But the “Grey’s Anatomy” standout trashed the movie that started her big screen career, “Knocked Up,” and caused a ruckus on the set of her ABC hit series by pulling herself out of Emmy competition because she didn’t think she was given award-winning material.

She’s been doing damage control ever since.

How far has she fallen? Her latest film, “One for the Money,” opens tomorrow without critical reviews. That’s a sign the studio knows it has a clunker on its hands. Making matters worse, the discount company GroupOn is offering special deals on “Money” to help boost the film’s opening weekend ticket sales.

Last weekend, Heigl appeared on the cover of USA Weekend looking prim and apologetic next to a dog. She’s practically begging audiences to reconsider her as a movie star, but it didn’t have to go down this way.

It all started shortly after “Knocked Up” became a hit. Heigl told Vanity Fair magazine the film felt “a little sexist” for portraying women as humorless and men as lovable rogues. Young stars should avoid trashing their ex-bosses at all costs, especially on a project like “Knocked Up” which she could have simply passed on in the first place.

Competition is fierce in Hollywood, and getting labeled as either “difficult” or “ungrateful” might be the quickest way to curb one’s career ascent.

Heigl admits she has a big mouth, and it’s clear she’s a little older, and quite a bit wiser, at this stage of her career. But “it” actresses come with a painfully short shelf life. Hollywood quickly moves on to the next young lovely, and at 33 Heigl is now just another actress fighting for the few good parts.

I remember the night I first walked in to see “Virgin” back in 2005. I thought that it would just be one big sex comedy poking fun at the titular character. But as written by Apatow and the film’s star, Steve Carell, the film actually turned every convention one might have expected upside down.

Carell’s Andy had the “problem” of being a 40 year-old virgin, but after initally laughing at him and trying to get him laid, Andy’s co-worker friends slowly start to respect him. One who brags about cheating on his girlfriends winds up turning monogamous when he sees his impending baby on an ultrasound, while another may find his perfect match with a kinky gal but by the end it’s true love nonetheless.

More pertinently, Andy’s journey into true love with a divorced mom played by Catherine Keener involves him hiding his sexual neophyte status by challenging her to have 20 dates together before they have sex. She finds it unusual, but as a cute montage winds up showing, the film shows that getting to know each other well is more important to a healthy long-term relationship than casual sex.
 
Along the way, the film also takes sharply pointed stabs at our sexually saturated culture, both in a scene where Andy tries to run from a giant bus ad featuring a couple in the throes of passion only to stumble across other sexual images everywhere else around him, and in a particularly strong scene that takes dead aim at how Planned Parenthood-style clinics would rather push an anything-goes-with-a-condom message at teens than to encourage abstinence.
 
Ultimately, Andy and his beloved wait until after they’re married to have their first joyous moments of ecstasy together, and he’s so happy by the end result that he and the entire cast burst into a surreally funny dance routine to the strains of the giddy hippie classic “The Age of Aquarius.” And the movie broke both Carell and Apatow into the mainstream bigtime by scoring $120 million in the US alone, with my opening-night audience walking out at the end in excited discussions about the film‘s refreshingly different attitudes.
 
How many other films with those kinds of messages would have been played outside of a religious event?
 
Leap forward two years, and Apatow took on unplanned pregnancy in “Knocked Up,” where a stoned slacker played by Seth Rogen impregnates an ambitious young TV personality played by Katherine Heigl during a one-night stand. Heigl’s character’s mother tells her not to blow her new on-camera career and that she can have a “real” baby later – and that moment is what propels her to keep her baby and sets the movie on its exploration of how the stoned dude is ruining his life with his irresponsibility and shows him the joys of putting down the bong and picking up a relationship.
 
Apatow took some heat for the film’s stance on abortion, with the liberal newspaper LA Weekly grilling him about the scene between Heigl and her mother. The Weekly writer asked him why he took the pro-life route and compared his film to the Romanian drama “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,” which depicts a woman’s search for an illegal abortion in the former Communist nation. Apatow pointed out that if an abortion had occurred, “Knocked Up” would have been 15 minutes long and that while there’s a place for “4 Weeks” in the market, he doesn’t have to make a  film that way.
 
“Knocked Up” even took a strong whack at the stoner lifestyle, as  Rogen’s character has to learn to put away the pot and get a job in order to step up and truly be a good man for Heigl and their baby. As the LA Weekly noted in a Scott Foundas article on the film:

That extends to the film’s laissez-faire depiction of drug use and alcohol consumption – a subject about which Apatow has mixed feelings. He is himself strongly anti-drug, he says, “but at the same time, as a filmmaker, I just need to show things exactly as they are. I hope, on some level, I’m indicating to the audience: You probably shouldn’t do  this, that you can’t be the high guy when the earthquake happens and you have to figure out how to shut off the gas.”

And now we have “Funny People,” which doesn’t directly address a moral quandary in its title, but which explores the attitude of entitlement some people have in which they think they can pursue whomever they want romantically, damn the consequences. When Adam Sandler’s lead  character, superstar comic George Simmons, overcomes a bout with cancer  (I didn’t spoil it – that’s revealed in the trailer) he sets out to get the Girl Who Got Away, not caring at first that she’s now married to another guy and has kids.
 
(SPOILER ALERT) Simmons does have a quickie with his dream woman, but ultimately he comes to realize that her husband isn’t a jerk and his dream girl and her husband opt to forgive each other and stay together, while Simmons walks out of their way.
 
Once again, marriage is upheld as the ideal and traditional values win. The fact that the film’s packed with dick jokes still doesn’t change  that, and helps lead people who might be looking for a naughty night out at the movies to have a morally sound one as well.

As the readers of Big Hollywood know too well, Hollywood began its attacks by ridiculing those of us who hold our values dear—claiming a pluralistic high ground that all beliefs are equal and we shouldn’t judge others (unless you happen to be one of those white, bigoted, hillbilly Jesus freaks).  Now that pluralism no longer seems to ignite conservatives with the same fervent anger, Hollywood has turned to nihilism; because, after all, when everything is true, nothing is true.  With no truth, Hollywood can no longer give its heroes any reason to mature or chase after dreams because lives and journeys have no meaning, draining the enjoyment out of their films.

Admittedly, nihilism is not a new tool in Hollywood’s toolbox.  Numerous dramatic films and even comedies (see Woody Allen) have examined the dreary nothingness of life, but now this mindset has permeated into the realm of feel-good comedies.  I believe this is one step too far.  From “Knocked Up” to “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” Hollywood’s last few comedy hits have provided plenty of laughs, but, in the end, nihilism sucks the meaning from these films, and, as a result, the humor gives way to gloom.

This phenomenon cropped up most recently in “I Love You, Man.”  The film follows Peter, played by Paul Rudd, on his quest to find a best man.  Peter is a nice enough guy who does his best to do the right thing in any given situation.  However, if the going gets tough, Peter takes off.  When faced with difficult decisions, Peter is too insecure to make a choice and retreats into the safety of his personal bubble. As a result, Peter finds himself with no best man for his upcoming wedding.

During his search, Peter meets Sydney, portrayed by Jason Segal.  Unlike Peter, Sydney doesn’t care about right and wrong and is therefore never intimidated by any situation.  He’s only concerned with what he wants in the moment, and thus lives the life of an overgrown adolescent, doing as he pleases without regard for the consequences.

The dichotomy between these two men could be a perfect setup for a humorous tale in which both men are confronted with their flaws and overcome them as their relationship deepens—a modern day “The Odd Couple,” if you will. However, since the film avoids advocating any value system whatsoever, neither character has any incentive to grow.  Therefore, neither man does.

The friction between Peter and Sydney’s opposing lifestyles finally takes its toll and the two men break off all contact with one another.  When faced with the unfortunate end of their new friendship, neither man finds a reason to mature and attempt reconciliation, but instead both retreat into their old patterns.

**SPOILERS**

Peter, as usual, avoids confrontation and uses a random collection of guys as his groomsmen, despite having no intimate connection with most of them.  At his wedding, his fiancé, Zoe, sees how lonely Peter is and calls Sydney to tell him to come to the ceremony.  Sydney is already on his way to the wedding when she calls.  Having been rejected by other friends when trying to make plans for the weekend, Sydney decides his best plan of action is to crash the wedding.  Rather than think of how this could impact the ceremony, Sydney is only selfishly concerned about how much better he will feel when he sees Peter again.

In the end, the two men make up, and Sydney stands by Peter as his best man.  But does this reconciliation really mean anything?  Since neither man has changed, what exactly are we cheering for?  Would Peter have ever reconciled with Sydney if Zoe hadn’t intervened?  There’s no reason to think so.  Will Sydney continue his adolescent lifestyle as Peter moves into a new stage of life, causing their friendship to fall apart again at some point down the road?  Most likely.  If each man can look at his flaws and find no reason to change, what was the point of their struggle throughout the film; and why should we care whether or not their friendship endures?

**END SPOILERS**

In the good old days, Hollywood knew how to use a story to create endearing characters.  Felix Unger and Oscar Madison, another pair of unlikely friends, became Hollywood legend in the film adaption of Neil Simon’s “The Odd Couple.”  These two men battle it out as uptight Felix deals with his pending divorce, and slovenly Oscar still reels from his own divorce, months earlier.  Both men lead miserable lives in the wake of the demise of their marriages, and yet, through their friendship; even with its own rocky moments, each man reinvents himself.  Oscar finally moves on from his wife; leaving the past in the past, while Felix lives up to his responsibilities, paying his alimony and taking an interest keeping his former pigsty of an apartment clean.

Yet, in the end, its not that both of these men have grown up, but, rather that we have seen a friendship come to the brink of disaster and back, strengthening the bond between the two friends that draws the us in.  From the beginning, when Felix worries that Oscar is trying to kill himself, to when Oscar prefaces his rant against Felix’s laziness with his profound gratitude to Felix taking him in, it is apparent that these two men truly care for each other.  It is this fact that allows us to care as well.

This is nihilism’s greatest failing in “I Love You, Man.”  When there is no meaning in life, one is left with nothing but oneself, and so nihilism gives way to narcissism.  Peter never takes an interest in helping Sydney get off his couch, so that Sydney may do something with his life.  Rather, Peter goes along with all of Sydney’s whims, no matter how uncomfortable he is with them. Peter just wants any guy to be his friend so that he can perfect the facade that is his life.  Sydney, while perhaps taking a modicum of interest in getting Peter to break out of his uptight shell, only does so for the sole purpose of having another guy legitimize his juvenile way of life.  If Peter is willing to waste an afternoon away in the man cave, then Sydney doesn’t have the to face the fact that fact that his life is completely empty.  Neither man is invested in the friendship beyond his own selfish desires.

When a feel-good ending is finally pushed on the audience, the shallowness of Peter and Sydney’s bond become glaringly apparent.  The audience has been betrayed into thinking that they are laughing along with their protagonists as they improve themselves and save their friendship, when, in reality, the audience has just been laughing at these two men…period.  Where is the feel good in that?

So, congratulations Hollywood; you have found yet another way to annoy conservatives at the box office – turning comedy into tragedy.  Where you once used humor in films to give Americans an escape from everyday life, you now only pile on the discontent and misery.  This time, however, you’re not lulling this conservative into a sense of complacency.  In fact, I may not even notice the next time you release one of your so-called comedies – I’ll be too busy working on my own!

You could feel it in the air as Apatow basked in the glow of his 2006 double whammy, the hilarious “Knocked Up” and “Superbad.” By the time 2007’s “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” rolled around, the backlash was gathering steam.

I told a friend I’d seen it.

“Is it just more of the Judd Apatow formula,” he sniffed. It was, I admitted. But I like the formula. I like it a lot. And not to get too Harry Knowles on everyone, but I’ve liked it for a long while.

I liked “The Ben Stiller Show,” loved “Heavyweights” and what I saw of “The Larry Sanders Show.” Heck, I even chuckled at “Celtic Pride” and saw “The Cable Guy” opening weekend. Aside from the latter, most people didn’t see much of Apatow’s work, but those who had loved most of it.

He got a chance to stretch his wings with “Freaks and Geeks,” probably my favorite show ever this side of “The Andy Griffith Show” (pre-departure of Don Knotts), “Cheers,” and “The Honeymooners.” Paul Feig created F&G, but Apatow nurtured it and, if my admittedly shoddy research is true, was the master at injecting sweetness into some of the storylines. That sweetness, honed so well in “The 40-Year-Old Virgin,” is what separates his vulgar comedies from other, more obnoxious vulgar comedies. And it’s about to bite him in the ass, I think.

“He has his cake and eats it too,” I’ve heard people say of Apatow. An hour and a half of homophobic, sexist comedy, and it’s all wrapped up in the end with a phony moral message. Sorry, but I call bullcrap on that.

What’s interesting is that I hear the sexist card being played from both sides on “Knocked Up.” Katherine Heigl is a shrew, I’m told, for expecting Seth Rogan to clean up his act. That’s sort of what she said, I think, in an article in a magazine I don’t read. But, but, but…I didn’t think she was a shrew. I thought she was right. I never thought she was the bad guy. I thought we were laughing at Rogan and with him. So I guess Apatow was having his cake and eating it too.

John Nolte pointed out that he doesn’t empathize with the characters. I’ve also heard the complaint that Rudd’s character was doing nothing wrong, and the women made it out to be terrible that he would sneak off to a fantasy baseball league meeting, or whatever the hell it was. The fact that Rudd’s character felt guilty about it didn’t go over with some people I’ve talked to (I corner people and bring up the awesomeness of Judd Apatow, which is the extent of my shoddy research). Again, I disagree. I totally empathized with Rudd and his wife, the hilarious Leslie Mann. Why? I feel guilty when I go to a movie and my wife’s alone with our insane kids. I get where Rudd’s coming from, and picture my wife being as mad as Leslie Mann was.

Ultimately, I’m wary anytime someone calls a movie sexist or racist. I rarely, if ever, think that the characters in a movie are meant to symbolically represent all men, or all women.

As for the charge of homophobia, leveled by none other than “Freaks and Geeks” writer Mike White, here’s the rub, and it won’t go down easy. No matter how accepted homosexuality becomes in this society or just about any other, dudes will always crack gay jokes. The resurrection of Prop 8 could fail by a hundred percent, and dudes will still crack gay jokes. My son is six. He’s never cracked a gay joke, I’ve never told him what gay means outside of  the context “The Wiggles” or “Barney” saying something is happy and gay. But when we were at open house at his school in West L.A., he warned me not to use the middle urinal in the bathroom, “Because Mark told me it’s the gay one.”

“So what, what does Mark know?” I asked, stepping up to the urinal.

“Dad! He knows! He’s in the third grade!” my son exclaimed as some other kids came in, laughing and pointing. I’d like to say that I acted like a grown up in this situation, but I’d be lying. Instead, I bellowed, “I’m not gay! You are!”, zipped up before I was finished, and ran back to the open house, my pants stained with pee, their laughter echoing in my head.

Apatow’s swinging for the fences with his next movie, “Funny People”, starring his one-time roommate Adam Sandler, along with Seth Rogan, Leslie Mann, Eric Bana, Jonah Hill, and some Coppola. The trailer looks funny, but again, I have to confess something else as it relates to this self-indulgent post: I’m a big Sandler fan. Always have been, since his sporadic appearances on “The Cosby Show” and “Remote Control.” For several years, I worked at Blockbuster on Sunset Boulevard. When customers would ask me if they should rent a new Sandler movie, say “The Longest Yard,” I’d think, “Just pick a movie, what do you need my help for, you friggin’ Democrat,” but I’d smile politely and gush, “It’s the best movie ever! They never should have remade it, but it’s still the best movie ever.”

About that time, my buddies would say, “Wait, customer. He’s an irrational Adam Sandler fan. Don’t listen to him. It’s a terrible movie.”

A fist-fight would ensue. But anyway, Apatow’s never made any secret about his love of James L. Brooks’ movies (I’m guessing he missed “I’ll Do Anything”), and “Funny People” looks suspiciously like Apatow doing James L. Brooks. With dick jokes and potheads.

I so cannot wait.

But the backlash is just a wave right now, in the distance, crashing tsunami like to the shore in a couple of months. I’m predicting I’ll be defending this movie for the better part of the year, provided I can get a guilt-free trip to the multiplex in the books. I don’t think Apatow can win here, he’s due for a huge backlash. Setting aside my irrational love of his movies, and Sandlers, and Rogan’s (I’ve bored you enough) — if this movie’s only pretty good, KA-BLOWIE! Apatow’s gonna take it on the chin, a victim of his own success.

He’s gotten too big. Alot of the people who claimed to like him before he was popular are upset that he’s popular. He was theirs. And if I’m right that he’s ambitiously entering “Terms of Endearment” territory, with fouler language, many of those same people are going to turn on him.

In the interest of fairness, I get that Apatow has glutted the market lately, but you know what? I don’t blame him. People are finally watching, it’s time to crank’em out. He made it on merit, and he’s earned a little over saturation. It’s like how Hall of Fame NBA star Dominique Wilkins described his offensive philosophy: “Shoot ’til you get hot, and then keep shooting.”

Who’s looking forward to “Funny People”, and who thinks it’s going to be a stinker? I think you know my answer: Bring it on, Judd. I mean, Mr. Apatow.