I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry

The trailer for I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry (Universal, 7.20.07) strongly indicates that the film is another New Homophobia comedy (and therefore a bit of a groaner going in) but also that it might be pretty funny. Or at the very least, a lot funnier than the second and third acts of Evan Almighty.


Adam Sandler, Kevin James

54 thoughts on “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry

  1. I’m shocked that no one has picked up on how the opening of the trailer mirrors those (equally rancid) Snicker’s Superbowl commercials.

    Straight man is repulsed by thought of being gay, resorts to violence. That’s quality family comedy.

  2. This is clearly a movie making fun of homophobic straight men with intimacy problems. I think the appearance of Rob Schneider apparently playing a yellowface Asian man is vastly more troublesome than the movie’s alleged homophobia. Sandler’s movies have routinely been very gay-friendly and inclusive.

  3. yeah, i can see frat brothers stumlking out of this before their next date rape orgy –

    “dude, i love how they totally made fun of fag haters.”

  4. This looks SLIGHTLY better than Sandler’s typical idiocy but only 1 thing in this trailer sold my ticket…Biel’s ass. WOW. Unreal in those panties.

  5. That’s the beauty of it: Joe Shmoe doesn’t know he’s being made fun of, or at least doesn’t mind. Same reason why Talladega Nights was so smart and subversive, because it could play to all audiences.

  6. It doesn’t matter if it’s homophobic or not, (since i’m sure there will be a moralising speech about how ‘gays are just like you and me’ in the final act that will allow them to excuse all the ‘laughing at gay stereotypes’ that goes on earlier).

    The simple problem is this plot has been done to death, and is just a spin on the old ‘person dresses as opposite gender’ movies that have been boring me senseless since i was a child. (Just One Of The Guys, Nobody’s Perfect, Connie and Carla).

    The normal way this plays out is that Sandler will meet a hot girl that he wants badly but has to pretend he’s gay due to whatever the plot contrivance is, whilst James will fend off the advances of a pushy gay guy who wants to steal him away from Sandler.

    Even the gay angle is tired. Check out ‘The Gay Deceivers’ (1969), where they’re gay to avoid the Draft, or the dire ‘Strange Bedfellows’ (2004), where Paul Hogan and his mate are faux-gay to take advantage of new tax laws.

    How can anyone possibly get excited over a movie they’ve seen again and again? Oh, it’s Sandler. Easily $150 million.

  7. Interesting that this film falls from the pen of Alexander Payne. Sideways and About Schmidt reeked of elitist contempt for red sate plebeian low brow masses and yet Payne has cranked out a script that those low brow masses will lap up. Anybody else smell some hypocrisy? Or maybe this is just paycheck gig, Payne did write Jurassic Park 3 after all.

    Oh and by the way, Jessica Biel’s ass in that trailer is simply unreal.

  8. Hate to pee on actionman’s fire, but I just got off the phone with Jeff Okun, and he relates that Biel’s ass is 100% CGI in those shots. Very disappointing.

  9. “Sideways and About Schmidt reeked of elitist contempt for red sate plebeian low brow masses”

    No they didn’t. The urban hipster of Sideways is the unhappiest character in the movie and the flyover loser played by Nicholson in Schmidt is elevated to a noble grandeur by the end of the film. In both films Payne surpasses easy blue-state/red-state ironies. I call his sensibility ‘ironoclastic’.

  10. Probably one of the most painful trailers in quite a while (in both plot concept and execution). So many comedies in recent years (Bringing Down the House, White Chicks, Chuck and Larry, and MANY more) seem plucked right out of about 1988…

  11. No. He just loathes plebes. Or he dislikes his non-hip characters. Remember the scene in Sideways where Giamatti has a meltdown in a winery and drinks the spittoon? The camera takes in the lowbrow masses who are enjoying themselves in a mass market vulgar winery that is unfavourably contrasted with the high end ones Giamatti has been cruising during the film. Schmidt and Sideways sympathised with his protagonists but there was contempt for almost everybody else.

    And consider the fat working class waitress that Thomas Hadyen Church nails at the end of Sideways and Kathy Bates in Schmidt? More contempt that irony for those characters. Maybe Payne just hates working class fat chicks.

    And whatever of Payne’s personal flicks this Sandler effort looks like an irony free zone.

  12. i think payne is a genuine satirist which means nobody escapes unscathed but they are allowed moments of humanity…

  13. Sorry, Dublin, you’re so invested in being hipper than Payne that you can’t see that his films are full of genuine human emotion in all its scope. Giamatti is clearly depicted as a snob in Sideways – the movie does not agree with him.

  14. I hope this wasn’t one of those trailers where they put all the funniest parts in…because there weren’t any. That’s the offensive thing, not the homophobia real or imagined, it’s the utter lack of humor.

    I’ll take 90 minutes of Ms. Biel in her undies though.

  15. As for Payne: I didn’t know artists had to stick to a single theme for an entire career.

    And I don’t think this movie is about being afraid of the idea of homosexual sex, but more like most Hollywood movies that force bad consequences upon anyone who has sex just for pleasure, which is quite tiresome.

  16. i had to watch it after all the praise for biel’s booty — what they make “actresses” do these days…

    and boy, lookit all that falling and punching like every ad on tv these days…

  17. actionman: “This looks SLIGHTLY better than Sandler’s typical idiocy but only 1 thing in this trailer sold my ticket…Biel’s ass.”

    Just wait until they post pics on the internets for free.

    Lego: “Oh, it’s Sandler. Easily $150 million.”

    Sandler’s not doing anything wacky in this one, so it might not be big.

  18. Nice try, Actionman. But ever since you’re 300 review, the secret is out. You’re going to see this flick for one reason: so you can imagine yourself as the meat in a Sandler-James Manwich.

  19. Forget it DZ. Not sure what you mean about wacky, but Sandler just being Sandler can break $150 million without a sweat; see Big Daddy, Deeds, that prison football movie he walked around in, etc.

    I’ll give Ferrill this, over Sandler: he chooses films based on what he can do w/ the character; Sandler chooses roles based on what he can do w/ the gimmick.

  20. Yeah, but as other people pointed out, the straight guy-pretending to be gay thing’s been done to death, and Sandler doesn’t have a real spin on it.

  21. According to Yahoo (http://tinyurl.com/2xyoct), Alexander Payne only did the current rewrite and shares this credit with Jim Taylor. Original story by someone else, original draft by another, then a rewrite by yet another.. So in my opinion, it’s not like he is diluting his personal brand or anything – this is a movie for which he only did a shared rewrite. So it’s just a paycheck.

    And I also believe he has yet to receieve any big payoff for Sideways surprising commercial success. What’s the story behind him failing to get any new projects off the ground, by the way? Does anyone know or perhaps care to investigate?

  22. Jim Taylor is Payne’s long-running writing partner, not just some dude he never met.

    “Sideways surprising commercial success” ($71m) was preceded by the surprising commercial success of About Schmidt ($65m). While it would be great if Payne got snatched up to direct some high-profile big-name title, I think he likes the freedom of a lower profile.

  23. Payne has said that his draft was completely rewritten by Sandler and his group of writers, and that the current movie is nowhere close to Payne’s script.

  24. This is NOT mocking homophobia like “Talladega Nights” was… this looks like a stretched out version of the homophobia that’s been present in virtually every Adam Sandler comedy. Please do tell, jeffmcm, which Sandler films were gay-friendly??? Someone who’s gay friendly doesn’t choose to feature jokes about how weird and gross it is to be gay in every one of his films.

  25. 31 years ago, gay audiences would rush to a hack movie like ‘norman, is that you?’ if only because it didn’t depict homosexuals as perverted killers and despite the fact that it’s stereotypical portrayals were instrumental in cementing the vision that straights had of gays…..the star of that film is the director of ‘c & l’ and it looks (from the trailer) like time hasn’t taught him much…i’ll wait for the movie to see if that’s the case….

  26. I hope this wasn’t one of those trailers where they put all the funniest parts in…because there weren’t any. That’s the offensive thing, not the homophobia real or imagined, it’s the utter lack of humor.

    I’ll take 90 minutes of Ms. Biel in her undies though.

  27. Like the gay characters in Big Daddy who are presented as part of the gang and completely normal people. Sandler’s movies are happy to make gay jokes but I think in general they’re of the affectionate kind. I ask in turn, name one joke in any Sandler film that says that gay people are gross or weird – even this trailer doesn’t have any moments that do that, just that the two guys are uncomfortable playing these roles.

  28. It’s beginning to seem like any movie or show that makes gay jokes of any sort is being considered homophobic all of a sudden. It’s getting tiring.

  29. ‘Sandler’s movies are happy to make gay jokes but I think in general they’re of the affectionate kind.’

    you are a completely clueless person…they may be ‘affectionate’ to you but in the real world they are punctuated with a baseball bat…

  30. According to Yahoo (http://tinyurl.com/2xyoct), Alexander Payne only did the current rewrite and shares this credit with Jim Taylor. Original story by someone else, original draft by another, then a rewrite by yet another.. So in my opinion, it’s not like he is diluting his personal brand or anything – this is a movie for which he only did a shared rewrite. So it’s just a paycheck.

    And I also believe he has yet to receieve any big payoff for Sideways surprising commercial success. What’s the story behind him failing to get any new projects off the ground, by the way? Does anyone know or perhaps care to investigate?

  31. Oh, can we lighten up just a bit? Yeesh…

    This premise as a movie has been coming from the moment “Gay Marriage” became a word. Sandler is playing “normal” here, which is always funnier than one of his character-parts, and James was the funniest thing onscreen in “Hitch.” It’s not genuinely homophobic, obviously, and the lead-up to it is going to spur a lot of “is this con possible?” news-fluff stuff that’ll have the net-positive effect of getting people talking more about gay marriage and thus gradually being less “alien” to it.

  32. Scooterzz, are you speaking literally or metaphorically? I have always thought of Sandler’s movies, for all their other flaws, as possessing pretty big hearts, inclusive of a broad swath of American society. My mom always tells me she cries at the end of every Sandler movie, which I know makes her something of a sucker, but I don’t think that would happen if the movies weren’t generous in spirit to begin with.

    Don’t get me wrong, I think there are plenty of homophobic movies out there, prime example being 300. I think we just need to wait and see on this one.

  33. Oh, can we lighten up just a bit? Yeesh…

    actually, no…we can’t…not as long as gay people are being told that they don’t qualify as citizens in this country and not until they have the same rights as everyone else…

    the humor in the trailer for ‘c&l’ is not unlike the humor in the old ‘amos & andy’ series and your willingness to dismiss it with , ‘oh, lighten up’, is not unlike the attitude taken back in a time when being one with the ‘black folk’ meant being so liberal that you would hire one to clean your house….

    ‘oh, lighten up’ is not the answer…

  34. That would be true if there were actually gay people acting stereotypically in the trailer (as there are in, say, any Queer Eye for the Straight Gay episode). I don’t even see a lot of gay stereotypes in this trailer except Kevin James acting petulant and emotional in the final bit.

  35. Finally, a movie brave enough to expose the unfair legal advantages afforded gay people at the expense of straight New York City firefighters (America’s heroes!).

  36. “Interesting that this film falls from the pen of Alexander Payne. Sideways and About Schmidt reeked of elitist contempt for red sate plebeian low brow masses and yet Payne has cranked out a script that those low brow masses will lap up.”

    I couldn’t disagree more, I think Payne is one of the most exciting directors working today. “Sideways” is warm and human all the way through, its actually spoofing the kind of character you claim Payne to be (someone else has aleady said that in this post but its bears repeating). Did you watch “About Schmidt” all the way through? It’s hard to miss the humanity of its brilliant ending.

    The only Payne movie that doesn’t really deliver, imho, is his first “Citizen Ruth”. His last three pictures has him on a remarkable role.

  37. Well, at least by the stills and trailer, they look they are having a good time at a Gay Pride Parade. The typical knee-jerk marketing reaction would have shown them fighting to hold back their vomit in reaction to it (if those scenes existed), so there’s some hope there. I’m guessing at least HITCH-sized numbers.

  38. Jeff wrote: “Like the gay characters in Big Daddy who are presented as part of the gang and completely normal people.”

    You’re giving Sandler’s audience far too much credit. I was dragged along by friends to see ‘Big Daddy’ in the cinema, (Sandler then being an unknown force in Australia), despite my protests of it just looking like a ‘Three Men and a Baby’ retread.

    The mass audience treated the sight of the gay characters with obvious discomfort. They laughed *at* them, they squirmed in their seats, they ‘ewwwwed’ in highly vocal disgust.

    You can’t tell me this wasn’t the intention behind their ridiculously sappy dialogue and the extended hand-holding and goo-goo eyes the characters did. They knew the audience would find it funny, in an ‘off’ kind of way. No-one walked out of that one thinking “You know, if my friends are gay, i’m cool with that”.

    What will he wow the audience with next? Hey, how about a movie where a character swaps bodies with someone else? There’s an equally fresh idea!

  39. I don’t remember any of what you’re talking about, but of course I only saw the movie once when it came out, and my memory is that Sandler had two gay friends that he was perfectly accepting towards.

  40. if the final scene in ABOUT SCHMIDT doesn’t move you then i don’t know…i think payne/taylor do take the cheap gag sometimes, but they clearly side with the characters. they acknowledge that people can be good and still fucked up.

    and i doubt sandler’s a homophobe as much as an ageist based on bob barker kicking his ass in HAPPPY GILMORE. it’s the highlight scene of both their careers.

  41. “It’s beginning to seem like any movie or show that makes gay jokes of any sort is being considered homophobic all of a sudden. It’s getting tiring.

    Posted by: alynch at March 30, 2007 08:26 PM”

    For the record, as has been established here numerous times: the inclusion of gay jokes in and of themself are not on their own homophobic. Ones that insist that homosexuality is disgusting, weird, gross or worthy of mockery and violence– yes, homophobic.

    “Wild Hogs,” “Big Daddy”– Homophobic.

    “The 40-Year-Old Virgin,” “Talladega Nights”– Not Homophobic.

  42. “This looks SLIGHTLY better than Sandler’s typical idiocy but only 1 thing in this trailer sold my ticket…Biel’s ass. WOW. Unreal in those panties.”

    That ass puts most everyone else’s breasts to shame.

    Damn. Damn. God damn…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>