Why You're All Wrong About That's My Boy

That's My Boy - Adam Sandler - Armond White

Well, not all of you. Just the ones on the haterade-swilling Anti-Sandler train, "an unconscious social ideology that protects Hollywood’s status quo" according to everyone's favorite provocateur, Armond White: "Sandler’s key challenge notes the derangement of social values, beginning with the celebrity young Donny endured [...] silliness doesn’t prevent Sandler from accurately pinpointing our social hypocrisy. That’s what W.C. Fields used to do [...] Despite its deliberate ribaldry and outrage, That’s My Boy poignantly reminds the elite class of its forgotten virtues [...] Sandler dares to express feelings about family, ethnicity, friendship – the realpolitik of genuine social interaction. [City Arts]


  • dukeroberts says:

    Seriously, Armond?

  • Innocent bystander says:

    What a load of contrarian horse sh*t.

    I want to take every "review" Armond has ever written and have them printed on to rolls of toilet paper.

  • Brad Slager says:

    This review sums up all of White's contradictory career. He spends as much time in this review critiquing other film reviewers as he does the film itself. Plus, his calling JACK & JILL "ingenius" speaks to it all.

    • Patrick Hallstein / McEvoy-Halston says:

      "Jack and Jill" was quite good, and the critic here -- I think it was Willmore -- thought the Pacino parts "inspired," if not ingenious. This wasn't a minor work but a poor -- even depressing -- one. Sandler speaks for the put-upon, and sometimes he's a true crusader for doing so; but the put-upon can themselves be wretched: if their point-of-view spreads, Sandler, the world isn't necessarily going some place better.

  • KevyB says:

    So Sandler's movies are good because he "dares to express feelings about family, ethnicity, friendship – the realpolitik of genuine social interaction"... so things like script, direction and acting mean nothing! Movies are only good if they dare to express these feelings! The most pathetic part of this pseudo-review is the fact that the biggest problem with Sandler's movies is a complete lack of social interaction between the characters on-screen. Nobody relates to each other like real human beings, because every character is nothing more than a punchline machine.

    • tracemurray says:

      And look at you people: "script, "direction", you guys just use them as buzzwords, lending you the illusion of sophistication without the understanding and interpreting of ideas that brings about real sophistication. You are exactly what he's talking about when he says that film culture has degraded.

      • KevyB says:

        Yes, because "buzzwords" like "script" and "direction" are such arcane concepts! If there were only some way we could really know whether a script or director are any good!! Thankfully, geniuses like Armond White are there to explain it to us!! (And, BTW, trying to claim that script and direction are buzzwords and NOT essential to good filmmaking is far more moronic than Adam Sandler's latest output. Comedies can be both intentionally stupid AND well-written/directed. Like most of the Farrelly brothers' output.)

  • Trace Murray says:

    Lord knows your intent behind calling attention to Armond's review, but quite frankly, I read him before I go here, and I can't help but agree with him.

  • Brooklyn says:

    Hey, I just hopped over to your website through StumbleUpon. Not somthing I might usually read, but I enjoyed your thoughts none the less. Thank you for making some thing well worth reading through.