In this installment of Was Ebert Right?, we take a deep dive into Ebert's review of the Adam Sandler classic The Wedding Singer.
1998 saw the release of two Adam Sandler films. The first being THE WEDDING SINGER, released just in time for Valentine's Day. The film was met with some scathing reviews, but audiences loved it. The film was a pretty damn big hit in the theater and then again on home video. It sold incredibly well on DVD, which was gaining in popularity. The next film would come in November with THE WATERBOY. The film was equally hated by critics but was a much bigger hit at the box office, grossing more than $100 million, the first Sandler film to do so. The film would go on to be a really big hit on the home video market.
As I have done with a few other films, I break down Roger Ebert's review, this time of THE WEDDING SINGER, and ask the question, "Was Ebert Right?"
“The Wedding Singer” tells the story of, yes, a wedding singer from New Jersey, who is cloyingly sweet at some times and a cruel monster at others. The filmmakers are obviously unaware of his split personality; the screenplay reads like a collaboration between Jekyll and Hyde.
This is one of the problems I have always had with Adam Sandler: most of his characters, at least the ones early on in his career, have a bipolar-ness to them. He plays very sweet, innnocent characters who also are utter assholes. Sandler wants us to side with his sweetness and accept his nastiness without question. Look at Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore. Both of these guys are nasty pieces of work, and we are led to believe they change by the end of their films. I'm sorry but you can't change your entire way of living in such a short period of time. I know there are many cases where this happens but those are extreme circumstances. Neither Billy Madison nor Happy Gilmore go through life-altering changes. They fall for a girl and all of a sudden become nice guys. Sandler played the pissed off manchild many times and it never worked for me.
The basic miscalculation in Adam Sandler’s career plan is to ever play the lead. He is not a lead. He is the best friend, or the creep, or the loser boyfriend. He doesn’t have the voice to play a lead: Even at his most sincere, he sounds like he’s doing standup–like he’s mocking a character in a movie he saw last night.
This is the other problem I have always had with Sandler. Early in his career, he played many supporting characters in films like AIRHEADS and CONEHEADS where he is given smaller characters to work with and makes them memorable. Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore are memorable but not in a likable way. I believe Sandler would work better as a character actor. I think he would be a lot funnier than he is now.
The best laughs in the film come right at the top, in an unbilled cameo by the invaluable Steve Buscemi, as a drunken best man who makes a shambles of a wedding toast. He has the timing, the presence and the intelligence to go right to the edge. Sandler, however, always keeps something in reserve–his talent. It’s like he’s afraid of committing; he holds back so he can use the “only kidding” defense.
The best laughs in any Adam Sandler project, being it something he stared in or something he produced for his friends, always come from the supporting characters. Sandler likes to give these characters off the cuff lines that catch the audience off guard like when the kid, in THE WEDDING SINGER, comes out of the house and calls Sandler's girlfriend a bitch. At that time, having a kid say something like that was not the norm. It threw audiences off which made it a funny scene. I just got done watching the oeuvre of one Rob Schnieder. In each of his films, he is not the one who gets the laughs. It is the side characters. Tell me, what is your favorite joke in DEUCE BIGALOW: MALE GIGOLO that isn't "that's a huge bitch?" Go ahead. I'll wait. You can't because there is no funny joke in that film that is performed by Schneider or his featured co-stars. Eddie Griffin says nothing funny. The gigalow guy says nothing funny. The main girl says nothing funny. The only film in the Sandler Cinematic Universe, or the SCU, that features funny lines from all its characters is GRANDMA'S BOY which is a masterpiece and the best thing Adam Sandler had anything to do with, but that is the exception that proves the rule.
And why even mention that the movie is set in the mid-1980s and makes a lot of mid-1980s references that are supposed to be funny but sound exactly like lame dialogue?
Sandler has never been about subtlety, so all of the 80s references in THE WEDDING SINGER are beaten into you. Every joke is surface-level.
And why do they write the role of a Boy George clone for Alexis Arquette and then do nothing with the character except let him hang there on screen?
This is the very example of a "surface level" joke: "Oh look, it's someone dressed up as Boy George." and that's the joke. There's nothing more to it.
And, and, and. . . .
This is how Ebert ends his review and I like it. It reminds me of how the SOUTH PARK guys write their episodes. Every idea has to be followed with "which leads to" (or something close to it) instead of saying "And then" Adam Sandler films are "And then" films. Sure, there is a story but everything else is so isolated that the film becomes a series of skits. There is nothing wrong with this but if that is all your film is, then there is nowhere for the film to go. There has to be something and THE WEDDING SINGER doesn't really have that. I get a lot of people love Sandler and Berrymore but I don't find them all that appealing here. I think they go together a lot better in 50 FIRST DATES. They are great there but ok here.
Do I like THE WEDDING SINGER? Kinf of. I mean, its ok. There are some good jokes and characters here but the film feels like old hat without adding much to it. The fact the film takes place in the 80s doesn't really matter because it never feels like it takes place in the 80s. It feels like it was made in a world where no one actually was alive in the 80s and they are going based on a description of what the 80s was like. The film looks and feels like a film that was shot and set in late 90s. Everyone who shows up in an 80s outfit feels like they are cosplaying. It is never believable.
I don't think the film is all that great but I am happy people enjoy it. As much as I hate on a film, I will almost never hate on the fact that a film I hate someone else loves. The only exception I will make are the films that are directed by convicted child rapists like Convicted Child Rapist Victor Salva. His films do not deserve to exist. He doesn't deserve to exist. If you like his films, then fine, but I will remind you of Convicted Child Rapist Victor Salva every time you bring up one of his films. That being said, like the films you like. If anyone tells you otherwise, fuck 'em.
){kind=link}
0 Comments