Jack and Jill (2011)

[tylerdurden10]

Originally Posted by TotalStuntman

I sat through and got a few laughs out of Jack and Jill unlike that terrible Zohan movie Adam Sandler did. I watched half an hour and turned it off, only movie he's done I couldn't get into. Now that was torture. Hate on Jack and Jill all you want but nothing, NOTHING is as horrible as You Don't Mess With The Zohan.

See I feel the opposite, there are a bunch of awful things about Zohan, however there were some actually funny scenes in it as well. Jack & Jill on the other hand I can't imagine having ANY even remotely funny scenes in it!

[Chloenator]

Originally Posted by TotalStuntman

I sat through and got a few laughs out of Jack and Jill unlike that terrible Zohan movie Adam Sandler did. I watched half an hour and turned it off, only movie he's done I couldn't get into. Now that was torture. Hate on Jack and Jill all you want but nothing, NOTHING is as horrible as You Don't Mess With The Zohan.

To each their own. I thought Zohan was MUCH better than this crap!

[Bluprint]

Watching this now, and I have to say... this may be the worst movie ever made!

[AlexBC]

Bluprint,

It was topped by "That's My Boy". So be sure to miss this one


On the other hand, Zohan is one of Sandler's funniest movies for me,

[Bluprint]

Originally Posted by AlexBC

Bluprint,

It was topped by "That's My Boy". So be sure to miss this one


On the other hand, Zohan is one of Sandler's funniest movies for me,

I bought both of them on UV for only $5... now I'm feeling like I got scammed!

[Jado3Dhead]

Seen it on Netflix. Awful! Didn't laugh once. And Al Pacino should be ashamed of himself.

[meremortal]

Just saw this and thought there were some funny scenes. The voice used for Jill was the 'momma' voice from one of his skit comedy albums and brought some nostalgia. The scenes with Pacino were pretty funny but it just went on too long. Some of the cameos were funny and others didn't age well at all. But overall I thought it was worth a watch; the first half of the film was just much funnier. I'd probably be more inclined to rewatch if it were about an hour tops. Obviously a tough recommendation given its reputation as a 'bad' movie. It wasn't even the worst Sandler movie (Going Overboard).

[TheBoss062]

For the sake of making it more rational to me, I choose to believe that Jack and Jill are fraternal twins who just look alike, instead of believing they’re identical twins like the movie wants me to accept (identical twins cannot be of the opposite sex).

Originally Posted by Jado3Dhead

Seen it on Netflix. Awful! Didn't laugh once. And Al Pacino should be ashamed of himself.

Al Pacino admitted this was a paycheck picture, because he needed cash as his accountant was in prison.

[anchor_man]

Picked the DVD up for $7.50 at Walmart, part of a six-movie pack. Fully knowing it would be awful, I decided to watch it anyway to see just how bad it could get.


It is ... difficult to understand why this movie was made. Like, how did Al Pacino and Katie Holmes' agents agree to this? Was everyone drinking cough syrup throughout the production? If the motivation was indeed financial, I would be keen to see everyone's respective payouts in exchange for the dignity they gave up for starring in the film.

[mpls1981]

Originally Posted by anchor_man

Picked the DVD up for $7.50 at Walmart, part of a six-movie pack. Fully knowing it would be awful, I decided to watch it anyway to see just how bad it could get.


It is ... difficult to understand why this movie was made. Like, how did Al Pacino and Katie Holmes' agents agree to this? Was everyone drinking cough syrup throughout the production? If the motivation was indeed financial, I would be keen to see everyone's respective payouts in exchange for the dignity they gave up for starring in the film.

Pacino actually stated it was financial. He lost money due to his accountant and it was a quick way for him to earn much needed money. He hasn't stated how much he earned, but reports suggest $20 million.

[anchor_man]

Originally Posted by mpls1981

Pacino actually stated it was financial. He lost money due to his accountant and it was a quick way for him to earn much needed money. He hasn't stated how much he earned, but reports suggest $20 million.

I had heard that also, but in my opinion, the theory doesn't add up.


In the first place, how does Al Pacino lose all his money? Makes no sense. The dude was literally Scarface, for crying out loud.


Second, he's Al Pacino. Why couldn't he be cast in any other normal movie, a play - hell, even a commercial for foot cream would have made more sense.

[mpls1981]

Originally Posted by anchor_man

I had heard that also, but in my opinion, the theory doesn't add up.


In the first place, how does Al Pacino lose all his money? Makes no sense. The dude was literally Scarface, for crying out loud.


Second, he's Al Pacino. Why couldn't he be cast in any other normal movie, a play - hell, even a commercial for foot cream would have made more sense.

How is it a theory? He is the one who said it. If he was paid $20 million for it, as reported, then it would have been a quick way to get a lot of cash. And losing all your money isn't hard. Hollywood is filled with actors who either spent it all or invested poorly. Kevin Bacon said he lost most of his money due to the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme, for example.
Then you also have all those who have sued their management companies or accountants for poor investment or spending of vast fortunes, such as Johnny Depp or Michael Jackson.

[anchor_man]

Originally Posted by mpls1981

How is it a theory? He is the one who said it.

Are you serious? Because people gossip and lie, especially people who act for a living.

Originally Posted by mpls1981

If he was paid $20 million for it, as reported, then it would have been a quick way to get a lot of cash.

That part was not contested; why was this particular movie the only one which could pay a reasonable amount of money to address his financial troubles?

Originally Posted by mpls1981

And losing all your money isn't hard. Hollywood is filled with actors who either spent it all or invested poorly. Kevin Bacon said he lost most of his money due to the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme, for example.

Dunno, seems pretty hard to me, and the anecdotal account of another actor failing in the same way doesn't really justify it.


Anway, I am simply of the opinion it is just a weird a.f. movie which deserves a more formal explanation.

[mpls1981]

Originally Posted by anchor_man

Are you serious? Because people gossip and lie, especially people who act for a living.





That part was not contested; why was this particular movie the only one which could pay a reasonable amount of money to address his financial troubles?





Dunno, seems pretty hard to me, and the anecdotal account of another actor failing in the same way doesn't really justify it.


Anway, I am simply of the opinion it is just a weird a.f. movie which deserves a more formal explanation.

Sure. They could lie. But I'm not going to call something a theory when the actual person who would know the answer, literally gave the answer to the question. Disregarding what they said and saying its something else is better known as starting a rumor.