आई नाऊ प्रोनाउंस यू चक एंड लैरी

I have a gay friend who doesn't fit the stereotype in that he loves the WWE and usually watches crude comedies like this latest Adam Sandler comedy. Many critics have called this movie offensive because of many homophobic jokes that abound as well as the Asian stereotype that Sandler's friend Rob Schneider plays as a Canadian wedding preacher. Well, since I'm Asian-American and I know Schneider is half so, I admit I wasn't very amused by his portrayal but I also decided maybe Rob thought so and decided, "What the hell!" and went for it. But many of the homophobic jokes do work and is partly redeemed by some gay humor that seemed more silly than offensive and some were even hilarious. Besides Schneider, other former SNLers to appear include David Spade, Rachel Dratch, and original cast member Dan Aykroyd. All have some moments. Also appearing are Steve Buscemi, Ving Rhames in a performance you won't believe (or maybe you will depending what you think he's capable of), and a couple of celebrities that recently came out, Lance Bass and Richard Chamberlain. And Keven James isn't bad either! Overall, based on bad reviews, I dreaded this movie but I laughed enough and enjoyed enough to at least recommend this to anyone who can laugh at almost anything. P.S. My gay friend absolutely loved this!

OK it is full of stereotypes, yes the movie does old jokes, it is fairly predictable and we have seen it before. The crucial question is this – is it funny? The simple answer is yes. My wife wasn't enthused about this one, but she laughed heartily. For a comedy to be any good you need to laugh out loud at least 6 times. I think I laughed about 10-12 times. Some of the scenes were set up really well and the comedy acting was superb.

OK the plot is unbelievable and a little silly, but it's a comedy! Give it a go. If you love meet the parents, dumb and dumber, there is something about Mary and Kingpin, you will enjoy the show. If you have a cinematic bypass and love politically correct left-wing tripe – then this one isn't for you. Its as simple as that!

... this movie is firmly lodge.

I laughed out loud on more than one occasion. There are a few amusing cameos (my favorite being Dave Matthews as a flamboyant personal shopper). But I think the overall joke hit to miss ratio is probably something like 1 in 10. Sandler and James are just fine in their roles, but they didn't have much to work with. The story doesn't really work- way too many holes, even for a comedy. I think the movie just loses it's touch by going back and forth between overly general, unflattering depictions of homosexuals and sloppy attempts to make Chuck and Larry folk heroes to the gay community. All if it is done in such a way that none of it is believable. The movie is never quite as funny as it should be, and nowhere near as touching as it's desperately trying to be.

LOL Rob Schneider playing a stereotypical asian, everyone using the f-word for gay -- this is one offensive movie -- but damn, if it isn't refreshing seeing something as obscene as this these days.

Everything is so stuck up and cringey and bad but taking itself seriously these days... that a movie like this, that's nothing too special but an average early 2000s comedy felt fresh AF.

It's pretty funny, has some good friendship moments, wholesome moments, offensive moments... I don't know, I kinda liked it. Like I said, it's a breath of fresh air now, eventhough in its day it was probably nothing too shocking.

I sympathize with gay dudes, because I can imagine how difficult it must be to admit you are one in a world where men are expected to adhere to standards that society pretends aren't there anymore but they are. So this movie also raises some good questions for the viewers. It's actually anything but dumb and offensive, it's pretty thought provoking.

Chuck and Larry are buddies and fellow fire-fighters in New York. They are very close and would do anything for one another so, when a problem with Larry's pension arrangements comes up that can be solved by entering into a civil partnership, Chuck agrees to pose as his "husband" in order to solve the admin problem. Sadly a high profile fraud case in another state means that the "couple" are under scrutiny from obsessive investigator Clint Fritzer and must play their roles to the full. Hilarity naturally ensues but can everyone also learn a lesson as well?

It dismays me to hear people praising this film for its "sensitive handling" of the subject of homosexuality and the way it challenges bigoted thinking on the subject – such thoughts can be found in the comments section on this site and they dismay me because sadly to some viewers this film may be the nearest thing to "discussion" on homosexuality that they have had. In this way maybe one could make a case for this film being an effective but blunt tool for the mostly teenage male fan-base of Adam Sandler to be "reached" and "educated" by giving them what they want in terms of crude humour and broad stereotypes but then also leaving them with a message that will teach them the error of their ways. It would certainly be nice to say that but one cannot help feel that this is not the reality and that, rather than using the crude stereotypes as a vehicle to deliver a message to a traditionally homophobic fan-base, the film is actually using the message to facilitate lots of homosexual stereotypes, jokes and clichés.

This is what the film does throughout – it wants to have its cake and then also get to eat it. So, spoiler alert, it turns out that homosexuals are people too. Apparently (according to the film) it is NOT OK to treat them differently and exclude them from things and anyone who does, well, y'know what, ell, turns out those that are do are the real jerks. That is about as sophisticated as the message gets but that is perhaps to be expected and for the target audience maybe that is challenging enough. Unfortunately for the wider audience or casual viewer it will come off as little more than patronising and not make up for the fact that the majority of the film flies in the face of this. What the rest of the film does is draw laughs from the fact that two straight characters have to "be gay" – which of course means all the stereotypical stuff that we all know. So nobody wants to pick up the soap in the shower (because all a gay man needs to be aroused is the sight of someone's ass), disco music is played, finger-snapping is everywhere and so on. Fortunately it is sporadically amusing and provided me with a few chuckles whether I wanted to give them up or not. It is not THAT funny though and the casual viewer will mostly just let the brash, obvious humour wash over them without it doing much.

The cast buy into it well though and do their best to sell it. Sandler is his usual rather annoying self and does his best to prove he cannot act by being the usual "irresistible to women" thing rather than the "creepy man-child" that he would be were his character real. James comes off a lot better I'm not really seen him before although he probably does fit TV better than films but he does have a good comic presence and also does OK with coming over more of a regular guy. Loved Ving Rhames in it – sending up his tough guy image while Buscemi, Aykroyd and a few others are amusing in support. Biel has an amazing body and that is pretty much what she is asked to do – be in underwear and look stunning, both of which she effortlessly does but nothing else comes forward.

This film is not the awful piece of comedy that some critics have said but it is a simple, stereotypical comedy about homosexual clichés that tries to justify it by having a very basic message that most people should have already learnt in the 1990's. While some may praise the film for having this message I find it more concerning that people still see this message as somehow "worthy" rather than "d'uh – of course". Some laughs help it through and Sandler's fans will enjoy it despite the "message" but for the casual viewer it is just another clumsy and crude Adam Sandler film.