MovieChat Forums > Anger Management (2003) Discussion > Nicholson better then Sandler

Nicholson better then Sandler


I thought Jack Nicholson was SOOOOOOOOO much funnier then Adam Sandler in every way. Anyone agree?

reply

Sandler was the straight man in this. Nicholson, was SUPPOSED to be funnier

reply

It doesn't hurt that Jack Nicholson is superior in every way to Sandler.

reply

^ completely THIS





'Then' and 'than' are different words - stop confusing them.

reply

Nicholson was the best thing about this film. He OWNED that character. The rest of the film kinda struggled to keep up. Not surprising since Jack has more talent in his pinky, than Sandler possesses in his whole body.

reply

Well, considering the fact that I don't find Sandler funny, Jack was a shoe-in.

reply

[deleted]

Considering my post is over a year and a half ago, I've seen 'Funny People' since then and I thought he was good in that.

But overall, I find Sandler to be better at serious acting, cause he resorts to a lot of childish humor and weird accents when it comes to "comedy", but I thought 'Funny People' showed that he can be better than that, and poking fun at himself for doing roles like I mentioned went down a treat.

reply

I thought Jack Nicholson was cleary the funnier one in this film. But Marisa Tomei stole every scene she was in and my heart as well. Her beauty was the only thing that got me through the first half hour.

reply

Nicholson was what came the closest to saving the film for me - I found Adam Sandler to be on his worst kind of comedic autopilot, but the inspired Nicholson generated just enough comedic spark to make the film passable, but given the script he was working with, he could only really do so much.

"Most people will never know anything beyond what they see with their own two eyes."
-Nightcrawler

reply

Leonard Maltin in reviewing this movie criticized Jack Nicholson for a "one-note performance."

What did Maltin expect? It's a comedy with Adam Sandler. It's not going to be like "Five Easy Pieces".

reply

Agreed, Nicholson gave this otherwise below-average movie a breath of life. I'm sure Nicholson read the script and thought... "its a nice check...not sure how Sandler got my home address, but I'll I turn this turd into something watchable. Then I'll watch Sandler's career quickly dissolve when he's unable to recruit true talent such as myself to prop his movies upon (this decline is a ongoing process, although some consider his movies pathetic and his career dead).

Same with guys like Stiller/Murphy (and others I can't think of). I actually think Will Ferrel(?) has a chance if he can shake the over-the-top performances that he's known for like "Rick Bobby". I'll give him the benefit of a doubt. He isn't quite as far down the creek as other comedians. He needs to create a different character/performance, but in his case I think its a matter of finding the right script. I don't think the same can be said for someone like Robin Williams. He should just give up on comedy (its given up on him). He's no longer funny. BUT, I think there's plenty of dramatic roles he could pull off.

I'm losing focus lol - this is turning into a semi-coherent rant (and I'll post it on a board that nobody reads, too lol).

As I was about to say, when talking about dieing comedians like Stiller/Murphy etc... there's almost no point in even watch a trailer where they are the main lead... that heist movie that both of them did recently is the only movie they're good for anymore. It was relatively watchable, but only because their trademark "deliveries" were just one aspect of the movie. Stiller gives "that guy" from Meet the Parents... Murphy is free to break a little from is usual roles aimed toward the "black crowd" (or so its called by many). But he's still Murphy in many way and his million-dollar-grin was on display. What makes this movie watchable is that other actors were given a chance to exhibit their abilities - it wasn't one comedian relying on recycled reactions and material.

Naturally (and thankfully) the march of time is bringing in new brands, and comedic actors are establishing themselves. Hopefully this pushes Stiller etc. out of roles at a faster pace. Unfortunately, the tired "comedians" will hang around simply because there will always be dim-witted zombies willing pay money for the next movie the "big names" are in.

I think this interpretation is relatively unbiased, but I realize I basically immortalize Jack Nicholson at the beginning of this post...

I think, however, that actors such as Nicholson are different than Sandler or Murphy (and for reasons beyond the obvious). Comedians are prone to burnout because they often use their own material. Sandler has his regular-joe, weird (and often creepy), brand (he has more than 3 qualities but others I can't really describe). He's been hugely successful, but there is a formula he follows, and I am one of many fans that think his attempts at being funny are played-out. Nicholson, while rely on the same set of skills (more or less), throughout his career, does not need a specific set of characteristics. In fact, his body of work actually forces him to be a vessel for a wide variety of characters. He may have garnered a reputation for certain roles, but he's actually done a great job at varying his roles when you consider all the roles he's been offered(better than maybe someone like De Niro who, while probably just as talented, has a reputation for mafia/gangster character - and even a specific director in Scorsese).

"and I do mean gay as in festive, not as in penetration of the bum" - South Park

reply

[deleted]

Well Jack Nicholson is supposed to be the funny one in the movie. Not to mention he's one of the greatest actors of all time.

reply

Haha, no. Jack Nicholson isn't funnier than Adam Sandler. However, people are perfectly welcome to think that if they think it makes them 'legit' film buffs.

It's common sense.

reply

watch one who flow over the coocoos nest and the shining, he can be funny and serious at the same time.

as much as i like adam sandler and i love the water boy, jack nicholsin is an actor, and sandler is a comedian, just a comiedian, and i dont think he is ever commited to a movie like Galifinakis or Jim Carrey, he certantly is not a comedy genius to me but i like him.

But I will NOT watch grown-ups 2.

reply

The only good performance Zack Galifinakis has put in was in this years Birdman, he was never "committed" to a role before then

reply


Of course!!
_____________________________________
My Movie Page
http://tinyurl.com/2eflusu

reply

They both were hilarious. When Buddy's mocking the monk's sister: "Ooh, I got Casper in my sheets" that was funny!

"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna `*beep*` wit' me!" Hudson in Aliens.

reply

[deleted]

Nicholson has so much screen-presence. He can do pretty much anything he want's to. He's also smart enough to know how deliver in a movie such as this one (where his character is obvious, but not one-dimensional - and he did exactly what he needed to do to make the character better,I think, than it was on paper).

I didn't think about it at the time, but this was one of the last decent "Sandler" movies... unlike Happy Gilmore or Big Daddy - Anger Management benefited from a wider variety of humor. The straight-up "Sandler humor" which made him (Sandler) one of the bigger names in comedy was there, but it was helped along by other comedic attempts... Nicholson could have phoned it in, but instead he added some solid moments that probably only someone at his level of ability could create and pull off. He made some lines stick. Lines that other actors would read but not sell in the way he can (wouldn't be surprised if he has 3 testicles...lol)... were talking about the golfer right?...lol/jk... when I was younger I would get the names mixed up... also Matt Damon and Johnny Damon - just the names not the people.

idle-thought here... who else could fill Nicholson's shoes in this siuation...honest question...not saying he's a golden god... not one of the more attractive actors... not the physically strongest... and not the benefactor of someone like Scorsese, and never really got mixed up in too many gangster films like Pacino/De Niro etc. Nicholson is just flat out one of the best actors in film - simple as that...weird board to go on such a rant that this one, but I'm sure there is plenty of discussion about him on his own board.

But back to who could do as good/better job in this role. I'd actually like to see Pacino take a shot. We know he can shout...the anger wouldn't be the difficult part for him. I"m trying to use my imagination here, but I don't think he could deliver the needed comedic performance. Brian Cox, while not nearly as big of a name, possesses both the ability to be serious and funny... Like I said, he would not likely be chosen (although he'd be much cheaper), because this movie needed a name that matched Adam Sandler. I always look at other actors/actresses for the same roles in movies - just a habit.

Funny movie overall - but still a rather average one to begin with.

"and I do mean gay as in festive, not as in penetration of the bum" - South Park

reply