I watched this movie and was truly surprised just how much I liked this. In more recent months I've acquired a really serious mindset. Something which non the less can be amused. And Balls Out Gary is with out a doubt a movie that I can enjoy time and time again without ever finding less enjoying. Its beauty , if I, like other critics have taken the liberty to judge it by their belief of where and how the humor misses its target, is in its sincerity of oddity and aloofness which it doesn't miss at all.
If most of the jokes fail, which some suggest, a question emerges as if that would even be possible, hence; Might it not be a question of being totally misunderstood on how it was meant to be understood? Was it supposed to even be understood in some degree, further than the intent to entertain ? When did movies become such a serious subject, where ones enjoyment could even, beyond my comprehension, be judged by certain regulations and rules on how something has to be delivered and on account of quality and quantity of loud out laughter ? I enjoyed this movie. I din't laugh even once, didn't even find it amusing comical enough to some degree to be able to ask myself if there really wasn't even the slightest sense of amusement.
But I can say this; A relief, without the comical relief , that often is just malicious with a good conscience anyways. A constant curiosity for Garies escapades and personal expression and an actually believable character, resembling a person with social autism, on and off, who has a life long obsession for tennis. His intensity and total disregard for how he could be regarded in an questionable light makes him totally lovable, if you ask me. Like a very successful sociable , yet awkward personality as most would find I'm, succeeds in being a curious and admirable person.
"If god didn't exist, would you create him?" I see myself in Gary.
And as for the punchlines. Everything is believable, in a more foreign sense of humor, that misses it purposely. But also being more based on a more serious note, where the humor i can't find as an additive but a side effect.
If most of the jokes fail, which some suggest, a question emerges as if that would even be possible, hence; Might it not be a question of being totally misunderstood on how it was meant to be understood? Was it supposed to even be understood in some degree, further than the intent to entertain ? When did movies become such a serious subject, where ones enjoyment could even, beyond my comprehension, be judged by certain regulations and rules on how something has to be delivered and on account of quality and quantity of loud out laughter ? I enjoyed this movie. I din't laugh even once, didn't even find it amusing comical enough to some degree to be able to ask myself if there really wasn't even the slightest sense of amusement.
But I can say this; A relief, without the comical relief , that often is just malicious with a good conscience anyways. A constant curiosity for Garies escapades and personal expression and an actually believable character, resembling a person with social autism, on and off, who has a life long obsession for tennis. His intensity and total disregard for how he could be regarded in an questionable light makes him totally lovable, if you ask me. Like a very successful sociable , yet awkward personality as most would find I'm, succeeds in being a curious and admirable person.
"If god didn't exist, would you create him?" I see myself in Gary.
And as for the punchlines. Everything is believable, in a more foreign sense of humor, that misses it purposely. But also being more based on a more serious note, where the humor i can't find as an additive but a side effect.