uninvitedchristopherguest--disqus
UninvitedChristopherGuest
uninvitedchristopherguest--disqus

"Make" your kids watch it?! That sounds, um, fun. "OK you filthy, miserable maggots, sit your goddamned bony asses down, shut yer pie holes, and paste your beady eyes on the TV screen, or so help you, Jebus."

Thanks for the asshole alert, spoiler.

The horror, the hoo hoo HOO HOO HA HA HA HA HOO HOO hoo hoo horror.

Did you say beer or Bear? Either way, you owe TTO big time.

Well, the other girls enjoyed their Duds hand warmed. Now I know better.

But that's what we're paying you to do.

I would throw Milk Duds at the cheerleaders, but they were just asking for it. Seriously, they really loved their Milk Duds.

"You know, stuff for getting a high GPA or joining an honor society." - Umm, no, I don't know. I don't know at all… Hey, I could be President!

Keep his wits sharp while dealing with a psychopath; Sound like my Marriage. Thank you, thank you. I'll be here in the basement all week.

Your remark is just as rambling and verbose and exhausting as this film will prove to be. Ha! Just kidding, you're comment is very funny. But the movie's gonna suck filthy rat balls.

Not even remotely accurate. You're confusing the Allmans with Lynyrd Skynyrd. Or the elusive, enigmatic Chris Gaines.

Jackson was definitely on automatic pilot for this installment, seemingly throwing together every possible scrap of usable footage - original and invented - just to maintain his arbitrarily imposed uniform film length requirement of three hours. If this was cut this down to 2 hours and the first to maybe 1 hour we'd

The LOTR Trilogy completely exhausted my patience with Jackson and his copy/paste armies repeatedly slamming into one another, meticulously, tediously. The Hobbit was a book begging for a smart, tight, action packed 2 and a half hour cinematic expression, not a goddamned 9 hour encyclopedia of Tolkien trivia and

People confuse her bizarre, raspy voice for being shrill. Shrill means a frantically over emotional twit who screeches and squawks out hysterical commands and demands and is generally repulsive. That's not Linda, at all.

Tina functions as a counterbalance even to Bob,who may not be the merriest character on the show but he certainly is the most volatile, the most explosive. Tina is a flat line of emotional consistency and compared to her Bob is a happy go lucky, heel kicking jester.

I didn't mean to suggest that no one else's story matters as much as Tina's. I'm just acknowledging that Tina's character acts as an emotional - and spiritual - anchor for everyone else's bubbly, buoyant, boisterous energy. Her dark, heavy pathos functions very critically as a stable backdrop for all the more bright,

I also prefer Louise with her outrageously brash confidence, but the truth is Tina is the character that gives all the other characters their value and worth. Tina is the dark, depressed, sad backdrop from which leaps out everyone else's aggressively bright, shimmering optimism. Even Bob, himself, is rendered a

The show IS about Tina. Not overtly and not every week, but the show usually seems to somehow pivot on the angst and agony and occasional triumphs of the often ignored, always misunderstood Tina. Her feeble, meek announcements and declarations are very, very often the most poignant, heartbreaking moments in the

Ha! AHA!! HAHAHAHA! Finally, a Major Decision I can get behind. B's Bs really is just a silly, lightweight, almost inconsequential bit of TV fluff. But as far as silly, lightweight, almost inconsequential TV fluff goes, it's the BEST. The Best, Jerry!

If you fail to appreciate or recognize the superlative quality of Extras, even the second season, then I just can't see how you expect to have your opinion taken seriously. Ricky reinvented the genre, if you ask me, with that show. He used the seemingly autobiographical form to make his most cutting, insightful,