Tristam Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Just stumbled upon this over at imdb. Steve Coogan to play the title character in the film adaptation of Laurence Stern's "unfilmable" novel the Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gents. Directed by Michael Winterbottom. AND with a surprise appearance by Gillian Anderson.

Shamefully, this is one of the many books I've had on my shelf for quite some time now but haven't gotten around to finishing. Though, from what I recall, Steve Coogan certainly seems like he'd fit the part. And Michael Winterbottom can come up with some pretty good stuff if he's on a roll. So I'm interested to see if this can be pulled off well.

For those of you who've read the book itself, what's your initial reaction here? Is this a terrible idea? Ingenious casting? A disaster on the scale of Catcher in the Rye: the Musical? You decide.

― Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe (Plastic Gas Booby Trap), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 13:43 (twenty years ago)

one of the most overrated directors of the noughties.

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 13:49 (twenty years ago)

I haven't read Sterne either, but it seems to be a "meta" movie -- about the failure of making a film of Tristam Shandy. Hoping it doesn't peter out at the end like "Adaptation."

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 13:50 (twenty years ago)

"I haven't read Sterne either, but it seems to be a "meta" movie -- about the failure of making a film of Tristam Shandy."

Hmm, that could be trouble. Although Lost in La Mancha was at least entertaining for a glimpse of complete failure. But I assume you mean more "film within a film" here and not documentary. Eh, I guess it could work.

― Werner Herzog Eats His Vegetables (Plastic Gas Booby Trap), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 13:55 (twenty years ago)

the novel *is hilariously funny, and well recommended...

― stevie (stevie), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 13:56 (twenty years ago)

one of the most overrated books of the 1760s.

I read this 'novel' during an English Literature course. A disappointment as David Hockney had bigged it up so much a few years earlier.

― Bob Six (bobbysix), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 13:57 (twenty years ago)

A very entertaining book, although not knowing enough about the time it was written probably means that a lot of the humour, satire etc is missed.

It has been said that good (ie *literary*) books don't make good films, because too much of what makes a book good cannot be put into a film. However, mediocre to bad books (ie the stuff you read for fun) can make excellent films.

Examples:

Vanity Fair: great book, crap film (all of them)

Elmore Leonard books (can't think of the titles off the top of my head): okay books but generally good films.

Lord of the Rings, parts 1 to 100: I won't even go there, as I hate all that sword and sorcery stuff with a passion.

― andyjack (andyjack), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 14:09 (twenty years ago)

I am hoping to see it here:

http://sansebastian.mister-i.com/2005/pelien.jsp?id=530128

I like the book a lot. Or should I say liked.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 14:11 (twenty years ago)

well, if Coogan playing Coogan can be as funny as he was in that Coffee & Cigarettes segment... and Jeremy Northam is playing the director, 'Winterbottom.'

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 14:12 (twenty years ago)

haha..winterbottom

― britishes name, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 14:13 (twenty years ago)

A very entertaining book, although not knowing enough about the time it was written probably means that a lot of the humour, satire etc is missed.

no-one will think less of you for saying, "i didn't laugh once". better that than, oh it's not unfunny, it's just that people had a different sense of hummour back then.

― N_RQ (Enrique), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 14:23 (twenty years ago)

people had a different sense of hummus back then.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 14:25 (twenty years ago)

people had a different sense of hummer

― N_RQ (Enrique), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 14:28 (twenty years ago)

I guffawed like a dragoon guard!

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 14:36 (twenty years ago)

"I instructed several of my ignorant Papist tenant farmers to laugh for me!"

― The Obligatory Sourpuss (Begs2Differ), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 14:38 (twenty years ago)

I think I did laugh, but it was a long time ago, before I was born.

― andyjack (andyjack), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 14:54 (twenty years ago)

Hoping it doesn't peter out at the end like "Adaptation."

You clearly haven't read the book!

I have been thinking of rereading this.

Playing the title character in Tristram Shandy seems like an unrewarding role, unless you're really into voice overs or are a toddler (or better yet, an embryo -- it is a keen role for some up-and-coming embryo).

― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 17:56 (twenty years ago)

Peter out? It barely peters in!

― k/l (Ken L), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 17:57 (twenty years ago)

And when it does peter in, it gets distracted too easily.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 18:13 (twenty years ago)

― k/l (Ken L), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 18:15 (twenty years ago)

When I Was Nearly Not Conceived For The Seventh Time

― k/l (Ken L), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 18:16 (twenty years ago)

adaptation rox u r all etc

― Enrique, naked in an unfamiliar future where corporations run the world... (Enri, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 20:44 (twenty years ago)

I'm actually really excited about this movie--mostly for the cast (not just Coogan but also some great British comedy types--Dylan Moran, David Walliams...) and also because I loved 24 Hour Party People. From what I read it will be in a similar meta/self-aware/postmodern/whatever fashion as that film. I have not read the book, but it will probably be to my benefit that I haven't when I see the film.

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 21:44 (twenty years ago)

my boss, who has a PhD in 18th century literature, will be thrilled about this movie.

― maria tessa sciarrino (theoreticalgirl), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 22:12 (twenty years ago)

haha.... i have seen this already. the best bit is the Al Pacino bit at the end;

not allowed to say anymore.

but not having read the book, or even being aware of it, the film in itself is slightly plodding. Coogan became irritating as it dragged on.

― Tannenbaum Schmidt (Nik), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 22:57 (twenty years ago)

Oh, I wanted to be first :-(

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Thursday, 8 September 2005 06:49 (twenty years ago)

I was talking about this with a friend tonight and she pointed out that if the filmmakers have any sense it will only be the first, what, 10 chapters? and end at the "alas poor Yorick" bit. But now that I think about it my favorite part is when he stands back for a moment and analyses the shape of the plot so far. So I hope that's in there too.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 8 September 2005 07:41 (twenty years ago)

It is only 92 minutes.

My fixer is on the case, ticketwise.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Thursday, 8 September 2005 07:46 (twenty years ago)

What a lovely book.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Thursday, 8 September 2005 07:57 (twenty years ago)

when I read this book I laughed so hard it hurt, especially the conception & the stuff about his uncle

it will make a horrible movie no matter what they do

― Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Thursday, 8 September 2005 08:20 (twenty years ago)

i am probably going to be seeing this next week at tiff, i'll report back

i haven't read it

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 8 September 2005 16:59 (twenty years ago)

It might be an interesting movie, but of course it won't be like the book. I assume it won't even try.

― I Ain't No Addict, Whoever Heard of a Junkie as Old as Me? (noodle vague), Thursday, 8 September 2005 17:06 (twenty years ago)

one month passes...

I've just half-watched the South Bank Show behind the scenes of this. It seems like it might just be a Steve Coogan smug-fest. I haven't read the book, but I think, judging from what I have seen, that I would like it a lot more than the film.

It was described as "a film within a film within a film" which is one level of horrible meta-ness too far, probably.

― ailsa (ailsa), Sunday, 23 October 2005 22:10 (twenty years ago)

what a dissapointment.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 23 October 2005 22:18 (twenty years ago)

ahem, disappointment.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 23 October 2005 22:18 (twenty years ago)

Perhaps you meant an insipid oinment?

― Aimless (Aimless), Sunday, 23 October 2005 22:31 (twenty years ago)

ahem, ointment

― Aimless (Aimless), Sunday, 23 October 2005 22:34 (twenty years ago)

It is very funny, Ailsa. I normally hate all that meta stuff, but here it's just a means to an end. And it isn't a Coogan smug-fest, he's more or less the straight man to Rob Brydon. I didn't watch the South Bank Show, but I'm not surprised they managed to make it look smug.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Monday, 24 October 2005 06:43 (twenty years ago)

I dislike rob brydon

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 24 October 2005 06:48 (twenty years ago)

Then it is not for you, RJG.

I had hardly seen him before this; now I like him.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Monday, 24 October 2005 06:50 (twenty years ago)

My copy of the book has 'ego head-wank' written on the title page. Has this been added by a cynical reader or do all copies have the same?

Should have been filmed in Stony Stratford.

― Mikey G (Mikey G), Monday, 24 October 2005 08:46 (twenty years ago)

i enjoyed the SBS last night. i didn't think this was out 'til january?

my favourite bit (which they seem to be using as the film show/trailer bit) is when rob brydon is ripping the pi$$ out of coogan and doing his accent and everything.

i think part of this is coogan trying to do the "haha, look everyone i can laugh at myself" in an attempt to remove the "coogan is a humourless prick with a big car fixation" rumours. i hope it backfires immensely...

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Monday, 24 October 2005 12:12 (twenty years ago)

i liked rob brydon's 10 minute desperado thing, all those years ago, but the chat show is shit. also shit: winterbottom.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, 24 October 2005 12:15 (twenty years ago)

I watched Cruise Of The Gods for the first time since broadcast at the weekend and really rather enjoyed it, the Coogan/Brydon partnership was very good indeed.

― aldo_cowpat (aldo_cowpat), Monday, 24 October 2005 12:18 (twenty years ago)

What surprised me was that people who had never heard of Coogan or Brydon were laughing heartily at all the in-jokes when we saw it in Spain. There was also talk of giving Coogan the award for best actor, or at least grumbling that he didn't get it. The role he plays is kind of humourless prick though, and fairly deadpan. Minor key, is, I believe, the phrase favoured by critics.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Monday, 24 October 2005 12:36 (twenty years ago)

my favourite bit (which they seem to be using as the film show/trailer bit) is when rob brydon is ripping the pi$$ out of coogan and doing his accent and everything.

Yes, that was good. I think I will investigate the book sometime soon, then decide whether to give the film a go. However, it does involve Dylan Moran, therefore it can't be all bad.

― ailsa (ailsa), Monday, 24 October 2005 16:34 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, this was a huge dissapointment. Yeah, making the movie super-meta and self-referential might be keeping in spirit with portions of the book but it also keeps it in spirit with half of the terrible meta-indie movies made in the past fifteen years.

― C0L1N B... (C0L1N B...), Monday, 24 October 2005 17:43 (twenty years ago)

so played.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 24 October 2005 17:44 (twenty years ago)

I've never read the book and this South Bank Show advert made me never want to see the movie

― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 25 October 2005 13:24 (twenty years ago)

My copy of the book has 'ego head-wank' written on the title page. Has this been added by a cynical reader or do all copies have the same?

Oh dear, now I'll be tempted to write that in every copy of the book I can find.
It'd be pretty wonderful.

The big question is of course whether or not the initial inscriber intended it as a slight. Shandyites should take on the name of Ego Head Wankers.

― a nicens little boy named baby tuckoo (Øystein), Tuesday, 25 October 2005 14:26 (twenty years ago)

Skipping 17 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

The film made this hard-to-please viewer laugh out loud once (it was Columbo what did it). I found the whole thing more interesting than funny. I enjoyed seeing how they did put the thing together and I like Kelly Macdonald and Shirley Henderson very much, but I dunno. It's on the better side of OK, I think.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Monday, 23 January 2006 10:53 (nineteen years ago)

Is Shirley Hendersons voice getting higher and more five year old as time passes.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 23 January 2006 11:04 (nineteen years ago)

I like those two too.

I cannot remember the Colombo bit.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Monday, 23 January 2006 11:15 (nineteen years ago)

D'you think Ashley Jensen would have made the pre-film "starring in alphabetic order" if it had been made in six months time. The role seems as large as Gruey's or Ronni Ancona's and is one of the funniest in the film.

Sad not to see more Gillian Anderson really.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 23 January 2006 11:17 (nineteen years ago)

this has tempted me, despite w'bum being the suck, god knows how. i mean the 'film about making an unfilmable book thing' -- not new, and surely needs a director with a light touch? we shall see, possibly.

― N_RQ, Monday, 23 January 2006 11:24 (nineteen years ago)

You will hate it.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 23 January 2006 11:28 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, i probably will.

i haven't read 'TS'. it was on my first-term reading list at university. i bought it. my dad's reading it.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, 23 January 2006 11:34 (nineteen years ago)

(I don't think you will hate it, but I'm not saying so in case you do hate it and blame me for having encouraged you to waste your money.)

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Monday, 23 January 2006 11:40 (nineteen years ago)

I mostly like Winterbottom, but I think he's one of the only working British directors who actually likes films. I'll get round to seeing this eventually, misgivings about getting the book wrong or not.

― 'Curt' Russell (noodle vague), Monday, 23 January 2006 11:42 (nineteen years ago)

I was a little concerned about Jenny 2, the runner who was presented as the pretentious film buff, being the only person who knew or cared about film. Not so much that she was unrealistic, or even that she was a figure of fun, more that in combining the sole film buff with the supposedly predatory female role was potentially a mistake. Whilst Coogan is presented as a womaniser, he is also presented as victim which is probably a bit soft (but understandable). There was clearly a great lost set of scenes between Brydon, Jenny and Gillian Anderson.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 23 January 2006 12:07 (nineteen years ago)

I really enjoyed much of the film, but it was not without flaws. On the downside, Keeley Hawes' interminable childbirth sequences were painful to sit through. If they were trying to portray what goes on on film sets, then fair enough, but they really went to town on it. Another negative element was the fact that that crap actor from 9 songs resurfaces as a tab journalist, with a similarly, ahem, wooden performance.

Apart from that, there was so much to enjoy. Rob Brydon's performance was hilarious.

One of my favourite scenes, I think, was the nappy changing scene that they all hear on the baby walkie-talkie thing.

Tony Wilson, for goodness sake!

― Japanese Giraffe (Japanese Giraffe), Monday, 23 January 2006 13:35 (nineteen years ago)

(Sorry, I meant the Odyssey. I was really tired last night.)

― Casuistry (Chris P), Monday, 23 January 2006 17:06 (nineteen years ago)

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 23 January 2006 17:13 (nineteen years ago)

you're awake now

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 23 January 2006 17:14 (nineteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

madchen and pete OTM

i couldnt help think "ok this is Brit-Adaptation" and in the light of that, it wasnt really as entertaining as adaptation. it also wasnt funny, which surprised me. i htink they stuffed it full of little visual gags and stuff but they arent actually funny. i think if it had either been funny or entertaining, it woulkd have been better. i think adaptation was both.

but i liked watching it! i enjoyed it, it was quite a strange experience. like pete, the only character i didn't get was the jennie the runner. i didnt understand what she was meant to be in it for, and couldnt work out whether her slightly wooden acting was part of the joke or not, or maybe it was the script rather than the acting.

i was surprised by coogans willingness to put jokes* in about courtney love, or whoever

*i gues in this films you can refer to them as jokes, but they are more like references to things rather than jokes about them

― ambrose (ambrose), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 10:55 (nineteen years ago)

This still makes me happy. But a few other things in the movie made me laugh too, despite the sort of claustrophobic repetitiveness of it. It made me wonder how a better adaptation of the novel would look.

― Paul Eater (eater), Wednesday, 8 February 2006 18:18 (nineteen years ago)

Just been to see the film - though it was excellent - but I had seen Hidden (Cache) just before it and was therefore on a bit of a down so maybe I was ready to laugh at anything. If anything though it's not as funny as the book which I'm almost afraid to say lest I come over as some art.lit poseur I found and find (as I am forever picking it up in moments of gloom) hilarious.

As for the film - any film in which Rob brydon is not v. irritating has to be a good thing. Is there a thread about 9 Songs? I cannot find it.

― Ned T.Rifle (nedtrifle), Wednesday, 8 February 2006 18:43 (nineteen years ago)

Overheard: boyfriend and girlfriend in lift, post-film:

BF: I thought it was good!
GF: Yeah... but it made Steve Coogan look like a complete dick.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 9 February 2006 01:04 (nineteen years ago)

Is there a thread about 9 Songs? I cannot find it.

Rudest British Film Ever Features Bands Playing:

The Rudest British Film Ever Features Bands Playing

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Thursday, 9 February 2006 08:37 (nineteen years ago)

Oh I didn't know it would do that. How repetitive of me.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Thursday, 9 February 2006 09:17 (nineteen years ago)

hmmm like the film, i am trying to find the book funny, but dont really.
and if that isnt a film with rob brydon being irritating, then i certainly dont want to see one in which he is being irritating. alhtough his face is familiar, i cant think of what else hes done.

― ambrose (ambrose), Thursday, 9 February 2006 11:23 (nineteen years ago)

It's a cute trifle, and everything on the movie set that isn't ego-spoofing (or Coogan with chestnut-in-pants) falls flat, despite the charm of Jenny the runner. And I even prepared by reading the first 15 pages of Sterne and finally watching the first 2 episodes of Knowing Me, Knowing You.

Brydon's 'young Pacino' at the end is excellent. The incessant use of 8-1/2 music, not so hot. (and the same Handel piece as Barry Lyndon -- or was it Bach?)

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 10 February 2006 14:51 (nineteen years ago)

(Barry Lyndon soundtrack has Handel and Bach. But the main one is Handel.)

― tokyo nursery school: afternoon session (rosemary), Friday, 10 February 2006 15:32 (nineteen years ago)

I found this amusing and watchable but smug and somewhat pointless (which probably WAS the point, but that doesn't mean I have to approve).

― chap who would dare to be completely sober on the internet (chap), Friday, 10 February 2006 15:34 (nineteen years ago)

Surprise surprise!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4708148.stm

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Monday, 13 February 2006 13:25 (nineteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

I laughed.

― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 3 March 2006 17:14 (nineteen years ago)

Saw this last week with a pretty good crowd in one of the local art houses. I'm kinda curious how many other folks in the audience got any of the Alan Patridge jokes(Portland is home to many an Anglophile, but still...)

Still, the Gillian Anderson phone sequence was great.

― kingfish da notorious teletabby (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 3 March 2006 17:19 (nineteen years ago)

The South Bank Show documentary on this, expressly designed to make you want to see the film, made me not want to see this film

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 3 March 2006 17:20 (nineteen years ago)

... I'll go further and say it made me never want to see anything with Rob Brydon in it

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 3 March 2006 17:22 (nineteen years ago)

who the fuck is Rob Brydon?

― Adam Rice Lacucaracha (nordicskilla), Friday, 3 March 2006 17:23 (nineteen years ago)

He's the fucking guy who's in this fucking film

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 3 March 2006 17:24 (nineteen years ago)

thanks a fucking bunch

― Adam Rice Lacucaracha (nordicskilla), Friday, 3 March 2006 17:25 (nineteen years ago)

You're fucking welcome

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 3 March 2006 17:26 (nineteen years ago)

Not a bad effort.

― Adam Rice Lacucaracha (nordicskilla), Sunday, 5 March 2006 22:23 (nineteen years ago)

Three pages into the Google results for The Road To Guantanamo is the page where you can watch it online or "download it to own" or even just for 48 hours. How thoroughly modern.

http://www.channel4.com/film/newsfeatures/microsites/G/guantanamo/download.html

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Thursday, 9 March 2006 16:45 (nineteen years ago)

Are you a man out of time, PJ MIller?

― Adamrl (nordicskilla), Thursday, 9 March 2006 16:47 (nineteen years ago)

Thanks for the link, btw!

― Adamrl (nordicskilla), Thursday, 9 March 2006 16:48 (nineteen years ago)

four months pass...

this is the kind of thing winterbottom should do. a film about the attempt to make 'brick lane' in brick lane. there's so much story gold here, and it would be far more interesting than a straightforward adaptation; if only because the book has become such a talisman, and because brick lane is basically shaftesbury avenue really.

― Roughage Crew (Enrique), Friday, 28 July 2006 09:04 (nineteen years ago)

I have never been to Brick Lane. Perhaps I should rectify this.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Friday, 28 July 2006 10:07 (nineteen years ago)

it's more lane-like than i expected.

― Roughage Crew (Enrique), Friday, 28 July 2006 10:14 (nineteen years ago)

I don't remember the residents of Crow Road kicking up such a stink

― Sploshette Moxy (Dada), Friday, 28 July 2006 10:17 (nineteen years ago)

I saw it in the theater when it was out and thought it was pretty ok. The meta-schtick was very tired, but good acting, character dynamics, dialogue, etc.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Friday, 28 July 2006 12:22 (nineteen years ago)

one month passes...

Watched this last night. Thought it was a very entertaining trifle - loved the tone and that it was so light compared to, say, Adaptation. I now must revise my previous position of deferring to s1ocki for all movie opinions, however.

― sean gramophone (Sean M), Monday, 25 September 2006 09:02 (nineteen years ago)

ten months pass...

much better than i expected. a british 'irma vep' ya heard.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:44 (eighteen years ago)

i really enjoyed it. i should probably get the DVD, if only for the wilson bit :(

― grimly fiendish, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:46 (eighteen years ago)

yeah shit, i was gonna say, i had no idea he was in it, and there he was. quite a jolt.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:47 (eighteen years ago)

i wonder if the dvd follows through on the gag about the full interview being on the dvd.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:47 (eighteen years ago)

exactly. and the very notion of any making-of commentary throws open so many opportunities for fun playtime japery with this film that ... well, i'm probably best not getting it, actually, because i fear they won't have done the possibilities justice at all.

― grimly fiendish, Sunday, 19 August 2007 21:58 (eighteen years ago)

Well, that was the second time I've seen it, the first being over a year ago, and it's definitely held up. I actually think this film was frickin' MADE for me; not only have I read (and studied in depth) the book, but I'm a massive fan of well-directed self-awareness. The two merge beautifully here, and in actual fact you can tell that the film's creators are genuinely passionate about the book's infectious divergence. Being as it was an attempt to delay one's own death by recounting every single detail of one's life in an approach towards the infinite, the book was an uproarious, ludicrous, brilliant failure. The film's dodging of its own self-fulfilment, its Sternean absurdity, its constant retracing of steps is what makes it one of the most faithful and least damaging adaptations I've ever seen. Missed out on a load of the book's best moments, though. The insult (towards whomever tied 'the knot'), for a start, goes on for THREE PAGES and is the single greatest monument to irritation ever constructed in the name of literature.

― Just got offed, Sunday, 19 August 2007 22:45 (eighteen years ago)

one year passes...

this movie was good and enjoyable, christ you people complain a lot

― akm, Thursday, 25 December 2008 07:31 (seventeen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.