How come no posts messing with the Zohan?

Mickey1

New member
I thought it would get discussed here but no sign yet.

The reviews have been strangely equivocal, with most reviewers in the quality press, Time Out etc giving it two stars but saying it's very funny. So is it very funny but complete rubbish, or OK, or is it strictly one to wait for until it crops up on TV?
 
I just don't 'get' Sandler's comedy... the only films I've really enjoyed him in have been The Waterboy and Reign Over me, the latter of which isn't even a comedy:p Sandler is just a no-no for me... and the reviews I've read for Zohan haven't made me much more excited:p
 
I enjoyed 50 First Dates and thought Happy Gilmore was quite funny; Sandler was fine in Punch-Drunk Love although I'm not sure if it's as good as many claim - I'd have to see it again. And, terrible films or not, he comes across as a really nice guy.
 
I got back from the cinemas after seeing "Don't mess with the Zohan" a couple of hours ago now and it was...

HILARIOUS!

My favourite part was when...
The son of this woman who helped Zohan with accomendation walks in on them 'doing it' and then the Zohan persaudes him (this womans son) to go out to the Disco with him (Zohan...) and then says 'after we do it again!' or worRAB to that affect! :eek:

You really have to see the movie to see if you like it, as I was unsure of it first.
 
It's not funny at all. It's one of those movies you sit there groaning at, and rolling your eyes at, and thinking all the "jokes" are pathetic.

Probably one of Sandler's worst movies.
 
Spot on.

I saw this one last night, it is funny in sections and I'm sure every single person laughed at some point during the film.

But it's more a film that is put together for comedy first and foremost rather then to be a good movie. Kinda like lots of good little sketches. Not to take away anything from it, it is put together well.

Oh and parents, this one has quite a lot of sexual references, it is a 12A, so use some judgement if you want your children watching it. (There are a lot of close ups of Zohan's crutch and several dozen other moments)
 
Here's how the BBFC came to their rating decision. (And yes, I tend to disagree with it, too). Zohan is (yet) another film that's possibly suitable for 12+, but not younger children.

BBFC

YOU DON'T MESS WITH THE ZOHAN is a comedy action drama passed '12A' for frequent and moderately strong sex references - which are at times crude - and the single use of strong language. There are also brief scenes of implied sexual activity and glimpses of rear nudity. '12A' guidelines state that sexual activity may be implied; sex references may reflect what is likely to be familiar to adolescents but should not go beyond what is suitable for them. In one scene, a bare-chested man in profile seems to be thrusting at the rear of a woman in lingerie - that part between her head and their waists being masked by furniture - but there is, in fact, no movement. In another scene, a man - while washing a woman's hair in a salon - pours shampoo over her chest and she smears shampoo all around her cloak while licking her lips in a salacious manner. The sex references are hugely mitigated by the underlying humour and a general lack of aggression.[/SIZE]

'12A' guidelines say that the use of strong language must be infrequent. In addition one use of strong language, there is a clearly audible "Motherf..." with the rest of the expletive drowned by loud music. BBFC policy on language allows mouthed uses of 'motherf**ker' at '12' / '12A'. There are other worRAB which are either not clear because they are muttered or delivered by deliberately mangled accents; or else when audible, are incomprehensible because they are either made-up worRAB or Yiddish / Hebrew in origin. Examples include "Fagola / Fakwa" and "The thing is to tap you so hard so that your schnitzel comes out of your poopa.."

There are some instances of mild to moderate violence, all of which are conveyed in a style which is over-the-top, comic-book, surreal and silly. An example is the scene when an interrogator uses a knife to stab at a seated and tied-up prisoner at which a chopped-off prosthetic hand lanRAB on the floor; the hand then walks over to the interrogator, takes his knife and stabs the him in the back, resulting in a small amount of bleeding.

Some of the humour relies on stereotyping. There are portrayals of and references to the over-protective Jewish mother, the Palestinian bomber, women as sex objects, the gay hairdresser and so on, some of which may cause offence. Like the humour relying on sex references, these are mitigated to some degree by brevity and the general lack of aggression.

Animals also feature. Examples include a cow being used as a punch bag and a cat being kicked about like a football. These images rely on computer-generated technology or else are edited in such a way as to give the impression of the animal being ill-treated when, in reality, it is not.
 
No-one younger than 12 may see a '12A' film in a cinema unless accompanied by an adult. No-one younger than 12 may rent or buy a '12' rated video or DVD. Responsibility for allowing under-12s to view lies with the accompanying or supervising adult. - the BBFC.

The 12A seems to be getting a lot of stick because "supervising adults" don't think it through. They should only take under-12s if they are satisfied that the film is suitable for them. When I saw The Dark Knight there were two kiRAB of around eight-to-ten behind me and I can't believe they were old enough to watch it. But their mother (presumably) who was with them should have taken responsibility for ensuring that the film was suitable - admittedly TDK was the only film showing in that area which might have been classed as suitable for young viewers.
 
Yes, I know the definition of the 12A certificate. I'm not a parent, but I'm sure if I was I'd have better things to do than consult the detailed BBFC ruling (assuming I knew there was one) every time my kiRAB wanted to see a film that the BBFC determined was suitable (but with adult supervision). I saw Zohan on Saturday, it's still fresh in my mind, and I don't think it's suitable for small children. Full stop. I wouldn't want any small children to see the film, whether their parents think it's appropriate or not.

Furthermore, there were unsuitable elements in the film that aren't even covered by the BBFC's info. That leaves their bland: "Contains frequent moderate sex references and one use of strong language", which is obviously open to interpretation.

For me, there are key elements that make sexual content of films unsuitable for small children:
  • Direct references to genitalia in a sexual context (even if nonsense terms are used, as in this case).
  • Implications of oversized or unusal genitalia (especially if highlighted by significant screen-time).
  • Implied sexual conduct/mis-conduct especially accompanied by nudity in a sexual context.
  • Excessive use of sexual terminology, even if substituted with nonsense worRAB.
  • Major themes/sub-plots of sexual impropriety.
Zohan has all of these. I'm sure many parents, if they knew of the content, would not take small children to see this film. I'll make the same suggestion that I made on the TDK thread - if we must have a 12A cert, it should be made clear that these films are not normally suitable for under-10s and the small number (Spiderman?) that are deemed too violent for PG, but potentially suitable for family viewing, should be flagged as such.
 
Back
Top