In Reply to: RE: Be sure to watch the bloopers some time. posted by patrickU on June 1, 2008 at 10:39:33:
I couldn't totally embrace the film.
That storyline being the LSD (or was it ecstasy) one. I mean, the idea of it wasn't fake but the performance of it was. I didn't get the sense that the actor truly knew what it was like to be on such substances and I never bought his performance/the direction."You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when he hates all the same people you do."
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I'm in the middle... some good laughs for me but since one of the main storylines felt so fake - sjb 16:29:43 06/01/08 (11)
- The way he handled the toilet paper so... carressingly? - clarkjohnsen 09:57:59 06/02/08 (2)
- Sure... some of the things he did were genuine but they were done in a cliche'd way - sjb 10:41:42 06/02/08 (1)
- Cliche'd stroking of a roll of toilet paper? OK, if you say so. - clarkjohnsen 07:37:50 06/03/08 (0)
- Maybe because seeing someone stoned on acid is not funny, and since this was a comedy...nt - jamesgarvin 18:39:50 06/01/08 (7)
- One word: 200 Motels. nt - clarkjohnsen 09:58:36 06/02/08 (1)
- I met Frank Zappa once. - sjb 18:03:05 06/02/08 (0)
- No... I've seen it done well - sjb 20:22:30 06/01/08 (4)
- Well? Or Funny? I was writing about funny. nt - jamesgarvin 20:56:34 06/01/08 (3)
- Done so well - and realistically - that it was hysterical. nt - sjb 21:10:52 06/01/08 (2)
- Examples?nt - jamesgarvin 06:51:23 06/02/08 (1)
- It's in the essence of the portrayal. nt - sjb 10:46:37 06/02/08 (0)