The weekend edition of Civilian Voices featured many a slam against Adam and his latest film. Well, I actually went to see Little Nicky this weekend, so I can finally voice my opinion on the topic. I wasn’t expecting too much, so I wasn’t too disappointed. It was certainly Sandler’s biggest film in terms of effects, but it wasn’t his biggest in terms of jokes. What I usually like about an Adam Sandler movie is that even if I don’t like the first five jokes, I’ll laugh at the sixth, maybe the ninth, perhaps the fifteenth. So much comedy is thrown at me that my odds of laughing increase exponentially.

Little Nicky wasn’t full of too many bad jokes; it just wasn’t full of jokes. The character of Nicky wasn’t that funny to me. I do give Reese Witherspoon a big thumbs-up as Nicky’s mom, and I thought Clint Howard’s cameo was hilariously creepy. Is it the end of Adam? No way. The poor box office is much more a result of an unlucky release date. Who knew Charlie’s Angels was going to be raking in the dough? The other folks in the theater with me seemed to be having a good time, and I don’t doubt they’ll be back to see what Mr. Sandler does next.

I also handed over my hard-earned cash to see The 6th Day. Something about the film made me wonder why they cast Arnold. Not that Arnold shouldn’t be allowed to do different kinds of films, but he doesn’t quite have the chops to carry a film that isn’t chock full of action. And The 6th Day is not chock full of action. It has an interesting premise, and I can’t say that I hated it. But, like I said, there were very few action set pieces and Arnold’s performance wasn’t enough to turn the film into more of a sci-fi drama. I kept wondering what the film could have been if it had starred more of an everyman like Tom Hanks or Kevin Spacey. Anyone else who saw the film have similar feelings? Let me know.

But enough about me, it’s your day to shine. Donna M. wasn’t one of the gazillions who saw The Grinch this weekend. She tells us why...

"Is it just me, or do the previews for the Grinch movie fall flat on their faces? The sets are wonderful eye candy, no doubt, but I’ve not seen anything in the trailer that makes me want to go see the movie. The bit about the cat being sucked up the chimney and attaching himself to the Grinch’s face -- ooo, hilarious. I’ve never seen that before! "I am also tired of the countless tie-ins for it. Enough. "Looks like I’m the Grinch now..." -- Donna Mehnert

And Kevin L. gives us his mini-review of The Legend of Bagger Vance...

"Yeah, OK, Redford hit some of the right notes, but not enough. Where was the fractured psyche of Junah? We get a smidgen at the beginning, a brief refresher toward the end, and that’s it. It could have been more. You don’t get the full sense of the tragedies he endured in the war. I like Will Smith as Vance, but it should have been Morgan Freeman. I’m just not believing this kind of wisdom is coming from someone Smith’s age. And worst of all, there’s no sense of ‘legend.’ There’s no mystery surrounding Vance, no tantalizing hints. He simply shows up. Who is this guy? Where did he come from? How come he knows so much about golf/life? Of course, you don’t want to explain all these things because that would take away from the mystique of the legend. But give us a little something to bend our minds around, to keep us thinking. Hardly anyone in the whole movie questions a man appearing from nowhere to become Junah’s caddy. ‘Oh, that’s that guy, you know, Vance.’ "Finally, I’m sure I’m too close to the material, because I have read the book four or five times. Redford couldn’t possibly have fit everything in... but he could have tried. You wouldn’t have thought L.A. Confidential could be made into a movie as complex as the book, but they came darn close." -- Kevin Laseau

The success of those Angels and the box-office fizzle of Adam Sandler have Brian M. wondering how the rest of the year’s movies will fare…

"After Charlie’s Angels’ success and Adam Sandler’s tanking (I can hardly believe I’m calling a $15M weekend a tank, but there it is), I don’t know what to expect out of the rest of the holiday season. Two sure bets for the fall both backfired, so now all the ‘iffy’ stuff looks closer to toxic than before. "Tom Hanks, who treaded dangerously close to treacle in The Green Mile, looks prepped to dive head-first into sentimentality with Cast Away -- and as Adam just learned, marquee status does not make for an adequate life-preserver. "The Grinch seems to have sure-fire hit writ large across it (just like Little Nicky did at one point) but it also shares a rather insidious trait with the failed comedy -- it looks hideous: Adam Sandler’s Liza Minnelli ‘do,’ that puffy blue overcoat and his lop-sided grimace vs. Jim Carrey’s too-hairiness, those reddened, butchered Who faces and that scraggly, bored-looking dog. "102 Dalmatians will open strong, but who can remember the first one? And Disney didn’t even try to convolute the storyline with a different plot all its own. "Proof of Life, with all of its unfortunate but free publicity, still can’t muster up any enthusiasm from anyone but Russell Crowe idolizers, who will have ample opportunity to admire him in private with the video release of Gladiator. "As for the rest? Unbreakable, What Women Want, and The Emperor’s New Groove have positive buzz but feel as though their disappointment and failures would not come as a great surprise. 13 Days and The 6th Day have more in common than their monikers’ structures -- movie stars whose fast-fading qualities have placed both pictures in the position of turning their careers around. In this climate, who knew that with a little more a**-shaking and some super-hero Underoos, even a mess like The Avengers could have made a killing at the box office." -- Brian McIntire

B was glad to hear that American Psycho was a hit among roughcut.com readers. He also has a great theory on why big buzz on a handful of edgy films can influence the box-office success of others…

"Okay. Nice to know so many civilian voices share the opinion that films suck this year and American Psycho stands as the exception. When I saw it, I felt its kinship with Fight Club and Being John Malkovich -- box-office underachievers, I guess we now call them. Their failure to make money was probably not what compelled executives to greenlight the Pablum 2000 slate. If such was the case, though, they learned their lesson. Just as the furor over McCain and Nader helped focus attention on the bland leading presidential prospects, the excitement and debate stirred by such films helped support Hollywood box office by bolstering interest in a trip to the cinema. Never underestimate the importance of ‘buzz.’ The year 1999 had people buzzing. These underachievers likely helped propel Sixth Sense, American Beauty, and Blair Witch to such impressive grosses, because people actually felt that they could go to the movies and see something REALLY ENTERTAINING. Now, look at poor 2000. Apathetic product creates an apathetic public. Hollywood’s glorious castle seems lonely in a kingdom devoid of citizens." -- B

Robin S. wants to do away with some of the cynicism, remind folks that sometimes a trip to the movies is just about having a good time, and point out that with a strike looming large in our future, we should be thankful we have any films at all...

"I think one reason that Civilian Voices might be receiving a lack of e-mails is that so many of the movie media continue to bash the movies that have been released this year. And this hostility has spread down into the movie-going ranks; even the editor of my university’s on-campus newspaper began an article this week by talking about how inadequate this year’s movies were compared to ’99. The frustration is contagious. I’ll make two comments in response to that. First, ’99 was a good year for vanguard storytelling. If you wanted to trash the U.S. participation in the Persian Gulf War, go inside the brain of an almost famous actor, or watch 13, f-word-filled lives intersect after three hours, then it was certainly your year. If you are, like me, a purely popcorn moviegoer, then you’re not quite sure what to think when all the critics are raving and you’re not having that much fun. Second, it’s a little premature to discard this year’s movies. Of the five films that I appreciated most last year (titles withheld to avoid other readers’ assaults on my personal taste), the first was not released until mid-October. We still have two strong months ahead of us. It’s not time to throw in the towel just yet. And, in the end, it only takes one really inspired film to give the end-of-year awards legitimacy. The only thing people remember in the end is which movie won Best Picture. That said, I would like to catch nine movies over the next few days, a tall task for a college student’s one-week Thanksgiving break. Of these nine, I don’t expect any of them to compete for any significant end-of-year awards. But I do plan on having a good time, on escaping from mundane and oppressive reality, and walking out of the theater thinking, ‘That was cool.’ Maybe this holiday season, instead of being resentful for the movies being released, we should be thankful that we have new movies to watch -- a particularly significant observation in light of the upcoming strike." -- Robin S

And finally, Dave makes a great point about the misuse of the word controversial...

"I haven’t seen Bamboozled, but I’ve read many articles about it and about its director, Spike Lee, whom I greatly admire. On the cover of a recent EW was the Blair Witch 2 cast and a headline that read something like, ‘Behind the scenes of this year’s most controversial sequel.’ This I found interesting, not only because I didn’t know there were any other controversial sequels out there, but because of the word itself. In the articles about Bamboozled, the word was also spread around. So here’s my question. Is a film controversial just because we attach the word to it? Why is it that every article about a Spike Lee film has this word in it? Were there protests outside the premiere? Did Jesse Jackson holler about race in America and mention the film? Did anyone really care? Bamboozled may have contained some risqué material, but is that such a surprise coming from Spike Lee? Doesn’t there have to be some sort of ruckus about a film for it to be considered controversial, or are we so desperate for news that we attach such an eye-catching word to a film before anyone has even seen it? I know I’m raising all sorts of questions that I haven’t provided the answers for, but this is more of an inquiry. What’s the deal?" -- Dave

The word controversy is defined in Webster’s Dictionary as "prolonged public dispute" or "argument." I guess I missed the dispute over Bamboozled. Must have slept through the argument about the Blair Witch sequel. I think we are, as Dave said, "desperate for news." Were any films this year really "controversial"? Have any films pushed an idea that wasn’t popular? Had depictions of sex or violence that were completely unjustified? Is the word controversial being tossed around too frequently? Are controversial films being made too infrequently? Send me an e-mail with your thoughts on the subject, won’t you?

 

Send your submissions to civilianvoices@roughcut.com

No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited. Must be age 16 or older to submit a story. Stories will be edited for length and content by representatives of Roughcut. Not all stories will appear online. By submitting this story you agree that Roughcut has the perpetual right to use the submitted story, in any and all media, without limitation, as Roughcut may determine in its sole discretion. You also acknowledge that you will not receive any monetary compensation for the use, if any, of your story.