Explore our other sites
  • kotaku
  • quartz
  • theroot
  • theinventory
    avclub-01f652032789f75656fb3776a9a30128--disqus
    dgl
    avclub-01f652032789f75656fb3776a9a30128--disqus

    I always enjoyed Chevy's hand-puppet porno.

    Gee, I think you're swell—anore.

    Allen West was not just some talk-radio lunatic, he was actually a congressman. And he lost reelection narrowly last year, so he may be back.

    I've never thought of Norm as a charmer. I don't think he does either.

    Kroll said he was only doing the roast to become "slightly more famous." Then, ironically, the AVClub review referred to him as "Chris Kroll."

    He was just "Mister Hollywood."

    And so much range! He's like the Daniel Day-Lewis of only doing one thing.

    BOOM, roasted.

    I agree that this was a good roast, but disagree that the more "conventional" sets were weak. This probably wasn't Sarah Silverman's best work, but I thought she and Ross were still funny, and Kroll too, and I doubt if the "deconstructionist" sets by Hader and Samberg would have worked by themselves, without the more

    Franco's the only one of those that I wouldn't classify as a comic actor. I think by "non-comics" Heche was referring to past eminent roasters like say, Brigitte Nielsen, Steve-O, or The Situation.

    That would be subversive in its way but probably wouldn't be outrageous enough for TV.

    I've seen this argument a lot around here when people disagree with the reviews—"Judge it on its own merits rather than on what you want it to be." I just don't believe all criticism should be limited by such a rule. Just about every great critic I've ever read has sometimes expressed an opinion on what a work "should

    I always feel that way. There's a point in every segment where it just gets a little sad.

    Isn't that what most negative critiques do? They're expressing the opinion that the work is lacking in some way, and they explain how. You can disagree, but impugning their motives is just bizarre to me.

    I agree with the review. I've gotten some good laughs from each episode I've seen, but the concept wears thin for me over the course of a half hour and especially over multiple episodes. (The fact that we're laughing over talented people destroying their livers kind of casts a pall on it for me as well.)

    I got it, I just didn't care for it.

    Or maybe she has more respect for Ray Charles than you guys do.

    It definitely went over my head, and it's certainly been used as a rallying cry for years by the very people the song is supposedly satirizing.

    So either Gimme Shelter is just a "pretty ordinary song" or Merry Clayton is just a "shrieking black woman"? Do I have to pick a side?

    The plot is always going to be negligible in a Muppet movie. "Caper" is hilarious, and that's basically all that counts. I do agree, though, that the songs are generally inferior to those in the first film, and for that reason alone I give the edge to The Muppet Movie.