HILARIOUS! HILARIOUS ALL i CAN SAY - 30 Minutes or Less (2011) Discussion

[–] packro 12 years ago

@Kmoha91920-118-927190

"I probably would have laughed harder if I saw it in theaters"

Hell no! The best time to enjoy a comedy is in your own home! So you can laugh as loud as you want without feeling embarrassed! lol

<Generation "me" is an EPIC FAILURE>

reply

[–] cine-11 12 years ago

Hilarious, I know. It was so funny, it made a whole 37 million at the box office... wait... only 37 million? Ooohhh, '30 Minutes or Less' - yeah, that movie wasn't the least bit funny (or interesting). Perhaps your perception of humor had a, shall we say, "chemical assist" (puff, puff).

reply

[–] Kmoha91920-118-927190 12 years ago

Who bases how funny a movie is on money it made at the box office? Your probably the same fool /assclown who thinks the change up(or some stupid ashton kutcher/adam sandler/Ryan Reynolds/will Ferrell flick) or hangover ii were laugh out loud hits . I never said this movie was interesting but I thought it was well acted n had funny comedic timing. Based on your theory 'warrior' is a terrible film(which it's not), avatar is the best movie (which it's not) and 'the dilemma' (the worst rom comedy ever)quoted as the funniest movie critics and audiences agree would be true but there not.

reply

[–] cine-11 12 years ago

Who bases how funny a movie is on money it made at the box office?

Anyone who recognizes the basic logic of the situation. This movie had a wide release (almost 3000 theaters) with a national advertising campaign, so anyone who wanted could have seen it. And if it were actually as hysterical as you would have everyone believe, then word of this would have spread like wildfire, the lines would have been around the block, and this movie would have made epic box office. Instead, it was a bust - which says just the opposite.

Now, see how I was able to make my point without being arrogant or insulting? It's called maturity. Look into it.

reply

[–] Kmoha91920-118-927190 12 years ago

Horrible bosses. Gross 200+ mill
Bad teacher. Gross 200+ mill
Hangover 2. Gross 200+ mill
No strings attached. Gross 147+ mill
Green lantern. Gross 200+ mill

Who cares what they gross... They all still sucked, have low imdb and critics ratings and all these had "a"list actors/"moviestars" in them and weren't funny! People see movies based on pure hype, good marketing and door busters. It's so bad they'll even put jt in a movie to sell tickets. "30 minutes or less" at least didn't spend half the amt of production money to make a flop or screen time (barely hr and 15 min) to tell a funny situation.

reply

[–] YepiTsTrue11 12 years ago

Great movie. I'm a fan of all the actors in the movie and understand their sense of humor because it's very similar to mine.. Danny Mcbride was channeling "Kenny Powers". He had hilarious lines.

reply

[–] lilej2 12 years ago

cine-11 I think you're too dumb to realize that anyone who based how good a movie is based on grosses is an idiot. All those dumb and embarrassing parody movies by "2 of the 6 writers from Scary Movie" make have been number 1 in the box office. Might wanna stop judging everything by numbers, jackass

i don't have a sig

reply

[–] sith56 12 years ago

Are you getting a cut of the box office profits? If not, why do you care how much money it makes? I thought this movie was hilarious. Danny McBride is one of the best improvisational comics today.

reply

[–] cine-11 12 years ago

The point of this discussion went right over your head (just like the other logic challenged OP) and you're calling me dumb?
Here, I'll explain it verrry slowlly to you: nobody said the box office take determines how funny a movie is. But, how many people think a movie is funny does, and the box office take generally reflects how many people saw the movie. If a lot of people found this movie hilarious, they would have told their friends and coworkers, who would have then seen it, and told other friends, coworkers, and relatives, etc. The terrible box office this movie did, however, despite the wide release, means word of mouth on it was terrible, and movie goers didn't find this movie funny or interesting. Now finish your homework and get to bed, so you can play with the other little fanboys tomorrow.

reply

[–] miguelrodriguesbapti-1 12 years ago

Or maybe humour is something personal ?

I guess someone mature enough as you claim to be would have realized that by now.

reply

[–] cine-11 12 years ago

If humor was a completely personal, individually subjective thing, then you wouldn't have movie studios producing blockbuster comedies that appeal to wide audiences, or successful comedians like Jerry Seinfeld or Jay Leno who have a huge following.

reply

[–] miguelrodriguesbapti-1 10 years ago

One thing is to say that there are common tendencies into tastes of the human being depending on their context ( status, education, country etc).
But there are millions of people who dont like Seinfeld or Leno. Their opinions is as valid.

reply

[–] cine-11 10 years ago

And millions of people DO like them, which means their humor has a universal appeal that extends way beyond a personal preference.

But you seem to be off track here. If you're saying that the OP is entitled to his opinion, no one is challenging that. But to portray this movie as inherently hilarious, when the facts (box office bomb, poor reviews, etc) say otherwise, is not valid.

reply

[–] cine-11 12 years ago

They all still sucked

Well, that's just your single, subjective opinion. No one (besides yourself) has proclaimed you "Lord of the Cinema: ultimate authority on all movie ratings". Those movies made those huge box office takes because tens of millions of people paid to see them over a period of weeks to months. As the film industry is very much like an election system where people vote with their ticket dollars, your opinion has been outvoted.

And how exactly do you define "low Imdb ratings" - anything under a 7? "The Hangover II", for instance, currently has a rating of 6.7.

reply

[–] mattiasflgrtll6 8 years ago

I thought Horrible Bosses was hilarious.
Bad Teacher and No Strings Attached were not too bad either.

But Green Lantern, that movie *beep* STUNK!

I agree with you though, I hate when people put so much weight into box office numbers. Who gives a crap if a movie made a lot of money or not? Dark City is one of the best sci-fi movies ever made, and it completely bombed when it premiered in theatres.

reply

[–] Dubz1300 12 years ago

riiiight...so the twilight gay ass movies are "masterpieces" because of how much money they bring in at the box office?? wow, you're stupid if that's what you base a good film on..

guess what, genius...fight club didn't do well at theatres either, and now it's a cult classic and considered one of, if not the, best film of the 90's..

30 minutes or less is no classic..but it was A LOT better than most other comedies that came out this past year...ie bad teach, hangover 2, horrible bosses, etc...i'd say it's underrated if anything.

reply

[–] cine-11 12 years ago

Perhaps you should look up the definition of cult classic. It's a movie that most moviegoers didn't care for but maintains a small but devoted fanbase. That fits 'Fight Club', all right, and it fits this movie, too. Thanks for making my point for me, "genius"!

'Fight Club' one of the best movies of the '90's? Not in this universe. You're confusing the accolades Brad Pitt got for his acting in the movie with the movie itself. The only people who think 'Fight Club' is one of the best movies of the 90's is - wait for it - cult followers of the movie.

You may be a fanboy if:
- you love a movie that the rest of America gave 2 thumbs down.
- you vigorously defend your beloved movie by arrogantly insulting anyone who has a different opinion than yours.
- you have the thinking skills of a squid.

Oh yeah. You guys on this thread qualify in spades.

reply

[–] monstermayhem32 12 years ago

The movie actually turned out to be a lot better than expected since I thought it was going to be dumb but surprised that it was decent for the film's short length.

reply

[–] Kmoha91920-118-927190 12 years ago

Let me make myself clear cine11 ....I never said 30 minutes or less was a cult classic or the best movie ever ...I think thought this movie was funny becasue I expected it to be dumb. I actually chose not to see it in theaters not becasue of box office numbers or bad hearsay but becasue I wasnt sure what type of comedy it would be, etc. My point is that: IN COMPARISON TO THE OTHER OVERHYPED/OVERADVERTISED COMEDY FILMS OF 2011,ie Bad Teacher, Hangover 2 and HOrrible BOsses, The Dilemma, The Change Up, No strings attached and Freinds with Benefits (which all did fairly sucessful in box office) this movie was a sleeper funny movie. Did myself or you expect this movie to be funny? Probably not, but for a movie that was very short I was surpised and expressed my enthusiams for this movie to close minded fools wholl see a movie that his dimwitted coworker said was funny. If you are gonna sit here and argue that Bad Teacher and Hangover 2( a movie which had disaapointed a large fanbase/critics in the sequel due to its repetitive plot structure and transgender/bathroom humor) were great than go ahead. I dont how you can correlate box office numbers or attendance to a great or funny film...Some people go see movies just cuz Jennifer Anistons face is in it or go see Bad Teacher cuz Cameron Diaz is showering in a bikini and pretending to be young when shes damn past 40 or see Ashton Kutcher in the worst romantic comedy plot ever. That still doesnt mean its a good movie. Just to prove a point...they digitally removed Faison Love from the Couples Retreat movie poster in some countries becauese they thought movie goers would not see it if a African american couple was in the movie. Im not calling myself the master of criticism or film but I am upset that this year has not produced the buzzworthy comedies as past years. Yes, 30 minutes or less isnt a Cable Guy but it deserves mentioning.

reply

[–] cine-11 12 years ago

Here's what's clear:

1 I never claimed you said this movie was a cult classic. A different poster made that claim and my response was to him. I know the posting tree can be a bit confusing, but try to keep it straight.

2 You think this movie is hilarious. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. What you're NOT entitled to is to insult someone who offers an opposing opinion to yours ("your (it's you're btw) probably the fool/assclown...).

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cine-11 12 years ago

Hmmm...UPDATED (Mar 31 2012). So apparently you had to muster extra brainpower just to come up with the totally inane and witless statement "Dude, you're a fking moron. Just bend over and accept it." LOL And YOU'RE calling other people a moron?

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cine-11 12 years ago

That WAS my point, Einstein; no surprise you overlooked it. You had two chances, and all you could come up with was your lame, juvenile proclamation. You came back a second time to make a revision. Did you use it to make an upgrade: maybe add some actual meaning or back up your claim? Nope. You returned just to modify the spelling of your obscenity, because unlike everyone else, you didn't know IMDB doesn't allow them (have someone read the guidelines to you sometime). That makes you just another Internet gasbag, running his mouth and producing nothing but hot air with no substance - a dime a dozen on these forums.

There's the truth for you.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cine-11 12 years ago

Well, given that the average IQ of most of the posters on this thread seems to be that of a first grader, my ego remains unthreatend.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cine-11 12 years ago

OMG, and here I thought you couldn't get any more lame. What's next? "I know you are but what am I"?

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cine-11 12 years ago

Hmmm, so you say I'm pathetic for continually returning here to respond to your posts? And yet you've been doing exactly the same thing with mine. So, in trying to insult me, you've actually called yourself pathetic and insulted yourself. There's a word for that... MORON.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cine-11 12 years ago

What are you, 10? (And drunk?) Now THAT is pathetic.

reply

[–] scrardft 12 years ago

That's right. But what the hell does people have on their heads to not find this movie funny?! It was just hilarious all the way. It's an epic movie at least to me :)

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] valleychick310 12 years ago

For how many talented actors were in it I expected better.

reply

[–] sonobor 12 years ago

Everyone's taste is different but I found this movie funnier than most. Probably better than any comedies I've seen in months. As a bonus the action/storyline kept me interested.

As a bonus the movie did this without trying to be the grossest, most sexual or most violent comedy.

reply

[–] starcraftbw88 12 years ago

Yep, I loved it as well - I thought Eisenberg and Ansari had some great chemistry, the jokes worked, and the movie was very well edited.

reply

[–] cynicaloptimist-1 12 years ago

I could care less about box office numbers, all I know is that I was in a really crap mood from receiving some sad news earlier in the day. Then I sat down and popped this into the computer and was in a giggle fit pretty much all the way through, and I felt much better when it was all over. For that, this movie will always hold a special place in my heart.

reply

[–] nickolasss-179-358602 12 years ago

wow i hate all of you. your arguing about a movie

reply

[–] willydoe71 12 years ago

While I found some parts to be funny, I would never call this movie hilarious. Not even close. I saw Hall Pass the other day, now THAT movie was hilarious. My stomach hurt from laughing so hard. 30: Minutes or Less just made me chuckle every once in a while.

reply