Admittedly, I am not a fan of Adam Sandler movies. In fact, I don't believe I've ever seen more than about 5 minutes of anything he's done since his smugly-annoying SNL days. The previews show me enough of his smirky, frat-boy antics that I have no need to suffer through the actual 90 minute version. I must also admit that someone obviously likes him, since his assembly line, fart-joke films are
usually quite profitable, at least in the US.
He's got a new film coming out soon,
Click, a sappy comedy that seems to combine the plots of
It's A Wonderful Life with
A Christmas Carol. Sandler's character is a workaholic, he's neglecting his wife and kids and parents, and when he gets a magical universal remote that can pause or fast forward or rewind reality, he starts skipping over the crappy parts of his life, and soon finds himself old, alone, abandoned, and dying in misery, before the obligatory cheesy/cheery ending. I won't see it, ever, and from what most of the critics are saying, I won't be missing much. (
40% rating on Metacritic,
24% positive on RT.) Two samples::
One: It's an unimaginative, mean-spirited affair that makes you hate yourself for laughing at it, and it's so devoid of anything close to wit, subtlety or sophistication that it stands as damning evidence that Hollywood has surrendered wholesale to stupidity and crassness.
Two: I didn't just not like Click, the new movie where Adam Sandler plays a Jim Carrey role; the movie actually made me mad. Not because it's not funny -- I expected that. And not because it's endlessly mean-spirited -- every Adam Sandler film is like that. What made me mad was that the central conceit of a guy with a remote control that controls the universe is used so poorly that I kept wanting to shout out suggestions to Sandler on how to actually use the fucking thing effectively.
So it's more of the same angry Sandler hijinks, it's poorly written and directed, it's unimaginative, and it does 1/20th what could be done with the plot elements. Which means it'll probably open to $50,000,000 before dropping 60% in the second weekend and eventually crawling in at about $125m, while countless brilliant films a year can't even get distribution deals in the US.
So why am I talking about it? For the women. Here's a pair of pics related to the film, and the one on the left, with Sandler and the hot blonde, was what spurred this post. I saw it because it was one of the most-emailed photos on Yahoo News a few days ago, and it so perfectly summed up Sandler's appeal that I had to save it for a blog post.
Just look at them. And him. The blonde is
Sophie Monk, age 26, and I've got no idea who she is or what she does in the film. She's not mentioned in any of the reviews, so I assume she's some random hot chick in a restaurant who Sandler slow motions or freezes with the remote to peek up her skirt or something like that. The brunette is semi-famous semi-actress
Kate Beckinsale, age 32, who plays Sandler's wife. The guy is of course Adam Sandler, age 40, seedy, blotchy, rumpled, and this is how he looks when he's made up and well-lit for TV. Imagine him in real life?
My point though, is the humor in juxtaposing these humans. Yeah, Hollywood (and male writers everywhere) has an eternal history of casting male stars with women half their age and twice their attractiveness, but at least it's usually some debonaire stud, like Sean Connery or Richard Gere, who was once in their class, and now might presumably have money and class. Sandler's characters are pretty much the opposite of this. He always looks petulant and annoying and he'd clearly make a horrible boyfriend, he's never attractive, and he's not successful or rich or suave or funny or pretty much anything that would attract any women, much less the supermodels he casts himself opposite in his films. Him with his co-stars isn't quite to the brain bending level of
Victoria Silvstedt's ongoing Adopt-a-troll hook up, but it's not far off.
And that bit of ridiculousness is largely responsible for Sandler's success. After all, who are Adam Sandler's fans? Average, schlubby white guys who are just as not-funny and not-handsome and not-talented as Sandler himself. If you're some average guy living a nothing life, it takes imagination to root for James Bond or some other superhero type male lead, since he inhabits a world completely removed from your Wal-Mart and Hooter's level of existence. On the other hand, Sandler's characters are basically you, with a few good breaks and a more fun life and access to inexplicably hot chicks. He's essentially the aging frat boy's version of a romance novel heroine. Wish fulfillment on the silver screen. Perhaps they're not your wishes, and they're certainly not mine, but someone likes him, and sure, Sandler's movies suck and most decent people want him to die in an elevator fire, but he's not really doing any harm to the world in general, and his regular cinematic output brings happiness to a subset of the population that dearly needs it. So why must we hate? (Besides the fact that it's such fun...)
Update: Two days later,
I saw this article on Ebert's site that quotes a bit from his reviews of every Sandler movie, and does a far better job explaining the guy and his appeal than I did in my discussion. Although, the angle of "schlubby guy gets hot chicks" was left untouched.
Labels: adam sandler
