Review: You Don't Mess With the Zohan
Filed under: Comedy, New Releases, Sony, Theatrical Reviews

It would be one thing if You Don't Mess With the Zohan was simply bad; after the recent string of Adam Sandler comedies like I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, Click and The Longest Yard, You Don't Mess With the Zohan continues the Sandler career path where low comedy is intended to result in high profits. Sandler's films now seem to function mostly as a kind of philosophical experiment: How lazy, sloppy and stupid can a film be and still make money? And let's not mince words here, or hem and haw and add caveats about a few laughs or good intentions: You Don't Mess With the Zohan is astonishingly, impressively, depressingly bad.
And no, this is not some sneering, soft-handed ivory-tower resident looking down on Sandler's work from a lofty height; this is someone who loves a good smart dumb comedy telling you that if you see You Don't Mess With the Zohan, you'll witness a moment where Zohan -- the Israeli commando-turned-hairdresser played by Sandler -- wishes a sad farewell to someone with his junk. We get a close-up of it -- bulging, frame-filling -- and it waggles a little wave to us, sadly, as Zohan wishes goodbye to a girl he might have loved, eyes sad and crotch engorged.
And I think of myself as hard to startle, or fairly inured to the depths to which Hollywood will go to get what they think might be a laugh, but I actually shook my head vigorously at that moment in the theater on the off chance that I might simply be dreaming this in some unsettled nightmare where a major motion picture studio not only thought a sentimental wang-wave was funny but paid for the construction of the cock-animatronic in question, so that we could witness Zohan demonstrate the breaking of his heart by the shifting of his bulge. And if you think I'm obsessing over Sandler's penis, let me assure you that its nothing compared to Sandler's own obsession; I'm just relaying a portion of the smutty, unfunny sex-comedy in Zohan, where the whole comedic enterprise seems to revolve around the axis of Sandler's stuffed man-bits.
I haven't fully explained the plot, but there's not much to explain; credited to Sandler, Robert Smigel and Judd Apatow, You Don't Mess With the Zohan's script can be summed up in a series of brief sentences: Israeli counter-terrorism commando tires of fighting, fakes his death, moves to New York to pursue his dream of being a hairdresser, is pursued by his Palestinian nemesis, finds the melting pot of America more peaceful than the constant battles of the Middle East, ultimately joining forces with his mortal enemy The Phantom (John Turturro) to stop a gentrifying developer who's trying to drive a series of Israeli and Arab-owned business out of a New York block in the name of building a mall.
I can't say if this pitch would have been funny with better execution, but I can say definitively that even this reed-thin spine is twisted and bent by supporting the crushing weight of Sandler's sneering narcissism and infantile sexuality. Zohan can only get a job cutting hair at a Palestinian-owned salon, under the direction of the lovely Dalia (Emmanuelle Chriqui), but he soon becomes popular with the shop's older female patrons --- not solely because he flatters the customers and gives good style, but because he also takes them into the storage closet after each cut and services them sexually. So we're expected to laugh, not just at the goofiness of Zohan's dream and his '80s styles (Zohan's only hairstyling reference book is a Paul Mitchell Salon photobook from two decades ago) but also at the thought of virile, young Adam Sandler giving older woman a good solid rogering. When he shares his dream of hairdressing with his family, Zohan's asked if he's a "faygeleh" -- gay -- which he's quick to assert he isn't; perhaps Sandler, fearing collateral gayness, is overcompensating in the worst possible way. Or perhaps Zohan's constant mentions of "making sticky" is an attempt at crafting a Borat-style character, the blithe idiot adrift in the modern world -- but if we're supposed to believe in Zohan as a bold, brilliant killing machine, making him dull and dim about sex and hairstyles actually works counter to the thrust of the film, or at least the parts of the film that don't revolve around thrusting.
Amazingly, Zohan tries to position itself as a film with a message beneath the laughs, depicting how, in America, Israelis and Palestinians kinda sorta get along. But Zohan trafficks in stereotypes as Zohan uses hummus as everything from a toothpaste to a fire retardant. It has shameless mis-casting, with Rob Schneider expanding his long list of makeup-smeared missteps here as a supporting Palestinian character. It gives us weird woman-hating moments like Zohan's sex-stud idea of extended service or explaining how Zohan's nemesis Phantom has a stable of 20 wives or showing us Israelis and Palestinians bonding over which female politicians or political spouses they'd like to do. It's nearly impossible to see Zohan's can't-we-all-just-get-along message as anything but sad posturing to rationalize bulge, buttock and breast jokes.
The idea behind You Don't Mess With the Zohan -- that a weary warrior would want to paraphrase the proverb and beat his sword not into a ploughshare but instead a curling iron -- could have been funny, yes. But that would take filmmakers who can stick to an idea and explore it with wit and intellect, not a director like Dennis Dugan who has built a career out of saying "That was awesome, Adam ...." no matter how lame or bizarre or over-the-top his moneymaking star's performance and ideas become. It would also take a comedic actor who thought there was more to shaping a character than stuffing your pants, and a supporting cast who were offered more to do than make jokes about their goat or look great in a low-cut top. It would take a script that respected human dignity even as it exposed the foibles in it, not one that made mealy-mouthed wishes for peace between men while degrading and insulting women. It would take someone, somewhere, with enough courage and judgment to tell Sandler the mass appetite for his films does not make them good, merely popular, and that standing on a high pile of hateful, dimwitted wreckage like what Sandler's offered audiences shouldn't be confused with a place at the top. "Don't Mess"? More like "Don't Bother."










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-05-2008 @ 10:36PM
shawn said...
i knew you weren't gonna like it.
why did you even bother with this one?
Why watch and review a film like this?
What's the point? You could have written this review without seeing the movie.
:shakes head:
Get someone who actually likes recent Adam Sandler "comedies" to see it. Not someone who thinks most of his modern hits are garbage.
Or get someone who is willing to watch a movie with an open mind and give it a chance.
Sandler isn't making this movie for critics.
He's making it for 13 year old boys. It's Critic Proof.
You know people are gonna see this movie. And the people who see it probably will love it. And quote it.
So quit your yammering and stop wasting your time on something like this.
This is not art. It's entertainment.
Food critics rarely go to Burger King.
Nor do they probably enjoy eating Lays Potatoe Chips.
So let the fans have their movie without your naysays and your negativity.....SKIP MOVIES LIKE THIS... PLEASE...
I know you go to film festivals and you probably have netflix.....
AND yes it probably does have a message.
If a typical Sandler fan walks away with a thought about tolerance or about bringing peace to the middle east. That's a positive thing.
Reply
6-05-2008 @ 11:00PM
William Goss said...
If it's critic-proof, then why were you reading his review?
It's scary how similar you sound to last week's Sex and the City defenders...
6-06-2008 @ 9:08AM
Kevin said...
My point exactly William Goss. You just took the time to bash a critic for even bothering to see a movie that he knew he wouldn't like going in, but you concede you knew what this review was going to say before you read it and that you were going to disagree with it. Thats great.
6-05-2008 @ 11:00PM
scoville said...
Don't listen to the idiot above. Anyone with half a brain knows that it's best to read reviews from people with different preferences and tastes. It's best to get an overall idea of the movie instead of just listening to those who will like anything from their favorite "artist".
Reply
6-05-2008 @ 11:56PM
totoro said...
What is interesting is you are not the first (and probably not the last) to use the word "lazy" in describing this type of film-and I know exactly what you mean in this context. I also don't mind low brow humor, B movies, or supposed "critic proof" films. What I do mind is when the director/stars just mail it in, banking (in every sense) on the fact that their past performance will at least guarantee ticket sales for the first weekend. Lazy is a perfect description.
Reply
6-06-2008 @ 12:36AM
Mr. R said...
It takes one look at Sandler with that wig and waving a hair dryer to realize there is no possible way this movie is worth seeing. I am sure there are plenty of 13 year olds who would rather watch a more interesting movie. Just because you are a teenager, doesn't mean you don't have taste. The above, lame defender does have a point when he compares a movie like this with Burger King. It's done in a hurry by people who don't really care about the quality of their product, for mass consumption and quick fattening digestion. In other words, crappy food, crappy movie.
Reply
6-06-2008 @ 2:10AM
gottacook said...
I just read A. O. Scott's NY Times review. He clearly thought (i) it was funny, and (ii) this excuses and even strengthens everything else about the movie. Scott writes, for example, "Sex, for Zohan, is like hummus: there is an endless supply, and no occasion on which it could be judged inappropriate." I'm inclined to think the movie must be the right kind of stupid-funny to produce a review that made me laugh out loud more than once.
Reply
6-06-2008 @ 2:58AM
shawn said...
just saying this was a lazy predetermined review from someone who was obviously gonna hate the movie.
sounds like James likes to waste his time with movies not worth a damn.
To quote roger ebert in his 3 star review for the longest yard "There is a sense in which attacking this movie is like kicking a dog for not being better at calculus."
want a good comedy:
rent Sullivan's Travels or It Happened One Night or Singing in the Rain or The Apartment or Raising Arizona or Wayne's World! :)
I'll see Zohan.
To me, it looks funny.
I guess that does make me an idiot.
Reply
6-06-2008 @ 10:32AM
gigantor21 said...
And? What's your point? I don't see how your argument makes any more sense. There are plenty of other critics who hated this movie, with different tastes, opinions and biases. Are they just close-minded "time wasters", too?
It just sounds like you're mad he didn't validate your desire to see it. :/
As far as the movie itself, I'll pass. As James and totoro said, it looks like another lazy, uninspired affair in the same dregs as Chuck and Larry or Click. The movie will do well enough to let him make more of these, though.
6-06-2008 @ 12:28PM
marlon said...
I saw the movie and im 22 years old, it was sooooooo funny, i was laughing most of the time, so i dont really understand what anyone here is saying, the whole theater was laughing most of the movie, and there were plently of older people, i guess you guys dont enjoy laughing or something, maybe go to a horror movie instead, that might make you happy, Adam sandler ruled the movie!
Reply
6-07-2008 @ 12:35PM
madgamer said...
I'm the same age as you and also found the movie pretty funny, as did the other people I saw it with. I honestly don't get the Sandler hate. Just go in expecting a goofy movie and enjoy it and if you hate movies like that, don't see it.
6-06-2008 @ 12:44PM
kevjohn said...
As a Sandler non-fan, I appreciated this review from someone equally skeptical of his work. No one deserves a free pass for a subpar movie, especially not the Sandman. The slapstick silliness of the trailers were leading me to believe this might be a worthwhile moviegoing experience. I had this on my list of "Maybe"s and was hoping for any kind of positive sign to let me know if I could move it to my "Must See" list. Apparently that sign will not be forthcoming. With so many possibly great movies coming out over the next few months, my money will be put to much much better use elsewhere. Maybe I'll use the funds I might have spent on this turd to go to a second viewing of Kung Fu Panda, a film that sounds more suitable for mentally mature audiences than Zohan.
Reply
6-09-2008 @ 5:50PM
kevjohn said...
Alright, so I did end up seeing this film yesterday. My friend had free passes, so Sandler & Co. didn't get a dime of our money. Thank goodness for that because this film wasn't worth a dime. There was only one laugh out loud moment in the entire 2-hour film, a throwaway line about being able to get free cable by pressing a button on a cell phone. The rest was "yeah I can see how they thought that might be funny, but it just wasn't." It really really wasn't.
6-06-2008 @ 1:27PM
rex said...
Lazy sounds like a good assessment of the current state Sandler. I remember as a teenager listening to his albums, like "They're all going to laugh at you!", and although the humor was fairly juvenile it was apparent Sandler was trying his best. When "Billy Madison" came out my friends and I were psyched, but left the theater disappointed. Despite that initial experience the movie grew on us and it (along with "Happy Gilmore") is highly quoted still to this day.
Compare that with "Little Nicky" or "The Water Boy". Two movies that while at the time were kind of funny, are easily forgettable. This is the category that Zohan will fall into. Mindless humor that will be gone by the fall. Sandler is critic proof so those of you that liked it shouldn't get your panties in a bunch.
Reply
6-06-2008 @ 5:28PM
Enough said...
I was puzzled when recently I saw Sandler receving an award for his works.
I was wondering if there is an intent from Sandler's handlers to produce sick, idiotic movies like this with the only purpose of intoxicating our minds with this kind of garbage. I don't think I am wrong on this. This type of movies are made to distort our minds and make us simple, easy to control people.
Reply
6-08-2008 @ 12:33AM
Veronica said...
As someone who once lived in Israel for several years and went into the theater not expecting much, I have to admit that I had a pretty good time (and so did the audience, which, from what I could gather, was comprised of many Israelis).
On the other hand, I can completely understand why some people didn't like it. It's not a well-made movie, and the jokes that made me laugh the most were the ones about little Israeli things and may have gone over some people's heads...
Reply
6-08-2008 @ 3:23AM
Ghonius said...
GREAT REVIEW! Rochi shows he is a gifted writer and even better reviewer. Most of the comments here are yelling at the reviewer with the bravado of the Israeli Lobby yells at Congress to bomb Iran. I disagree with Rocci in the purpose of the film, which he says is "...depicting how, in America, Israelis and Palestinians kinda sorta get along." Zohan does not attempt to show them getting along, rather, it shows the Palestinians as the terrorists - again. YAWN. It also show's the silly, aloof Israeli as a big-dong, agile, risk taker and hero. I think the premise is pretty clear and feel sorry for those that can't see what this is. It's cut and dry modern propaganda and image creation/decimation/instilling.
Reply
6-10-2008 @ 4:08PM
JDeck said...
Have any of you ever heard of the saying "Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you're still retarded."?
Reply