Give Adam Sandler a break — let him stretch

I’m very excited to see the new Adam Sandler movie, “Reign Over Me,” for one big reason: It’s not an Adam Sandler movie.

In other words, this one’s not geared for 12-year-old boys who’ll collapse in laughter at the sight of any and all bodily functions. “Reign” is for adults (the story centers around a man trying to deal with the grief of Sept. 11) and I credit Sandler for stepping out of his financial wheelhouse for a chance to do something that won’t be nominated for a Nickelodeon Kids’ Choice Award.

Trapped in a high-class prison that pays somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 million per movie, Sandler has made a nice living headlining such teen fare as “Mr. Deeds,” “Big Daddy,” “The Waterboy” and “Click.” Those type of movies have almost become something in Hollywood that’s rarely seen — a sure thing at the box office — with a combined domestic gross of nearly $600 million.

Even though I don’t know know Sandler personally, I can imagine that even with this kind of box office dominance, he doesn’t want his legacy to be solely about how much money he and his films have earned. As any actor worth their chops, he’d like to be take seriously for his craft — for parts that make audiences and critics take notice — and not being labled a funnyman only

He has tried making the move before, somewhat successfully. Though “The Wedding Singer” certainly made us laugh on occasion, the film that co-starred Drew Barrymore was somewhat serious at its core. And then there’s Paul Thomas Anderson’s “Punch-Drunk Love,” in which Sandler plays an emotionally beleaguered brother of seven sisters who falls for the charming Emily Watson.

Audiences had no interest in seeing this side of Sandler in “Punch-Drunk Love,” despite some highly favorable reviews. Roger Ebert said, “The film is exhilarating to watch because Sandler, liberated from the constraints of formula, reveals unexpected depths as an actor.” High praise, indeed.

Even in the mostly awful “Spanglish,” Sandler is a bright light, shown he can carry a dramatic role on an ever par with anyone else in the cast, even when the rest of the film is falling apart.

Carrey, Murray, Ferrell want to stretch
Another actor who’s had a difficult time making the transition from comedy to drama is Jim Carrey.

Carrey’s done some terrific work in films such as “The Truman Show” (where many thought he’d get an Oscar nomination) and the Andy Kaufman biopic “Man on the Moon,” both of which he won a Golden Globe for best actor. Plus, he did a serviceable job in the quirky “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.”

Slideshow   Celebrity sightings Demi Moore gets sporty at the ESPY Awards, Paul McCartney returns to the Ed Sullivan Theater, the Emmy nominees are announced and more. more photos

Yet, while “Moon” never made a dent with audience, “Truman” (which came out a year earlier) was a bonafide hit at $126 million — and should’ve rightly given Carrey enough industry cred to be able to carry a drama as well as a comedy in the eyes of casting directors, producers and studios.

But “The Majestic” quickly put an end to that. The Frank Darabont-directed movie was an ode to Frank Capra that played way too sentimental. It was a complete bomb and, some might say, the fallout is still being felt today.

And now there’s the current release “The Number 23,” another misfire from New Line Cinema that’s earned a paltry $33 million after four weeks of release. The thriller had plenty of marketing muscle but audiences wanted no part of it.

Slide show   10 films for spring Shrek, Captain Jack and flesh-eating zombies return for more adventures.

Despite the box office failures of non-comedies from Sandler, Carrey and Will Ferrell (Marc Forster’s “Stranger Than Fiction” was an absolutely charmer but fell through the cracks when Sony released it in the midst of Oscar season), reviews have often been strong for their films. So it’s important not to blame the actor but, instead, scold moviegoers for not allowing their favorite stars to branch out. Just because they do one thing extremely well is not reason for saying that shouldn’t be allowed to do anything else. McDonalds sells a million hamburgers — does that mean they shouldn’t be allowed to sell shakes and fries, too?

Even the great Bill Murray has felt the need to grab a paycheck in a sure-fire comedy. After stupendous turns in such wonderful films as “Mad Dog and Glory” and “Lost in Translation,” Murray — who many consider the most prolific comic actor of the modern era — still feels the need to earn some easy cash in not only “Garfield” but then the sequel as well, “Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties.” Hey, a man’s gotta feed his family, right?

On a side note: Murray, after an early 1980s hot streak of “Caddyshack,” “Stripes,” “Tootsie” and “Ghostbusters,” decided to go waaaaay against the grain by starring in the adaptation of the Somerset Maugham novel “The Razor’s Edge” about a World War I vet who looks for new meaning in his life. The film was completely rejected by audiences. “Ghostbusters” had come out only four months before and earned $238 million. “Edge” made just over $6 million. So much for the Murray fans who were willing to see him in something out of character. The box office numbers prove they didn’t even give him a chance.

MORE FROM MOVIE OPINIONS

Baron Cohen fools all the people all the time

Baron Cohen fools all the people all the time Gangster films take revenge on our behalf Whatever happened to grown-ups on film? Is Ryan Reynolds just another Ken doll? Newsweek: Has Michael Moore jumped the shark? Newsvine: Who should play Mr. T's role in 'A-Team'? 10 must-see John Travolta performances Reel of fortune: Movies can’t leave Las Vegas ‘Lost’ in translation: 10 of the best lost lands Do you see what I twee? How precious   Add Movie opinions headlines to your news reader: