History Headscratchers / INowPronounceYouChuckAndLarry

* It bugs me that the premise of the movie required complete idiocy on the part of the lawyer. The two were being prosecuted for fraud, but fraud requires an attempt to steal or otherwise defraud the plaintiff (in this case the city). However, at no point did Jessica Biel's character mention that there was NO THEFT of city funds or benefits occurring, as all they wanted was to change the beneficiary of the life insurance, a benefit which existed prior to the "marriage."

** Not all Lawyers are of the cold and distance type. Plus she thought Chuck was actually gay so she thought undressing in front of him wasn't a big deal. Plus several lawyers have been known for screwing around with their clients as well.

** First of all, when one signs up for life insurance one can name both a primary beneficiary and contingent beneficiaries. In the event that the primary beneficiary (in this case, Larry's wife) dies, the contingent beneficiaries (likely his children) would receive the monies from the insurance policy should Larry die himself. Any insurance broker worth their salt would've explained this to Larry and his wife at the outset, and this wouldn't have even been a problem.

* Ok, Question: The trial scene for these two guys seemed to have gone pretty well, and everyone was totally convinced that they were actually gay. They were even about to kiss! Then Dan Aykroyd storms in and declares that they are actually straight and...they just give up? What? As far as we see, Aykroyd has no evidence whatsoever to expose the two of them except his own word, and after everything that has *just happened* with the interviews in court and everything, it seems very unlikely that anyone (except Buscemi) would have actually believed him without proof. So why do Chuck and Larry just give up right then, when they could have still gotten away with it? Even if they are tired of the ruse, they've already put so much effort into it up till then, and neither one of them want to go to jail, or lose the pension benefits thing. So why give so easily?

* This movie literally should have just had a CitizenshipMarriage plot. The insurance plot as pointed out below is nonsensicle, but marriages for green cards actually ''are'' subject to intense scrutiny to ensure people aren't just exploiting the martial residency process to jump the immigration queue. And that would carry a ''far'' worse penalty than insurance fraud. It wouldn't fix a lot of the problematic elements, but it would clear up the film's biggest plot hole and we already know from real life that immigration agents will look for the flimsiest of legal reasons to deport people.

*** Also... I think it's fair to argue that there might be a little bit of Mary-Sueing going on here. This is a movie which positions Adam Sandler of all people as a hunky firefighter and legendary ladies' man, after all. That the movie begins and ends with pretty much everything thinking Sandler's character is the greatest thing since bread, sliced or otherwise, is just an extension of this.

** Fourth - let's assume that for some reason Larry has not put his children as secondaries AND his life insurance firm is really so stupid as to not let him change his beneficiaries, despite the fact that he now has exactly zero. ''It wouldn't matter." In the event of his death, his life insurance policy would go to his wife, as the policy states. Since his wife is dead, it would go to his wife's estate, and any assets to his wife's estate would most likely go directly to his children - or at least to their designated legal guardian, which is most likely Chuck anyway, if Chuck is - as Larry stated - "the only person that [Larry] can trust."

----
<<|ItJustBugsMe|>>

*** How about WasItAllALie, CantGetAwayWithNuthin, SweetAndSourGrapes, or some sort of WellIntentionedExtremist? Any of them ringing a bell?

*** Out-of-universe as well. "Not like" or "not want" is one thing. These two looked like were about to eat some dung. Because you see, faking being gay is ok, but actually doing something that might imply they're gay is vomit-inducingly horrendous.
** At that point things had gotten pretty damn ridiculous anyway. They could easily have told Buscemi to go screw himself (and would have been well within their rights to do so, a public display of affection isn't exactly evidence one way or the other as someone running a scam wouldn't hesitate at that point) but the movie was more interested in making a cheap gag and running around in circles rather than doing something actually funny yet semi-accurate for the legal system.

<<|ItJustBugsMe|>>

** Okay, so... You've got arranged marriages where at least one and sometimes both people have American or dual citizenship. They have literally never met prior to the days leading up to the marriage ceremony. And the court ''still'' uses "you don't actually want to have sex all the time with just each other, so you don't love each other, so your marriage is fraudulent"? Even if the court still insisted that you can't get married without being in love (unless you have it [[RetCon annulled]]), I should have liked to have them watch Denny's "marriage, non-sexual love, legal and economical benefits, yadda yadda" speech on ''BostonLegal'', and have the whole case thrown out due to biased judge if they still stuck to their original argument (or moved to something completely different). (Context for non-BostonLegal watchers: [[spoiler: Denny and Alan, both males, get married under a Massachusetts license because they're already HeterosexualLifePartners and Denny doesn't want to mess around with inheritance taxes or the loopholes in non-spousal power of attorney. He brings up my anullment point and says that refusing them marriage is just a sexuality-flipped version of refusing gay marriage.]])