ROTTEN TOMATOES: Box Office Guru Wrapup: Sandler Tops Potter for #1 Spot Comments

Box Office Guru Wrapup: Sandler Tops Potter for #1 Spot

by Gitesh Pandya | July 22, 2007

Summary

Adam Sandler scored the ninth number one opening of his career with his latest comedy I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry which edged out former champ Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix for the top spot at the North American box office. Back to Article

(1-95 of 95 posts) | Reply

LowBalls writes:
on Jul 22 2007 06:12 PM

no comment.

(Reply to this)

MrSyndicate writes:
on Jul 22 2007 06:18 PM

In reply to this comment (#962826)
God, America is filled with a bunch of *****ing idiots.

(Reply to this)

pom_pom288 writes:
on Jul 22 2007 06:25 PM

Wow.... HP45 has $559M worldwide in 12 days... not too surprising, since the films have always done better overseas than in the US.

I say Transformers will edge HP5 domestically, with HP5 having a larger share globally.

(Reply to this)

Sputnik99 writes:
on Jul 22 2007 06:26 PM

Hmmm....Transformers seems to be holding up better than Harry...

Where's all those promises, Harry-lovers?

Enjoy the book?

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Jul 22 2007 06:43 PM

In reply to this comment (#962836)
I'd say what you said is ironic based on the number of asterisks you used, except I totally agree with you. Plus that's an easier mistake to make than actually going to see Chuck and Larry.

(Reply to this)

Ron_Burgundy writes:
on Jul 22 2007 06:58 PM

I'm glad chuck and larry beat out potter. OOTP was my least favorite of the HP films. Truly dull and lifeless.

(Reply to this)

daycare writes:
on Jul 22 2007 07:27 PM

I am so happy hairspray did great. Those great reviews worked. This film will have great legs. Yet another gfeat week for transformers. That is what I call great word of mouth. To bad for potter. The film was ok.

(Reply to this)

savethemooses writes:
on Jul 22 2007 07:41 PM

"Chuck and Larry sitting in a tree, B-O-X-O-F-F-I-C-E-K-I-N-G."

Boy, that's a stretch if I ever saw one.

(Reply to this)

Kollikodon writes:
on Jul 22 2007 07:54 PM

so...

im just going to drink my way to the Batman Begins Premiere.... see you in 08...

(Reply to this)

Vicens17 writes:
on Jul 22 2007 08:23 PM

What is the world coming to?

(Reply to this)

South_park300 writes:
on Jul 22 2007 08:31 PM

coming summer 2008: Adam Sandler sitting on a toilet for 90 min. it will make 50 mil on opening weekend

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Jul 22 2007 08:32 PM

Honestly, is anyone surprised?? Ok, yeah I bet a lot are but I look at it this way. If the last Harry Potter book didn't come out HP5 would have beaten Chuck and Larry, simple as that. I wouldn't be surprised to see the numbers for Order hovering where they are (or even rising a bit) as fans finish the book and wish to see the movie again.

Time will tell.

(Reply to this)

LowBalls writes:
on Jul 22 2007 08:57 PM

In reply to this comment (#963145)
My god, I'd laugh if I didn't think you were absolutely right.

(Reply to this)

rdproductions writes:
on Jul 22 2007 09:18 PM

Harry Potter got owned that week. Spoiler spreading and losing the box office spot.

(Reply to this)

sir_mcchris_the_pirate writes:
on Jul 22 2007 09:18 PM

Harry Potter blows

(Reply to this)

ManofStee1 writes:
on Jul 22 2007 10:15 PM

I thought HP5 was easily the best of the bunch. They cut out all the stuff that they couldn't for sure fit into the film, leaving only the core storyline, which is just fine with me. The effects for the wizard duel at the end were eye-popping on a Transformers-like level as well.

I think Adam Sandler sitting on a bench waiting for a bus reading Harry Potter to himself with Rob Schneider shooting himself in the forehead with a staple gun behind him would make $60 mil easy. People are stupid.

(Reply to this)

kendrith1975 writes:
on Jul 22 2007 10:45 PM

I actually was surprised to see Adam Sandler doing a gay-themed comedy. It was a gutsy move, not totally without risk, but it proves that he can do any comedy and get on audience. At least this is no LITTLE NICKY!

On the other hand, will HP5 has legs to carry it over the 300 million mark. Its steep decline this weekend is troubling, but still we would certainly like to see a year in which 5 blockbusters cross the 300 million mark, at least TRANSFORMERS is on target to get to 310-325 million at this pace.

HAIRSPRAY is the biggest surprise, defying all expectations! But notice most of its audience rush out on Friday night, indicating bumpy road ahead. Still with such a large opening, it may still go on to gross at least 80 million should sophomore decline be hefty!

(Reply to this)

Dominem007 writes:
on Jul 22 2007 10:48 PM

Ok enough with these lame 2007 movies, the only good ones Ive seen all summer were Die Hard and Transformers. Bring on 2008 and Indy and Batman!!!

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 12:21 AM

Wow i love how the nerds that loved a retarded movie like Knocked Up or Hairspray have the nerve to call people liked a far superior movie like Chuck and Larry stupid. If you liked Hairspray or Knocked Up you have no right to ever....EVER call anyone stupid.

(Reply to this)

knowingtoast85 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 12:29 AM

In reply to this comment (#963479)
What did you like about Chuck & Larry? I still haven't seen it.

(Reply to this)

daycare writes:
on Jul 23 2007 03:15 AM

In reply to this comment (#963479)
if you think one of the worst reviewd films of the year ( chuck and larry) is better then two of the best rviewd films of the year ( hairspray and knocked up) then you are stupid.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 03:23 AM

In reply to this comment (#963483)
There was a lot of classic sandler humor and the characters did a great job in their roles you really felt for them, it was a little preachy.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 03:24 AM

In reply to this comment (#963589)
Oh yeah because i guess critics OPINIONS are facts now. Knocked Up was idiotic and Hairspray looks worst and is worse than GIGLI.

Why should i pay money to see a fat ugly girl dance and to see an insane Travolta in drag?

(Reply to this)

Gimy writes:
on Jul 23 2007 05:47 AM

worse than Gigli??? c'mon, thats a classic. i doubt its as bad as Gigli...

yaay! another crap Sandler movie is #1. gotta love a guy who continues to make boring hack movies but still sells. anybody who says otherwise isn't smart enough to read what i'm typing so there's no need to defend what i just said...but if you laughed at Grandma's Boy...it means you're mentally incompetent. when you can turn me off with a half naked(and NOT buff, thank christ) Jessica Biel...you should be shot. the trailer looked THAT hack, THAT BAD. this just wreaked of strugglin' overplayed comedian, especially since James' only starring role(Hitch doesn't count, it was Smith's) in a movie was...urgh...Grilled. loved both guys' humor in the past but...phew, i HIIIIGHLY doubt this would be any good, especially with people saying its "classic" sandler.

(Reply to this)

Bloody Mathias writes:
on Jul 23 2007 06:48 AM

Looks like Hairspray is this year's Dreamgirls. The audience was like 66% women according to yahoomovies.com and it doesn't look like men will be dragged their soon either with Simpsons and Jason Bourne coming up.

Never deny the idiotic power of Adam Sandler. Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore secured him the idiot young male audience for many years to come and the next movie he makes will also earn at least $35 mill opening weekend.

God, can't wait for Bourne Ultimatum.

(Reply to this)

Vitamin M writes:
on Jul 23 2007 06:57 AM

can I call you stupid? Knocked up was hilarious...and a great range of people feel so...including those of us who have lived long enough to experience life and understand humor that isn't based on pretending to be gay or Japenese.

(Reply to this)

Vitamin M writes:
on Jul 23 2007 07:03 AM

very true. I still at least rent everything Sandler does just because Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore were such a big part of my college days. yes I was a stupid drunk in college. but it was so much fun!

but other then the wedding singer I can't really defend any of Sandlers other films.

Knocked up is a classic.
I probably wont watch hairspray but people really seem to like it so good for them.
Transformers is awesome in a very stupid way but I loved it.

(Reply to this)

Baccus83 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 07:19 AM

I don't want anything to do with the millions of people who thought it was a good idea to spend money on "Chuck and Larry."

(Reply to this)

medicineman writes:
on Jul 23 2007 07:20 AM

In reply to this comment (#962859)
Just goes to show you; Harry Potter fans actually know how to read 'books' while Transformer fans ( or Bubbas) can't get past "See Dick run' simplicity of comics and brightly colored cartoon..

(Reply to this)

Baccus83 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 07:24 AM

See, "Chuck and Larry" is the very definition of stupid. It's a movie that consistently mocks and demeans minority groups and yet has the gall to say at the end that we shouldn't be mocking and demeaning them.

"Knocked Up," by comparison, is a tremendously smart film. Not only is it genuinely funny, but it is not condescending, patronizing or hypocritical. "Hairspray," also, is none of these. It's a silly, well-done musical with an actual message. "Chuck and Larry" plays it's "message" for jokes and marketing opportunity.

I seriously feel sorry for anybody who thought "Chuck and Larry" superior to "Knocked Up." You're absolutely entitled to your opinions, but come ON!

(Reply to this)

Gimy writes:
on Jul 23 2007 07:33 AM

In reply to this comment (#963957)
medicinedude, love the fact that you're praising a CHILD'S BOOK, like its the best literature of our time...and ripping what is one of the best movies out this year. Trans is simply entertaining, sorry...people like to go to movies to be entertained...not always to LEARN sh3t. go back to your HIGHLY intellectual booklearnin'...nerd.

(Reply to this)

medicineman writes:
on Jul 23 2007 07:51 AM

In reply to this comment (#963966)
I rest my case.

(Reply to this)

welease_woger writes:
on Jul 23 2007 07:56 AM

In reply to this comment (#963966)
Hoo hoo hoo ho. The little wascal has spiwit.
Stwike him, Centuwion, vewy woughly!

(Reply to this)

Baccus83 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 08:33 AM

Love the fact that you're calling a movie based on a cartoon based on an 80's toy one of the best films of the year.

You know, there are more than one ways to be entertained, not all of them involve watching things explode. You speak of entertainment as if we're all morons who can only feel joy when watching big metal robots slamming into each other.

And Harry Potter may not be the best literature of our time, but it is certainly among the most important.

(Reply to this)

SpikesInMySkull writes:
on Jul 23 2007 08:35 AM

Yeah, I think anyone with half a brain know that Harry Potter lost out this week to Harry Potter, not Chuck and Larry. We can sit here and fling poop at each like monkies we often prove ourselves to be, but the fact remains. This being the case, I'd actually look for a possible upswing in the Order of The Phownix Box Office next week once all of the Potter finish finish up Deathly Hallows. I'd be surprised if at very least it's decline didn't level off for a week or two.

Even still, Order of The Phoenix block-buster status is unquestionable even now, which makes arguing about completely stupid regardless.

(Reply to this)

Gimy writes:
on Jul 23 2007 08:38 AM

well, thank god you're not a lawyer cuz you proved nothin in your "case" bra. again, you're praising a CHILDREN'S BOOK over a movie YOU deem too dumb. if it wasn't for "dumb" action movies that ENTERTAIN...there would be no movies. Pirates, Spiderman, Die Hard, Transformers...you see a pattern here? "dumb" action... seems to make money. why?? because its entertaining and THATS what movies are designed to do

if you're into books, thats fine. but don't make it like you're ALL that when you're arguing the sake of a series thats FOR children.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Jul 23 2007 08:47 AM

In reply to this comment (#964053)
Just because a book is for a child doesn't mean it is "dumb". The better ones have important wordly lessons and don't talk down to the child that reads it.

(Reply to this)

Derbeste writes:
on Jul 23 2007 09:15 AM

You know, the ONLY real difference between Potter and Transformers is that the Potter books don't have pictures.

So Medicuineman's only argument is basically saying is that you're smarter when you read books that describe the background rather than draw it......

yeah....I remember when I came to that logical deduction.....

I think I was 13.

Seems about the right age for someone that thinks what he likes is better than what anyone else likes by nature.

The other fatile flaw in his logic is that he's assuming that fans of Transformers and Potter are mutually exclusive.

I have a feeling I'll need to translate that, so I'll rephrase and say that he thinks you can only like one OR the other. Heave forbid someone actually like both.

And if someone did like both, I wonder if they would be "dumb" AND "smart"....

Turns it just his logic that is idiotic.

P.S. I hope you feel smart reading my post since it doesn't have pictures.

cnl lm Ha! Fooled you! It has a picture! You're dumb now!

(Reply to this)

Gimy writes:
on Jul 23 2007 09:49 AM

In reply to this comment (#964181)
...somebody dropped acid cuz phew, you ramble. ya sound like a Bond villian explaining his heist...blah blah blah "this is my plaaaan" snoooooooze. just say it and stop attempting to SOUND more intelligent than you are

the arguement is simple Cheech, a hypocrite saying a movie is too dumb...when defending a book thats dumbed down for a child. not difficult. all you did was describe the difference between books and movies MacGuyver...not JUST Potter and Trans. drugs are bad...come back and post sober. thanks bud

(Reply to this)

medicineman writes:
on Jul 23 2007 10:44 AM

In reply to this comment (#964259)
Keep talking bubba, you strengthen my first posting with with every word LOL!

(Reply to this)

kendrith1975 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 10:46 AM

In reply to this comment (#963594)
Critics certainly have their opinions, and I occasionally enjoyed Adam Sandler in movies. However it is still very hard to trash KNOCKED UP and HAIRSPRAY when they got such high approval ratings from critics. In KNOCKED UP's case, many audiences actually buy tickets to see it and embrace it. We have yet to see if HAIRSPRAY will have longevity.

(Reply to this)

kendrith1975 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 10:49 AM

In reply to this comment (#963871)
I think PUNCH DRUNK LOVE is an interesting film that nobody saw, not even any of Sandler's diehard fans. And Sandler was said to be fine in REIGN OVER ME.

(Reply to this)

Cindy_Lou_Who writes:
on Jul 23 2007 10:52 AM

In reply to this comment (#964259)
All your strong talk of Harry Potter being a children's book has me wondering what kind of books you read. Care to share?

(Reply to this)

dracus writes:
on Jul 23 2007 11:00 AM

In reply to this comment (#964673)
I agree. Punch Drunk Love is one of those strange little movies that you can't seem to stop watching and Sandler's most interesting. As for Harry Potter being a kid's book, that's a crock. Rowlings is brilliant despite the fact that she borrowed a lot from other books such as Lord of the Rings.

(Reply to this)

knowingtoast85 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 11:08 AM

There's a place for movies that entertain and there's a place for movies that make you think for a little bit. They don't have to be mutually exclusive -- some can do both, but it's fine even when they don't. That sounds like an opinion...but I'm going to go ahead and say it's a fact.

The Potter books definitely started out as something for kids (I've only read the first two), but whether or not they continue to be exclusively for tykes is questionable to me. They're pretty popular, and a lot of people at my work are reading them too. I dunno.

Anyway, after a series of record-shattering blockbusters and the arrival of the world market as a major player in a film's gross (or at least, it's arrival in the news and public eye), Harry Potter's numbers don't exactly seem "stunning" or "towering." We know the world reads those books and lines up for those movies. However, its second-weekend dropoff doesn't seem that steep either, after just narrowly getting edged out by Sandler (who along with Will Smith is one of the only still-bankable stars) and having to compete with the last installment of the books.

Interesting, though, that the book release proved to swipe so much from the film's second weekend, when the producers were clearly counting on it to drum up more interest. Maybe they're expecting a surge of repeat visits to the theater when people finish the book (which I'll bet will take most of them four days, tops), but there's not really such a thing as "$9.50 to burn" nowadays, especially when The Simpsons Movie is going to be staring ticket buyers in the face this Friday. But THAT movie's another post entirely.

Sorry about rambling, I'm just really interested by this stuff.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 11:49 AM

This is funny. You retards actually think that Knocked Up is funny and smart. I love how the only morons who think that are infact little nerds on the computer yet us real smart people know that it is retarded. There was not one smart thing about Knocked Up and it was by far a retarded movie, not to mention a plagerized movie. So while us smart people like real comedies like Chuck and Larry you nerds will continue to prove why you are virgins by liking Knocked Up and Hairspray.

I have lived long enough to realize there is nothing funny about a retarded jewish guy getting a ugly woman pregnant.

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Jul 23 2007 11:52 AM

I tend to find that people who say Harry Potter books are solely for kids are the same people who have never read the books, have read the first two or three and then stopped for whatever reason (which there are, I'll admit, plausible reasons), or had the first one read to them in school and deemed it, 'uncool'.

There's no question that the first couple books are overall for kids, they should be!! There is also no question that as the series progresses the tones sway into much darker, less-kid-friendly topics - unless you consider a book whose contents contains torture, savage disfigurement, slavery, Hitler-esque ideals and murder, "for kids".

Comparing HP and Transformers is pointless. They are two entirely different animals, they entertain in completely different ways.

Yet your sole offensive against Harry Potter is that they're, "children's books"... my God, you're a fool.

(Reply to this)

Sputnik99 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 11:55 AM

In reply to this comment (#964929)
playin' with fire there, aknddon3. I'd just shut up and move on to another thread if I were you...

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 12:02 PM

In reply to this comment (#964967)
Oh yeah because i am so afraid of virgin nerds that have no idea what a good movie is.

If knocked up was such a great idea and a great movie why could they not get a good looking woman to play the lead role? How come they had to get a mediocre to ugly woman? Defeats the purpose of the movie especially since she is not a winner.

(Reply to this)

Sputnik99 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 12:05 PM

Harry Potter is for teens, people. A friend of mine, 31 years of age, very well read, usually takes a week or two to read a book. She read Deathly Hallows in two days. She flew through it. Why? It is toned down for 18 and under.

Wait until you younglings get into college. Then you'll know what an "adult" book is. I dare you to try to absorb War and Peace or some Rudyard Kipling. You'd be so confused you'd never even finsih them. They're not written for kids.

Enjoy Harry. It's good stuff. But don't ever think it's an "all-age masterpiece." When you're 60 years old read it again. You'll probably feel a little silly.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jul 23 2007 12:06 PM

In reply to this comment (#965015)
Katherine Heigl... UGLY?!?! AND IT'S CALLED AN OPINION!

(Reply to this)

synergyred writes:
on Jul 23 2007 12:14 PM

In reply to this comment (#965030)
Sputnik, you might want to think of a better example for adult books than Kipling, seeing as many of his jungle book stories are considered for children. Rikki-Tikki-Tavi was a favorite of mine growing up, and I didn't read an edited for children version.

And while JK Rowling is no Tolstoy, her stories are considerably darker and more emotionally complex than most books written for children today. Well, at least the ones that don't get moved to the adult section.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jul 23 2007 12:16 PM

In reply to this comment (#964967)
He's a troll. He says 'I hate people that think their opinons are fact' but he's the prime example of that. Since when was Adam Sandler playing a retard that needs to go through every grade again 'smart' comedy? He has no idea what an opinnion is.

(Reply to this)

Gimy writes:
on Jul 23 2007 12:17 PM

i'm NOT saying potter sucks, god you guys are ignorant. we all get it, you're an ADULT reading a kid's book...so jump to conclusions on everything i say. fine, dandy...i don't care. just don't come out and say a movie SUCKS because its too simple and dumb...and then act like a frikkin children's book is some kind of literary masterpiece for all intellectuals everywhere. i'm happier than a pig in sh3t that kids are reading books instead of doing drugs and overall...p2ssing me off. but ramble all you want about them NOT being for children...they are. get over it. when harry becomes a drug addict...is sniffing coke off his wand, impregnantes a chic with his powers without touching her and she claims it was an unforced entry...i might change my mind...but c'mon

to answer the "bet that dude don't read no books" comments...you're right, i hate books now. i've read classics like Lord of the Flies(best book ever)...Little Women...Of Mice and Men but...i just can't do it. because i'm stupid? yeah, i have a 144 iq. its because it doesn't happen quickly enough. novels take like 2 weeks to read, MOVIES...take 2 hours. i'm not patient and i ALWAYS found myself reading books and thinking i can do better and knowing whats going to happen. at least with movies...its a faster process but i still find myself knowing whats going to happen.

(Reply to this)

renodc writes:
on Jul 23 2007 12:18 PM

I still believe alll movies are better enjoyed in the theater but with the price of "going to the movies" on the steady rise, people are becoming very "picky" about films they choose to see in the theater. The most common way of choosing seems to be whether or not it can be enjoyed just as well on DVD as opposed to in the theater. You would think with that choice process movies with big special effects and larger than life cinematography would be the only successful films in the theater, but comedies like "Chuck & Larry" (which sucked by the way) seem to be doing extraordinarily well at the box office. I personally know several individuals who have chosen to see films in summer's past like "The Devil wears Prada", "40 Year Old Virgin", or any Will Ferrell movie and yet pass on Batman Begins, Transformers, Live Free or Die Hard, Spiderman or even, perish the thought Lord of the Rings in order to "wait and see them when they come out on DVD". That makes no freaking sense to me. You would think the visuals would be the making or breaking point of choosing to go to a movie or wait for video. I love Will Ferrell, but he's no more hilarious on the big screen as he is on the small screen.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Jul 23 2007 12:27 PM

He obviously didn't see Knocked Up, because Katherine Heigl was smoking hot in that movie. And she's also very real, which adds to her appeal. She seems like someone I could have a chance with.

It's ironic that he posts so frequently, yet makes fun of us for the same reason.

And if I were asked to choose between Katherine Heigl and Jessica Biel I would say..."Both please!". But that doesn't mean a movie about guys pretending to be gay is a better movie than Knocked Up. Chuck and Larry is something I would laugh at when I was 12.

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Jul 23 2007 12:29 PM

In reply to this comment (#965030)
...Or your friend flew through HP because it was good? The fact that she's 31 means nothing when you have 13-14 year olds finishing the same book in the same allotted time, or even faster.

I don't think anyone has said that Harry Potter is an 'adult' book. Just because an author speaks to a wide audience (in age) doesn't mean that you should throw an age-limit on it and thus feel it's inferior. There's nothing wrong with reading a book that both you and your child can understand and enjoy.

I can actually see HP being an, "all-age masterpiece", over time. Right now I would doubt a 60 year old will read HP and be as impressed with it as War and Peace or something like that, but I can also see this young generation grow up and take these books with them. Then when they're 60 they'll read them and throw nostalgia into the pot, and their kids will do the same, and repeated, and repeated, and they WILL be enjoyed by all ages. Harry Potter will be around for a long, long time, there's no need to debate that.

When you're dealing with a subject whose themes are so universal it's impossible not to give them a mass audience appeal. From 6 to 60, age is not always an issue. Some things can simply be for everyone.

aknddon3 always makes me laugh..

(Reply to this)

Simple Minded writes:
on Jul 23 2007 01:19 PM

yawn. Give me The Dark Knight.

(Reply to this)

Sputnik99 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 01:46 PM

In reply to this comment (#965051)
Okay, You spanked me pretty bad. Kipling was the first name that came to mind. Guess I forgot what he wrote. I'm gonna have Alzheimer's by 35...

But I still stand by the rest of what I said! But take note, I still say that Harry Potter is good. I'm just a "kinda-sorta" fan, is all. And like Gimy is saying, if it keeps kids reading and off the streets, more power too it!

(Reply to this)

Baccus83 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 02:02 PM

In reply to this comment (#965059)
That's great that you have a 144 IQ. What does that prove? Guess what, mine is higher, and I like Harry Potter. Does that mean that Harry Potter is "intellectual fiction?" No. But it does mean that I'm "technically" smarter than you.

And despite my better judgement, I continue to post lengthy retorts to somebody who addresses me as "bra." You actually typed out "bra." And "Cheech." Why don't you get a six pack of High Life and a Dave Matthews CD and call me when you're ready to talk seriously.

Listen, Chad, I liked Transformers. I "enjoyed" it. But it was borderline idiotic. What does this mean? It means that I can, and often do, enjoy watching things explode.

And nobody said that Harry Potter was a book for adults. It's not. It's aimed at children. This does not mean, however, that adults can't appreciate it, as many have. Harry Potter is a "cultural touchstone." Think of it this way; kids that were ten when they read the first Harry Potter book are now twenty. They have grown up with the character. I am not presuming to say that Harry Potter is for "intellectuals," I'm saying that Harry Potter simply has more entertainment value for many adults than a movie about transforming robots or two straight guys pretending to gay. And you know what else is aimed at children? Star Wars. The Hobbit. TRANSFORMERS. And just about every other movie that comes out today. You know this. But your comparisons are faulty. You equate "children's books" with "dumb." I can't say the Transformers movie is dumb because I read Harry Potter. What you're doing there is you're making a blanket statement, a generalization. As if all entertainment aimed at children is inherently dumb. Well let's get some critics in the room. Let's get some Harvard educated "intellectuals" to debate the merits and moral complexity of Harry Potter versus Transformers. Which will come out on top, I wonder?

Lets think things through a bit. Harry Potter IS a qualified classic. I've read Rudyard Kipling. I've read War and Peace. I read just Pynchon, Delillo, McCarthy and Murakami. But Harry Potter is not any of those. It will be regarded as a classic in the same vein as Tolkien, Barrie and Baum. Not "Gravities Rainbow," for sure, but it will be written about a hundred years from now. I can guarantee you that.

And your Transformers movie? It was fun, but it was forgettable and it was dumb. You're right. It did not "suck." But it was dumb. It was very dumb, and I enjoyed it despite it's dumbness. It must take a pretty smart person to make that possible.

(Reply to this)

Baccus83 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 02:19 PM

In reply to this comment (#965686)
Can I also mention that Mark Twain wrote almost exclusively for the "young adult" market? Mark Twain? You know, that guy who's arguably the greatest American Writer Ever?

And I personally love the guys arguement that "if Knocked Up was so great why did they hire an ugly actress to play the lead."

Oh my GOD that's hilarious!

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Jul 23 2007 02:45 PM

In reply to this comment (#965686)
THANK YOU!! Man, finally someone with a brain showed up!

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 04:11 PM

In reply to this comment (#965078)
Smoking hot? SHE IS AVERAGE AT BEST, hell she is like a 6.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 04:13 PM

In reply to this comment (#965905)
No that makes perfect sense, if the movie was so good why did they not get a good looking actress to play the role? oh yeah because no one wanted to be in that retarded movie so they hired an ugly hack. I own you.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jul 23 2007 05:10 PM

In reply to this comment (#967122)
Except Katherine Heigl is widley considered to not be an 'ugly hack'. And Judd Apatow is a well-liked director, so explain why nobody would want to be in it. You're a minority here, aknddon. Don't ****in' deny it.

http://www.hollywood-celebrity-pictures.com/Celebrities/Katherine-Heigl/Katherine-Heigl-16.JPG

Just look at that. LOOK at that. If you call her an ugly hack, then you just say that because you didn't like the movie.

I OWN YOU. :P

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 06:28 PM

In reply to this comment (#967329)
Huh, she is an ugly hack, sorry but Greys Antatomy is not a good show and she is not good looking, hell i would turn her down if she talked to me at a bar.

Look at her then look at Megan Fox, now she is hot. I win

I OWN YOU.

p.s. Micheal Moore is well liked but that does not mean he is a good director.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jul 23 2007 06:38 PM

In reply to this comment (#967556)
How did you win? I agree Megan Fox is hot. And by 'well liked' I meant 'he makes movies that are well liked.' And I don't watch Grey's Anatomy so I can't comment.

And I know plenty of people that would talk to her at a bar. In fact, EVERYBODY (Straight guys, I mean) I know would talk to her at a bar. And it's all about opinion (ironic, coming from me), aknddon. You think she's an ugly hack while I think she's damn fine. I'll leave your opinion alone if you leave mine alone. Now let's just end the argument, let it die.

(Reply to this)

South_park300 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 08:22 PM

aknddon3 is a troll of the worst kind. stop giving him the attention he wants

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 09:18 PM

In reply to this comment (#967746)
Oh the troll is trying to call me a troll? Why dont you go watch Hairspray with the rest of the gay community.

(Reply to this)

kendrith1975 writes:
on Jul 23 2007 09:48 PM

In reply to this comment (#964929)
What a disgraceful post that reduce all intelligent discussions into name callings and insulting attacks!!

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Jul 24 2007 12:42 AM

Peter Pan...Classic or no? Obstensibly a childrens tale, but also with enough complexity for an adult mind. This is where I think Harry Potter probably falls closest to in the literary canon. Finished the book last night. It was great to finish such a long series and not feel disappointed with it. Anybody else finish yet? Thoughts about the ending...NO SPOILERS, just speak in generalities. Liked it, yay or nay.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jul 24 2007 01:22 AM

In reply to this comment (#968058)
The real ending was good, could of been a little more detailed.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jul 24 2007 05:54 AM

In reply to this comment (#967835)
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bluehatseo.com/images/middle_finger_flame.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.bluehatseo.com/category/site-reviews-commentary/&h=300&w=300&sz=27&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=QTk-hw-ph4P0lM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=116&prev=/images?q=little+kid+middle+finger&svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&sa=N

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jul 24 2007 05:57 AM

In reply to this comment (#967835)
This from the guy that watches a movie about wannabe queers.

(Reply to this)

Baccus83 writes:
on Jul 24 2007 07:08 AM

This thread is full of half-wits.

The truth is this. Judd Apatow is one, if not THE MOST powerful comedy directors / writers working in Hollywood right now. People want to work with him. Studios want to give him money to make movies. He has proven himself as a commercially and critically viable talent. How many comedy directors can you say that about? I can only think of one other. Brad Bird.

I love how this has all come down to debating the merits of Katherine Heigl's hotnenss, as if that really has anything to do with anything. Are we a bunch of cavemen? Seriously?

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Jul 24 2007 07:53 AM

In reply to this comment (#968069)
Really? I thought that was one of it's more admirable qualities how she seemed to round off all the characters. That's one of the things I like most about the series the sheer number of characters she includes and manages to flesh out. Usually when I think of popular book series' like The Dark Tower, Vampire Chronicles even LOTR's you have that core of characters and the sub-characters often get glossed over. Not so with HP. In many cases the "minor" characters really get fleshed out.

BTW Katherine if you're reading I'd totally do you. Daddy likes his girls with some curves. No stick models for me. Sorry Baccus, but it was so easy a caveman could say it :)

(Reply to this)

Baccus83 writes:
on Jul 24 2007 09:27 AM

Understandable.

(Reply to this)

Sputnik99 writes:
on Jul 24 2007 10:26 AM

Me Caveman! Me Caveman!

It's fun being a half-wit! =P

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jul 24 2007 11:50 AM

In reply to this comment (#968291)
Oh yeah he such a good director yet how many good comedies has he made? Hmmmm oh yeah none. But you are not that smart. You think knocked up is good. Lets compare his movies to Sandlers and then you can see what a REAL comedian does.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jul 24 2007 11:53 AM

Big Brother do not listen to Baccus, he is nothing just a little virgin that thinks you are a caveman if you talk about how hot a woman is. He has never seen a naked female and will never because all he does is sit around masterbating to Judd Apatow.

P.S. Yeah he is such a great director just look at Superbad the stupidest ****ing comedy of all time.

(Reply to this)

knowingtoast85 writes:
on Jul 24 2007 12:27 PM

In reply to this comment (#968834)
Not to nitpick, but he didn't direct Superbad. His influence was around on set though, I'm sure.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jul 24 2007 02:07 PM

In reply to this comment (#968830)
Let's see; he played a retrad that inheritted money, a retard that wants to inherit money, a retard that plays golf, a fake homosexual, and two (suprisingly) respectable roles. he has more good than bad.

And if you're gonna insult somebody, try something else besides 'little virgin nerd.'

(Reply to this)

Baccus83 writes:
on Jul 24 2007 02:16 PM

When did you see "Superbad", aknddon? Because I'm pretty sure it hasn't been released yet. I'm also pretty sure that Judd Apatow didn't direct it.

Seriously, are you eleven?

Sure, I'll happily compare Adam Sandler's films to Judd Apatow's. Let's use the nice resource that we have right in front of us.

Let's see: on the Tomatometer, "40 Year Old Virgin" is at 83%. "Knocked Up" is 91%.

On Sandler's side we have "Billy Madison" at 40%, "Happy Gilmore" at 56%, "The Wedding Singer" at 55% "Big Daddy" at 32%. "Little Nicky" at 23%. "Click" at 32%, "Anger Management" at 43% and finally "Chuck and Larry" at an astounding 14%...

I know this is all useless because you're just going to call the critics gay nerdy virgins. Here's the thing; whether a movie is good or bad - that's up to your own personal taste. It's called an opinion. You can go ahead and think that "Chuck and Larry" is superior to "Knocked Up," but don't try to pass it off as fact. My opinion is that "Chuck and Larry" is an inferior, insulting, unfunny and hypocritical film.

And I apologize to anybody who thought I was calling them a caveman or a half-wit. The whole thing was more specifically directed to a few individuals who shall remain nameless.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jul 24 2007 03:28 PM

In reply to this comment (#969128)
Are you 11? Because only a moron would think that critics opinions are that of fact and thus prove that his movies are better. Lets see everysingle one of Sandlers movies are better than Judds movies. It is not even close. 40 year old virgin was a joke, and Knocked Up was not funny. Where as Happy Gilmore, Billy Madison, Big Daddy, Wedding Singer, Click, Reign on Me, Punch Drunk Love, Chuck and Larry were all great. SO Sandler wins.

Oh i love how you attack a movie then try to back out of the corner and saying that you are not basing in fact when you said that it was fact two pages earlier. Quite Sad.

Chuck and Larry was not inferior, not insulting, damn funny and not a bit hypocritical. But then again you think Knocked up is funny, which if you want an insulting and unfunny movie that is the one for you.

(Reply to this)

CoUcH ToMaToE DoUgIe writes:
on Jul 24 2007 11:34 PM

In reply to this comment (#963966)
right on Gimy, i completely agree! Harry potter 5 is not a masterpiece and may in

fact be the second worst in the series of movies. meanwhile, transformers has

been the fresh hit that is changing everything in a way potter 5 could never

imagine attaining.

Oh, professor medicineman sir, i am NYU College graduate and have no

problem enjoying both the magical literature masterpiece that is Harry Potter and

the order of the phoenix and felt the movie didn't do the book justice at all.

Still, i find it upsetting you can't also accept a beloved cartoon from most of our

childhoods. there is no reason to hate two different ways of experiencing

childhood whether its enjoying something from our childhood (transformers) or

something today's generation enjoys as much (harry potter movie)

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jul 25 2007 05:23 AM

In reply to this comment (#969288)
PLENTY OF PEOPLE THOUGHT KNOCKED UP WAS FUNNY; DEAL WITH IT.

(Reply to this)

Baccus83 writes:
on Jul 25 2007 07:01 AM

Hey, guess what, I never once said that critical consensus is fact. I would have to be a real idiot to believe that. It's opinion. It's a well-informed opinion, but it's still an opinion. Your opinion is that "Chuck and Larry" is better than "Knocked Up." I respect that. That's fine. But don't try to pass it off as fact. Just because it's funnier to you doesn't mean it's funnier to everybody.

You say that every one of Sandler's movies is funnier than Apatow's movies. Just what are you basing that on? Your opinion. You can't qualify that. It's subjective. So in the absence of a common barometer of "goodness," we have critical consensus - which I usually take to be a "somewhat" accurate measurement of a film's quality. Granted, it's a collective opinion, and it's not right all time, but it's all we have besides our own personal judgement. I've seen nearly every Sandler film. This is including "Punch-Drunk Love" (which is exceptional), and "Spanglish" (which is not), and my own opinion is that the majority of them are inferior to Apatow's two comedies. I enjoyed "Happy Gilmore," and "The Wedding Singer," but I don't think for a moment that they're on the same level as Apatow's work.

(Reply to this)

Baccus83 writes:
on Jul 25 2007 07:08 AM

And "Chuck and Larry" is VERY insulting, but I suppose this is again opinion. Think of Rob Schneider's Asian caricature. And it's hypocritical too, because we're supposed to believe that it's okay to make gay jokes and poke fun at gay panic when we all know that we're moralizing against it in the end. It encourages us to laugh at stereotypes and then tells us in the end that we shouldn't be laughing. This is hypocritical. It presents it's female characters as little more than sex objects. I could go on...

Sure, "Knocked Up" was raunchy comedy, but it was never insulting. This is because the movie had actual characters, and not just vehicles for jokes.

(Reply to this)

Baccus83 writes:
on Jul 25 2007 07:32 AM

And you still haven't answered my question. Have you seen "Superbad?" Because if you haven't, then you can't say that it's the "stupidest ****ing comedy of all time." Somehow I doubt you've seen it. And also, didn't you know that Greg Motolla directed it? And Seth Rogen wrote it? Judd Apatow is only on board as one of a group of four producers.

It would be pretty dumb to judge something as "the stupidest ****ing comedy of all time" if you haven't seen it, don't you think? I mean, there's a lot of competition for that one.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jul 25 2007 09:21 AM

Baccus, we need to get this troll banned. When he's rational, he's likeable, but he's barely rational.

(Reply to this)

knowingtoast85 writes:
on Jul 25 2007 11:57 AM

In reply to this comment (#971734)
Save the banning for child molesters and Holocaust deniers. Aknddon3's just having some fun with you guys.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jul 25 2007 12:38 PM

You're right, I can't let him get the best of me....

(Reply to this)

Baccus83 writes:
on Jul 25 2007 12:44 PM

Oh I know. But still, arguing is fun.

(Reply to this)

blk_ballard writes:
on Jul 26 2007 09:59 PM

Okay, watch the language first of all. Secondly, I am sooo happy to see Hairspray doing so well! I was pleasantly surprised by how great that movie was! I even have a newfound respect for Zach Efron! As for Harry Potter, any idiot could tell you it really just lost out to first place because Deathly Hallows was released on Saturday. But is really sad that two great films lost out to the stupidest movie of the year, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry. Come on people!! Who the hell wants to see that!?! Adam Sandler better start getting his act together because if this trend of terrible movie after terrible movie continues, he won't be box office king for very long. If you notice all of his box office wins are slowly but surely declining. He went from having huge numbers in The Longest Yard to great numbers with Click and is now barely edging out the competition with Chuck and Larry. What has happened to this guy!?! It's a shame because he use to be great on SNL...

(Reply to this)

Floor Man writes:
on Jul 27 2007 12:51 AM

A sad day.

(Reply to this)