"Chuck and Larry" review

email this story
read comments (50)
post a comment

I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry (Universal, 7.20) is the ultimate yaw-haw straight guy comedy about gays. That's a way of saying it's a chowderhead thing (i.e., made for chunky guys who slurp down pitchers of beer at sports bars and wear low-thread-count T-shirts) that's not very hip. That'll be no problem at all for 85% or 90% of the viewing public, but what will take it down with the somewhat more thoughtful 10% or 15% is that it's a creative house divided.

Adam Sandler, Kevin James

The Chuck and Larry dialogue says all the right humanistic things -- i.e., that everyone but especially red-blooded heteros need to show respect and support for gays -- but a good percentage of the jokes are of the rib-poking "eewwww!" variety about what gay guys say and how they behave and decorate their homes, and what they do with each other in private. Jokes, in short, that say gays are different and prissy and into icky sexual practices facilitated by substances in tubes.

This is a flagrantly hetero film. The women characters are almost all hot-to-trot sex bunnies who are totally devoted to servicing Adam Sandler's "Chuck," a Brooklyn fireman-slash-sexual conquistador. Let's get one thing straight -- fireman got laid like rock stars in the weeks following the 9.11 tragedy, but otherwise the unattached ones live hit-and-miss sex lives like anyone else. Sandler's Chuck isn't just an exception -- he's Warren Beatty's Shampoo character without the guilt, and then taken to almost Daffy Duck-level extremes.

The first time we meet Chuck he's coping with a hot-and-saucy girlfriend who's enraged because he's schtupped her sister behind her back. Chuck claims he couldn't tell the difference in the dark. Then the sisters devolve into a rivalry about which one is hotter, i.e., more pissed at each other than they are at him. I was like...what?

Ten or twelve minutes later Chuck is recuperating in a hospital room from a fire-fighting accident, and talking to an attractive doctor like she's a pole dancer....c'mere baby, sit on my lap, etc. She's enraged at his crude disrespect and walks out the door. Five minutes later she's not only schtupping Chuck in his Brooklyn apartment, but taking part in a group scene with three or four other girls. Again...what? How is depicting Sandler's sexual prowess in absurdly overwrought terms "funny"?

Chuck and Larry is about a scam in which Chuck and Kevin James' "Larry", old pals who work as firefighters out of the same station, pretend to be gay so James, a widower with kids, can receive insured benefits. Sandler and James have to lie and lie and lie all through it, but they finally come clean at the end. In this sense the film adheres to a classic formula know as the Three D's -- desire, deception, discovery. Some like It Hot used this exact same formula, but my God, what a difference in the execution!

The basic problem is that there's no interest on Dugan or Sandler's part in a story that even occasionally passes muster as something that could conceivably happen, or in characters you can half-accept as occupying the actual world outside. The action and dialogue are all about dumb schtick. Sander and Dugan are saying to the audience, "You don't believe this stuff and neither do we....obviously. But you know what? You don't give a shit because we're being funny, right? That's all that really matters."

As it turned out, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry didn't make me laugh once...not once. (To be fair, others in the Mann Chinese 6 audience were lapping it up. Even Jett was laughing.) It's going to make decent money this weekend, somewhere in the mid 20s.

What I was looking for, I guess, was something that was really and truly outrageous, something that would make you go "oh my God, I can't believe I just laughed at that." Then it hit me -- the film has to take its closeted attitudes (gay guys are cool but also a little bit ewww!) and turn them around.

There's no question that the film's strongest single impression (for straight guys, at least) is when Chuck takes a long look at Jessica Biel's near-naked ass. (Director Dennis Dugan milks the moment with two extended close-ups.) It suddenly hit me that this magnificent object d'art could have been deployed to a truly subversive and stand-out bit along the lines of that scene in Brokeback Mountain when Heath Ledger flips over Michelle Williams in their marital bed, etc. I trust I don't have to explain myself any further, but think about this -- the ewww! factor would suddenly be addressed in a different light, and an especially different light if Biel's character turned out to be...well, if not "receptive" then at least open to the action.

The always-likable Sandler is appealing enough but James is the better performer -- steadier, more planted, less smirky. The film also makes it clear that Biel doesn't have much acting ability. She's been told to exude a cheerful, go-along attitude with everything that Sander, James and the plot throw at her, but there's nothing extra going on.

I knew I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry would be a problem early on when James and Sandler and their buddies get on their firetruck and arrive at a burning building, and the flames coming out of the windows look exactly like the flames on the Universal Theme Park "Backdraft" attraction. This is a typical Dugan move -- he doesn't care if hundreds of thousands of people have seen those boring, gas-generated fires, or made jokes about them after seeing them in Ron Howard's Backdraft. Ten year-old kids in Kabul know real infernos don't look like this, and Dugan waves it off. This is the blade of grass that tells you what kind of film Chuck and Larry is.

Moore vs. CNN again<< previous | next >>Payne and Taylor's "Chuck and Larry"

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 18, 2007 at 12:27 PM

comment #1

Rich S. says ...

Biel, not Alba. I know, it's hard to keep the hot Jessica's straight sometimes.

Posted by Rich S. at July 18, 2007 12:56 PM

comment #2

NYCBusybody says ...

but a good percentage of the jokes are of the rib-poking "eewwww!" variety about the things that gay guys say and how they behave and decorate their homes, and what they do with each other in private. Jokes, in short, that basically say gays are different and prissy"

Oh..no. The. Horror. How dare anyone make any joke whatsoever at the expense of gay culture. Homosexuals must never be joked about, or even looked at, by mere mortals like heterosexuals.

Honestly, how snivellingly politically correct can you get? I live in a fashionable, highly gay area of NYC (not hard to find, I know). I can't even count the times per DAY that gay men/friends of mine make fun of me for my dress sense (midwestern, straight, and proud of it), or make jokes at the expense of midwestern, straight decorating/aesthetic styles. It's practically de rigeur for conversation. I don't cry about it. Maybe that's 'cause I'm straight.

Joke!

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 18, 2007 1:03 PM

comment #3

NYCBusybody says ...

And don't you find it a little ironic, Wells, that you open your column by directly impugning the aesthetic and dress senses of schlumpy brutish middle-class straight types, but then cry foul at them doing the same to gay/metrosexuals like you? Are you seriously THAT weak? That unable to handle even mild, comic criticism?

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 18, 2007 1:05 PM

comment #4

Movie Watcher says ...

What has happened to Sandler? I expect better from him. I wonder if you can be a fireman if you're as large as James. I hope the next movie Sandler makes is good, not just another paycheck. Even The Logest Yard is better than this movie they are going to pimp on the late night shows.

Posted by Movie Watcher at July 18, 2007 1:08 PM

comment #5

NYCBusybody says ...

Honestly, I can't even stop making this point, it's so ridiculous. Who can even deny that a primary vibe in gay popular culture (Perez Hilton, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, just to name but two) isn't predicated on making fun of other people? being catty? being elitist in fashion, decoration, etc?

I don't think the answer is that gays simply don't have a strong enough constitution to handle what they dish out; I'm sure there are many like that, who are offended easily (or like many minority groups, actively seek out feeling that way). But no, I think the primary group that whines about this stuff is metrosexual straight men - they're the ones who feel insecure because they DO have the aesthetic sense of gay men, but feel like it makes them less "manly".

No, Wells, your high-thread count is fine. You're less of a man 'cause you can't take what you dish out.

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 18, 2007 1:11 PM

comment #6

admiralmpj says ...

I was a little surprised at Biel for taking...what could only be charitably called...a thankless role. After The Illusionist, and watching her hold her own with some actual...you know...actors, I started to convince myself she was more than a pretty face. Sigh. Don't need to see the movie now, since Jeff has provided the key still frame of the movie here on the website.

Posted by admiralmpj at July 18, 2007 1:20 PM

comment #7

admiralmpj says ...

Posted by admiralmpj at July 18, 2007 1:20 PM

comment #8

erniesouchak says ...

Didn't Alexander Payne have something to do with this movie at some point? What the hell??

Posted by erniesouchak at July 18, 2007 1:26 PM

comment #9

cinefan says ...

I disagree that Biel doesn't have much acting ability (of course, I might be a little biased in her favor because...well, just look at her in the posted pic). I think she was good in the Illusionist and more than held her own opposite Edward Norton and Paul Giamatti. She was also effectively bitchy and nasty in Rules of Attraction a few years back.

Posted by cinefan at July 18, 2007 1:28 PM

comment #10

Sean says ...

"Honestly, I can't even stop making this point, it's so ridiculous."

I agree that it's ridiculous that you can't stop, although I would contest the theory that you've made anything close to a point (or responding to the point that Wells was making, rather than your laughable straw-man version of same). Although, oddly, your attempts to make a point do a good job of proving the point that Wells was making, so well done, I suppose.

Posted by Sean at July 18, 2007 1:31 PM

comment #11

Glenn Kenny says ...

"I don't cry about it. Maybe that's 'cause I'm straight." Wow, what a tough guy you are, NYCBusybody.
Hey, by the way, when's the last time you got beaten up on account of your being straight? Just wondering.

Posted by Glenn Kenny at July 18, 2007 1:36 PM

comment #12

NYCBusybody says ...

What point was Wells making that I missed? He was saying it is wrong for heterosexuals to make jokes about gays for being different and prissy. Am I wrong? Wasn't that his point?

I'm simply saying it's not wrong to do that.

Unless, that is, it's wrong for him to make fun of "chunky guys who slurp down pitchers of beer at sports bars and wear low-thread-count T-shirts". My point being, said chunky guys are proud of who they are and relish being made fun of by people who are different, because it validates their differences. And plus they're just laidback about it - people who don't value themselves mostly based on how they look, who they're seen with, or what their houses look like tend not to take insults about those things very heavily. They aren't insecure.

Gays and metrosexuals, on the other hand, cry foul if someone doesn't praise them at every moment. Point made.

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 18, 2007 1:38 PM

comment #13

Terry McCarty says ...

Re Jessica Biel in CHUCK AND LARRY:
I'm trying to understand what separates her from other actresses who have done "class" work (i.e. Winona Ryder, Fairuza Balk, Marisa Tomei, Joey Lauren Adams) opting to play the girlfriend in Adam Sandler movies for the paycheck.

Posted by Terry McCarty at July 18, 2007 1:41 PM

comment #14

Pinko Punko says ...

I look forward to NYCBusyBody's extended treatise on fairness in society. Prepare to have your socks rocked, world!

Posted by Pinko Punko at July 18, 2007 1:42 PM

comment #15

Dixon Steele says ...

Personally I've got nothing against homosexuality.

I just don't want anyone shoving it down my throat.

Posted by Dixon Steele at July 18, 2007 1:44 PM

comment #16

NYCBusybody says ...

My manifesto looms...

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 18, 2007 1:45 PM

comment #17

Jesse Perry says ...

"What has happened to Sandler? I expect better from him."

Really? I think he has some talent, but my expectations for his films are usually quite low.

Posted by Jesse Perry at July 18, 2007 1:47 PM

comment #18

JoeJustice says ...

NYCBusyBody as a gay guy I don't what the F* you are talking about.

I don't go around whining about anything. Make fun all you want.

So get a life and please, shut up. We get your chunky point (oh, did i hurt your feelings?).

Posted by JoeJustice at July 18, 2007 1:48 PM

comment #19

OddDuck says ...

I look forward to NYCBB's post in a future thread where for convencience's sake he claims that he's gay.

Hey NYCBB, what color are you today?

Posted by OddDuck at July 18, 2007 1:48 PM

comment #20

NYCBusybody says ...

No, you didn't hurt my feelings! I love being told to shut up. Rabblerousers live for that, you silly gay.

Posted by NYCBusybody at July 18, 2007 1:50 PM

comment #21

berg says ...

Payne is one of 3 writers with screenplay credit ... someone already pointed out this is a redux of The Gay Deceivers ...now that Sandler has sqandered any good will from his decent turn in Love Reign he should now remake PERCY, an early 70s film about a guy who gets a penis transplant and then finds himself bedding down the penis donor's former girlfriends, pg-13 of course ...

Posted by berg at July 18, 2007 1:52 PM

comment #22

giantman says ...

I'd just like to take a moment and thank Jeff for upping the quality of the posted pics on the site... hopefully some encouragement will help this trend continue. As a straight, albiet open-minded, man, I certainly appreciate the effort.

Posted by giantman at July 18, 2007 1:54 PM

comment #23

Bocephus says ...

I don't think Wells said it was wrong to make fun of gays in his article, what is wrong is to spend the whole movie doing so and not evoke a single laugh.

I'm gay and I love gay jokes, unless they are dumb and/or unfunny.

Posted by Bocephus at July 18, 2007 1:55 PM

comment #24

AbeGoldfarb says ...

NYC, you're a bigot.

In other news, the trouble as I see it with Chuck and Larry (apart from how woefully unfunny it looks) is that it traffics in a basically false premise. Two straight guys reap the benefits of pretending to be gay. Uh, right. Because gays have it SO fucking easy nowadays.

One of the great lies in contemporary culture is how there's this cadre of militant homos just outside the gates trying to change your precious way of life. The truth, of course, is the reverse: homosexuals have spent an awfully long time having to assimilate to a culture unfriendly to them.

The only thing laying siege to the Conservative lifestyle is the dawning awareness, even among its prior proponents, of how oblivious it is to the needs of anyone not white or straight or male.

Wells makes a good point. There was potential for real subversion in the premise, something prickly that took the prejudices of its target audience and made them really look inward, made them ask themselves why they were provoked to feel a certain way. But of course, this is the director of Big Daddy we're talking about. Free play of signs and signifiers isn't exactly his strong suit.

South Korea, long a gay-unfriendly culture, had a massive hit in 2005 with the beautiful, funny, strange period tragedy "King and the Clown", about two circus performers in ancient Seoul, one a female impersonater. It was about love, performance and the destructive whimsy of desire. The audience was largely young, and you have to wonder how many of them were forced to ask themselves about their reactions to the immaculate, often sexy drag of the co-lead. THAT's fascinating. Find that movie if you can.

Chuck and Larry just looks like a pile of shit. Pity, really.

Posted by AbeGoldfarb at July 18, 2007 1:57 PM

comment #25

AbeGoldfarb says ...

Oh, and by the way, since no one else is saying it, nice piece of reviewing, Jeff. We don't agree on a lot of stuff (Jackson, for instance), but by god, you're a compulsively readable film writer.

Posted by AbeGoldfarb at July 18, 2007 2:01 PM

comment #26

Sean says ...

"He was saying it is wrong for heterosexuals to make jokes about gays for being different and prissy. Am I wrong?"

Yes, you are wrong.

His point is that this is a movie which preaches tolerance and open-mindedness on a surface level. But, beneath the surface, the entire movie paints a picture that all gays are exactly the same, and fulfill every stereotype which our culture [you call it the "gay culture", but anybody who knew actual people who are gay understand that there is a world of difference between gays-in-pop-culture (Queer Eye, Will & Grace) and the pop culture which is embraced by a largely gay audience (Hedwig)] perpetuates about gay people.

His point is, if you're going to make a movie about tolerating gay people, it should actually treat homosexuals *as* people, not just uniformly as one-dimensional stereotypes.

Which is why, yes, it's quite funny when you refer to "gay people" as if they're monolithic and all exactly the same, how all gay people dress well and make fun of you for dressing badly... oh, wait, sorry, I mean "straight"ly and "red state"ily... and then try to act like Jeff doesn't have a point when he talks about the subtle homophobia of this sort of "tolerance".

"Unless, that is, it's wrong for him to make fun of "chunky guys who slurp down pitchers of beer at sports bars and wear low-thread-count T-shirts"."

I'm actually not sure how that's making fun, exactly, but I will accept that Wells did not mean that flatteringly. However, Jeff does not say "Don't make fun of gay people." He's just saying that pulling out the same tired old jokes about how all gay people are clean and all straight people are chunky guys who (etc) is completely old hat, and that it flies in the face of the message the movie is trying to get across.

"My point being, said chunky guys are proud of who they are and relish being made fun of by people who are different, because it validates their differences."

That's fair, although, to be fair to the homosexuals whom you're pretending that you interact with daily because you think it strengthens your point (and because you don't realize how stupid it makes you look to describe all your gay friends as if they're exactly the same), the differences of said chunky guys were not illegal in the majority of the country within our lifetime. If those differences had been illegal, they might be more sensitive about being singled out because of those differences.

That's assuming that i even understood your non-sequitur point. I acknowledge I may not have, since it had nothing to do with anything else; I'm sure there's some connection in your head.

"And plus they're just laidback about it - people who don't value themselves mostly based on how they look, who they're seen with, or what their houses look like tend not to take insults about those things very heavily. They aren't insecure.

"Gays and metrosexuals, on the other hand, cry foul if someone doesn't praise them at every moment. Point made."

Yes, you have made your point about how you're a bigot by saying that all gay people are the same (and that that similarity is a negative thing).

Oh, wait, that was my point. Well, still, you're right about *one* thing (finally): A point was, indeed, made.

Posted by Sean at July 18, 2007 2:06 PM

comment #27

Sean says ...

and just for the record:

"[you call it the "gay culture", but anybody who knew actual people who are gay understand that there is a world of difference between gays-in-pop-culture (Queer Eye, Will & Grace) and the pop culture which is embraced by a largely gay audience (Hedwig)]"

I recognize that, within this aside, I made a generalization about the tastes of homosexuals, and that it was ironic given the rest of that post. So I wanted to point out that:
- not all gay people like 'Hedwig'
- not only gay people like 'Hedwig'
- some gay people like 'Queer Eye' and/or 'Will and Grace'
- 'Hedwig' is not the only movie which is embraced by gay people, it was just the first and easiest example which leapt to mind.

I felt justified in making the above generalizations because it was long enough for an aside without over-explaining it., but, after posting, I felt like adding this disclaimer.

Posted by Sean at July 18, 2007 2:11 PM

comment #28

Barracuda says ...

So Daffy Duck gets laid like a rock star? I had no idea.

Posted by Barracuda at July 18, 2007 2:14 PM

comment #29

krout says ...

Way too many paragraphs being devoted to this tripe.

Posted by krout at July 18, 2007 2:17 PM

comment #30

otakuhouse says ...

Oh please, NYCBusybody... How could you live in NY and not know a gay man or woman who doesn't fit your ill defined mold of what constitutes the definition of a gay person? Because you're obviously a reactionary homophobe. As Kenney points out, only recently in the LES a musician was queer bashed to such a degree as to require hospitalization. When's the last time one of your straight buddies had the shit beaten out of them for that?

On the other hand Travolta's performance in Hairspray and all it implies is probably worse...

Posted by otakuhouse at July 18, 2007 2:18 PM

comment #31

Sean says ...

You know how Howdy Doody is with lines? That's how Daffy Duck is with pussy.

Daffy Duck could steal a girl right off of Warren Beatty's dick.

He nailed Rosie O'Donnell *and* Ellen Degeneres at the same time, just for the bragging rights.

Posted by Sean at July 18, 2007 2:18 PM

comment #32

Sean says ...

That would've been better had it been directly under Barracuda's post, as intended.

Posted by Sean at July 18, 2007 2:19 PM

comment #33

OddDuck says ...

Why do you think NYCBB lives in NY? Just because he says he does?

Posted by OddDuck at July 18, 2007 2:21 PM

comment #34

nola says ...

I'm sorry but these two guys do not look like NYC firemen. At all...this isn't a comedy but sci fi.

Posted by nola at July 18, 2007 2:21 PM

comment #35

Sean says ...

"As Kenney points out, only recently in the LES a musician was queer bashed to such a degree as to require hospitalization."

That's what happens when you make fun of Busybody's low-thread-count T-shirt, the way that every homosexual in New York does.

"When's the last time one of your straight buddies had the shit beaten out of them for that?"

I'm pretty sure any straight buddies he claims are as imaginary as his gay ones.

Posted by Sean at July 18, 2007 2:23 PM

comment #36

NYCritic says ...

I think that maybe there was a germ of an interesting idea when Payne & Taylor wrote it. From what I recall, they wanted to make a film that "commented" on gay marriage, etc. since the first drafts were written several years ago when the issue was first raised by the court decision in Massachusetts. Once Sandler and his cronies got hold of the material, though, not surprisingly, it got dumbed-down.

Posted by NYCritic at July 18, 2007 2:30 PM

comment #37

bmcintire says ...

It seemed like such a delightfully long time time since NYCBusybody posted his trash, and now, suddenly, like not quite long enough. Having not yet seen this thing (and expecting to keep it that way), there are two things I don't understand. How on earth do they contrive the whole situation of a widower firmean losing his benefits (they certainly weren't his wife's benefits) and what the FUCK is that thing on Adam Sandler's forehead (as seen in the poster)?

Posted by bmcintire at July 18, 2007 2:40 PM

comment #38

Sean says ...

I would say that, to save time, Jeff took a picture of a poster behind glass rather than trying to find out on-line. That thing on Sandler's forehead is a reflection of lights.

Posted by Sean at July 18, 2007 2:42 PM

comment #39

giantman says ...

From the trailers I was really hoping that Chuck and Larry eventually embraced their gay marriage and ended up falling in love for real. Now that has been spoiled for me, I see no reason to see the movie. Paint giantman sad. But he'll get over it.

Posted by giantman at July 18, 2007 2:48 PM

comment #40

Movie fan09 says ...

Jeff-

this is what american entertainment does when they are begining to accept a new section of society.
they did it with foreigners in vaudeville and they are doing it now with gays.

it's like when bullies stop laughing at people and begin to laugh with them, and soon begin to hang out with the enemy.

Posted by Movie fan09 at July 18, 2007 3:57 PM

comment #41

tholl-yung says ...

Dennis Dugan, Cast as "Cab Driver." Look for him on Montana Ave. and tell him he's a shitty director and see if he moons you and starts a fight, because there's only so much therapy can do. I read a great review like this and feel sorry for anyone that has to write for a corporation.

Posted by tholl-yung at July 18, 2007 4:00 PM

comment #42

bmcintire says ...

Avoiding the obvious racial set-up (Whites pretending to be Black, Asian, etc) becuase too many heterosexuals refuse to equate being gay with being an actual minorty group (the racegeneticsthe bigoted tropes would defend this film if the leads were pretending to be either Evangelicals, Muslim, Hassidic Jews, Democrats or Republicans. The mind boggles at the potentially hilarious stereotypes to mined in those fields.

Posted by bmcintire at July 18, 2007 5:02 PM

comment #43

Movie Watcher says ...

Man, this debate is going on and on. All I can think of is what Seinfeld said: 'Not that there's anything wrong with that.' I'm sure gay people will ridicule the movie, and lots of other people, too. I just can't believe the studio put this shit out with a straight face. But, what the hell...they'll be taking the money to the bank! And while they're at it, haul NYCBB off, too.

Posted by Movie Watcher at July 18, 2007 5:30 PM

comment #44

D.Z. says ...

Jeff: "It's going to make decent money this weekend, somewhere in the mid 20s."

I'm surprised you're so pessimistic, considering it's Sandler. But I could easily imagine people getting bored with him playing himself again, only as a gay guy. On the other hand, have you noticed that, with each new "hit" after 'The Water Boy', there's a sense of diminishing returns at the box office? At least Carrey's career went out with a bang.

Sean: "He nailed Rosie O'Donnell *and* Ellen Degeneres at the same time, just for the bragging rights."

Nailing homely women isn't anything special, even if they're famous.

Posted by D.Z. at July 18, 2007 5:34 PM

comment #45

frankbooth says ...

Jett laughed? You'd better send the boy to Eric Rohmer boot camp.

How's his thread count?

Posted by frankbooth at July 18, 2007 5:55 PM

comment #46

BurmaShave says ...

If it weren't already taken, BACKDRAFT would be an excellent title for a movie about gay firefighters.

Posted by BurmaShave at July 18, 2007 6:33 PM

comment #47

nemo says ...

Since there's no chance I'll ever watch this movie even on DVD, what the hell is Jessica Biel doing in that picture? She looks drunk -- is she? Where is she anyway? Why is she pointing at her tits?

Posted by nemo at July 18, 2007 9:16 PM

comment #48