"Chuck and Larry's" R rating

email this story
read comments (29)
post a comment

This surfaced last Tuesday and I missed it: The MPAA ratings board has upheld the R rating given to Adam Sandler's I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry (Universal, 7.20) for "some crude sexual humor and nudity."

Manohla's snob picks<< previous | next >>"Pirates 3" reactions

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on May 26, 2007 at 3:05 AM

comment #1

Jeremy King says ...

I'm too lazy to look it up...but has Sandler ever had an R rating aside from PUNCHDRUNK LOVE? I can't remember if he has. For some reason, I don't think it'll hurt his box office at all. I'd say...105 million domestic at least. Can you imagine if Sandler and Will Smith teamed up in a buddy comedy like this? They'd make a billion dollars. Or maybe not.

Posted by Jeremy King at May 26, 2007 3:25 AM

comment #2

jeffmcm says ...

Hey DZ, here's an appropriate thread for you. I would say that Wells read your posting and it spurred him to do some research, except that I don't believe that he actually reads the bulk of his own site.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 26, 2007 3:29 AM

comment #3

D.Z. says ...

This could actually work in Sandler's favor, since it could be the cross-over "mature" hit he's been trying to score with since Punch-Drunk Love. Or it could be quickly forgotten like Bachelor Party...He's got to have enough older fans from the Wedding Singer days to at least make Chuck and Larry a mid-range hit. (Assuming he didn't get an insanely high pay-check for it...)

Posted by D.Z. at May 26, 2007 3:34 AM

comment #4

Jayne Gacey says ...

I'm so sick of Adam Sandler telling me what gay is. I can take it. Kevin James' mouth is practically watering the entire time, put some cock in it, Sandler! It's ridiculous I have to watch a whole movie about Firemen pretending to be gay and I don't even get to see a guy getting a hummer...

Posted by Jayne Gacey at May 26, 2007 3:35 AM

comment #5

D.Z. says ...

Jayne: Heh.

Posted by D.Z. at May 26, 2007 3:38 AM

comment #6

Josh Massey says ...

So does this mean it will be released as-is, or edited?

"Or it could be quickly forgotten like Bachelor Party..."

Volunteers has been forgotten. The Man With One Red Shoe has been forgotten. Every Time We Say Goodbye has been forgotten. Bachelor Party lives on.

Posted by Josh Massey at May 26, 2007 3:55 AM

comment #7

Josh Massey says ...

Oh, and Jeremy - you forgot Bulletproof, which was rated R. Of course, nobody can blame you...

Posted by Josh Massey at May 26, 2007 3:59 AM

comment #8

EDouglas says ...

You know what? This is the best thing for the movie. Sandler should have been doing R-rated comedy a long time ago, and movies with potential even comedic gaybashing shouldn't be seen by impressionable teens and pre-teens (which would be the case with a PG-13, which was what was given to Wild Hogs).... I think if it's a good movie, it will still do well... but this is a good sign for Hairspray since teens will buy tickets for that and then sneak into Chuck and Larry

Posted by EDouglas at May 26, 2007 4:21 AM

comment #9

Arran says ...

Hmmm...thing here is I assume they weren't actually going for an R, so they won't have taken full advantage and loaded it with cussing and nudity. So it's gonna be a pretty darn mild R, I'm guessing.

Posted by Arran at May 26, 2007 5:14 AM

comment #10

EDouglas says ...

Maybe it's not too late to go back and film more Jessica Biel nudity.

Posted by EDouglas at May 26, 2007 5:27 AM

comment #11

Craig Kennedy says ...

Chuck and Larry would fit into a plan for Sandler to star in more 'mature' films...if it was a more mature film. Who over the age of 17 really wants to see this thing unless they go back and do reshoots of Jessica Biel with less than her underwear?

I think Bachelor Party was one of the first R-rated movies I ever saw without a parent. Boy was that disappointing.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at May 26, 2007 9:26 AM

comment #12

Mike Schaefer says ...

Wasn't there a time when "implied homosexuality" was an automatic "R", per the MPAA? Obviously that's changed ("In & Out" was PG-13 in 1997), so you gotta wonder just what's going on in this movie that rates an R. I'm guessing a lot of female nudity to make the fratboys comfortable. But I can't imagine them not going back into the editing room and getting a PG-13.

Posted by Mike Schaefer at May 26, 2007 11:38 AM

comment #13

wholovesya says ...

New Line must be praying that Universal and Sandler don't try to cut the movie back down to PG-13. If it stays R than Hairspray has a much better shot a nice opening.

Posted by wholovesya at May 26, 2007 12:22 PM

comment #14

D.Z. says ...

Hairspray won't make shit, because it has Travolta at the end of his 15 minutes(again), and fashion which today's kids don't "get". Austin Powers got away with being retro, but only after midnight shows. And the only reason people watched the sequels was because of the fart and dick jokes.

Posted by D.Z. at May 26, 2007 3:20 PM

comment #15

jeffmcm says ...

Austin Powers was successful and profitable well before it hit midnight shows.

This is one of your long-standing falsehoods you refuse to let go of.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 26, 2007 4:48 PM

comment #16

corey3rd says ...

SPOILER ALERT

maybe its the threeway action between Sandler, James and Jessica that got it the R?

Posted by corey3rd at May 26, 2007 4:58 PM

comment #17

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "Austin Powers was successful and profitable well before it hit midnight shows."

No, it wasn't. It went in and out of theaters pretty fast. It did better than So I Married an Axe Murderer, but wasn't the next Wayne's World.

Posted by D.Z. at May 26, 2007 5:38 PM

comment #18

jeffmcm says ...

Yes, it was. It had a production cost of approximately $17 million dollars. It grossed $54 million dollars. It was in the box-office top ten for at least nine weeks, against the biggest movies of the first half of the summer, 1997. These are _facts_ and you are either ignorant enough to not be interested in them, or arrogant enough to not care about them. And now you will brush off these comments with some offhand glib remark like 'none of that matters because...' or 'it all went to Mike Myers' divorce...' or some other evasive and dishonest way to change the subject.

You are a bad person.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 26, 2007 7:22 PM

comment #19

D.Z. says ...

"Yes, it was. It had a production cost of approximately $17 million dollars. It grossed $54 million dollars. It was in the box-office top ten for at least nine weeks,"

But AP1 didn't start making money until half-way through its run. Wayne's World was profitable in its first week. The former was clearly a disappointment.

Posted by D.Z. at May 26, 2007 10:35 PM

comment #20

Jayne Gacey says ...

DZ: But AP1 didn't start making money until half-way through its run. Wayne's World was profitable in its first week. The former was clearly a disappointment.

Making money is all that matters. And might I remind you it spawned two sequels? You're exactly the kind of opening weekend nimrod that's ruining Hollywood, and dare I say, the world.

Posted by Jayne Gacey at May 26, 2007 10:51 PM

comment #21

Jayne Gacey says ...

Also, So I Married an Axe Murderer is a classic.

Posted by Jayne Gacey at May 26, 2007 10:53 PM

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

Jayne: "And might I remind you it spawned two sequels?"

It only got two sequels, because New Line had to spend extra money through midnight shows to get people who ignored it the first time to watch it. There's no guarantee the second film wouldn't have tanked, though. Look at Wayne's World 2.

"You're exactly the kind of opening weekend nimrod that's ruining Hollywood, and dare I say, the world."

What's ruining Hollywood are hack indie directors who curse off their stars.

Posted by D.Z. at May 26, 2007 11:25 PM

comment #23

Jayne Gacey says ...

DZ: It only got two sequels, because New Line had to spend extra money through midnight shows to get people who ignored it the first time to watch it.

That business model wouldn't make any sense. It would be throwing good money after bad. "We really had to sweat and strain to break even on that, let's do it again!" I'm not even sure what you mean by this Midnight shows thing. Do you perhaps mean video? Midnight shows haven't really meant anything since Tim Curry was the most exciting new star of the 1970s.

DZ: There's no guarantee the second film wouldn't have tanked.

This is why taking risks is a part of film. And considering Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged me made the previous movie's gross in its first weekend, and went on to make over 200 million, spawning a third, it was a wise investment. It also suggests that in just two short years it had become a major part of the culture, much more than a so-called "midnight show flop".

DZ: What's ruining Hollywood are hack indie directors who curse off their stars.

Look at the top 3 films at the Box Office this weekend, and tell me that's true. I'm not even sure what that means.

Posted by Jayne Gacey at May 27, 2007 12:31 AM

comment #24

Terry McCarty says ...

Jeremy wrote:
I'm too lazy to look it up...but has Sandler ever had an R rating aside from PUNCHDRUNK LOVE?

REIGN OVER ME

Posted by Terry McCarty at May 27, 2007 12:48 AM

comment #25

Craig Kennedy says ...

In the interest of not treating DZ like the nozzle he truly is, I say this: I think you underestimate the popularity of John Travolta when he's on his game. He's a likeable motherfucker.

I'm not saying most people go "hey look! it's a new Johnny Travolta movie! Let's Go!!!" But I'm saying once in a while people go to his movies and go "Holy shit! sometimes that guy is RIGHT ON! I forgot how much I liked him. Remember when he was Vinnie Barbarino on that one show? Man that was great!"

My point is, Hairspray will do fine. Most people who go see it have an affinity for the original...and there are lots of those people...and most of those people I'm guessing will be pleased by JT.

But then I could be wrong. Last year I predicted Pirates 2 would be a box office disappointment. Turns out, not so much.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at May 27, 2007 1:00 AM

comment #26

jeffmcm says ...

DZ: you proved my point incredibly well. Thank you.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 27, 2007 4:43 AM

comment #27

D.Z. says ...

Jayne: "That business model wouldn't make any sense. It would be throwing good money after bad."

It doesn't make sense, but it's already happening with The Hulk and Superman Returns.

"I'm not even sure what you mean by this Midnight shows thing. Do you perhaps mean video? Midnight shows haven't really meant anything since Tim Curry was the most exciting new star of the 1970s."

No, I really meant midnight shows. New Line tried to do the Rocky Horror thing for Austin Powers, and it apparently worked.

"It also suggests that in just two short years it had become a major part of the culture, much more than a so-called "midnight show flop"."

I think AP 2 got lucky, because the public hated Phantom Menace and figured that if they were going to sit through something that badly written, at least it should be an intentional comedy. In fact, around here at least, New Line even advertised the fact that it wasn't Phantom Menace.

cj: "I think you underestimate the popularity of John Travolta when he's on his game. He's a likeable motherfucker."

Perhaps, but no one wants to see him literally dressed as a mother.

"Most people who go see it have an affinity for the original..."

Who are "most" of these people? I was at the New Beverly re-release for the old film a few months back, and it had a small turn-out. I even overheard some young girl with her dad complaining about it was so "old". Hell, I was her age when it first came out, and even I'm groaning at some of the dialogue cribbed from Sidney Poitier's dramas.
If I think it's a little hokey, what's the generation which pretty much ignored Hedwig going to think? (Although I will say that AP clearly owes a debt of gratitude to Waters for the make-up and set designs.)

Posted by D.Z. at May 27, 2007 11:22 AM

comment #28