But 99.5 percent of terrible movies are just … terrible. That’s especially evident with the following five features, a quintet which cost millions to produce and yielded very little in return.

Dishonorable mentions include “The Change Up,” “Green Lantern,” “Larry Crowne,” “Sucker Punch” and “A Good Old Fashioned Orgy.” But these five movies went above and beyond the call of duty in draining precious hours from our lives.

1. “Just Go With It” – Wow. Just wow. The laziest comedy in who knows how long wastes not only the talents of stars Adam Sandler and Jennifer Aniston but also bit players Nicole Kidman and Dave Matthews. Sandler can challenge us (“Punch Drunk Love”), make us smile (“The Wedding Singer”) and even give us some grand guilty pleasures (“You Don’t Mess with the Zohan”). But with this sorry remake of “Cactus Flower” shows he can arrive on a movie set, recite dialogue less thought out than a Mad Libs sheet and call it a day without doing some rigorous soul searching.
2. “Dylan Dog: Dead of Night” – Insert your own Superman crashes back to Earth gag here. Poor Brandon Routh received precious little career buzz from his underrated work in the 2006 Man of Steel reboot. Five years later, he’s reduced to starring in this wannabe horror comedy about an undead hunter trying to … well, is there any point reciting such a sorry excuse for a plot?
3. “Your Highness” – Danny McBride is not a movie star, James Franco isn’t the next Steve Martin and Natalie Portman should know better than to appear in a fifth-rate “Monty Python” sketch stretched beyond the breaking point. Best suited for teenage boys jazzed to see their first R-rated movie no matter how painful the experience may be.
4. “The Human Centipede – Full Sequence” – “Fear Factor” contestants should be forced to watch this on an IMAX screen. Every criticism unfairly lobbed at the first “Centipede” hits the mark in this gross and mindless affair. The concept – a “Centipede” fan wants to emulate his favorite movie – might have worked had writer/director Tom Six not decided to eschew the storytelling prowess he flashed in the grisly original.
5. “Apollo 18” – It’s amazing how many scares Hollywood has wrung out of the found footage genre, from “The Blair Witch Project” to three chilling “Paranormal Activity” films. That means we were bound to endure a mega-bomb like this outer space claptrap.

* Note: My schedule did not allow me to view other potential clunkers like “Jack and Jill,” “Bucky Larson: Born to be a Star” and “Dream House.”

First, Adam Sandler’s latest comedy, “Jack and Jill,” failed to measure up to his previous blockbusters. Over the weekend, the star-laden “New Year’s Eve” debuted at number one, but with a final tally of $13 million that few folks found impressive.

And Will Smith, arguably the most bankable star of his generation, has been MIA of late until the lackluster MIB3 trailer hit the Web today.

That brings us to Tom Cruise, the mega-star with the mega-smile. His latest film, “Mission:Impossible – Ghost Protocol,” opens in limited theaters Friday before going wide Dec. 21.

To say there’s plenty riding on the film for Cruise is a Hollywood-sized understatement. Should “Ghost Protocol” falter at the box office, it’ll be all the evidence needed that Cruise is no longer a box office draw.

One could argue we already got that proof with the 2010 actioner “Knight and Day.” an underrated spy caper which failed to crack the golden $100 million mark. But that film offered an original story that didn’t have any franchise tie-ins to goose ticket sales. The new “M:I” won’t have such excuses. Plus, this new “Mission” features red-hot actor Jeremy Renner along with rising star Paula Patton. The best asset Cruise has may be Brad Bird, the Pixar director making his live-action feature debut with “Ghost Protocol.”

It’s been ages, in pop culture chronology, since Cruise jumped on Oprah Winfrey’s couch. We’ve long since moved on from that ridiculous sight. What Cruise is up against now is far more formidable – the notion that audiences have simply moved on to other actors.

Jennifer Garner on Defense Over New Film

We’ve at least made some strides. A few years ago, Hollywood attacked Middle America and Republicans with wildly open abandon; a few years ago they apologized for nothing and proudly wore their preachy cinematic leftism on their sleeves. Today, however, you have George Clooney assuring us his political movie isn’t political and now this:

“I don’t know if I would want to watch it with a politician, but I would like to watch it in Iowa and see if they are still friends with me after because we made it with such respect,” she said. “And I come from a small town, so I just want to make sure that they enjoy it and have as much fun with it as we intend for them to have.”

This is with respect to her new indie film “Butter,” which is probably going to be one those preordained flops Hollywood makes to aggrandize themselves.

This is also the film where producer Harvey Weinstein issued a challenge that our resident badass Dana Loesch took him up on. And now after six weeks and no response, it’s probably safe to say that Weinstein — whose Indian name is He Who Supports Fugitive Child Rapists – was just blowing more of that cowardly Hollywood smoke.

‘Jack and Jill’ hits 2% at Rotten Tomatoes

Now I’m even more convinced it’s a classic.

‘Margin Call’ Approaching 250,000 Video-On-Demand Rentals

Huge deal:

“Margin Call” has grossed more than $2.5 million in 178 theaters, a relatively large number for a film in limited release and that is available simultaneously via video on demand.

Feltheimer said he expects the thriller about Wall Street’s financial crisis to generate at least as much in video-on-demand revenue as it does in ticket sales.

If a relatively low-budget film with almost no marketing can do this, what can a high-profile film do?

My guess is that part of the reason the studio was so quiet about this launch was to avoid the inevitably crybabying from theatre owners who would’ve exploded over this and maybe even refused to screen it. This is what they did to “Tower Heist,” where the idea was simply to VOD it three weeks after the theatrical debut in just a few select areas.

—–

—–

SCOTTD’S EPIC LINKTACULAR

MICKEY ROURKE ALWAYS INVITES HIS SHRINK, DENTIST & MECHANIC TO MOVIE PREMIERES

VINTAGE ARTICLE: ANDREW PRICE’S TOP 25 WAR FILMS YOU SHOULD KNOW

RANKED: TERRY GILLIAM FILMS FROM WORST TO BEST

GORDON LIGHTFOOT CHANGES LYRICS TO ‘WRECK OF THE EDMUND FITZGERALD’

VIETNAM IN HD A “CATHARTIC” EXPERIENCE FOR VETERAN ADVISERS

KATHRYN BIGELOW BEGINS CASTING HER BIN LADEN PIC

TEASER TRAILER FOR ‘SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN‘

TRAILER #3 FOR LUCASFILM’S WWII ADVENTURE ‘RED TAILS’

… AND THE COOLEST TRAILER YOU WILL SEE ALL YEAR!

GEORGE TILLMAN JR. TO DIRECT MILES DAVIS BIOPIC

LEGENDARY PICTURES HIRES SCREENWRITER FOR THEIR IN-DEVELOPMENT GODZILLA FILM

BRETT RATNER TO REMAKE ‘THE LAST AMERICAN VIRGIN’ AND TROMA’S ‘MOTHER’S DAY’

DREAMWORKS SCREENING ‘WAR HORSE’ FOR CANADIAN VETERANS

CELEBRATING 30 YEARS OF ‘BODY HEAT’

FOR YOU SCREENWRITERS: HOW TO SELL A SCRIPT IN 6 MONTHS

TOP 10 GUILTY PLEASURE FILM FRANCHISES

IN HONOR OF 11/11/11, IT’S NIGEL TUFNEL DAY!

—-

—-

CLASSIC PICK FOR SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 12

4:15 AM EST: Slither (1972) – An ex-con and his misfit team search the underbelly of American life for a cache of embezzled loot. Dir: Howard Zieff Cast:  James Caan , Peter Boyle , Sally Kellerman .  C-96 mins, TV-14, Letterbox Format.

Loosely plotted character-driven story. Typical 70’s fare but with a good cast, a number of great moments, and a rare opportunity to catch it all in widescreen.

This weekend’s predictions and revenue results go as follows:

1. Puss In Boots ($27 million) – The film will hold in its default position since the overall box office frame is not strong. Just like “The Help” showed in its run, when overall box office is down, go with the film that currently sits at the top and has the most positive buzz. That would be “Puss In Boots” currently.

2. Immortals ($25 million) – This picture faces a huge hurdle in that the overall box office frame is really weak right now. Generating audience support will not be easy, but as we noted in a new film essay this week, this one has the advantage of tapping into the audience pool that made “300″ an enormous success. This audience is very loyal when the film’s concept is right. Therefore, we predict a higher-than-expected opening and a close battle with “Puss In Boots” that will last until at least Saturday evening. The film may not win the weekend but will develop strong box legs to do very well overall.

3. Jack And Jill ($18.5 million) – Despite Adam Sandler’s box office success in the past, the market this weekend is just too crowded for more than one breakout comedy hit. “Jack and Jill” will end up here because “Puss In Boots” controls the very audience it’s hoping for.

4. Tower Heist ($13 million) – After last week’s very disappointing opening, “Heist” now finds itself facing the reality of its high production budget versus its very low box office forecast. The film’s best hope is to save face and avoid a very high drop this time around. That prospect is very unlikely as audience ratings on the film remain low.

5. J. Edgar ($12 million) – With critics’ reviews only sub-par and audience reviews not much better, this one is quickly dropping from Oscar darling to just another “Hereafter.” The film may benefit from early Oscar buzz, but that only takes the film so far. Look for disappointing results here for the studio.

That’s our forecast. But how do you see it?

With a stunning 0 percent so far on Rotten Tomatoes the day before it hits theaters one might think Sandler had made a film that was completely, utterly and irredeemably lacking in laughs and entertainment value.

—–

But – taking into account that this isn’t pretentious art-house, Oscar-aiming fare – “Jack and Jill” is just another sad example of most critics’ single-minded agenda to give Sandler a smack down for daring to make movies that, while engaging in some crude humor, nearly always wind up upholding old-fashioned values like solid families, respect for elders (especially grandmas with meatballs!) and true love.

This time around, he includes a strong anti-bullying angle, and dares to have not one, not two, but three broad-sided smack downs of an atheist character – so be fully aware that while this isn’t a perfect film, it is damn funny. The packed audience I saw it with laughed their heads off while the few critics in attendance groused afterwards about what an atrocity it was.

In dealing with the film “Blue Valentine” back in January, I noted that most critics were treating it like the second coming of Christ set to celluloid. Depicting an awful relationship that goes from wonderful to sick within six short years, the nation’s alleged arbiters of taste declared it a masterpiece, while I pointed out that most people don’t want to spend their hard-earned money on date night watching a husband practically rape his wife before she kicks him out screaming “I have nothing left for you!” I predicted it wouldn’t even make $10 million, and I was right.

Meanwhile, I pointed out that only 10 percent of critics dared to say Sandler’s “Grown Ups” – featuring intact families with fathers regaining their leadership roles – was any good, despite the fact that, again, a packed house of regular folks had just exploded with laughter around them for 90 minutes. “Grown Ups” made $160 million. It wasn’t Oscar fare, but for Pete’s sake, it did its job by making people feel good.

So, know going into this review – or better yet, the film itself – that the critics who dog it are lying. They are completely disregarding the simple truth that the movie delivers plenty of laughs and good, solid values. They know Sandler is an openly Republican Hollywood figure, and they are out to take him down.

Now, about the movie: “Jack and Jill” is a typical creation from Sandler’s Happy Madison production company. He plays both Jack and Jill, brother and sister twins who have argued since birth. When Jill, who is single, lonely and in her 40s, comes to visit at Thanksgiving, it’s supposed to be for four days. But complications repeatedly ensue, dragging her visit all the way through a New Year’s week cruise with Jack’s family.

Along the way, the siblings fight constantly, but Jack puts up with her presence because he needs to get Al Pacino to act in a Dunkin Donuts ad for his advertising company, and Al surprisingly becomes smitten with Jill. Ultimately, Jill learns to value herself through the attentions of Al, and Jack’s wife helps win him over to seeking reconciliation with his sister.

“Jack and Jill” is unmistakably silly, and Sandler looks like he’s having more fun than he’s had in years in playing the twins, diving into his dual personas with comic gusto in addition to engaging in physical comedy including a “double Dutch” jump rope routine with his alter ego.

The real surprise here, however, is Pacino, who satirizes his over-the-top, angry public image by falling for Jill and seeking to win her heart in order to regain his artistic courage. In scene after scene, he’s completely, daffily absurd, and yet his joy is infectious. Katie Holmes as Jack’s wife also does a nice job, but the biggest and best aspect of the film for Christians and families is that the film places a high and unmistakable value on the beautiful power of families and sibling bonding, while also criticizing dishonesty and meanness, mocking atheism and making belief in God look cool. Most importantly, the film shows true inner beauty can lie within anyone.

Yeah, the movie’s got a few fart jokes. Yes, Sandler looks ridiculous in drag. But “Jack and Jill” has heart and plenty of laughs, and if you’re an honest human being – unlike my robotic brethren of critics – you’ll enjoy it. A lot.

If you have not read “Primetime Propaganda” by Ben Shapiro or Andrew Breitbart’s “Righteous Indignation,” I suggest adding both of them to your fall reading list. Both books do a great job of explaining how we got to this point in, supposedly, the most tolerant and accepting nation in the history of the planet, where the one thing that will not be tolerated in Hollywood is admitting you are a conservative. As someone hoping to one day make a living as a working actor, I know I have a difficult road in front of me due to my political views.

So why is it newsworthy when someone in Hollywood admits they are, indeed, a conservative? Everyone knows that Kelsey Grammer is a conservative, yet he still works regularly. His former co-star, Patricia Heaton, also has another hit series despite her apparent drawback. It is news because, at least until now, they have been the exception. It is news because the Hollywood power brokers have set up a system that, until now, has kept conservatives too afraid to admit their true political views for fear of being ostracized from any future work in “the business.”

There’s also the fact that conservatives do not feel the need to spout their political views at every opportunity the way liberals in Hollywood do. I’ve never understood why someone who relies on reaching the largest audience possible to view their work would alienate half of their potential fan base. Granted, not every Hollywood liberal has called Tea Partiers racists, but enough of them have to affect their box office numbers. According to Box Office Mojo, the 2011 box office take is down 4.2 percent compared to the same point last year. That is hundreds of millions of dollars. Sure, the down economy is having some effect on movie going, but it is not the only reason people aren’t going. I, for one, have stopped going because I don’t want to give my hard earned money to someone who thinks so little of me.

That is why the time for Hollywood conservatives to come out of the closet is now. I know I’m not the only one looking for people to throw my support behind. Every time I see a link on a website to a list of “Conservative Actors” I follow it, hoping I’ll see a new name added to the list of Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone. Recent additions have included Robert Downey, Jr. and Adam Sandler.

Sandler is one I have yet to see confirmed as a conservative. He is always listed as having supported former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the past. Based on Sander’s recent family values based movies, I can certainly see it, though. The fact that he has not come out and openly stated his conservative views also leads me to believe it is true.

Am I wrong for hoping it’s true?

There is also a rumor that Angelina Jolie was going to come out in support of John McCain for the 2008 election, but her people convinced her not to in order to save her career. Would it really have been that detrimental to her? She has already established herself as a star in Hollywood. Does she not realize she would likely have gained fans by doing so?

It’s time for Hollywood conservatives to understand there is a possibility they are not the minority anymore. A recent Rasmussen Reports survey found 34.3 percent of respondents identified themselves as Republican, with 33.1 percent identifying as Democrat. This is a reversal of results from the same survey the past two years which found Democrats ahead in 2010 (36.3 percent to 33.4 percent) and 2009 (37.8 percent to 31.9 percent). Those numbers look like a trend to me. Since Hollywood is looked at as a major trendsetter, why are they so far behind on this one?

I understand the hesitancy to come forward, based on how Hollywood conservatives have been treated in the past. Those who are on the fence about coming out need look no further than Alcon Entertainment and Sherwood Pictures. In a down box office year, Alcon’s “Dolphin Tale” has made more than $30 million in profit on a film with an estimated $37 million budget. Sherwood’s “Courageous” has grossed almost $30 million off of a $2 million budget.

There is an under-served movie-going audience that is hungry to support those who share their values. Though he was not the first to say it, I’m reminded of this quote from President Ronald Reagan in 1981: “If not us, who? If not now, when?”

ROD STEWART PLAYS LAS VEGAS

Hard to believe Rod Stewart could turn 66 but he has and is now packing Caesar’s Palace in Sin City.

May he live forever.

About ten years ago I saw Stewart perform live. He wasn’t supporting an album, which can be the best time to catch your favorite artists live. Instead of supporting a new release by playing a bunch of new songs you don’t know, they mainly stick to the hits — and what a reminder that night was of just how many terrific hits Stewart has cranked out over the years. It was a two-and-a-half hour concert loaded with memories all performed by a superstar who was obviously having a great time — in Charlotte, North Carolina, no less.

It’s easy to forget how many great songs Stewart’s recorded over the decades. I found the same is true with John Mellencamp, Elton John, Billy Joel, Tina Turner, and Eddie Money. You tend to kind of forget these performers over the years, but if you take a moment to grab hold of a greatest hits collection or see them live, it’s striking how prolific they were and for how long.

Can anyone name more than a few present-day pop artists under the age 30 who will have that many hits, or even as many as Loverboy? (“Turn Me Loose” will now be stuck in your head all day. I apologize for nothing.)

IS ADAM SANDLER’S “JACK AND JILL” TRAILER FOR REAL?

I stopped second-guessing Adam Sandler after seeing “The Waterboy.” When that trailer came out, between the accent and concept, I was sure I was seeing the stupidest movie ever conceived. Then it made over $100 million (when that still meant something), then I fell in love with the DVD, and now it’s one of those movies I never tire of.

“Jack and Jill” is also directed By Dennis Dugan, the comedic genius behind many of Sandler’s biggest hits and THE GREAT UNDER-RATED COMEDY OF THE CENTURY: “Saving Silverman.”

Recognize.

R-E-C-O-G-N-I-Z-E.

As far as the J&J trailer goes, it kind of won me over when Al Pacino showed up.

A READER EMAIL REGARDING NETFLIX:

There’s no reason why you should know this, so don’t take it as criticism, but Netflix streaming is nearly worthless to hearing impaired people like me who need captions to understand what’s being said on the screen.  For some reason, Netflix streaming doesn’t do captions.

This is an excellent point and when you consider our aging populating, not a small thing. Not to diminish those who face serious hearing issues, but in deference to my lovely wife who rarely has trouble falling asleep, I prefer captions when watching television in bed at night and am frustrated by Netflix’s lack of them. So those with truly serious hearing issues…

Netflix isn’t short on cash. They should fix this.

WILL AND JADA’S MARRIAGE IN THE SPOTLIGHT

So rumors pop up about the state of Will Smith’s marriage, the couple denies the rumors, and now the entertainment media has only exploded the number of speculative stories they’re writing.

For everything I hate about the political and cultural biases in the entertainment media, that  pales in comparison to my loathing of the gossip media. I get that when you choose to become a superstar, you invite this kind of coverage. But it’s still an unfortunate price to have to pay.

The Smiths have children, young children, and whether the rumors are true or not (and who really cares?), no thought is ever given to the innocent bystanders in these matters.

—–

—–

LAST NIGHT’S SCREENING

Damages (2007): Watched a couple more episodes and am happy to see that the flash-forwards have finally caught up with the main story. They were coming off as melodramatic, but I think they will now make more sense and actually add to the central plot. This isn’t addictive television like “The Wire,” “Lost” or “24,” but I am eager to see what happens next.

—–

——

QUICK HITS 

FOUR TEASER CLIPS FROM ‘THE WALKING DEAD’ SEASON 2

STEVE JOBS’ MOVIE LEGACY: PIXAR

HEADLINE I NEVER THOUGHT I’D WRITE: PHOTO OF STEVEN SEAGAL AND JOE THE PLUMBER AT REPUBLICAN FUNDRAISER

“MADE IN TAIWAN” AND 15 OTHER REJECTED “TOY STORY” TITLES

GRRR… GEORGE LUCAS ADDS CGI YODA ON STAR WARS: THE COMPLETE SAGA BLU-RAY

HOLLYWOOD WALK OF FAME BANS REALITY STARS

BECAUSE “THE WOLF MAN” REMAKE WAS SUCH A HIT…

ANOTHER GRATEFUL DEAD TOUR?

CHRISTIAN TOTO INTERVIEWS SADDAM HUSSEIN’S SON AND IRON MAN’S DAD

 THE APOCALYPSE IS NIGH

NOT A HEADLINE FROM 1998

SAM SHEPARD AS AN ELDERLY BUTCH CASSIDY IS A GREAT PIECE OF CASTING

I WISH

—–

—–

CLASSIC PICK FOR FRIDAY, AUGUST 26

TCM:

4:00 PM  EST: Royal Wedding (1951) —   A brother-and-sister musical team find romance when they tour to London for Elizabeth II’s wedding. Dir: Stanley Donen Cast:  Fred Astaire, Jane Powell, Peter Lawford. C-93 mins, TV-G, C.

Though most famous — and deservedly so — for Astaire’s dazzlingly elegant dancing-on-the-ceiling number (Astaire’s moves with a coat rack are just as impressive), director Stanley Donen’s follow-up to his classic “On The Town” (which he co-directed with Gene Kelly), always surprises me by how good it is. Sure, the story surrounding all the complications that get in the way of True Love is light and predictable, but the execution is impeccable, all of the song and dance numbers are delightful, and Jane Powell (Donen’s third choice after Ginger Rogers and June Allyson) a real breath of fresh air.

“Royal Wedding” tends to get overlooked for a couple of reasons. First off, it lapsed into public domain, so people tend to associate it with all those awful, cheapie DVD releases. Second, it was released in the middle of a slew of higher-profile musical productions and outright masterpieces, such as “Annie Get Your Gun,” “Show Boat,” “An American in Paris,” and “Singin’ In the Rain.”

Stiff competition but “Royal Wedding” is still a deserving entry. It does the all-important job of capturing your attention, holding it, and delivering The Joy.

–Please send tips/suggestions/requests to jnolte@breitbart.com

In an interesting but flawed piece of analysis, The Daily Mail makes some key points and, I think, gets some things wrong:

Various reasons have been suggested to explain this new and — from the stars’ point of view — deeply worrying phenomenon.

Some say that blockbusting actors and actresses are simply pricing themselves out of the market. Depp, possibly the highest-paid actor in movies today, earns around £12 million a picture.

In his time, Cruise has done even better. With gross points — a percentage of everything taken at the box office — he pocketed nearly£50 million from Mission Impossible 2 in 2000.

But that was 11 years ago, when Cruise was in his heyday and the audience demographic was different. Then, the average age of cinemagoers fell roughly between 12 and 25.

Since then there’s been a considerable change. Today, the mass of cinema audiences is aged between 15 and 18 — and that’s what poses such a threat to the existence of big movie stars.

Kids of that age are not interested in veterans like Hanks (55), Cruise (49) or even Depp (48), except when he plays Jack Sparrow in the frankly juvenile Pirates Of The Caribbean series. Watching old men like them on screen would be like watching their fathers cavorting about.

Even Roberts (44), Diaz (39) and Jolie (36), desirable as they might be to the audiences’ dads, come across as little more than auntie figures.

This modern, young audience has no interest in the established stars. What it wants to see is either people closer to its own age (for instance Robert Pattinson, 25, as a toothsome vampire in the Twilight saga) or crash-bang special effects in films such as the sci-fi Transformers series, or in the X-Men superheroes films, or the forthcoming Captain America.

Frankly this is too simple. A to B to C sounds good but doesn’t really add up.

For starters, why did the mass movie-going age suddenly collapse from 12 to 25 all the way down to the even narrower 15 to 18?  Are we supposed to believe people over 18 are genetic freaks who find movie-going unappealing? Society didn’t change over the last decade, the movies did.

Films aimed at teens will never change. Vampires, superheroes, lame musicals, horror films, teen romance, bawdy comedies, etc. This is not a hard nut to crack and that formula has been around since my generation went to high school. So, as we see, the movie industry is still able to hang on to that crowd.  What I have seen change over the past decade are films aimed at those of us over 18 and this change has been a suicidal one for any industry interested in making a profit. 

With notable exceptions, no longer are we being inspired in a darkened theatre or asked to aspire. No longer are we made to feel good about who we are or what we believe in. No longer is the heart warmed or the feel-good feel-gooded. Instead we are guilted, preached to and told nihilism and narcissism are values. Today, going to the movies for grown ups has become one expensive bummer where the asshole next to you is usually on his cell phone. For every “Blind Side” we get 20 anti-American films.

Yep, I’ll wait for RedBox, thank you very much. And sometimes not even that.

Movie stars haven’t done themselves much good, either. What used to be a subculture of transplants from all over the country who knew how they good they had it and understood Middle America (because they came from there or knew someone who did), is now mostly Southern California natives aided by nepotism who look down on their audience.

All we’re guilty of is not-liking them back. 

Finally, there’s also no precedent for teenage moviegoers turning on movie stars of a certain age. In 1984, Arnold, Clint, Stallone, Chuck Norris, Burt Reynolds, Robert Redford, Chevy Chase, Harrison Ford, the “Star Trek” crew and Jack Nicholson were all close to our parents age and older — but we all stood in line to see them. So it’s just absurd to state that kids today are mostly drawn to actors closer to their own age. If that were true, a Robert Pattinson movie where he doesn’t play a moody vampire would be a hit, and that’s simply not been the case. 

The only movie stars left in America have transcended their industry and built up an enormous reservoir of audience goodwill by simply going about the business of making crowd-pleasing projects, not insulting us, and creating an appealing  public persona. Off the top of my head, I would name Sandra Bullock, Adam Sandler, Denzel Washington and Will Smith.

I’ve been very careful in this piece to focus on the film industry as opposed to ”Hollywood” in general because it’s just a fact that entertainment for grown ups is not only flourishing on television, it’s enjoying a Golden Age unlike any during my lifetime. Breaking Bad, Mad Men, The Sopranos, The Wire, 24, Burn Notice, The Shield, Lost, etc. There’s almost too much worthwhile television to keep up with these days.

Some very smart and talented individuals have migrated to the small screen in order to tell mature, complicated stories with complex characters. The talent is out there. The movie industry just refuses to put it to work.

Below that headline are nearly 700 confused and curious words digging into the strange, exotic phenomenon of American moviegoers flocking to an unpretentious, family comedy starring one of America’s few remaining bankable actors who co-stars with 4 guys who have spent 15 years building audience goodwill.

The author of the piece is Steven Zeitchik, and while my confusion with his confusion remains, let’s at least give him points for not pulling a Patrick Goldstein. Rather than speculate until he reached his own conclusion, Zeitchik actually practiced a little journalism:

We spoke with a few distribution experts and movie veterans, and they offered numerous theories. There’s the one that Sandler is back in a comedy that’s recognizably him (apparently, “Funny People” reminded these filmgoers that they liked Sandler, but not enough for them to like the movie).

Or the theory that many of the men who went to see “Grown Ups” recognized some of themselves  in it. These would be the thirty- and fortysometings who look back fondly, with no small amount of gross-out pleasure, on their adolescence, and at Sandler, the living embodiment of it. … Bolstering this theory is Sony’s data that nearly half the “Grown Ups” audience was over age 25. …

This is interesting:

But the most interesting  explanation may lie with a surprising Sony number: More women saw the movie than men (about 52% to 48%, according to the studio). On its face, that one’s a head-scratcher. You wouldn’t think that women would see themselves in the male characters or, for that matter, in the characters of the one-dimensional wives and girlfriends.

I don’t find that to be anything close to a head-scratcher. What could have more universal appeal than the familiar comfort food of “Grown Ups?”

And what does gender have to do with anything? If women only went to films with “characters they can see themselves in,” at least half the films released today wouldn’t star women.  

Zeitchik might have been assigned the story, so I’m not blaming him, but when the movie industry’s newspaper of record expresses surprise over the no-brainer of no-brainers scoring big at the box office, there’s a disconnect.

Shouldn’t someone at the L.A. Times have at least a rudimentary knowledge of what appeals to the everyday American movie-goer? I’m not even suggesting they like the everyday American moviegoer. Or if they don’t want to do that, they could at least bookmark Box Office Mojo and discover that when Adam Sandler makes and Adam Sandler film, his batting average is right around 100%.

Here’s Rocchi’s response (my response to his follows):

John:

Please let me note — with civil bemusement, not flaming-eyed fury or righteous indignation — that my last line was intended as a joke, and not as a serious, scornful indictment of American Mass Culture; I like a good fun movie that’s well-made (Hot Tub Time Machine, Zombieland, Date Night, Funny People, The Fantastic Mr. Fox — naming just a few examples from past months) and the fact is that — in my opinion, which is neither writ nor offered as irrefutable truth — Grown Ups is simply not a good comedy. I also noted in my review — which I offer for clarification — that “Sandler’s capable of good work (“Punch-Drunk Love,” “Funny People”) and even capable of noble errors working with real directors (“Reign Over Me,” “Spanglish”) …” To me, part of why Grown Ups is so painfully unfunny is that it’s beneath the real talents of the people involved; it’s lazy; it’s shabby; it’s dull. Look at Chris Rock and Maya Rudolph’s scenes; they have a real crackle to them, of something unexpected and funny and human. The rest of the movie lacks any similar spark of life or real joy.

I’m also perplexed by your closing argument, as I often am by other arguments that “If it makes money, it must be good.” Suggesting that Grown Ups is a good movie because it makes a bunch of money is a suggestion as logically flawed as saying that, for example, Obama is a great president because he got a significant number of votes. There’s no causal link between the two things — and Sandler’s films have deep, depressing second-week box-office drop-offs as of late : 62% for the best of the bunch, Funny People — and 57% for “Bedtime Stories,” 45% for I Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry, 50 % for Click and 53% for You Don’t Mess with the Zohan; if Sandler’s films make money, that seems to be a matter of marketing more than word-of-mouth. I’d make a gentleman’s bet that Grown Ups will have a box-office drop-off of at least 55% next weekend, because the majority of audiences will see it, be underwhelmed, and not encourage friends to go — a motivating force behind any movie’s success that has time and time again proven to be far more powerful than any one critic, or, frankly, all critics.

As you and I both know, Mr. Nolte, the writer’s job is not to sit with a set of unimpeachable scales and judge a film with them; the job is to articulate your subjective opinion in a way that makes sense to the objective reader. My subjective enjoyment of Grown Ups was minimal; your subjective enjoyment of it more so (although on a close reading your words don’t quite sound like a ringing endorsement). We both tried to convey that to the reader. If my review was meant to convey anything, it’s that rewarding lazy work with box office lets Hollywood make more lazy films — and I don’t think even a fan of Sandler’s would put Grown Ups in the top half of his filmography; would you?

I hope that this note finds you well, and I thank you for the courtesy of a clean, well-lit place for civil dialogue.

Yours,

James.

******                               ******                                ******                            ******

James,

Obviously I’m waaaay in the minority with this one but I’m also a firm believer that taste is subjective. What I said, however, was 100% true: when I read your closer about the audience laughing that’s what motivated me to duck into a matinee. I do apologize, though, if my quoting you came off like I was singling you or any reviewer out for criticism on this one. It’s no secret that I’m not above such things, but in this case I really wasn’t looking to criticize. I was simply using you as an example of ALL the hostile reviews because it was the one that convinced me to see a film I really didn’t have time for.

But I know the readers also thought I was criticizing your review as well, so that’s my fault for not being clearer and also why I added White’s and Kyle Smith’s review info late last night and then jumped into the comments.

As far as your questions/comments:

1. I never said if a movie makes money it must be good, I said GROWN UPS — my point being: unlike so many others that sucker their audience and don’t deliver — “deserves” its opening weekend.

2. I didn’t find GROWN UPS “lazy,” I found it formulaic (that’s not a criticism) and laid back (coasting on relationships). But the thing had me laughing throughout … hard. Harder than any Apatow movie by a longshot. Was it a brilliantly structured comedy with something to say like “Tootsie”? No. It was more like one of those great Abbott and Costello comedies that keeps it simple (and keeping it simple is difficult) and keeps the laughs coming.

3. I’ve seen too many “un-lazy” films — too many that are frankly too eager o prove that they’re “more than just about making with the funny” that end up punishing the audience with a frantic plot that’s impossible to follow and absurdly long run-times (the third act of ZOHAN, for example). Sandler and Dugan slowing it down, keeping it simple and concentrating on the laughs and small moments of warmth — these days that’s kind of a vacation.

4. I have a lot of respect for a film that delivers genuine, consistent laughs and take my hat off to the work that goes into pulling that off. Where you see laziness I see an incredible amount of effort and talent in the timing of the performances and post-production editing to achieve that. Do a couple of the subplots stumble, including the one you mentioned with Chris Rock and Maya Rudolph? Sure. But the over-arching relationships (between the 5 guys) works effortlessly. And not to put too fine a point on it, but “effortless” is hard.

5. Don’t underestimate the power of goodwill. This was an all-star cast of actors who have entertained us for a couple of decades now. We love them on sight. The first act also does a very good job of establishing who these character are, earning our sympathy, and especially establishing their friendships. That reservoir of goodwill got me through the bumpier spots.

Again, taste is subjective. But I had a great time. So did the audience I was with. It was like Sandler smooshed two of my favorite sleepers together: “The Big Chill” and “Summer Rental.”

As far as how I would rank it in the Sandler canon, I can’t say as of yet. I do want to see it again (which is about as high a compliment as I can give) but I don’t want to pull the judgment trigger too soon. It took three viewings to discover THE WATERBOY (which I didn’t care for at first) is a near-masterpiece and ZOHAN loses something with each new go-round.

My criteria for what makes a good movie is a simple one: Does it cast a spell and hold it? Though far from a perfect film, GROWN UPS took me away for 100 minutes, amused me, and even moved me at times. I enjoyed my weekend at that lake with those guys and was sorry when it was over.

Though I’m blessed with a job that pays me to see films and write about them, I’m just another guy with an opinion no more important or valid than your’s or the guy who reads my gas meter.

I’ve certainly been on the other side of the “vs.” — AVATAR is probably the best example, not to mention TRANSFORMERS 2. And after gushing over Soderbergh’s CHE, I’ve never felt more alone.

Thank you much for stopping by.