« Tales From the Warner Archives #12: "Two Weeks In Another Town" (Vincente Minnelli, 1962) | Main | Godardism of the day »

February 10, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"in my proposed biopic project Young Kathryn Jean Lopez"

If you're seeking investors, I'm totally there.


Wait a second. Nicole Fucking Kidman is in this thing?

Brian P

I haven't seen it and don't intend to but I'm guessing 'coherently introduced plot twists' is probably exceedingly generous

Glenn Kenny

Not to pick nits, but to say that "[e]ach twist of the rather repellent situation, no matter how ludicrous, is introduced coherently and with little fuss" is not precisely the same thing as praising a film for "coherently introduced plot twists." But no, please, by all means do not see the film.

mark f

Ms. Madison would be in the scenes in which the young K-Lo attempts to change the rules of schoolyard King of the Hill to reflect papal hierarchy. "I don't care who's strongest, the winner is the one with the biggest hat! Last girl there is a pitiable slut!"


So is Nicole Kidman really in this thing? We can get some kind of first person verification?

Chris O.

"...holds her own in the banter and comic timing department."

I wonder how she would fare in something a little more stylized, or period (which she's never done) -- say another Coen Brothers "His Girl Friday" homage. I think she'd do well.

Mr. Peel

Adam Sandler was on Letterman the other night and mentioned without elaboration that Kidman was in the movie. Roger Ebert referenced her in his review. That's all I know.

Ed Hulse

Never mind the others, tell us about Brooklyn Decker. Hubba hubba.


In the pre-internet days, Kidman's appearance would be intended as a surprise, a la Bill Murray in TOOTSIE. It's not just a quick cameo.

BTW, I agree with you (GK) that Aniston acquits herself very well here, playing something closer to herself and not that Type-A, ballbusting harpy she's been doing of late. On the other hand, Abe Burrows and IAL Diamond are probably pin-wheeling in their graves at the wholly extraneous scene where the little boy takes a dump on the sidekick's hand. Sheesh...


I think this review better nails it:

"Just Go With It, by contrast, offers an interminable (and, for our purposes, necessarily incomplete) litany of jokes about breast implants, penile implants, butt implants, erectile dysfunction, irritable bowel syndrome, testicular injuries, erections, masturbation, overweight women, old women, women with big noses, men with big noses, gay men, lazy Hispanic nannies, lazy Hawaiian nannies, sex with sheep, mouth-to-mouth resuscitation of sheep, coconuts rubbed against breasts, coconuts rubbed against crotches, coconuts gripped between ass-cheeks, hands accidentally placed upon boobs, hands accidentally placed in toilets, hands accidentally shit upon, precocious children blackmailing adults, precocious children mimicking cockney accents, and precocious children dropped on their faces in the mud. There is even a scene, unconnected to any other moment in the film, in which an anonymous child hurls a soft drink on the belly of his very pregnant mother. Because, you know, it's funny."



To be fair, the only Adam Sandler movie I have ever seen is "Punch Drunk Love," so it is possible that his other movies are among the funniest ever made. Still I reminded of a possibly apocryphal comment Andrei Tarkovsky made when dealing with the Soviet film bureaucracy after making "Stalker: "I am only interested in the views of two people: one is called Bresson and one called Bergman." A high standard, and Tarkovsky had the benefit that Bresson and Bergman were still alive in 1979, while Lubitsch and Hawks have been dead for decades in 2011. But still, come on people.


Partisan: Did Glenn delete a post that favorably compared the works of Sandler and Aniston to Lubitsch and Hawks? I'm not seeing it.

What I will be seeing is this movie, on Valentine's Day, mainly because the gf wants to, although I've certainly defended Sandler before, quite recently on this site actually. I won't rehash all that (and I haven't seen his post-FUNNY PEOPLE output yet), but let's just say while I'm not particularly heartened by the "litany of jokes" christian quotes from the Atlantic's review, neither am I disheartened, because it's not like no one's ever made a good joke on any of those subjects. Fingers crossed.

Speaking of the Atlantic, do they need proofreaders over there? "Less then two years ago..." Sheesh.


I will say that recruiting supermodels with no acting experience to act strikes me as a salutary phenomenon. Such a casting approach can have its pitfalls (Iman, THE HUMAN FACTOR), but on the whole, I think one of the strengths of the studio system era were all the actors and actresses with no experience whom studios signed simply because they were good-looking, many of whom developed into very good actors. Today, there really aren't any Gene Tierneys working in film, and I think our films suffer for it. If you were making MOGAMBO today, who would you cast? There's no one like Kelly, no one like Gardner, no one like Gable in movies now; anyone that good-looking is in modeling, or TV. You'd end up with Johansson and Portman fighting over Clooney - a decent-looking trio, but one that doesn't at all carry the same sexual charge. The problem, though, with inserting Decker into a film today is that everyone else is so ordinary-looking; 9/10 of the casting's very naturalistic, and then she's not. Whereas in classical Hollywood cinema, only the character actors looked ordinary; you get movies where Jeanne Crain is playing Gene Tierney's plain sister.


jbryant: was my analogy not clear? Apparently not. Ok, Bergman/Bresson::Tarkovsky ergo Lubitsch/Hawks::makers of today's romantic comedies. Or to put it another way, whether or not you like "Clue" or "The Great Muppet Caper" or "Shadows and Fog," (and as it happen I do), or "Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion" or "Everyone says I love you," (and as it happens, they're OK, I suppose) if your comedy, romantic or otherwise, is patently inferior to these movies, why make it?


Partisan: No, I got all that. It's just that you ended with "But still, come on people," which to me implied that some people here were arguing the opposite. Or something. I guess I misinterpreted that. Apologies.

"If your comedy, romantic or otherwise, is patently inferior to these movies, why make it?" Well there's a can of worms. Without opening it all the way, I'll just wonder if following that logic might have led to no comedies made after THE GOLD RUSH or THE GENERAL or THE AWFUL TRUTH or name your poison. I mean, I guess MONKEY BUSINESS is inferior to HIS GIRL FRIDAY, but I'm sure glad we have both (and I doubt you're suggesting otherwise; I think I'm just being dense). :)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Tip Jar

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad