's learned that it is a terrible word & he gets applause for learning a lesson . To tell you the truth, I half expected Chuck & Larry to stay together at the end.
The story was also terrible & just as stupid as Sandler's other movies. I mean, if you were having problems with your pension, would you go so far as to marry your best friend of the same sex & then lie under oath? They actually tried to make it look like these guys were heroes because, instead of telling the truth, they kept up the lie. They didn't even come clean on their own! And, of course, NO PENALTIES for anyone! This happens in EVERY Sandler film with a courtroom scene! The audience is always loud & talkative and the guilty always go free no matter what evidence is against them or how much they just confessed.
How does he keep getting to make this crap? Why are we even still looking to SNL for funny movie stars? Good SNL movies are few & far between. Success stories, like Will Ferrell, are rare these days. Most of the time, we end up with another Dana Carvey or Jimmy Fallon when we need a Bill Murray or an Eddie Murphy. Why doesn't anyone tell him that people hollaring lines for no reason is not funny? You know what I'm talking about, like in "The Longest Yard" they kept going to Rob Schneider in the stands saying stupid crap like "Group hug in the shower tonight!" or in "Happy Gilmore" when they had the most non-acting-est dude hollar "That jacket's yours, Happy! Shooter's gonna choke!" In this movie it was Nick Swardson, the dude that plays a gay prostitute (Terry) in "Reno:911". Not only all of that, but they made Adam Sandler a sex object desired by every woman in New York. In fact, that was the main reason I wanted to shut it off at first. If there is one thing Adam Sandler is NOT, it's a ladies man. The man has no frikkin' charisma! In short: This movie is Terrible. Just terrible.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Monkey_Boy,
"I can't live the buttoned down life like all of you! I want it all: the terrifying lows, the dizzying highs, the creamy middles! Sure, I might offend a few of the blue-noses with my cocky stride and musky odor - oh, I'll never be the darling of the so-called 'City Fathers' who cluck their tongues, stroke their beards, and talk about what's to be done with this Monkey_Boy?!"
Posts: 2499 | Location: Springfield, Oh! Hi ya, Maude! | Registered: 01 January 2007
Speaking of people who inexplicably get to keep making movies...
That's what I meant when I asked, "Why are we even still looking to SNL for funny movie stars?" They're like children who've been given permisson to do whatever they want! They get together & make crap that's funny to them, not to anyone else. Isn't their job to make US laugh? I think some folks need to be fired.
"I can't live the buttoned down life like all of you! I want it all: the terrifying lows, the dizzying highs, the creamy middles! Sure, I might offend a few of the blue-noses with my cocky stride and musky odor - oh, I'll never be the darling of the so-called 'City Fathers' who cluck their tongues, stroke their beards, and talk about what's to be done with this Monkey_Boy?!"
Posts: 2499 | Location: Springfield, Oh! Hi ya, Maude! | Registered: 01 January 2007
I think you may have missed the entire point. The movie was basically poking fun at all gay stereotypes. This is why there was no uproar because most people picked that up. Like a straight man marrying another straight man to get his benifits or pension, never going to happen, hense the idea is silly or funny.
This is a decent comedy with a few laughs but apparently to subtle for some to notice. Movies are movies, not reality, so if you cant go to a movie without being offended or thinking someone should be, then stay home and listen to Kanye West. He will bitch and moan for you.
I think you may have missed the entire point. The movie was basically poking fun at all gay stereotypes. This is why there was no uproar because most people picked that up. Like a straight man marrying another straight man to get his benifits or pension, never going to happen, hense the idea is silly or funny.
Not really, but okay. I don't think it was "making fun of gay stereotypes" as much as it was saying this is how ALL gays are. If it was supposed to be "silly and funny", why add all of the sentimental stuff? Ya know, like the part with the "holy" man condemning the gays or the courtroom scene when they counted up how many "animals in nature are gay". After making each gay character an unsympathetic stereotype, they try to get you to suddenly care about their "plight to be accepted". Honestly, I laughed that they would go that far in this movie.
quote:
This is a decent comedy with a few laughs but apparently to subtle for some to notice. Movies are movies, not reality, so if you cant go to a movie without being offended or thinking someone should be, then stay home and listen to Kanye West. He will bitch and moan for you.
Oh, the jokes weren't subtle, they just weren't funny. Apparently, you've never read any of my other posts, I'm the last guy who takes a movie seriously. (Especially an Adam Sandler flick.) I was judging this movie on its entertainment value, which it has NONE. My post wasn't "bitching and moaning", but my reasons for not being able to enjoy it. The characters were awful, the story was ridiculous-- I mean, come on! HONESTLY, who would go so far as to pretend to be gay for pension benefits? He didn't have a FEMALE friend he coulda tried it with first? It woulda been easier to fool the state to get what he wanted.-- the movie just stunk! It's not about being offended at all. I wasn't offended, I was bored. I was just shocked there wasn't a gay uproar because of how many times I've heard they're tired of being stereotyped. They picketed "Basic Instinct", why not another movie that makes them look awful in the public eye? Or have they given up trying to convince Hollywood that a Wayans brother's sketch isn't really a model on how gays behave?
"I can't live the buttoned down life like all of you! I want it all: the terrifying lows, the dizzying highs, the creamy middles! Sure, I might offend a few of the blue-noses with my cocky stride and musky odor - oh, I'll never be the darling of the so-called 'City Fathers' who cluck their tongues, stroke their beards, and talk about what's to be done with this Monkey_Boy?!"
Posts: 2499 | Location: Springfield, Oh! Hi ya, Maude! | Registered: 01 January 2007