MovieChat Forums > Deadgirl (2013) Discussion > Worst Movie Ever...

Worst Movie Ever...

posted 16 years ago by entking
69 replies | jump to latest

The WORST Film I Have Ever Paid to See in a Theatre
By Michael LiCastri

*This review contains spoilers* - I recently had the "opportunity" to see a screening of this film with several friends at the Florida Film Festival. Let me start by saying that because I'm a writer/filmmaker, I'm not prone to making hyperbolic, overdramatic statements like the one in my summary. But this film failed on every possible level : it was not aesthetically pleasing, the script was horrible in every way (poorly constructed dialogue, uncompelling story), the direction was uncompelling, and the acting was divided between insanely flat and insanely overacted.

The movie deals with necrophilia (a topic that in order to be compelling needs an insanely talented screenwriter), and fails at giving us characters that we can root for at all. The women are depicted as servile and stupid, and the men are depicted as dumb rapists. The main character, when forced to choose between letting his love interest die peacefully or turning her into a zombie and making her a sex slave, goes for the latter. This film's moral is "It's better to rape women than kill them." How is that even a possible choice for a moral?

The characters were poorly fleshed out and even more poorly acted. Essentially, we have horrible people being underplayed by bad actors which only highlights the original flaws in this insanely poorly written screenplay. The fact that this movie was not only written, but made, is pathetic. What is even scarier is that this director is being given money to make another film (a remake of a Danish film, what a surprise). He is taking away time, money and resources from talented people who could use them far more productively.

We then had the "pleasure" of meeting co director Gadi Harel, who is one of the most insufferable and smug people that I've ever met. I was left wondering how long he'd been in love with himself, and if the sex was any good. He had an air of arrogance not even remotely justified by the talent he displayed. More importantly, he acted dismissively towards the people that actually stayed around for the Q and A and glosses over questions that he didn't like.

By the way, I mentioned earlier in the review that I went with a group of friends. This is important because we all have fairly divergent tasted. ALL 6 of us hated the film. I don't think we've ever had a group consensus on a movie before. If you want a movie that allows you to bond with your friends over your hatred of it, Deadgirl is perfect. Otherwise, you've been warned.

[–] itspoop 16 years ago

i have to agree with your saying that the topic of necrophilia needs a very good screenwriter to tackle it, but the repeated rape on top of that? honestly, you'd have to be brilliant, and neither the writer or directors are.

i sat thru a Q&A with the directors, at SIFF, and they were pretty full of themselves. it was as if they had no clue this film could and would be read as one of the most misogynist films ever made.

don't get me wrong, i love 'extreme,' gory or violent films, if done right. i found gore/violence heavy films like funny games, irreversable, trouble every day, in my skin and inside, to be some of the most compelling, smart films of recent years, but what they had going for them was a smart writer/director that understood film meaning.

the makers of dead girl, unfortunate for us, do not.

you can make a movie about difficult or disturbing material without condoning it. look at funny games or irreversible. they have some of the same themes as dead girl, but have structure, writing and directing that condemns the violence shown. deadgirl not only condones it, but at the end implies that it's idyllic.

the directors agree that deadgirl is partly about objectification, but the film only objectifies every woman on screen. the poster illustrates that clearly: a vagina/mouth on it's side. it is all about women as parts, and in the director's world, they are all cyphers. what's more, while jt does not how to do anything other than objectify women, ricky, does know his ex-girlfriend, she is more than a cypher for him, yet at the end she ends up being a deadgirl, and it is implied, she suffers a similar fate as the previous deadgirl of repeated rape. the end result is a film that says all men view women as potential rape victims; because that's all that they really are, and with the after school special ending sequence of ricky walking to his 'hot date,' that's just fine with them.
fp

it is the content/plot/writing and acting that helped to sink this ship for me. the editing and cinematography were serviceable, if uninspired. but performance wise, what does it say that the person who does the best acting plays a mute deaf feral deadgirl? everyone else is kinda hokey.

[–] bowery_boy 16 years ago

I agree with you. I also saw it at SIFF but didn't sit through the Q & A because it was too late. I kind of wish I did just to hear what the directors had to say.

[–] itspoop 16 years ago

the funny thing was they really didn't have much to say. i'll be honest, for me, at the end of the day, the movie has to stand on it's own. what the director has to say about it falls away in 5, 10 years, and the film is all that is left. that said, i sat thru the film thinking, alright, i'll give 'em enough rope. let's see if they are making a statement with this film or they are just looking to offend. so the movie ended and my conclusion was either they had no clue how the movie would be perceived or they stood behind it, and they were the most sexist pricks on the planet.

at the Q&A, i came to the conclusion that it was both-- i was right, they were making a statement, but that they had no clue-- how else do you stand up in front of people after that movie, and NOT discuss the content and really delve into the subtext, and what statement the film is making? i mean, essentially the movie says, women are nothing but objects (to rape), and being a man means treating them that way.

but, they stood up there on that stage, and patted themselves on the back. they talked about how the actors "got what they were going for." which is what? i kept waiting for them to say something, but they never did. i've read interviews, and they talk about deadgirl being an allegory (yeah, NO. NOT EVEN CLOSE), then they say it's a myth or a fable, but all the same, that does not absolve you about the statement your film makes.

[–] bowery_boy 16 years ago

Thanks. I was hoping they would have an substantial explanation to back up the misogynist mess of movie I sat through. I guess not.

Frankly, it wasn't the subject matter per se that bothered me. Had it been handled in a different way it could have been powerful and disturbing at the same time.

What bothered me was 1) the atrocious acting and 2) no motivation was established for any of the character's actions, especially JT. He sees a naked undead girl strapped to a table in a creepy basement of an abandoned mental institution (not to mention the random rabid dog that shows up out of nowhere) and his first thought is: "Let's f*@k her"? I couldn't buy that unless there was some kind of back story to set it up, like he was into Satanic rituals or obsessed with dead bodies or something. So it was downhill from there for me.

I wish I had stayed because that was what I wanted to ask them.

[–] itspoop 16 years ago

well, there really is no excuse for bad acting other than ineptitude on the part of either the actors or the director. seeing as how universally bad it was (strangely enough i thought the only person who was believable was the deadgirl), i think it's safe to blame the director(s).

as for the motivation, i think the directors would contend that because they view it as a coming of age movie, his motivation is just to get laid (after all, one componant of that genre is awkward teenaged sexual exploration).

i can also tell you, the dog is what supposedly makes it an allegory. the dog and his appearance is a "symbol" that jt and rickie are in hell. ok, that and the descent down a flight of stairs. never mind that they leave hell as they please, never mind that it is not hell like in any other way.

the thing about working allegory that the directors obviously miss, is that you don't just drop it in on one part. that sort of logic needs to be applied thru the film. allegories require consistency, otherwise it looks like it's just cheap idiotic bullsh*t, which is exactly what this was.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eleventh_sun 15 years ago

You're a dumbass, and not like I usually condone this thinking, but if you thought that movie was good and believable you're an idiot. Its not at all a movie that's gonna do anything to "dumb people"

[–] meowbark_9899 14 years ago

You said they have motives and then failed to give actual motives. Rickie having his crush like him but caring more about being cool... how is that a motive for Rickie? It doesn't drive any of his actions throughout the film--the only thing it could have dictated was his decision to keep her as a deadgirl in the end. But that's the end--doesn't explain why he does what he does throughout the entirety of the movie and motives generally drive the actions throughout, not just for one moment. Also, saying JT is manipulating everyone--not really a motive. Why is he manipulating them? What does he hope to achieve by doing so? What's in it for him, other than having the deadgirl? (which he already did) Manipulation is not a motive. Give me reasons as to why he was doing it, and then it might make more sense. Oh and that's two people you listed--there were others in the movie that didn't really have any clear motives either, other than to take advantage of the deadgirl--peer pressure in high school is an odd theme to choose for this, considering that the boys who had sex with her couldn't tell anyone about it. Generally, when boys in high school have sex, part of the fun is to be able to tell your friends so that they can seem a little cooler than the guys who haven't.

[–] leon_lost_soul 16 years ago

@itspoop

Technically, I don’t think that the terms “rape” and “necrophilia” apply to this movie.
She wasn’t alive to be considered a rape and she didn’t struggle or showed any emotions and neither she was actually dead.
Nevertheless the theme of the movie can be approached with those terms because are the closest we have to reality and human nature.
I understand that the "extreme" elements the movie manipulates are very bizarre and twisted and can easily shock, repulse and negatively influence a viewer.

You can interpret a movie every way you like and while this movie is way far from perfect or good if you focusing in the negative aspects clearly your moral values were offended so much that your opinion is far from objective.
This again it’s expected since we don’t deal with such movies regularly.
I was shocked as well for a large period in the film.

You said something about allegory and objectification.
Yes in the movie the girl is represented as an object but having a (alive) “sex slave” isn’t an uncommon dark fantasy in the minds of most males, especially teens (see the magnitude of porn in the last decade). And this is certainly JT view.
Will it helped if the movie showed that she become a zombie after raping a dozen of guys ?

As for the allegory the whole movie is a very dark descent to human nature and psychology.
From the moment they entered that basement (I think the dog guardian was a pretty obvious symbolism ie greek mythology) they entered hell and according to the script of the movie their fates were sealed. The deadgirl (or a forbidden fruit) was all the girlfriend they could get. And there are no rules in hell only punishment.
You say there’s no condemnation and the end is idyllic. I think the end clearly shows that following the path of hell there’s no salvation even for the “savior” and he’s confined to his perverted destiny. Ricky for the whole movie he don’t looks like he sees the girls as objects but it’s too late for him (/her) and the reject drives him crazy.
Deadgirl also is following close the theme of most “horror” movies were 2 things happen (many times both) usually in the end: either the actors ending up dead or the evil is spread.

Finally the only resemblance to the movies you said besides the sadistic part I think it’s the punishment or vengeance nothing more.
I am sure we have both seen movies were the manipulation of a human(?) being is much more severe. In this movie the manipulation went so far that the humans lost their humanity (for real).

Of course you can interpret the whole movie as nothing more as cheap torture porn or if you play with the fire you get burned but then again opinions are opinions.

While reading all this, please think why it’s acceptable for our moral code to have as heroes (and top movies) or impersonate and familiarize ourselves with vigilant fascist cops, vampires, murderers, psychopaths, drug barons and godfathers.

[–] eleventh_sun 15 years ago

pretty simple, Vampires aren't real, drug barons beat the system and provide a good service to drug users, godfathers take care of bastards who screw with you. murderers because people like being scared, psychopaths because movies make em so well. Loser rapist nerd who can't get laid not so much to look up to.

[–] leon_lost_soul 15 years ago

from what you writing sounds like you want anarchy to rule or something.
Anyway it makes no sense why someone will want to empathize with them and whether they are fictional or not there's no real atonement for their sins in none of the cases.
What makes them special is actor, script and director and that's usually when they don't rape people or eating babies alive..
Ofc no one will want to identify themselves with a loser rapist nerd.
But if you wanted to identify with the characters this time its a bit different this movie is not about that.
Sympathize a bad deed ? likely. sympathize a bad deed when everything is bad ? not likely.
But vampires aren't real (and I suppose your fantasies about them aren't either) so zombies aren't real as well so we can forget about all this.
makes sense ?

[–] eleventh_sun 15 years ago

obviously not in real life, but in movies they are all more fun to watch.

[–] therefdotcom 11 years ago

what up with people that willingly interpret the living crap into an obviously cheap and hollow film?

"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh

[–] tetrahex 15 years ago

the directors agree that deadgirl is partly about objectification, but the film only objectifies every woman on screen. the poster illustrates that clearly: a vagina/mouth on it's side. it is all about women as parts, and in the director's world, they are all cyphers. what's more, while jt does not how to do anything other than objectify women, ricky, does know his ex-girlfriend, she is more than a cypher for him, yet at the end she ends up being a deadgirl, and it is implied, she suffers a similar fate as the previous deadgirl of repeated rape. the end result is a film that says all men view women as potential rape victims; because that's all that they really are, and with the after school special ending sequence of ricky walking to his 'hot date,' that's just fine with them.
fp

clearly you were just offended the film didn't fit with your politics. it was in certain aspects a more realistic exploration of how men actually think. yes, the zombie was no longer a person to the kids, why would it be? its as much a person as a dildo is to a woman. is a dildo an objectification of men by women? simplistic nonsense. the whole "objectification" spiel is nothing but an obfuscation by feminist ideology to denigrate male desire. the idea i guess is that if you wank off to porn, you are objectifying women, because really when you get aroused it should be by a womans "personality". the whole objectification line of thought comes from a bizarre time when making up social theories without evidence was the rage. its how the communists worked, and its how some of the feminists lost their way. they created theories of humanity that had nothing to do with reality and nature. and when things didn't fit, they just denied the reality. in the case of communism it required rather brutal force when people didn't work as their theories claimed. the dogma of feminist groups had similar problems. basically a denial of nature, everything was nurture claimed the dogma. so if womens perspective on sex was one way, only deviant men would think different. and thats how the objectification smear got started. it was a bunch of nonsense. an all purpose label to slam any inate male desire or perspective on things as wrong. it was a simplistic way to tar men, to portray them as one dimensional in a way that is fundamentally absurd. absurd as any other patronizing fundamentalist groups wish to portray others as simple deviants easily led astray, no different than the old conservatives of the past that claimed that the rock music would lead children to the devil and other such nonsense. sad thing is the "objectification" bit still gets mindlessly used to this very day...

its the immature morality of the west i guess. people are cartoons. if bill clinton slept with his intern, clearly his views on healthcare are now fundamentally dubious as his character is now questionable to the core. if you like a womans body you are "objectifying" her and now a sexist to the core.

the op also refers to irreversible as a "good film" with such rape issues? give me a break, that was a horribly shot and truly exploitative film. that was pointless and a shameless stunt to make money from the shock factor.

[–] sweetalker 14 years ago

clearly you were just offended the film didn't fit with your politics. it was in certain aspects a more realistic exploration of how men actually think. yes, the zombie was no longer a person to the kids, why would it be? its as much a person as a dildo is to a woman.

Are you kidding?? Seriously? You're asking why they would see a girl as a person? We-ll, she was 1)human-formed (not just one body part like a dildo, but an entire human body), 2)awake and able to show that she was aware of them, 3)not zombie-like in the least. If not for the title, two-thirds of the movie could have passed by and I would never have known her to be a zombie -- just some girl who snuck into the building and was handcuffed to a table for some reason. Of COURSE she attacked them when she was released -- any woman would attack their rapist if they got a chance.

I could live with the poor acting and shoddy screenplay, but finding a girl in need of help and saying "Let's rape her"? That's the first thing they think of? Hell, that's the ONLY thing they think of -- not, "maybe we need to get help for this girl who's been left on a table" or at least "maybe we need to get the hell out of here before whoever left her on the table comes back"?

Not one character in this pathetic excuse for a film had any valid reason for existing. I would love to meet the writer someday just to give him a good kick in the nuts.

[–] therefdotcom 11 years ago

"clearly you were just offended the film didn't fit with your politics"

and why would that be? any arguments or just throwing statements around? ok, i can do that, too. it is obviously, that you like crystal meth.... blah blah ;)

" it was in certain aspects a more realistic exploration of how men actually think."

speak for yourself. ^^

"its as much a person as a dildo is to a woman."

speak for yourself

" is a dildo an objectification.....(block of insanity)"

ok, now i get it. you are insane, aren't you?

"the op also refers to irreversible as a "good film" with such rape issues? give me a break, that was a horribly shot and truly exploitative film. that was pointless and a shameless stunt to make money from the shock factor."

hahahaha. yeah, so irreversible was crap, while this is a masterpiece, eh? ok, in which way are you involved or related to someone that was involved in creating this crap?

"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh

[–] overlordq 16 years ago

Agree, it tries to be an Elephant[1] and fails miserably. While it had a good premise, they just failed to deliver. I was waiting for the protagonist to beat up his so-called 'friend' but it never happened.

1 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363589/

[–] Xcalat3 16 years ago

"worst movie ever" threads

its no master piece and maybe even bad but worst movie ever?

When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...

[–] running_with_scissors 16 years ago

I thought it was superb, should have had a theatrical release IMO!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Feuerrader 16 years ago

It's not a zombie film. It barely have anything about zombies in it. It's not even a horror movie. Stop sending wrong signals. Someone would actually watch it because it's a zombie movie, and get really disappointed.

[–] jlaffo 16 years ago

Of course its a zombie film and like all great zombie films the story is more about human behavior than actual zombies. Although I would have liked to hear more about where she came from and how she got the way she was.

A lot of people here seem to be focused on the "rape" (can you rape a zombie?) instead of what the film was actually about. Personally I felt the film was about male sexuality and the brutality that can grow from it. Shes not a woman shes a zombie lol

[–] itspoop 16 years ago

*ahem* spoiler alert.

well, to my mind rape is rape, and it's obvious that this is against her will. she is tied up after all, and when given the chance, she would rather escape than attack when given a choice. what's more, the camera's lingering shots of either of the deadgirls while they are being raped indicates this is a form of torment.

but for the sake of argument, jlaffo, we will set that aside. never mind that she may not find sex unwelcome, she's (un)dead so that makes her violation A-OK with you! i suppose too that it's easy to over look the rest of the things done to her. i guess it makes no nevermind that one of the main characters stabs her in the head, shoots her, and violates her wounds. pshaw. tut-tut. let's say you can't rape a zombie. this film's view of women in general is reprehensible. they are mindless sex objects whose sole purpose is to take male violence/abuse. they have no value, accept for sex, and the moral of this after school special, this coming of age tale according to the directors is, a dead girl is preferable to a live one. every boy should have one. *wretch*

even if i accepted your theory (i don't)-- that the movie was about the brutality that comes from male sexuality, look at how women are depicted and treated in the film, they are cardboard props at best. used to bare a little t&a so the directors can have a film career. but if you still can't figure out that deadgirl, and it's directors have nothing but contempt for women, look at the poster-- there cannot be a clearer illustration that to them women are nothing but holes.

hmmmmm. seems deadgirl-- the movie and the character-- still doesn't fare very well. sorry.

this movie is on my worst list because the content is vile. the camera work was tolerable, the acting barely so, and you can't say that about norbit or the love guru. they may have been unfunny, but the camera work was much better than deadgirl, as was the acting. so all and all, you haven't a leg to stand on.

sorry, your claim has been rejected.

[–] terrencepatrix 16 years ago

What's with all the crying over the rape in this movie? By your standards it's ok to torture, mutilate, and destroy the undead ala everyother zombie/undead movie out there...but banging it first is out of the question?

It's sick and depraved but I think you're putting way more into this than is intended. Or you're trolling. If you're going to take some high-road against violent actions in movies, then you have to be consistant. Murdering and eating people doesn't get your cockles up...but oh noes someone's being raped. You're a hypocrite.

I'm not claiming that this movie is a masterpeice mind you...just that you're being, well, obtuse.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Feuerrader 16 years ago

This movie is below average for my taste. I was expecting some zombie flick. I've already seen many "moral and ethics" movies, and I rate this one very, very low. I would probably put it amongst other movies/documentaries about how cruel humans are and that we can be worse than animals.
I've known that for a while, I dont need to watch a movie about few guys *beep* a zombie girl to know that we can be worse than animals.

[–] entking 16 years ago

Truth be told, I probably wouldn't have been as outraged had the director not been such a dick. I can't stand when people act dismissively. The guys who did "Miss March" (which was not amazing but not horrific as some made it out to be) were incredibly nice in person. There is NOTHING worse than a bad movie being backed up by an even bigger douche.

And TexasPsycho26, if you're calling me a douche, suck it. Suck it hard. You like Tim and Eric, enough said jackass.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] entking 16 years ago

Tim and Eric are not COMEDY, because they are not funny.

Though Miss March wasn't spectacular, "The Whitest Kids U Know" is hysterical and unlike Tim and Eric, they are actual comedians.

As a comedian myself, I can tell you that "anti-humor" is just lazy wanna be comics who can't come up with anything funny to say, so they do "wild and crazy things" that make no sense and then try and recategorize it.

Moron.

[–] ter_maximus 16 years ago

wow you like tim and eric, you dont like comedy at all huh? groundbreaking huh? yeah pooptube... thats some avant garde *beep* right there! Them getting local tards from pbs stations does not = ground breaking either.

And yeah i like family guy and a bunch of other stuff you just cant stand cause your just soo "cutting edge". In another post you mention how i like scrubs and how it was funny 5 yrs ago. It may have been funny 5 yrs ago but that still beats out tim and eric which are still trying to find funny.

And yes i know zack gallifinakis and all the other comics that appear on there and just cause theyre on there doesnt mean t&e are funny it just means they know how to kiss ass.

and lastly heres a pre-emptive strike on the t&e fanboi warcry, i do get it, it just isnt funny.

Question is, if they do by some miracle make it to mainstream tv, say that abc picks up their show, will you still like em then or will they suck cause they sold out? Based on everything ive read by you you should want to drop em like a hat.

Walter Crewes: God is just an imaginary friend for grown ups.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ClintJCL 14 years ago

I must be the only one who loves Tim And Eric, Deadgirl, Family Guy, AND Miss March. In fact, they are all top 10% for me.

-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl

[–] jahnke 16 years ago

Ok this is not a great film. But your "review" is worse.

Let me start by saying that because I'm a writer/filmmaker, I'm not prone to making hyperbolic, overdramatic statements like the one in my summary.
...
What is even scarier is that this director is being given money to make another film (a remake of a Danish film, what a surprise). He is taking away time, money and resources from talented people who could use them far more productively.

Seems you are jealous about the fact that a man you don`t like gets the money to make films. And you, an "talented" screenwriter has nothing. poor boy. grow up!

[–] entking 16 years ago

Jahnke,

You are an idiot for a number of reasons.

1. Though I am a filmmaker, I'm also a student. So I haven't been given the oppurtunity to make a feature length film myself yet. Working on it, though.

2. It is not jealousy. I clearly explained that I was mad because "he is taking away time, money and resources from talented people who could use them far more productively." How does that involve me personally, you dolt?

3. My reviewing skills got me a paid job as a film columnist/on air personality at an NPR affiliate in Orlando. You get paid to see movies buddy, and then come talk to me.

-Entking

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] entking 16 years ago

TexasPsycho26,

You really won't stop following me on here as I continue to tear this tripe apart, will you?

And as for your comment, were you a paid critic AND performed playwright AND honored at several short film festivals at the age of 20? 30 even? I though so, you putz.

-Entking

[–] thunderztorm 16 years ago

I walked on the moon, had steaming hot sex with Scarlett Johansson, Keira Knightley, Megan Fox and Britney Spears - at once AND I'm a secret agent.

See how easy it is to pretend you're someone else on the internetz?

Honestly, you could be Tim Burton for all I know, or you could be a 40-year old 400lb virgin dude sitting in mum's basement pretending you have a clue. Either way, your whole "I DONE DIS AND DAT" is completely useless unless you can provide facts to back up your somewhat narcissistic statements.

Oh, btw, I've also gotten paid to review movies, concerts and even pubs. That doesn't make me an all-knowing super-expert on any of it tho. Just makes me a dude with decent writing/journalism abilities who was in the right place at the right time.

[–] buchowski 16 years ago

You really have nothing better to do with your time than slam a ZOMBIE MOVIE?

I don't know how old you are but you are completely out of touch with teenagers. Dude, even in the novel I Am Legend, Robert Neville has to stop himself from ogling the naked female vampires outside his house.

He is the last man on Earth and he is horny as hell. The teenagers in this movie aren't going to get laid anytime soon and they are as horny as hell too.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] entking 16 years ago

nathanielknemis,

I will brag as much as I want about my accomplishments. I've done more with my career in the last two years than you will end up doing in your entire life.

And btw, I can't afford the surgery that would be required for the sex act you described earlier. I am looking for people to fulfill that position, interested in applying for the job?

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] entking 16 years ago

No. You haven't. You devote yourself to your "career" but are basically doing what others on here do for fun (and you get paid less than us.. going to free public screenings and reviewing them doesn't make you a professional critic.) Your delusions of grandeur will blind you to appreciating anything that isn't your own work, and you will continue to praise said work to convince yourself that you actually matter. (Your work, career, and input don't matter, btw.)

Okay, you stupid putz. Time to be fact checked. I don't go to public screenings, I go to PRESS screenings because I am a member of of the PRESS you jackass. Working for NPR does make you a professional CRITIC. And I don't have delusions of grandeur, I am a professional critic. Simple as that.

And no to your second proposal. No on all accounts. You will never find anyone to suck your dick except, of course, yourself. I could loan you the money you need for the surgery if needed.

I have a lovely girlfriend who takes care of that on a regular basis, so wrong again. And you probably don't have the money.

It's okay. I was just like you where I believed my work actually meant something. The only difference is that my work DOES mean something and I don't have to constantly remind myself otherwise. Oh well, it's time to ignore you. You sadden me with your failure.

OK, people whose work actually means something usually describe what it is they do. The fact that you capitalize words and expect them to be taken as fact without giving details as to why they are true only further proves your jackassery.

Annnyywaaaayyy, Deadgirl was a decent movie, a decent take on coming-of-age/zombie flicks. It was flawed, but definitely not the worst movie ever. Anyone could see that this movie was not the worst movie ever.

No, Deadgirl is a horrible film and you are a horrible person. Nuff' said.

-Entking

/thread.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] entking 16 years ago

Texaspsycho26/Gadi,

Please stop following me around the IMDB boards. Nobody took you or your shi*ty movie seriously at the festival, and no one will on here either.

And don't quote Bierce you pretentious literary douchebag. Quoting Bierce is like admitting you *beep* Einstein's grandmother - interesting bit of trivia, but it's not very relevant.

-Love, Jay and Silent Bob

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] entking 16 years ago

Kevin Smith = one of the most beloved filmmakers of all time.

Gadi Harel = hack who everyone hates and whose career will dry up after his second flop.

You = Gadi's personal fluffer. If you took his d i c k out of your mouth for two seconds, you'd see how bad you both are at your jobs and as people.

-Love,Jay and Silent Bob

[–] mfobrien2002 15 years ago

"Kevin Smith = one of the most beloved filmmakers of all time."

Honestly? Truly?

I'm no Kevin Smith hater. I thought Clerks was good, Dogma was a classic, and Jay and Silent Bob Strike back was genuinely hilarious. That said, I think that Chasing Amy, Jersey Girl, and Clerks 2 were abominations. Kevin Smith movies seem to be a 50-50 proposition at best.

And resorting to schoolyard sniping and sweeping personal attacks? You, sir, may need to turn off the tv and computer and take a couple of deep breaths. This ain't real life, man...

[–] thunderztorm 16 years ago

OI!

While I do appreciate you having fun with the multi-talented Entking, leave the dear mr Smith out of it. Sure, his movies may lack plots and points, but they're hilarious to watch with a few mates (and a few beers).

[–] entking 16 years ago

I only invoked his name out of respect. BTW, I'm guessing your British - cool group of people.

- Love, Jay and Silent Bob

[–] eleventh_sun 15 years ago

In all fairness the end of Jay and Silent Bob was pretty funny, when they went door to door and beat up all the nerds who talk *beep* online.. Classic.