that NASCAR movie he did was really awful.
A couple of them weren't bad. Anchorman was amazing. Elf was even better. Stranger than Fiction was pretty good.
"Hello! This is Buddy the Elf what's your favorite color?"
You do all realize you don't actually "win" anything, right? What, did you think I was going to fucking give you something? Yeah give me your address, I'll send you a fig newton wrapped in toilet paper.
And to further prove my whole Rambo point, here are hints for another movie for you to guess:
'70s comedy, had several "non-traditional" sequels, has the names of the lead actors in the movie title, close to Things are Tough All Over, closer to Still Smokin', had scenes of drug use.
Is it an Opie and Anthony movie?
sonuvabitch
this thread is a clusterfuck
I am voting myself MVP of this thread.
Bloody Anus Wrote:'70s comedy, had several "non-traditional" sequels,
has the names of the lead actors in the movie title,
close to Things are Tough All Over,
closer to Still Smokin', had scenes of drug use.
It's like a Nostradamus quatrain
Bloody Anus Wrote:You do all realize you don't actually "win" anything, right? What, did you think I was going to fucking give you something? Yeah give me your address, I'll send you a fig newton wrapped in toilet paper.
And to further prove my whole Rambo point, here are hints for another movie for you to guess:
'70s comedy, had several "non-traditional" sequels, has the names of the lead actors in the movie title, close to Things are Tough All Over, closer to Still Smokin', had scenes of drug use.
The piece of shit Corsican Brothers. Worst C&C movie.
Here's what was supposed to happen:
1. Somebody answers with 'Cheech and Chong's Up in Smoke' (the only one from the '70s if you actually had some reading comprehension)
2. I say that though that's correct it's also wrong because technically the title of the movie is just 'Up in Smoke', negating the 'lead actors in the movie title' hint.
3. I then link to the infallible imdb.com:
a) <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://imdb.com/find?s=all&q=rambo&x=0&y=0">http://imdb.com/find?s=all&q=rambo&x=0&y=0</a><!-- m -->
b) <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://imdb.com/find?s=all&q=up+in+smoke&x=0&y=0">http://imdb.com/find?s=all&q=up+in+smoke&x=0&y=0</a><!-- m -->
4. I then cite imdb.com as proof that First Blood is also known as Rambo: First Blood in the exact same way that Up in Smoke is also known as Cheech and Chong's Up in Smoke.
5. I finish up with another witty insult or two.
I'm sure they just forgot to put "Rambo" on the movie poster too.
![[Image: first_blood_ver1.jpg]](http://www.impawards.com/1982/posters/first_blood_ver1.jpg)
Galt Wrote:I am voting myself MVP of this thread.
Smart move. A 3-1 defeat doesn't appear as shameful...in addition to the whole "defeat" issue that is.
When it finally comes out what the 5th movie was, you people will be awed by my genius in this thread.
Maybe I will. But they'll give me the credit because you're too stupid & not me.
GonzoStyle Wrote:^^^ truth
With some...you need the "Big Guns". Then there's everybody else....
diceisgod Wrote:Maybe I will. But they'll give me the credit because you're too stupid & not me.
Apparently Gonzo speaks DIG, because I can't understand this sentence at all.
The choices:
A) Amplify, dissect, and diagram
B) Stop lying
C) Shuddap
D) Continue with the charade
Your call.
the sentence (this time) made sense, but the point does not. After years and years interacting on these boards how on earth could you use the term "stupid" to describe me in any way.