“I don’t know if he was fighting dogs or not, but it’s
his property, it’s his dog…If that’s what he wants to
do, do it. I think people should mind their business…”
“I know a lot of back roads that have the dog
fighting if you want to go see it.” – Clinton Portis
“In the recent interview I gave concerning dog
fighting, I want to make it clear I do not take
part in dog fighting or condone dog fighting in
– Clinton Portis via Redskins damage control
Translation: “I don’t give a fck about dogs, really…
but people that aren’t as much of a dumba$$ as I am
told me that if I don’t send out this message
pretending I do care at least a tiny bit, I’ll stop
getting so much money from contracts and
endorsements.” – Puppy >.< Yip!
The ONE thing I like about trains is that when they stop, let people off, let people on, and then get ready to start going again, it very briefly sounds almost exactly like the opening of ‘Land Of The Dead’.
-Puppy/Monty Python >.< Yip!/Splat
10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – This is a decent clip that leads into a much more interesting little frantic, bizarre rant by John Cleese in a very bubbly chair.
10/18/16: Hmm. This particular clip stops after the railway timetables sketch. Not worth your time, really. Though if you can find Cleese in a big blue chair throwing out big words and clever references mixed with nonsense, you’re on to a winner.
7/13/18: The other thing: When you’re going up the escalator after leaving the train, just before reaching the top the sound of the escalator vanishing into the cycle sounds a bit like the pods spewing people as Donald Sutherland takes a short-but-far-too-long nap with unwanted ultra-closeups in ‘Invasion Of The Body Snatchers’. What a sentence.
Behold the damage caused by ‘Monty Python’s Flying Circus’.
Yes, it was brilliant, and inspired a lot of not-quite-as-brilliant-but-still-really-good comedy.
But THIS…THIS is what happens when someone (Terry Jones) is given complete artistic license to make a vanity project movie based on his own book SOLELY because he was a member of Python, albeit the least talented member.
I’m sure the executives watched this before agreeing to release it, just like they read the script before agreeing to fund it. But when they found both of them dull and almost completely without humor, they just shrugged and said “Well, that’s what the critics said about Python…we don’t get it, but it MUST be funny…let’s give it a go.”
Well, this is like a mediocre Jones/Palin sketch, only worse because it’s got no Palin, stretched out to movie-length with no increase in the volume of laughs along with the volume of material. The opening scene is the only thing I remembered from the first time I watched this, and that’s because it’s the only scene with “Python-esque” qualities, in the good sense(intelligent, well-written, funny, and in terrible taste).
The rest is, as cameo-appearance-for-old-time’s-sake John Cleese might describe it, “Irrepressibly drab and awful.”
After having seen this and ’28 Days Later’, I’ve concluded that Danny Boyle directs with much the same quick wit and precision as Quentin Tarantino, only Boyle’s movies are just as stylish but much more substantive.
Twistedly brilliant at times, morally ambiguous all the time, darkly comic and at times very disturbing.
They’re a bunch of ar$eholes and they don’t “Caaaaaaaaaaaaare…”
Near the middle it gets dull and repetitive for a bit, just like the lives of the characters. But it picks back up enough near the end to make it necessary viewing for anyone that gives a fck about my ‘A List’.
8/1/12: No, it doesn’t. I mean, I REALLY want there to be more movies that I think are A’s…but if there aren’t, there aren’t. And this isn’t one. Grade: B+
Having ‘Let Me In’, ‘Land Of The Dead’ and ’28 Days Later’ on my A list makes me feel a little bit like Jhonen Vasquez regarding “Anne Gwish”…you know, distancing himself from most of the associated cr@p and all that.
Funny: Whitney Cummings, Greg Giraldo, Gilbert Gottfried Decent Time-Killers: George Hamilton, Jerry Springer, Hulk Hogan, Jeff Ross, Seth MacFarlane Nah: Pamela Anderson Loudest Laughing: Lisa Lampanelli
Best Part: Brief clip of Norm MacDonald trying to get Hasselhoff to mention Germany.
The comparison of Atheists to “non-skiers” is flawed, in that non-skiers don’t ski, but they don’t necessarily “disbelieve” in skiing, or in the existence of the act of skiing, whether they themselves ski or not.
The attitude of the Crusading Atheist, as observed by Albert Einstein, Neil DeGrasse Tyson and others, is I believe this…
A Crusading Atheist who goes out of his/her way to “inform” believers how “deluded” they are is EXACTLY the same as a Crusading *Insert Name Of Faith Here* who goes out of his/her way to “inform” unbelievers how “doomed” they are. Basically, they become what they are screaming so strongly against.
Or, look at it this way…let’s say, in your mind, you KNOW the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist. I’m not comparing religion to fairy tales, but Crusading Atheists do, and so I’m just using their own “logic”. So, you “know” that the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist. The role of the Crusading Anti-Easter-Bunny-Theist is to inform all small children all over the world that, while believing in the Easter Bunny may give them comfort and joy, it is their DUTY to inform them how deluded they are, on mere PRINCIPLE. “You, little girl…how can you believe in it when you’ve never seen it??!! They’re just fooling you! WAKE UP!!!!” *Little girl cries* “Ahhh…my work here is done.”
Nice people, huh?
As to the notion that religion is harmful and the Easter Bunny is not, and therefore on that basis alone religion should be done away with, the LOGICAL facts do not support this. And, since Fervent Atheism is supposedly based on “logic”, it is self-contradictory. To say that removing religion from the world would remove much conflict from the world is true. It is also true that if we removed politics from the world, conflict would be removed. It is also true that if everyone was the same race, we would remove conflict from the world. It is also true that if everyone was genetically engineered at birth to “love” who they are and what they do, no matter how horrible their life is, we would remove conflict from the world. And that if we all took “happy pills”, we would remove conflict from the world. And if we therefore modeled our society on Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’, the world would be a peaceful, gentle, harmonious place. By the same token, if we all loved “Big Brother” and stopped thinking for ourselves altogether as in Orwell’s ‘1984’, the world would be a peaceful, gentle, harmonious, tranquil place.
“Mission Accomplished…What’s Next?” … “Hurting the ones you know and love? Chasing rabbits on a minibike until their hearts explode?”
We would also cease to exist as legitimate life forms and would be nothing more than organic robots.
People do fcked up sh1t because they’re scumbags, where applicable. Religion is just one excuse…JUST ONE EXCUSE…there are millions of others! (Guess the sketch and win a prize). We can’t get rid of them all unless we want to become identical mindless drones.
Me, I’ll take the inherent conflicts that come with freedom of religion, thought, and expression.
-Puppy >.< Yip!
5/10/16: Assuming the (impossibly) complete success of Antitheism, the end result moved towards (in one way of many ways possible, see above) as described by a logical Theist (My Lack-Of-God I LOVE using this quote…): “This is a soulless society, Captain. It has no spirit, no spark. All is indeed peace and tranquility: the peace of the factory, the tranquility of the machine. All parts working in unison.” – Spock
5/10/16: CLARIFICATION FOR CA/A’S: Spock is using the words “soul” and “spirit” in the metaphorical sense, not the strictly and pedantically literal, “religious” sense…something made clear by the rest of his statement. And if you think all words must be used always and only according to their strict literal meanings, you have some serious vocabulary editing to do. Words are used to convey feelings, beliefs, impressions, etc…therefore, an imperfect word that captures the feeling and belief well is MORE appropriate than a perfect word that does not.
If you don’t agree with that…well, stop reading 95 percent of the books ever written. And for the love of God/lack-of-God, stop watching “comedy”…I mean, a lot of that is BASED ON improper use of words. We are not amused.
5/10/16: “Pedantic” is my current word-du-jour. Of course, I probably didn’t really NEED to say that…
Funny: Anthony Jeselnik, Steve-O, Jon Lovitz, Patrice O’Neal, Amy Schumer Not So Funny: Seth MacFarlane, Mike Tyson, William Shatner, Kate Walsh, Jeff Ross Relatively Bored After Watching Gottfried Roast Saget: Me
Hilarious and Most Disgusting: Gilbert Gottfried Funny: Greg Giraldo, Jon Lovitz, Jeff Ross, Brian Posehn Surprisingly Funny: Jim Norton, Cloris Leachman Ehh: Susie Essman, Jeff Garlin Norm MacDonald/Andy Kaufman: Norm MacDonald
Funny: Lisa Lampanelli, Patton Oswalt, Jeff Ross, Greg Giraldo Surprisingly Funny: William Shatner, George Takei Not Funny: Jason Alexander, Farrah Fawcett, Artie Lange, Nichelle Nichols, Betty White Cut But Who Cares: Fred Willard Wasted: Farrah Fawcett Freaky: Andy Dick Funniest: Clips of Shatner “acting”/”singing”
Grade: B (The clips are moments of sheer comic genius)
Funny: Jimmy Kimmel, Patton Oswalt, Lisa Lampanelli, Jeff Ross Surprisingly Funny: Greg Giraldo, Carrot Top, Snoop Dogg Not Funny: Ice-T, Sommore, Katt Williams, Brigitte Nielsen Who the Fck is that?: Sommore, Katt Williams
It flows gently along just like the jazz cocktail music it uses for its score. If you don’t fall asleep to it, you might be occasionally entertained, but it’s more about Shatner and the travails of being an actor, as well as about acting and theater in general, than it is about Star Trek.
When Shatner attempts to put himself in the same company as Patrick Stewart, a classically trained Shakespearean actor, it should be funny…but it’s not, really. That’s Shatner…he’s always thought of himself (Whether as Captain Kirk or as himself) as a lot more than he really is, and that’s part of his charm, I suppose. At least he’s sincere in his self-absorption, there’s no false modesty here.
As a fan of the original series and certain of its offshoots(but not certain others), I think the attempt to chronicle the “Captain” experience is an abysmal failure…it’s more a blanket commentary on the stresses of being a full-time performer. So it’s certainly not a must-watch for Trekkies, and because it’s not all that great as a documentary, it’s not a must-watch for anyone else. What is it?
It’s relaxing…very, very relaxing. Ahhhhh….bop de doo be doo wop…
1/17/13: See ‘Pupdate: Documentary Grade Edits’. Grade: F
Lots of EXTREMELY-over analysis of analysis-unworthy “horror” flicks with intermittent flashes of Kubrick and Romero. And if you want Kubrick and Romero, watch them. Not this.
It’s not going to convince non-fans to watch horror films, it’s not going to make intelligent horror fans believe Roger Corman films/Friday the 13th/other schlock doesn’t suck, and it’s not even well-made enough to convince really STUPID horror fans of anything.
I mean, come on…yes, there are horror films that have “messages”, but there are a lot that are made cuz the director wants to make money and knows that people are stupid enough to watch sh1t that can be created with very little effort. Every movie shown here is “analyzed” by “experts” and given a deep meaning…most of those meanings are probably gonna be news to the directors.
The 2009 American Cr@p Horror Film Party version of ‘Triumph Of The Will’.
Advice to pretentious roundhead goatee/glasses guy- “Why don’t you get a toupee with some brains in it?” – Moe Howard
It’s actually very difficult to review this, because almost everything about it (the state of computers, the state of the world, the state of “video arcades”, the state of your average high school student, the state of Dabney Coleman) is pretty much archaic and obsolete. The first time I saw it, I thought it was amazing, scary, and brilliant. But I was 9 years old then.
Now, when I watch it, I’m surprised about the opening scene (that it exists, and that it isn’t anywhere near as cheezy as I figure the movie experience is going to be) and then I’m mostly just amused/nostalgic/rolling my eyes/saying “oh gawd”.
The thing is, plenty of movies were made in 1983 or before that HAVEN’T become comical after being released as “thrillers”. So I think that, despite a few moments of genius/brilliance/burnt-into-the-social-lexicon-ness, this is a (relative) failure today because so much attention was devoted to concept and message and so little was devoted to dialogue/believability/continuity/acting.
Favorite Character: Joshua
7/25/12: The ending visuals alone urge me to shove it up a grade… Grade: B-