Anger Management (2003) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

You know a film is in trouble when it has to get inspiration from Analyze That!

Imagine the relationship in Analyze That. A sixty year old man pretends to be crazy, and a loveable younger man suffers because of it. One is a psychiatrist, one is a patient. The patient ends up spending a good chunk of the movie singing I Feel Pretty from West Side Story.

But Anger Management is not exactly identical to Analyze That. Oh, no. This time - and brace yourself for the sheer daring of this innovation - the psychiatrist is pretending to be crazy, not the patient. Whoa!

Adam Sandler is the patient, but it's obvious that he shouldn't be one. He asks for a set of headphones on a movie flight, and ends up getting tasered by an air marshall. Before you know it, Sandler is sentenced to a year in prison for assault, a sentence which may only be commuted if he completes an anger management course with a famous therapist.

The first sixty minutes of this film are about as irritating and unfunny as any movie you'll see this year. Not only that, but the premise is so unrealistic, and the situations so completely implausible that you may need to take an anger management course to control your own rage over having invested your time on this story.


None. Heather Graham appears in a bikini. January Jones and Krista Allen appear in incredibly skimpy outfits

DVD info from Amazon

  • Commentary by Adam Sandler and director Peter Segal

  • Theatrical trailer(s)

  • Four Deleted Scenes

  • Blooper Reel

  • "My Buddy, Jack" Featurette

  • "Skull Session" Featurette

  • "Do You Have Anger Problems?" set-top game

  • Digitally Mastered Audio & Video

  • Mastered in High Definition

  • Widescreen anamorphic format

The second half is better - it resolves the irritation with an explanation, and manages to rise up to the level of a normal Adam Sandler movie, which is to say slapstick, clichéd, cloyingly sentimental, and sorta funny in a way like the class clown in your Anthro class, who isn't really funny, but is sort of cooler than Anthro. Kinda. Unless you have a Game Boy.

All of which sums up Adam Sandler's appeal in a quick sentence - he represents something to do if you don't have a Game Boy.

This movie did allow Jack Nicholson to do his semi-crazed Jack Nicholson kind of stuff, and that produced some decent moments. It also has about a bazillion celebrity cameos, from Heather Graham and John C Reilly to Roger Clemens, John McEnroe, and Bobby Knight, the latter three playing themselves as Sandler's fellow anger management patients. New York Mayor Guiliani also plays himself and has far too many lines in relation to his ability to deliver them.

As usual with Sandler movies, the box office was quite satisfactory, but many critics took a hearty dump on it.

The Critics Vote

  • General USA consensus: two and a half stars. Ebert 2/4, Berardinelli 2.5/4

  • General UK consensus: two stars. Daily Mail 6/10, Daily Telegraph 2/10, Independent 4/10, The Guardian 6/10, The Times 4/10, The Sun 5/10, The Express 4/10, The Mirror 4/10, BBC 4/5

The People Vote ...

  • Box Office Mojo. It was budgeted at $75 million for production, and the distribution/advertising costs are estimated around $35 million. It was a big spring release. It did $42 million on its opening weekend, but slowed a bit, still finishing with a healthy $135 million.


The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, this is a C-. Barely watchable in the category of "annoying comedies", but the big box office obviouslyu shows that C-, not a lower mark, is the correct rating.

Return to the Movie House home page