...that probably provides the basis for much of the masses' misunderstanding of Gitmo and what goes on there.
shareI'm going to split this up into syllables so it may be easier for you to understand: COM-E-DY. Lighten up dude.
Hello, I'm a recovering crackhead and this is my retarded sister.Can we have some welfare please?
You're joking right? Cause most people can tell the difference between a low-brow stoner flick and reality. Can you? And do the math. Criticism of Gitmo goes almost as far back as its opening in 2001. This movie came out in 2008. In fact, the entire premise is based on "the masses' misunderstanding of Gitmo and what goes on there." Many of the jokes were at the expense of ignorant, hypermilitant, American morons. Is that why you are bashing it?
share1. Whether it's liberal or conservative has nothing to do with anything.
2. The movie doesn't really even have a stance on the sitation and that was a small plotpoint in the first twenty minutes.
Are you serious? This was a FARCE COMEDY MOVIE! I must assume that your posting was an attempt at humor. Right?
shareDon't you see the irony in saying that, SMOORER? It doesn't take long for a ignorant conservative to show themselves and display how *beep* stupid they are.
shareAre you f-ing serious? OMG, you're an idiot! Well, considering rationality is not a part of any conservative agenda, I shouldn't be so surprised.
Let's get this straight, and then move on with our lives shall we.
A) it's a stoner flick
B) the actions depicted in the film are not based on any real situations other than the mentioning of real life locations and people like Bush, Cheney, etc. (it's all fiction, they are not actually saying this happend or G-bay is like that)
C) there is no real message criticizing g-bay or bush in this film, just making fun of and exaggerating some of the liberal thoughts on g-bay
D) did I mention it was a movie?
E) this is not a political documentary, mockumentary, or a film directed by Oliver Stone, so why are you *beep* your pants and acting like it is
Dude, don't come on IMDB and try to spill your conservative rantings on a comedy film that is strictly for the purpose of a few laughs and entertainment, not a liberal message to provoke political discussions. Save it for YouTube and for people that actually will agree with your retarded rantings on a stoner flick on joe nobody's conservative channel.
You folks ready to have some fun? I wanna try a little experiment here. I wanna try to find out just how honest you folks on the Left can be with each other... and with yourselves (my guess: "not very", but I'm ready to be proven wrong).
So let's all take Broseth at his word, shall we? Let's suppose for a moment that this movie, first of all, was just a typical stoner flick and that "the actions depicted in the film are not based on any real situations other than the mentioning of real life locations and people like Bush, Cheney, etc." and that "there is no real message criticizing g-bay or bush in this film."
Fine. Let's say all of that were true. My question is, would you be reacting the same way to this movive if it was OBAMA these kids were getting high with at the White House... instead of George W. Bush?
Same two heroes...same basic situations (of course you'd have to update the plot a little bit, but that wouldn't be too difficult; Gitmo's still open, after all)... but a completely different Commander-in-Chief: Barack Obama.
In other words, this movie would feature Barack Obama being stoned out of his gourd (like he was -- occasionally -- back in college), and acting like a complete idiot. Would you really, truly, HONESTLY enjoy looking at that?
I'm sure that at first you would try to be good sports about it, but after a few minutes, wouldn't your smile just kind of...fade a little bit?
I'm not kidding. How much are you actually prepared to laugh at Barack Obama?
Not gentle, Friar's Club ribbing. I am talking ridicule.
Genuine. Hard. Mockery.
Try and be honest.
That's it, folks. So let the ignoring, the equivocating and the just plain ol' non-answering BEGIN!
GO!!!
I think it'd be funny if they made fun of Obama and how he smoked weed in college and everything. But obviously it's funnier to see this on Bush, it's easier to make fun of him. Obama seems more of a well balanced guy in his persona, Bush seems like the stereotypical white american guy, and stereotypical white american guys are the main target of parody in EFGB.
i think there were a few political jokes in this film, the most obvious being the metaphor for America's injustice by featuring a dude who wipes his ass on the bill of rights. if you want to analyze it you'll find references to racial profiling, human rights abuses and a number of arguments for the legalization of marijuana. hidden under all the dick jokes, it's a mild satire of the the Bush administration and a paranoid post-9/11 America in general. That's IF you want to analyze a movie that features a guy and girl having a threesome with a giant orgasming bag of weed and a vagina-pool-party.
Would it have been funny with Obama? Not sure about that, as it was really about the Bush years, and the policies and scare-tactics the Republicans brought in. Bush also hid his drug use and then was famously hard on drug users, the hypocrisy of which the film pointed out. Obama freely admitted he used drugs, so no real laughs there. The film also references the public perception that Bush was an idiot and the fact that he mispronounced words, a joke that wouldn't work as well with the current president.
Bush looked like the kind of dumb guy who likes to get wasted which is why its funny. Obama looks like a pretty serious guy which is why it wouldn't be. But I don't think this is a Left or Right thing. Take Bill Clinton. He got his cock sucked while on the job in the White House, which has been used in humour ever since. And to be honest I don't think they were too hard on W, he actually comes across as quite likable in the movie!
-- but just to respond to one aspect of your post for a moment, you said "Obama looks like a pretty serious guy which is why it wouldn't be (funny)"
But isn't it FUNNIER to put a serous guy in those kinds of ridiculous situations???
Doesn't it really, to some degree (and pleeease keep on being honest with me, dj) come down to the fact that Barack is a man that you personally respect and admire (yes I know you will acknowledge he has flaws, but I'm talking about your OVERALL opinion of him), and, because of your opinion of him, watching the guy being the brunt of a lot of infantile humor just wouldn't sit right with you.
Again, you are allowed to continue to be honest. I hope you will. (So few people are!) You are allowed to say some variation of, "Okay, whatever, man -- I happen to have a double-standard about a President I respect. Deal with it."
I can accept that, because most of my friends feel the same way. But very few of them (unfortunately) have enough intellectual honesty to admit it.
Sorry for the late reply :) I agree filmklassik, that Obama smoking weed for comedic effect does work. It has been done many times in the past few years, most successfully on Key & Peele (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlxkcewBEe0). I have no problem seeing someone I respect have jokes made about them if the joke works. But in the context of the scene in the movie we are discussing, the jokes work around the character of GWB and his particular perception. Swapping in Obama in this particular instance wouldn't work. That's not to say in some other hypothetical scene in a future Harold & Kumar film having the characters get high with the President wouldn't be funny, just not in this case.
shareIn other words, this movie would feature Barack Obama being stoned out of his gourd (like he was -- occasionally -- back in college), and acting like a complete idiot. Would you really, truly, HONESTLY enjoy looking at that?
Dude I would so pay to see that. H&K isn't a highbrow political satire, it just used a few hot button issues as a springboard for over-the-top comedy, and for what it is, it's damn funny.
well, since you're trying to act all high and mighty on a message board, I'm going to say....yes, in fact, I WOULD find that funny! Cause it's a comedy film. and seeing two stoners get high with the president is funny, especially since obama is open about his pot smoking ventures anyway. There, now you have your answer. and might I say, that was a clever post. The whole 'let's do an experiment' part? GENIUS. you should have your own radio talk show at 3 in the morning.
Excuse me, I have to go.
Somewhere, there is a crime happening.
You folks ready to have some fun? I wanna try a little experiment here. I wanna try to find out just how honest you folks on the Left can be with each other... and with yourselves (my guess: "not very", but I'm ready to be proven wrong).
So let's all take Broseth at his word, shall we? Let's suppose for a moment that this movie, first of all, was just a typical stoner flick and that "the actions depicted in the film are not based on any real situations other than the mentioning of real life locations and people like Bush, Cheney, etc." and that "there is no real message criticizing g-bay or bush in this film."
Fine. Let's say all of that were true. My question is, would you be reacting the same way to this movive if it was OBAMA these kids were getting high with at the White House... instead of George W. Bush?
Same two heroes...same basic situations (of course you'd have to update the plot a little bit, but that wouldn't be too difficult; Gitmo's still open, after all)... but a completely different Commander-in-Chief: Barack Obama.
In other words, this movie would feature Barack Obama being stoned out of his gourd (like he was -- occasionally -- back in college), and acting like a complete idiot. Would you really, truly, HONESTLY enjoy looking at that?
I'm sure that at first you would try to be good sports about it, but after a few minutes, wouldn't your smile just kind of...fade a little bit?
I'm not kidding. How much are you actually prepared to laugh at Barack Obama?
Not gentle, Friar's Club ribbing. I am talking ridicule.
Genuine. Hard. Mockery.
Try and be honest.
That's it, folks. So let the ignoring, the equivocating and the just plain ol' non-answering BEGIN!
GO!!!
It's not as if the film makers CHOSE to lampoon Bush over Obama. It was written and filmed in 5006-07 well before it was known Obama would become president (and that scene does become important to the plot as Bush is the one who gets Harold and Kumar pardoned) and in fact the film takes place in 2004. So Bush is the only one who could have pardoned them.
The fact that Bush can't speak English allowed them to add more comedy.
I'm a conservative and I didn't mind... honestly you aren't watching this movie for it's political satire, but for all the over the top humor. It's a dumb, stoner movie, but enjoyable, take it for what it's worth.
share