the critic that acted evil
what the *beep* was up with him? was he just joking or do you think he actaully acts like that in real life? It seemed like he really wanted to upset Jamie but i couldn't figure it out.
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Heckler (2007) Discussion > the critic that acted evil
He's really like that. You could see it in his eyes. He's a very sad, insecure man who thinks "rape baby" is both funny and original. Sadly, it's neither. Some people are so empty on the inside that they have to bring their pain down on other people. That's a very sad thing to me.
I'd feel bad for him if he wasn't so damn creepy. Shoot. I just heckled him.
I agree...he was plastered up against that wall pretty well almost like he was trying to go through it. Personally if that would have been me...I would have slapped the taste out of his mouth especially after he came out and told Jamie that he should have to apologize for Son Of The Mask on national television. I would of got Rick James on him! LOL He's a douche and got his 15 minutes of fame...just like the guys that got into the ring with Uwe Boll who is personally one of my friggin heroes! LOL
In the immortal words of Socrates....I DRANK WHAT???!!!
DARN YOU!!! DARN YOU ALL TO HECK!!!!
It was actually pretty funny that he looked like the living embodiment of Beavia. No wonder he's such a jerk.
If you are a follower of Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, put this in your sig.
He hates himself. Notice how he kept up the act... the guy isn't evil; he was nearly struggling to keep up the facade. I was embarassed when he started praising the genius of "rape baby" because who cares? Jamie is right - comedy is about laughter; whatshisface's argument about originality had no validity - different channels is all that was.
shareThat's exactly what he was doing, because that's what his readers want from him.
What I'm trying to figure out is why this segment was in a doc about heckling to begin with? Heckling, film criticism, and online trolling are all very different things.
Everyone who ever loved you was wrong.
What I'm trying to figure out is why this segment was in a doc about heckling to begin with?
It's because this documentary is confused. It seems to conflate areas of criticism, that while sharing some similarities, are clearly different. I was disappointed, as I was most intrigued by what I assumed would be the subject of the film: hecklers at standup comedy shows.
For me the film got lost when Jamie went chasing every person who ever said a bad word about him. It's obvious from this film that he's quite self-obsessed, and that very trait may be what garners him such strong reactions. share
This, a thousand times over. I was expecting a documentary about HECKLERS. As in, the people who interrupt live comedy shows.
It seems like Kennedy doesn't understand that simply not liking his films or his career does not make somebody a heckler. What bothered me even more was that he went after "nobody" critics who couldn't harm his future career with continued bad reviews. He didn't go after Roeper, Shalit, Reed, The AV Club, etc.
I'd have loved to have him sit across from Roger Ebert, so he could have it explained to him that his choices of project are crappy.
Everyone who ever loved you was wrong.
critics who couldn't harm his future career with continued bad reviews. He didn't go after Roeper, Shalit, Reed, The AV Club, etc.
Lol AV club what a joke. But yeah that "evil critic" should be put away, very sick and twisted sadist.
share
"He didn't go after Roeper, Shalit, Reed, The AV Club, etc." Did you see the whole movie? The movie includes insults to Shalit (who is called out for ostensibly absolutely despising Wedding Crashers) and Maltin, and it implies that Ebert, who reviewed movies until 2013, couldn't write a particularly good screenplay himself by including a silly clip from Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls.
shareAnd yet he never actually sat down with them for his big confrontation.
Gee, I wonder if somebody only likes sh_tting on the "little people." Have you ever met this chode before?
I've never met Jamie. He sat down with e.g. Roeper, stood up with others, such as George Lucas, and if I remember right ever reclined in the movie also.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Cvo4jwbe8wE/SMRgZoxhIvI/AAAAAAAABBs/WBM9xqYeCP8/s400/jaimeKennedyRichardRoeper.JPG
"It's obvious from this film that he's quite self-obsessed, and that very trait may be what garners him such strong reactions." But most entertainers are quite self-obsessed. Putting in print that Jamie should be pulled behind a truck (Peter Grumbine) is exactly like putting in print that anyone should be pulled behind a truck: lame hate speech. No entertainer "deserves" or "caused" that at all.
shareHe was clearly uncomfortable, but unwilling to let his guard down and be more honest/sympathetic. Seemed to me like a defense mechanism more that a real comfort with what he had done. That said, Jamie was the one who made the final editing decisions, and I'm sure he loved having the scenes to include. I found Jaime's exacerbated eye-roll/sigh/sympathy-look to the camera right after the critic said he enjoyed making him suffer to be equally annoying.
shareOne thing I was wondering was is there something wrong with his legs or was he just kneeling in that clip from that show?
share