New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

The title of this movie sounds like sexual harassment.

Kim Hollis: Sony's Just Go With It became the tenth Adam Sandler film to open north of $30 million, with a $30.5 million debut. Is this a good enough result? Why do you think Sandler's movies have proven to be more consistent at the box office than any other comedians?

Josh Spiegel: People know exactly what they get with Adam Sandler movies. With each new film since his last good role, I wonder why anyone ever thought the man was funny. I'm right in the sweet spot of audience members who love movies like Billy Madison or Happy Gilmore, but I don't think Sandler's ever made a good movie that wasn't him playing against type. Frankly, the ads for Just Go With It made me think it was a full-length version of one of the parody movies his character in Funny People starred in. Sony will be happy, and even happier if this movie performs as well, in the long run, as Grown Ups did.

Edwin Davies: Given that everything about the film - from the bland title to the tired premise - suggested that there wasn't really anything special about the film, and the absence of any real hook other than "Hey, it's two famous people in a glamorous location being WACKY!" to drag people in, this has to be considered a pretty good result. It's towards the lower end of Sandler's range, but the same could be said about the quality of the film, so that's only appropriate. If nothing else, this result proves what a depressingly consistent draw Sandler remains.





Matthew Huntley: Josh and Edwin pretty much hit the nail on the head, but I'd go further by saying this isn't a strong enough result, not given the popularity of the cast or the $80 million price tag (or the movie's "romantic" subject matter and time of year it was released). It will likely see an unusually large Monday turnout because of Valentine's Day, but beyond that, I can't see it showing good legs and covering the rest of its costs, not to mention its prints and advertising budget.

Sandler is consistent, though, and I think one of the reasons he remains so vital at the box-office is he because he never seems to age. Sure, he's gotten older and bigger, but his personality has more or less remained the same, and that personality is something young people find fresh and appealing. Just as more Sandler fans grow up and move on, new ones come in, which means he consistently has a dedicated fan base.

Bruce Hall: There's not much here I would disagree with. Sandler and Aniston are known for a certain type of character, and they each have enough fans to keep their careers afloat for the foreseeable future. That's a benefit, but both actors also have a similar problem as I see it. What happens when everyone finally gets tired of it? Maybe it'll never happen; plenty of people never get sick of their favorite character actors. But both Sandler and Aniston have hinted at wider career ambitions and I tend to think Sandler is more capable of this than Aniston simply from a talent standpoint - that's just my opinion. But it's hard to see, and if an actor has a niche that they're successful with, who says they should necessarily branch out, anyway? Everyone's goals are different and some of us are more capable than others. It may be that both of these people will always be on screen for what they are today. Regardless, they'll each continue to benefit from the fact that as long as your results are consistently profitable, nobody is likely to ask you to change your game.

Continued:       1       2       3       4