smokescreen79

After seeing this movie, or rather after seeing the first five minutes, both I and my girlfriend concurred that if there was any time there would be a legitimate reason to slit ones wrists, then it would be during or after watching this fart in your face movie.

What the X$€!? are people on, to actually enjoy such a worthless waste of film ? And to be nominated for two Oscars ? Put down your crack-pipes people!

There isn't even a valid point to point out the horrible movie-angels and horrible way it was filmed. How unsympathetic, how hideous and pathetic this stool smear was. This stank of so much desperation in trying to make the audience laugh, that it would have been less embarrassing to try to explain how you ended up jerking off to two girls and a cup. It sure did feel like you were a cup!

Now I'm not bent on using this kind of language, but I have never seen a movie that has made me want to travel back in time, to commit suicide drastically, just so that I would never have to accidentally see this mentally and emotionally challenged crap of a movie.

Now even atheists have reason to believe that there is truly a hell to watch out for. Drag this out for all eternity and you will never commit a bad deed for the rest of your life!

Now now. Before you assume the position to actually be for or against, I'm just going to humbly share what began with thinking of the twilight saga something for retarded teenagers, induced by hormonal spiking before a regression of awkwardness would subside by age and matured tastes would flourish. But soon I found myself watching, which by many critics hating as the worst one, as the most intriguing one . After all. It is what I sincerely felt was a really good movie! Something which I hadn't had the fortune to have seen for a while. For some reason many are hellbent on hating this movie for reasons that are either beyond my ability to register, and despite that I am regarded as a bright individual. The acting, even how critical I could muster myself to be, moves forward without any reflections due to annoyances, expect for the scene where the wolfs voices felt embarrassing.

Im disappointed that IMDb has shown to be prone to people who intellectualize their inability to asses emotional depth. Some critic amused me with calling this a misogynistic movie, for an example. How in hell could anyon think of Bellas relationship with Edward and Jacob in any way sexist ? That is just quasi-intellectually absurd.

I was led to think of the twilight series as nothing else than a waste of my time, before I even had seen it. Breaking dawn a couple of months away from premier, I was encouraged to see the previous movies, and I have to say that the series dwells in more realistic action of the everyday life and the assertiveness that conflicts would arise, is in breaking dawn much more down to earth than in the previous movies.

What Meyers has done with the twilight saga, has led me to think that she certainly had had to come up with the story with a psychological mindset that ensued the development of her fictional characters, which deal with the uncertainties and fears of love and nature. I at least find the thought of grim death no way near as terrifying as the thought that I myself could be responsible for, as well the worries that arise from what can happen due to the love between couples turns more complicated when the love between to people prematurely in mind and spirit goes from simpe to complicated. For no mere thought of optimism, can be overshadowed by the realistic thinking of the prelude of love can onset a myriad of troubles that can't be undone, is very responsible and one of lives hardest facts to be deat with. There are very mature thoughts embedded in the story that grasp the neurotic fears of inexperience and uncertainty that I can relate to.

The acting is good because there are no exaggerated feelings that are tried to be conveyed by facial expressions, tone, tempo, gestures or mannerism that could arouse any awareness if you are not nitpicking. Than you would find faults in your own doctrine of narrowness. Being any more of an actor in this movie, I think had led it to have felt overly reactive and made the characters embarrassing . Its just there to the degree that the viewer has to actually put themselves in the characters position. There is no need for more, but saying that was its intent, is going to far. It works and its power lies far from being impotent. Its the viewer who has to put themselves in their position. So there is no reason, as far as I personally can tell, to argue that the acting is unsatisfactory. If it had been, the shared experience had to have been much more consistently plaque-ing the viewer. It just doesn't to appeal to some intellectually satisfactory. Which there is little grounds for. I enjoyed it.

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.