Photos
 |
greenredblack
Website:
-
|
Latest Comments
Comments
Wait…actually i think the cards are pretty hilarious. Granted, the whoevers that put the cards together probably had no idea that they would come off as hilarious for absolutely missing the mark and comic tone of the show so perfectly, but that’s how I read them. I think the writing crew of 30 Rock would be proud of this in a way. Its actually much funnier than if they went the way of actually being clever/ironic (ironic, which, ironically, is sort of how i appreciate these (awful) funny (awful funny) cards).
Sure New Orleans did the right thing, but he’s been more consistently offensive to comedy, and comedy still lets him around. Situation needs to be rectified.
Good “how comedy-ey is this” gauge: does the comedian trust their material enough to say it normally or are they saying it like a fucking clown? Mencia = LOSE!
man i want to be a hero by yelling at somebody who yelled at somebody. it’s like how batman is!
we need more tv series about sanguinarianism, Hematolagnia, and Renfield Syndrome. Enough romanticized homogenized vampires, it’s time for the disgusting, disgraceful and largely neglected realities that have partly come out of and partly inspired the vampire myth. Y’know, real fun!
yeah, the only difference is one is from a sketch comedy show and the other isn’t.
hey guys, do the tears mean he killed people?
oh yeah, and i made some sneaky connections: “music is a rappa…and music IS a gangsta”
I’m confused about this joke-story because i thought for a spell that the voices of reason were the students to cody’s pointless nonsense, but the “when he’s not mimicking vonnegut..” kids ideas seem to use references just as haphazardly and slapdash as cody herself does (ie. “this cunt-fucking-shit is better than suspiria you motherfucker!” or something). if that was intentional: rad. if not: still funny, and i laughed because: f’ diablo cody…but i like david wallace and eggers and kevin brockmeier. and i was actually curious what brockmeier plot was being ripped off.
gak fits this description perfectly. but i was more talking about a generic substance: goop. sort of as in “that nickelodeon GAK is no kind of toy for my kid. all it is is a bunch of goop!”
fuck katy perry. jimi hendrix and timothy leary…haha. fuck her.
What’s hilarious to me is that when i think of goop, i don’t think of a shitty celebrity nickname or “everything and nothing” but instead i think of a useless bloblike substance that sticks to objects and gets dirtier and dirtier the more things it comes into contact with until it’s not even recognizable, but just a filthy random amalgamation of *stuff*. so….good name paltrow!
also, i was watching some show on tv with a hyper-stylish homosexual (like stylish to the point to wthich i feel as though i’m being told that this is a fundamental element of what he – a homosexual – is clearly supposed to represent to me – the viewer), and he mentioned that clutter is bad. so with that, i uncluttered the cluttery-clutter of GOOP’s main page (albeit sloppily and quickly..):
first off: one of the rules: can’t be intentionally horrible. i’m confident that a many of the elements in these movie were intended to be horrible to the point of distraction. that said…
I can’t help but feel like this movie amazingly did what it set out to do, which is ostracize everyone up to and including the people who tend to enjoy this type of satiric-ish movie. why pick the cast that was picked? for one thing, richard kelly isn’t a fair director. but i think that stopped being automatically shitty and discrediting when we entered the age of modernist/postmodernist thinking, where the author/narrator (aka kelly) is not a reliable source.
i’m not totally sure about the cast (although i do sense a state of pop culture commentary in there somewhere), but on a purely basic level: it’s distracting. richard kelly loves to distract. in donnie darko (whether you like it, or not), there are major elements to the storyline that are missed because of obvious distractions. this movie takes that to another level. the obviously odd casting and odd humor and odd imagery and odd scenes almost completely veil the philosophical/religious subtext.
and one more gripe: is anything that deals with issues that are intrinsically “deeper” than the normal fair considered pretentious? if not, how might someone deal with such fair without being slapped with such a term? i was always confused by the overuse of this modifier?
i’m not familiar with this show. so its a fancy meta-soap-opera then?
re: the song choice – girls hearts aren’t….in their boobie, are they? ’cause that’s *weird*
I like the jerk, three amigos, the man with two brains, and planes trains and automobiles enough that he can do whatever he wants to his career. like they always say (they: humphrey bogart that one time) “there will always be paris” (but not paris; instead, those movies i just said).
Irresponsible and inaccurate paraphrasing of what duff said in the interest of making a point: “most of my fans social and cultural perspective are such that they aren’t aware of an actress as important as faye dunaway, and are therefore not uniquely aware of network, chinatown, mommie dearest, barfly, the arrangement or the movie i am actually in the remake of: the original bonnie and clyde. and are therefore fucking idiots” i can’t believe duff actually sort-of-said that about her fans..
also, dunaway is almost 70. i think the sustained vanity of the multiple plastic surgeries is a little creepy, but duff isn’t criticizing the vanity behind those surgeries, she’s merely criticizing that faye dunaway hasn’t done a better job with said vanity! what a depressingly self-reflective criticism!
wow, how in the devil’s name did you catch that that was eugene mirman? either your magic or informed or some other reasonable answer to my question. i’m voting for that one of those ones.