11 November 2011

Jack and Jill

Adam Sandler portrays both Jill, left, and Jack in a scene from "Jack & Jill."

Why, Al Pacino, why?

I know it's been a while since you were truly great on the big screen, but have you really fallen this far?

Is this the best we can get today from Michael Corleone, Serpico, Tony Montana?

Did you owe Adam Sandler money? Does he have embarrassing, incriminating photos of you?

Please, give me something. Help me make some sense out of your involvement in the cinematic atrocity that is "Jack and Jill," a movie not content simply to be horrifically awful; it seems intent on retroactively tarnishing your entire career.

Clearly, Sandler has surrounded himself with yes men at his Happy Madison Productions. Anyone with any sense would have stopped at nothing to prevent this debacle from reaching theaters.

You have to hand it to Sandler in one respect, though—he managed to find a co-star more annoying than he is: himself. As producer, co-writer and leading man/woman, we have to start questioning his sanity at this point.

Sandler portrays the two characters of the title: Jack, who can save his failing advertising agency only by convincing Pacino to star in a Dunkin Donuts commercial, and Jill, Jack's twin sister whose annual Thanksgiving visit turns into a stay of more than a month.

As Jack, Sandler is the straight man. As the excruciating Jill, he runs rampant through the movie, terrorizing all who cross his path, the audience most of all.

Between poop jokes, Pacino inexplicably falls head-over-heels in love with Jill and agrees to do Jack's commercial only if Jack can hook him up with her.

It's no spoiler to say Pacino eventually does Jack's TV spot. His reaction upon seeing the commercial applies even more readily to "Jack and Jill": "No one must ever see this."

Greg’s Grade: F

(Rated PG for crude and sexual humor, language, comic violence and brief smoking. 89 minutes.)

1 comment:

otherGreg said...

Briefly in defense of Pacino...

You know, not even in defense, but more by way of understanding. Because I've asked myself the same question over the past few years (my eyes bled a little while watching Righteous Kill, for example). I've been a huge Pacino fan, I want nothing more than for him to continue to kick ass for years to come. But I think... I think...

I think maybe he just has bad taste in movies. Like, if you were to go to his house he'd have a shelf of Rom-Coms and things with Vince Vaughn. And maybe that's not true, but that's the impression that I get.

I have this image of him meeting Sandler, and they get along really well, have a good... business lunch, or whatever. And Sandler points out all the scenes and how much fun they'll be and Pacino likes his potential scenes and it sounds like a fun, easy shoot. That he'll make millions of dollars for.

How do you say no to that? As a guy who just wants to make a few movies and have a good time doing it, how do you say no?

My hope is that he just isn't aware of HOW bad the movies are going to be. He's just an actor (and kind of an average guy, aside from being crazy rich n' famous), at the end of the day, not a writer or a director or a producer or anyone who claims to see the big picture. He's... he's just a guy who got pitched a project he thought would be fun.

We all hope that he'd know better but... look at his resume throughout his career. Carlito's Way? Cruising? He's been in some nonsense throughout his career. I, like you, know the potential and the power that he has. He's a highly specialized and powerful tool that hasn't been used properly in a decade.

I've gone on too long. I'm as upset as you, but... I'm learning to forgive the man. Not forgive, really, but understand. Maybe.