Stupid court scene


So many problems:

1) The purpose of the hearing was to determine custody for Julian, not whether Sonny kidnapped him, the judge had no authority to throw him in jail
2) Why was Corrine surprised when Kevin said he was the father, everyone already knew that and the judge said it earlier
3) Why would Kevin need to do a paternity test? The court already knew he was the father
4) There is no way that a 5 year old understood what the judge said in her decision so Julian running over to Sonny shouting "nooooooooooo" is just silly
5) Corrine could have told the court that Sonny and Julian were smashing cans to get a discount, I highly doubt the judge would have considered that appropriate
6) The judge never would have allowed Julian to testify, first of all Julian cannot possibly know who his mother would want him to live with and secondly legally a 5 year old does not have any bearing on who has custody of him.
7) Julian said "asshole" in his testimony, the judge would have looked down upon that.
8) Does the prosecution seriously not get to cross examine any of Sonny's witnesses?
9) The scene where Sonny convinces his father that he deserves to have a kid is stupid and contrived, first of all Sonny and Layla by no means have a relationship and when Sonny insinuated that Layla would take care of both of them because she's a "sugar mama" is far from being true as she made it quite clear that she wants to focus on her career, secondly it's beyond unlikely that Sonny could change his father's mind in a matter of seconds with one speech
10) The prosecution easily could have and should have subpoenaed Julian's teacher who could then testify that Julian was being properly taken care of. I mean that seems like that would be the first person they would talk to.

reply

11. it's a comedy movie so it doesn't need to be a realistic court scene
12. I'm sure glad you didn't write this movie.
13. This thread is stupid.

reply

It should have had at least have some basis in reality which it didn’t. The humor needs to be consistent, if the movie is going to be absurd then they should have established the absurdity at the beginning of the movie. If you’ll pardon the cliche there needs to be a “method to the madness”

reply

Nah the movie is fine as is.

reply

If it was then it wouldn’t have been nominated for a worst picture Razzie. Clearly not everyone shares your opinion.

reply

It's a fun comedy for a day that one needs a fun comedy. That's all I care about.

reply

The humor shouldn’t be as inconsistent as it was. If it’s going to be absurd it should stay absurd, if it’s going to be grounded in reality, it should stay grounded in reality. It shouldn’t try to mix the two together.

reply

Nah the movie is fine as is.

reply

Not in my opinion. That court scene was atrociously stupid.

Also what’s up with Hooters and McDonalds? I don’t get the joke.

reply

Rewatch it and take some notes. There will be a Quiz on it tomorrow.

reply

So you can’t explain the joke ?

reply

The Hooters joke is that Corrine acts snobby and superior to Sonny because he chooses to be a tollbooth operator with pretty much no responsibility. But she once had a very demeaning job as a waitress who showed off her tits and flirted with strange men for tips. He's not actually insulting her for having been a Hooters waitress, in and of itself. Every time he mentions "Hooters" to/around her, he's simply reminding her that there was a time when she had a "lowly" job that a lot of people would look down on too, and that she's not "above" him, like she acts.

The McDonald's joke was really just that everybody loves McDonald's breakfast, but back then before they served it all day, people would get FURIOUS when they'd go in for a McMuffin, and couldn't get it because it was 2 minutes after they stopped serving breakfast. It was a trivial little "slice of life" thing that most of the country could relate to, in the 90's.

EDIT: Also, they were both product placement. Sandler knows how to make money.

reply

Those aren’t jokes, they are just not very humorous observations. Those are the kinds of “jokes” Seltzerberg would write.

reply

If it’s going to be absurd it should stay absurd, if it’s going to be grounded in reality, it should stay grounded in reality. It shouldn’t try to mix the two together.


Why not?

reply

Because the tonal inconsistencies do not mesh well with each other.

reply

Well that's pretty subjective. I disagree.

reply

I don’t.

reply

I've always had that complaint about number 2 on your list.

reply