Jack and Jill (2011)

[srinivas1015]

Jack and Jill

Sony Pictures | 2011 | 91 min | Rated PG | Mar 06, 2012


Video
Video codec: MPEG-4 AVC
Video resolution: 1080p
Aspect ratio: 1.85:1
Original aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Audio
English: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1
French: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1
Spanish: Dolby Digital 5.1

Subtitles
English, English SDH, French, Spanish


Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy @ Amazon

Blu-ray + Digital Copy @ Amazon

[srinivas1015]

I just ordered this along with Supernatural Season 7.
It's a blind buy for me.

[Chloenator]

You'll be kicking yourself in the ass for buying it too.

[BJKH]

One of the worst movies I have ever seen. Why did you buy it?

[Kaiju]

Do you enjoy pain and suffering? Is that why you bought it?

[bradley4846]

huge sandler fan, and i regret buying this

[BluProofie]

I only understand buying this if you have a fetish for being tortured.

[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).

[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.