- Joined
- Sep 15, 2016
I think that might actually be the worst thing to ever happen on the channelThen inviting his unfunny drug dealer keeper-awayer to the Roar BoTW.
Worse than Oswalt
Worse, even, than Landis
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think that might actually be the worst thing to ever happen on the channelThen inviting his unfunny drug dealer keeper-awayer to the Roar BoTW.
I....I think I've repressed this until just now.I think that might actually be the worst thing to ever happen on the channel
Worse than Oswalt
Worse, even, than Landis
Probably because it's dead fucking wrongI....I think I've repressed this until just now.
Oh good. I thought I was going mad.Probably because it's dead fucking wrong
I guess I just feel like it's a goddamn travesty that something as insane as Roar was wasted on that nattering faggot covering his eyes like a four year old.Probably because it's dead fucking wrong
Honestly, just from that line alone, I want to see just how bad that movie is. That sounds fucking amazing.
So the worst of the worst guests have this so-bad-it's-good effect, where it's funny to laugh at how flat jokes land, how uncomfortable the crew is, how just... awful the episode turns out, at least for me. Culkin's handler I have almost no memory of. The guy had may as well not have existed.Probably because it's dead fucking wrong
I've seen the movie and aside from some moments, it's just a boring generic shit horror film.Honestly, just from that line alone, I want to see just how bad that movie is. That sounds fucking amazing.
I don't understand the people who hate AIDS Moby. Is it just his dreadful shitlibbery? Because he seems to keep it under control during the episodes enough that it's not obnoxious. He's not the funniest 4th chair they've ever had, but he actually can deliver some proper bantz now and then. And his cartoonish, over-animated reactions kinda work when it's just him doing them.
In this case, they already paid that $400 million in full from what I understand. The first movie cost $30 million and has already done $45 million, unless it drops like a stone should make over $100 million. No way in hell will ever cover the $400 million, but I see them being able to make each movie profitable based purely on their production costs, and not like if they stop making them it will make that $400 million fee any smaller. So very different than the normal flop where the movie itself flops box office-wise.It looks like this latest attempt at redoing, rebooting, sequeling the Exorcist is a dud, getting mauled by critics and horror fans. Universal Pictures and Peacock purchased the rights for a new “The Exorcist” trilogy for more than $400 million, which seems insane, especially now that what was supposed to be the first film has been released. I mean, it doesn't look likely we'll be seeing a sequel. What it looks like is we have yet another film intended to be the start of a new trilogy, or franchise, or "cinematic universe" that flops, and it seems like we've seen more than a few of those in the past several years.
I don't understand the people who hate AIDS Moby. Is it just his dreadful shitlibbery? Because he seems to keep it under control during the episodes enough that it's not obnoxious. He's not the funniest 4th chair they've ever had, but he actually can deliver some proper bantz now and then. And his cartoonish, over-animated reactions kinda work when it's just him doing them.
Beardo is absolutely devoid of any sense of humor, though. Sucks the life out of an episode like a black hole of jokes. An example of the very lamest types of nerd.
They are absolutely terrified of being lumped in the same group of people like Critical Drinker, much to the detriment of their content. I'm sure it's one of the reasons they don't do that many half in the bags anymore.Half in the Bag really likes to tiptoe around the diversity/woke crap in movies but when they make notice and jokes on it, you know its bad.
Calling it now: the third film will be called "Redeemer." (The demon will be an irate Indian.)The irony is that this was the start of a trilogy and it’s a pretty bad start given the film is pretty much conclusive. Unless the sequel (called Deceiver) is going to just rehash an older Regan to be possessed or do the same shit again where they make the preachy ending of this already shit movie meaningless.
it is kinda funny how RLM sounds like cinema sins and YMS sounds like drinker and like they look down on those guys for being shittier versions of their brand of criticismThey are absolutely terrified of being lumped in the same group of people like Critical Drinker, much to the detriment of their content. I'm sure it's one of the reasons they don't do that many half in the bags anymore.
that line has knocked back jay's shitliberry for another ten years. thanks hollywood!
i heard even mark kermode hated it. he barely hates anything anymoreIt looks like this latest attempt at redoing, rebooting, sequeling the Exorcist is a dud, getting mauled by critics and horror fans. Universal Pictures and Peacock purchased the rights for a new “The Exorcist” trilogy for more than $400 million, which seems insane, especially now that what was supposed to be the first film has been released. I mean, it doesn't look likely we'll be seeing a sequel. What it looks like is we have yet another film intended to be the start of a new trilogy, or franchise, or "cinematic universe" that flops, and it seems like we've seen more than a few of those in the past several years.