June 15, 2012, - 8:16 pm

Wknd Box Office: That’s My Boy, Rock of Ages, Hysteria

By Debbie Schlusssel

In a nutshell, every one of the three new movies at theaters, this weekend, sucks.


* “That’s My Boy“: This is the feel good incest movie of the year. Two words: Adam Sandler. Plus his stupid, annoying baby talk voice. Oy. Then there are the many warped, vile, disgusting scenes involving semen and barf on a wedding dress, masturbation to the photo of a grandmother and then sex with her, etc. Oh, and the poop jokes. It’s sad that people like Tony Orlando (minus Dawn) and James Caan (who plays a violent Catholic priest) are involved in uber-garbage like this. If that isn’t enough to convince you to stay away, consider that this movie features a sex scene between a brother and sister and a more between a 13-year-old kid and his teacher.


That’s how the story begins–with the kid, named Donny Berger, and the teacher. They get caught and the teacher gets pregnant from the relationship. She is sent to jail and Donny (Sandler) gets custody of the kid when he turns 18. He names the kid, Han Solo Berger (Adam Samberg), and the kid leaves on his 18th birthday and changes his name to get away from Donny. Now, he calls himself Todd and is a hedge fund manager about to marry his glamorous fiancee, Leighton Meester. But Donny worms his way back into his son’s life. Donny needs over $40,000 to pay taxes on millions in earnings he made as a celebrity who impregnated his teacher. Now, he’s broke, and he seeks to find a way to make the money so he can avoid jail. He shows up at Todd/Han Solo’s boss’ seaside mansion, and the hijinks begin. Or, rather, in the case of all Sandler movies–especially this one, sicker than them all–LOWjinks.

Vanilla Ice of ’80s fame has a recurring role in the movie and actor Todd Bridges plays himself (and is the object of the movie’s two funniest lines–”Whatchoo talkin’ bout, Willis?” and “How’s Mr. Drummond?”). There are a few funny lines, but this movie is just mostly very disgusting and to say it’s really bad would be the understatement of the year. It defies even its “R” rating most of the time. I thought Tony Orlando was supposed to be a conservative Republican. Tie a yellow ribbon around the old oak tree for his conscience to return home.

Stay away from this.

FOUR MARXES PLUS FOUR BIN LADENS
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgplus.jpgbinladensmallerbinladensmallerbinladensmallerbinladensmaller

Watch the trailer . . .

* “Rock of Ages“: This appears to be aimed at the aging, leather-skinned former president of the Whitesnake fan club. And every over-tanned, saggy, over-peroxided woman in America who never got out of the 1980s time warp and still thinks wearing a cropped half-shirt around her kids’ friends is okay.

This flick is about as bad as “That’s My Boy,” and I wonder why it’s not “R”-rated. It certainly should be, but is PG-13. I don’t know about you, but if I never see another movie in my life featuring Tom Cruise’s nipples being licked by groupies, I’ll be just fine. Would have been better had I not seen this one either. Plus it features an overweight zhlubby Alec Baldwin wearing a long-haired wig and expressing his gay love for Russell Brand. Ick. Please drop the two of them on a desert island, so we never have to endure those talentless hacks again. On top of that, this movie proceeds to ruin forever every single decent hair-band song of the mullet era. The only good thing about this movie was the quick shot of a Sunset Strip gas station with the price of $1.31 per gallon. (The movie takes place in 1987.) If this is the state of modern musicals, time to close up shop on that genre . . . forever. It ain’t no “Showboat.” Not even close. Just total garbage. The villain, by the way, is a Christian woman, played by the warmed over Catherine Zeta-Jones, who is out to destroy heavy metal music a la Tipper Gore, while her Mayor husband sleeps around on her.

The story: a small-town girl from Oklahoma (Julianne Hough) takes a bus to Hollywood, dreaming of becoming a singer. She meets an employee of a famous rock bar/concert hall, who has the same dreams. The bar, owned by Alec Baldwin, needs money to pay tax bills and is hosting a big concert featuring rock star Tom Cruise (who is just awful). During cheesy, syrupy-awful renditions of the ’80s hair band hits, we see scenes of simulated sex, oral sex, and stripping. The Oklahoma girl ends up becoming a stripper. Given the PG-13 of this crap, I wonder what kind of person who takes his/her kids to see this calls him/herself a “parent.”

Terrific for Gitmo torture material. For everyone else, skip this at all cost. Two-plus hours of my life I’ll never get back, and neither will you.

FOUR MARXES PLUS FOUR BIN LADENS
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgplus.jpgbinladensmallerbinladensmallerbinladensmallerbinladensmaller

Watch the trailer . . .

* “Hysteria“: The feel-good masturbation/vibrator movie of the year. Absolutely disgusting. I’m sure there are quite a few sickos out there who will enjoy their warped fetish being quenched. But for everyone else, watching fat, disgusting old ladies being masturbated by their doctors is just gross. The movie is about the doctor who invented the vibrator sex toy. Yes, Hollywood ran out of interesting and decent ideas, so now this is what passes for the topic of a movie. Parading as some sort of feminist tribute to sexual liberation and giving women sex toys, this garbage movie also involves a love story with the homely Maggie “America deserved 9/11″ Gyllenhaal. But that’s just a flimsy cover for the filthy story and scenes dreamed up by the Hollywood perverts. The story takes place in the late 1850s England, and women who are outspoken or unhappy are diagnosed with the catch-all diagnosis of “hysteria.” The doctor (Hugh Dancy, who is a better actor than to participate in this trash) masturbates them to cure them, and he does so many of these his hand cramps up and he loses his job and invents the vibrator instead. File under, stuff I never needed to know and wish I didn’t know now. Normally, I would be proud of myself in spotting a saying that was historically out of place. The doctor says, “My name is Mudd,” a phrase that didn’t come into being until 1865, after a Dr. Mudd treated John Wilkes Boothe and was accused of being involved in the conspiracy to assassinate Abraham Lincoln. And it’s mostly an American phrase, not a Britishism. But I’m not proud that I spotted anything in this vile and stupid movie. I’m even less proud I sat through it. It’s just sick.

FOUR MARXES PLUS TWO BETTY FRIEDANS
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgplus.jpgbettyfriedanbettyfriedan

Watch the trailer . . .

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

45 Responses

Thank you for the reviews, Debbie. Three skip-worthy movies. You watch crappy movies so that we don’t have to.

JeffE on June 15, 2012 at 8:47 pm

Three horrible movies! Poor you! I told you that Adam Sandler movies do *not* need to be reviewed anymore; frankly, that’s too much dedication to movie reviewing to be asked of anyone.

“My name is Mudd (mud)” pre-dates Dr. Samuel Mudd of John Wilkes Booth fame and has been cited in print since at least 1823. I have no doubt, however, that the movie has many other anachronisms.

Many years ago, I’d post movie anachronisms to the American Dialect Society list and wondered why producers would spend so much money on a movie and not pay $1.50 for someone like me to read and correct the script. There were a few times that producers would write to us for help, but these were all too rare. When I hear an anachronism on screen–which is almost all the time–it really stands out and tells me that the moviemakers were cheap and lazy.

Barry Popik on June 15, 2012 at 8:49 pm

I’m surprised these movies weren’t dumped in the August graveyard, where Hollywood unloads its worst stuff!

Hopefully, this isn’t a preview of what the summer has to offer.

NormanF on June 15, 2012 at 9:58 pm

    Norman, I have heard of art house flicks, but these seem to come under the category of outhouse. Taboo and Private Teacher have gone mainstream in less than thirty years conceptually. Of course, ones needs to only look around to see why. Women in the military are doing shots with their kids that would have been deemed fetish material not too many years ago. Or, we have the case of a male Marine on active duty acting in a gay porno flick with parts of his uniform on, and a court giving it the okay. That is where we are now. So, these sorts of films are not as out of place as they would have been even twenty years ago. It is a comment on society that Hollywood would even think there was a market for such fare.

    Worry01 on June 16, 2012 at 6:30 am

I have never seen the expression “My name is mud” with the word “mud” capitalized and spelled with two ds. If the phrase had come into being via your explanation, it would make much more sense to use “My name is Booth” as a metaphor for being extremely disliked.

That being said, I would just like to take this opportunity to regale everyone with one of my favorite riddles.

Q: What is the main difference between Adam Sandler and Jerry Lewis?

A: Even the French don’t think Adam Sandler is funny.

Irving on June 15, 2012 at 10:49 pm

    Dr Mudd was the doctor who treated Booth’s injuries right after Booth killed Pres Lincoln. Supposedly he did not know that Booth killed Lincoln and just treated an injured man. Mudd was Tried, Convicted, Tortured, Imprisoned and had his life ruined. Basically it means someone who is about to have his life destroyed and it may not have been his fault. Booth was huntd down and killed fairly quickly. Dr Booth suffered for years.

    Ken on June 16, 2012 at 12:49 am

    Hey, Irving. Please don’t compare Adam Sandler with Jerry Lewis, as Jerry is world’s apart from Adam. Jerry is not only a great comedian, but has been great at serious acting roles as well. And Jerry could write, dance, direct, produce, and has been equally at home on film, on the stage, on TV, and on radio. And, of course, Jerry has helped to raise billions of dollars for charity.

    In fact, although Adam’s “That’s My Boy” will still make plenty of money, it will be forgotten shortly after it’s had its DVD run. Meanwhile, Martin & Lewis’s “That’s My Boy” (1951) continues to live on and to bring laughs and entertainment, with no bodily secretions, scatology, incest, or other perversions. Martin & Lewis DVD of “That’s My Boy” continues to sell well, even though more than 60 years old. Just good, wholesome fun….. and, most important of all, talent–a magic ingredient missing from so many movies today.

    Ralph Adamo on June 16, 2012 at 9:44 pm

So these movies are great for someone in say…Poland? LOL!

RichieRich on June 15, 2012 at 11:23 pm

Dr. Samuel Mudd, in addition to his aforementioned infamy, was also an indirect ancestor to former CBS and NBC news correspondent and anchor Roger Mudd.

ConcernedPatriot on June 16, 2012 at 2:44 am

I can’t deny it, I loved Rock of Ages. Sure, it’s mindless, but sometimes that’s just what I want. I thought Tom Cruise (who I normally can’t stand) was great in it… or at least great for the part he was playing. I’ve got no interest in seeing the other two, however.

Alison on June 16, 2012 at 6:21 am

‘The Road To Wellville’ had a theme similar to ‘Hysteria’ – women being masturbated by doctors as a form of therapy. One of Anthony Hopkins’ finer moments

Maggie Gyllenhall is a Seinfeld two face – get her in the wrong light and she looks like an old crone

AnusPresley on June 16, 2012 at 7:04 am

Thank you for your reviews. You always point out the content in movies that I am looking to avoid: liberal/socialist overtones, sexualization of children, pro-Islamic/anti-American sentiments, and so forth. You’re doing a wonderful job, and we truly appreciate it.

Dina K on June 16, 2012 at 9:31 am

First: all you need to do is see the trailer to “That’s My Boy” to realize that it is an insult to any kind of intelligence, including that of the dead and comatose.

Judging from the reviews, a) these movies do deserve a FUS ROH-DAH (“Skyrim” ref)); and b) the coca harvest must have been pretty good this year.

Plus, is it just me or does each new Tom Cruise movie seem to be a shill for Scientology?

Thank Cthulu I’m broke this weekend. Shabbat Shalom.

The Reverend Jacques on June 16, 2012 at 9:51 am

Thank you for enduring this crap so that we don’t have to. Its become statistically unfair to you in fact. A simple Thank You then.

Phil Lipofsky on June 16, 2012 at 11:01 am

Debbie, I really don’t know how you pick the films you choose to review each week but you seem to cover only a fraction of what comes out each week.

As far as Adam Sandler, what would you expect from him. He has made only about 2 – 3 decent films in his life, most recently “Funny People”. His act has worn thin over the years.

As far as your reviews, from what I read on other sites and in the paper, you seem to look for how many sex scenes and feminist story telling, violence, etc, rather than trying to understand the story. A movie is more than a scene or two, it’s a story. It is also a refelction of society. This seems to escape you. It also seems as though you want all films to fall within a G, PG rating. Let’s not have films geared toward adults. BTW, I am one who does not mind sex scenes if they fall within the story line of the film. Same with violence. Why you choose not to like feminism, is beyond my guess as if it weren’t for woman’s rights laws, you would most likely not be able to get the degrees you have.

In the future, please try to take in the film as a whole and understand why certain scenes were put in rather than just telling us you diliked them. There is a lot to watch and listen to in a film to understandd the storyline and what the message of the film might be, especially films meant for adults. (Adam Sandler films don’t count in that category).

A Reader on June 16, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    Dear “A Reader”
    You probably cannot understand Debbie’s review and why she addresses certain issues and scenes in movies is because you are most likely a liberal.  As a conservative and a Christian I look forward to hearing her review.  I would say about 90% of the movie critics out there are liberals and it refreshing to find a reviewer that is conservative and has God fearing standards.  When I read reviews from most newspapers, I can tell you their beliefs on life just by the reviews they give of films.  If Debbie ever does decide to join the other 90% and not point out the sex, violent acts, gross scenes, feminism, Christian bashing and hidden messages that the film is displaying, than I will in turn stop reading her posts and look elsewhere for my reviews.

    TT on June 16, 2012 at 12:34 pm

      TT,

      I fully understand Debbie’s reviews. They have an agenda to them. Yes, I am a liberal, but also want movie reviews that are objective in nature and don’t just trash it because of a scene or two which you do not like, or because you don’t totally agree with it.

      Debbie’s agenda seems to be, in my opinion, that we go back to the films we had in the 1950s or even farther back. In those days, films basically did not into many issues of the day and were just fantasy films. Sory, times change. I also want films that say something rather than just have a nice storyline which makes everybody happy when they go out of the theater all the time.

      One more thing, there is a reason why we have a ratings system, if you prefer not to see a film because of sex, violence, etc., the rating can give you the information you need to decide if it’s a film for you.

      A Reader on June 16, 2012 at 1:58 pm

        Dear A Reader,
        You cannot get a review from a rating system. They only inform you of what you will basically find in the film.  There is no additional sentence or paragraph explaining the scenes of why it is a certain rating.  That is why there are movie critics.  I should specify again why most people come to this site, it gives a movie review with a conservative point of view.  If this doesn’t work for you, then I suggest switching to the thousands of other websites, newspapers, and radio shows instead of trying to conform this like all the others.  Not sure why this is so hard to understand.  Most liberals prefer getting their hard news from the networks, MSNBC, or CNN, because ingrained in the reporting is their liberal slant.   Most conservatives trust Fox News, because their is no liberal slant.  I’m pretty sure you understand why that is, so why is it so hard to grasp why some prefer getting their movie reviews from a conservative.

        TT on June 16, 2012 at 2:48 pm

          Dear TT,

          Sorry, but if you cannot read a rating system, then that is sad. Below each rating there is an explanation on why a film was rated the way it was. If it’s rated R and below it has the words, Sex, Violence, Language, you know you are going to see and hear things that might disturb you.

          The one thing that I think is sad here is that everybody on this board thinks that having an opposing view is bad. At least that is what I am seeing since I started looking on it a few weeks ago. I came across it by accident. I do have a right to look at what “consertatives” are saying.

          Oh, I look at many movie reviews before I go to the movies, not just one.

          A Reader on June 16, 2012 at 6:36 pm

        Oh , you mean like, “Gentlemen’s Agreement?” Maybe you’re really thinking of the 30′s and early 40′s?

        Italkit on June 16, 2012 at 3:36 pm

          Italikit,

          “Gentlemans Agreement” was way ahead of it’s time. How many other movies can you name in that period that spoke of the issue of anti-Semitism or any other types of predjudice or any other serious issues?

          A Reader on June 16, 2012 at 6:40 pm

Oh, please don’t add your political preferences in a film reveiw, whether you like the actor/actress because of their politics has nothing to do with whether a film is good or not.

A Reader on June 16, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    You certainlky add them, Also, no one is chaining you to this site. You are free to wander off.

    Worry01 on June 16, 2012 at 4:35 pm

      Worry,

      If you are addressing me and telling to “wander off” like I said in a previous post, I came across this website by accident and started to see what it said. I do have a right to see what other’s are ssying. Again, it seems as though this group believes that there is only one way to think and if you don’t like it then go away.

      A Reader on June 16, 2012 at 6:45 pm

BTW, the Descendants of Dr. Mudd, did succeed in getting his name cleared maybe about 15 years ago.

Italkit on June 16, 2012 at 3:38 pm

Good reviews, as usual. I can’t stand the lib controlled cinema these days. Just horrible stuff. Hysteria, and That’s My Boy don’t sound good to this reader either.

samurai on June 16, 2012 at 7:31 pm

Dear “A Reader”
The truly sad thing is, you I really don’t understand my point.  Yes, I fully understand the rating systems and why a movie will get a certain rating and how you can know in advance what to expect.  But critics go into details why it is getting this rating.  So reading Debbie give an analysis about incest in, That’s My Boy, resonates with me.  Like I said, the rating system can only explain so much, it’s the movie critic that gives the details.   They inform a person what we want to know and getting a review from someone that is “like minded” is important. 

And one final thing; Opposing view is good, but you’re here only to agitate people.  Like I said, liberal critics outnumber conservative critics 9 to 1 and you come on here to voice your displeasure in the one conservative critic.  But I understand why you do it, your goal is to be get a rise out of people.  That’s because most liberals come with a group think mentality and are close-minded, emotion-driven people with no common sense and a wholly unjustified superiority complex.

Now let’s go to the movies!

TT on June 16, 2012 at 8:49 pm

“Gentleman’s Agreement” — aaargh. One of the worst movies ever made, even for its time (1947). It’s a well-known fact: When the movie was screened in a pre-release showing for an all-Jewish audience, the audience was laughing at Gregory Peck’s attempt at a Jewish accent. I’m glad I’m living in the present.

rocker on June 16, 2012 at 8:59 pm

    Dear Rocker: I never watch GENTLEMEN’S AGREEMENT and the scene between Gregory Peck and the desk clerk at the restricted hotel without thinking “Why doesn’t he tell the clerk that he’s really Menachem Beigin and the LAST restricted hotel they wouldn’t let him into was the King David?”

    Miranda Rose Smith on June 17, 2012 at 5:35 am

“A Reader”:

The reason I get MY movie reviews from Debbie is precisely because she tells us about these elements.

And to say that we ought to just accept vile portions of our movies as “part of the package” of a good movie? That’s nonsense.

Nothing, I repeat nothing, is accidental in movies/tv. Every scene, every word, every backdrop, every peanut in a dish, every single part is specifically placed there for a reason by the director/producer.

Therefore, those vile elements are purposeful. And that purpose is one that I do not agree with, and I appreciate a reviewer that tells me about them.

I can watch classic cinema, great movies, and don’t have to worry about when I’m going to see some vile filth dropped on me in the middle of the movie. Or that often, as is the case today, the vile filth comprises the entirety of the movie.

PitandPen on June 16, 2012 at 10:44 pm

Debbie your movie reviews are funnier than the movies. I’m sure you’re on dart boards in many PR offices. Good thing you’re a pretty Jewish lawyer or they’d have snipers for you at these showings. I went out to dinner tonite with three other Jews (the offspring of 8 Jewish parents) and one tablemate told the waitress his name so then the others introduced themselves and then it got to me and I was thinking wtf do I need to introduce myself to the waitress for so I gave her my Hebrew name. Nicole, the waitress, seemed a bit confused but carried on. One girl at the table said her pretty nonJewish friend wanted to be set up. I said I didnt think it was that hard to meet nonJewish men but anyways I couldn’t help as I don’t know any nonJews. I thought that was funny but she and the other Jewess apparently didn’t. Now I’m back home with H. You would’ve thought that was funny and come home with me, right Debbie?

A1 on June 17, 2012 at 1:41 am

Dear Debbie: You don’t mention that THAT’S MY BOY is a remake of a classic, if dated, Jerry Louis-Dean Martin comedy.

It ain’t no “Showboat.” Not even close.

SHOWBOAT romanticized compulsive gambling. For anyone who has to deal with it in real life, compulsive gambling is as romantic as heroin addiction.

The doctor says, “My name is Mudd,” a phrase that didn’t come into being until 1865, after a Dr. Mudd treated John Wilkes Boothe and was accused of being involved in the conspiracy to assassinate Abraham Lincoln.

There’s one theory that “My name is mud” refers to Dr. Mudd, another theory that it refers to plain, old ordinary small-m mud, a terrible burden in the lives of the pioneers and farmers. It made roads impassible and fields unplowable, it oozed up through cracks in the plank floors of their cabins.

Yes, Hollywood ran out of interesting and decent ideas, so now this is what passes for the topic of a movie.

Right here, on this website, I’ve suggested numerous books and short stories that might be filmed. Hollywood is obsessed with remakes. For years I’ve been expecting a live action, full length feature film of “Courageous Cat and Minute Mouse.” It wouldn’t be as bad as HYSTERIA.

Miranda Rose Smith on June 17, 2012 at 5:17 am

Thanks Debbie, for the warnings!! I won’t be seeing any of this trashy garbage. It’s sad and pathetic this is what hollyweird has lowered itself to.

Dave on June 17, 2012 at 5:29 am

In 1956 Alfred Benzinger a former sergeant of the secret Nazi military police Geheime Feldpolizei proposed a coordinated action to propagate a deceitful term “”Polish Concentration Camps”. It would suggest, contrarily to the facts, that Poles, not Germans, were responsible for the mass genocide during World War II. Today Debbie Schlussel is carrying on his mission..

Peter on June 17, 2012 at 10:04 am

    It would suggest, contrarily to the facts, that Poles, not Germans, were responsible for the mass genocide during World War II. Today Debbie Schlussel is carrying on his mission..

    Peter on June 17, 2012 at 10:04 am

    Dear Peter: Are you feeling all right?

    Miranda Rose Smith on June 17, 2012 at 10:51 am

Well, the way things are going with movies nowadays, Sandra Flake is missing her calling. She should go into the movies. They are taylor-made for her interests.

Little Al on June 17, 2012 at 10:55 am

Let’s see, for three movies that’s twelve marxes, eight bin-ladens and two friedans (I refuse to dignify them with upper case letters).
Personal hygiene aside, me thinks, however, there is a need for a volume discount for soap and water (and other skin care products) for Debbie for having to sit through the sewage of a movie(s) for our benefit.
It’s sort of a parallel to the atoning sacrifice aspect of the Gospel.
Guard your soul, Debbie, for the dark forces arrayed against those who seek to do good are many.

Airmet Tango on June 17, 2012 at 12:36 pm

“A Reader” offers yet another ill thought out criticism of Debbie’s work. His thesis, apparently, is that Debbie’s film review method is not holistic enough, that in focusing on this or that detail, she ignores a film as a unity.

Except that Debbie does no such thing. She does indeed review a movie as a whole. Many movies today, however, are so incoherent that it would be wrong to to treat them as artistic unities. Indeed, most movies are made by formula. It is very helpful, then that Debbie makes this formula clear.

She also has no problem with risque films, just with lousy, pointlessly filthy films.

Finally, we can all guess that A Reader has no problem counting such things as the number of People of Color in a film. He doesn’t really object to measurement, only to what Debbie tends to measure.

skzion on June 17, 2012 at 2:36 pm

“A Reader” is a sad, geek fraud. Those with a brain are on to his dweeby and stupid ways. He seems to think he’s the Mayor Bloomberg of movie reviews. He prolly puts on lip gloss and satin pjs to read what that fat, red-headed hack Harry Knowles has to say about movies. What a loser!

I love when DS reviews films with that homely fraud Maggie Gyllanhaal in it. She’s such a pathetic world-class phony. She thinks she is like the vibrator spokesperson for USA. Let her be since she lacks the class to know that most people just laugh and point at her droopy face for her stupid delusions. I’d watch a million Adam Sandler films (and I have never seen one!!) if it would keep her out of ANY films. Yuck!

Skunky on June 17, 2012 at 6:01 pm

These reviews are prime examples of why Hollywood sucks. First of all, Rock of Ages was directed by a gay man that adds an element of extra cheesy crap to every musical. He was on American Idol to promote the movie and insisted on making Phillip Phillips kiss a picture of Jennifer Lopez when Phil first declined. What a weirdo!
Adam Sandler needs to have a longer rest between films. Does his ADHD require we watch anything he feels like filming? Since Adam has enough money to NEVER EVER work again un til he matures, please have more competent people determine what Adam should be starring in.
Lastly, Hysteria is another prime example of MANDATORY DRUG and ALCOHOL TESTING for anyone in Hollywood. It’s called Hollyweird for a reason. Keep up the good work, Debbie

andrea405 on June 17, 2012 at 10:05 pm

Your reviews are the reason I skip 99% of all movies, you have saved me so much time and money, thanks.

Jo on June 17, 2012 at 10:30 pm

Coming from a home that has had to deal with sexual molestation issues, I actually talked to my husband and my boss about my desire to stand out in front of the theater and protest That’s My Boy. Because there is actually a rule that prohibits me from doing such a thing, I could not. However, I have been very vocal about my opinion of the premise of this movie. I cannot stand the double standard that most people have regarding children and sex. If the child is a girl, and she has sex with an adult, it’s called molestation. If a guy has sex with an adult, they get a pat on the back and “attaboy!” Even with me talking to several women in my work place, I got comments like, “You don’t know kids these days. They are sooo street wise.” And another, “Kids today are sometimes the aggressor.” Like I have said before, if the kid is a problem, have someone in authority intervene. Kids and adults should not have sex. Period. I am so glad you agree with me Debbie!

Kristy on June 18, 2012 at 6:05 am

    Kristy, you nailed it! Exactly! I agree with you 100% and I don’t appreciate when people use the double-standard with kids and inappropriate sexual activity. If one can’t see it as abuse than that person doesn’t really care about kids. As we all have found out, having a sexual relationship with a child (especially if related) can ruin a person to be the most healthy they can be for life. It is wrong and I am glad you’re kicking against it. I will too as long as I am here on Earth.

    Skunky on June 18, 2012 at 1:08 pm

Thank you as always Debbie for your excellent movie reviews. Adam Sandler hasn’t been funny since Happy Gilmore. Also for the life of me I can’t figure out why they keep casting Maggie Gylenhaal. This unattractive 9-11 apologist can’t act and looks like an alien from MIB and Droppy the Dog had a child. I was praying that in The Dark Knight that Batman’s cape would’ve gotten stuck trying to get to her when Joker “let her go” from that window. May every movie that this “beauty” stars in tank at the box office faster than her fellow alien Odumbo’s presidency.

Ken b on June 18, 2012 at 3:12 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field