Reviews

After watching a movie I like to read up about it to learn how the movie was made, the inspiration for the screenplay and how the cast came together.

While reading up on Brimstone I came across an interesting tidbit - the Dutch and European press gave the movies strong reviews, while the American critics were more lukewarm. For some reason, these facts really resonated for me.

On the surface, Brimstone should be worthy of praise. Stunning visuals and a strong performance by Guy Pearce, brutal yet not gory violence and a non-linear, but not confusing story structure all work to create a satisfying movie. And more importantly, I believe that the movie delivers on its promise made in the trailer, the viewer will not feel hoodwinked that they were mislead; a la an action movie that is actually slow, or a comedy that turns out to be a boring, coming-of- age drama.

Yet, after viewing the movie I could not shake the feeling of being let down, empty and unmoved. The goal of any film in my mind is to have the ability to stay with a viewer, and I felt as though Brimstone reminded me of a very well made straight to video movie.

The example I will use is having a one night stand with a pretty girl yet you wake up the next morning without feeling elated. She looks the part and has a welcoming personality, but you have no interest in her.

That's the feeling you get with this movie. Great cinematography and powerful acting, but I believe the missing link is a great story. There is no twist and no real character arc. It is a simple tale of hardship and revenge that tries to elevate itself through a non-linear telling.

Final comment: Solid and violent tale in a western setting, with an average story and somewhat non satisfying ending.

Is the movie a great film that you will remember? Of course not. It is a raunchy, late night comedy with some laughs and tries to incorporate some heart felt scenes.

However, the movie delivers on its promise of a popcorn, low budget comedy. So the 1 and 2 star ratings are not deserved. A great movie to put on when you are trying to fall asleep, wants something on while working from home or just want to pass the time on a rainy day.

One thing that came to my mind was how the quick sword to fame can be a double edge for some actors. Leo crushed it in Gilbert Grape and Basketball Diaries and is now an A-lister. Jason Biggs rocketed to fame in American Pie and as never been able to shake the lovable loser character.

I think the IMDb user rating of 6.5 perfectly encapsulates what to expect. I use the site mainly to calibrate my expectations before watching a blockbuster or decide to invest my time in giving an indie feature a chance.

Suicide Squad has such star power and superhero connections that I was going to watch it no matter what the user reviews said (I always disregard critic reviews as they rarely are helpful) and feel like many viewers were going to as well.

The movie has cool set pieces, action scenes and fantastic costumes. However, the plot is so muddled and choppy it detracts from the viewing experience. Another weak link is the enemy - no real backstory to draw us in, almost no explanation on what the enemy is building, and almost laughable minions for the "heroes" to combat.

There are so many cool characters, I think the movie and plot would have been better served if this had been Part I of a series, rather a stand alone movie.

I read an article that stated David Ayer only had six weeks to put a script together and it unfortunately it shows. I felt like I was watching a long trailer - cool and fun scenes that were disconnected from each other.

I certainly won't say to pass on this, especially comic book fans, but be warned it is a let down. Especially, considering the awesome source material the director had to work with.

Manhattan Night tells you that it will be a movie cut from the film noir cloth, set in the sister world of a hard boiled detective novel. These movies are right up my alley and since Adrien Brody is a somewhat established player I decided to give this movie a chance.

The opening is a little cheesy, with depressing grey shots overlaid with Adrien speaking in monotones about the tough challenges he faces while living in an unforgiving city, but luckily the movie picks up the pace.

I was also pleasantly surprised by the chemistry between Adrien and the beautiful female lead. Romantic scenes felt natural and exciting, and it was a nice change of pace to see her act outside the family oriented TV series "Chuck".

I think you fill find that Manhattan Night Falls short where so many other thriller / mystery movies fall short - delivering on a great set up. It is very easy to set up a riveting crime and grab the viewer's attention. Why was something stolen or why was someone killed or why is someone acting strangely? To elevate the movie to classic status you need to provide a thrilling and satisfying end. But alas, there Sixth Sense type reveals are few and far between. I found the reveal and motivations slightly disappointing.

Manhattan Night was a well acted, medium paced thriller and that rolls slightly off the tracks and misses its final station at the end. Adrien Brody and hardcore crime fans will be partially satisfied and then soon forget this one. A generous 7/10.

I am a Kevin Hart fan. Some comedians just have the innate ability to make you laugh, and I feel like he has that indescribable ability. My expectations were for low, like for every comedy sequel and I wanted to like this movie. But...

The audience expectations for a comedy sequel are so low it should be relatively straightforward for the screenwriter and director to satisfy us. The situation is perfectly setup for a studio / audience win win. Give us recycled jokes in a new setting, we laugh through a forgettable movie and studio makes bank. Unfortunately, in my opinion, Ride Along 2 falls prey to the usual sequel pitfalls and doesn't even give Kevin Hart room to maneuver.

The best parallel to a recent movie I can think of is The Hangover Part II. Part I was so funny, everyone was going to give Part II a watch, hoping it would top the first installment. Instead you got the sequel trap - recycled jokes (still can be funny), but the bigger budget distracted the director.

That encapsulates Ride Along 2. Unfortunately, the bigger budget means less time for Kevin Hart to be funny and more action scenes, which no one really cares about. Watching the movie, I felt like I had to impatiently wait during the usual foot chase / car chase / shootout scenes to get rewarded with a Kevin Hart joke.

We did not pay money to watch ice cube shoot at bad guys. We wanted to laugh at Kevin Hart. It is so frustrating because the formula for success is so easy to execute. Show us the beginning or ending of action scenes and give Kevin more time to play off the stone faced ice cube. Ice cube doesn't even need to act to play the straight cop, anyone could do it. But instead we get way too long action scenes, romantic ice cube subplot (which is so unrealistic it actually distracts the viewer and takes away from the movie) and less laughs.

If you are on a plane or want to put on a movie as you fall asleep, Ride Along 2 is the play. Don't waste time and money in the actual theater for this one.

Movies like burnt are so frustrating to watch and in cases like this, the fault almost always lies with the director and / or meddling producers. I am not 100% sure, but I believe that this script was on the black list and even if it was not it probably was damn good to attract the acting talent to such a project. The acting was well done (no pun intended) and none of the actors mailed in their performance. So why does the sum equal less than the parts?

In my reviews, I like to rate movies based on promise and delivery. The trailer is the promise and the viewing experience is the delivery. And I always try to give films the benefit of the doubt. Rating a movie a 1 or a 10, is not helpful to your fellow users.

When you decide to spend your valuable time and money on burnt, you know you're not getting a big budget, special effects extravaganza or a gripping whodunit. You want the movie to show you the inner workings of a kitchen, the struggle and cut throat atmosphere of creating and maintaining a top rated restaurant and some relationship drama that feels possibe. Doesn't have to be good will hunting emotion, but enough to keep us invested. The story and character motivations should never be so illogical or vague as to distract the viewer.

Burnt is not a complete misfire. I enjoyed the scenes in the restaurant kitchen, they were beautiful shots. And most of the scenes themselves were well acted, Bradley seemed invested in the role. The role actors also did an adequate job. The major problem was there was no real tension. The stakes never seemed remotely high.

SMALL SPOILERS: Bradley's character had a vague back story about drug abuse and wanting redemption, but he never seemed to really struggle. He vanishes from the restaurant scene after burning out, and then, after some self penance, he is able to finagle his way into running a brand new restaurant and in no time at all wins a Michelin star? There is some tension with the debt he owes, but you never feel worried because he could always borrow the money from the super rich Maître d'. And in the end his gorgeous ex waltzes in and pays it off?

You can tell as you watch the movie that there are some plot points that were probably compelling in the screenplay, but unfortunately just got lost in translation. I read that when the movie was edited, an actor's entire role was edited out. Maybe that was why the movie seemed kind of disjointed. Every genre of movie has fatal flaws. In niche genres like this, you never want your movie to feel "like a day in the life". It's a movie, give us some stakes. Burnt felt like I got a behind the scenes peek at running a top restaurant. If I wanted that I could watch a 30 minute Food Network show.

Final verdict: Bradley Coopers fans would enjoy. Otherwise, wait till it comes out NetFlix and you're bored one rainy night.

This question probably makes more sense in the forum section, but I find it an interesting parallel. Another food movie came out around the same time called Chef. It was marketed more as a family drama / feel good, subtle comedy. The main character also finds semi redemption by falling back in love with cooking, by going back to the basics after burning out. He also reconnects with his young son. I had the same after taste watching that movie. Cool scenes involving food, but no real stakes or unexpected turns. That movie, however, got stellar reviews. Sometimes I just do not understand professional movie critics at all.

My favorite movie genre has to be gritty crime dramas, especially ones where a serial killer is in play. The pinnacle are the Hannibal Lector movies. The Pledge does not quite live up to that billing, but it is a solid crime drama with an impressive cast. Quite a few of the bit players have gone on to lead films of their own.

A little research tells us that the original author wrote a TV movie and was forced to use a less believable, more happy ending. He then wrote a novella with a more realistic finale, which is where The Pledge is adapted from.

I do not want to give too much away, I just want any user who stumbles across any of my reviews to get an accurate idea of what they are in for and if they should invest their time into watching this movie. The Pledge starts off how all crime fans like - a cop brought in to examine a brutal crime. However, the movie then settles in for a long, slow, almost meandering middle. There are no chases, violence or action as the story builds to its conclusion.

This might turn off or disappoint viewers who expected more action. But I enjoyed the set up. Mainly because the Jack's acting is so good and I enjoyed the character. I have to admit some of his motivations were so subtly implied that I only realized them after researching the film afterwards.

What elevated this to an 8/10 for me was the unconventional ending. Your first reaction is disappointment, even anger. You want just desserts for the scumbags of the world or redemption for the heroes of the world or a clear resolution to the world's problems. But as we all know, real life is not fair. The ending will stick with me for a long time, it will not fade like all the other crime drama endings we have seen. True crime fans, give the movie a view. It's worth the long ride.

I tend to only write reviews on indie movies or less well known movies that don't have many reviews, as blockbusters already have a wealth of information readily available about them. User reviews have done a great job letting me know if I should save my time and money or give a movie a shot, so I like to repay the favor. Critic reviews have never made sense to me. I am convinced they are paid by the studios or are compensated for making reviews abstract and opaque.

Most of us movie fans will see a blockbuster, no matter what. However, with the recent Transformer movies I have come to the sad realization that a big budget and well known actors cannot make a movie watchable or enjoyable. Before spending money on a movie I like to check the user reviews on this site. I am reasonable and don't give poor ratings just because I did not like a plot point or don't understand what the director was going for. But I felt so mislead by my fellows users, that I wanted to write a review.

When you buy a ticket to a Bond movie you are going in with the expectation for great action sequences, subtle and dry humor and amazing views of exotic locales. You make a deal with studio - use that big budget on explosions and great views, have beautiful girls, a few light hearted moments and we will forgive a weak plot, contrived dialogue and small gaps in logic. I think it's a fair deal. Studios and actors make a bunch of money, audience is entertained for a couple of hours and everyone is happy.

The reboot with Daniel Craig has kind of transcended that deal. With larger budgets than in the past, a gritty more serious take on Bond and sensible plot lines, we have gotten used to a great movie experience. The recent Bond films would have been great stand alone films, without the "protection" of the Bond name. And reading my fellow user reviews, I had no reason to doubt this would not be the same experience. Unfortunately, I am beginning to realize that for wide release films, die hard fans will write most of the reviews and so you do not get a fair, trustworthy review; as if they are a critic who was flown by the studio to the movie's fancy opening and felt required to write a great review. Like propaganda almost.

OK, my tirade is over. Was just so let down by the other user reviews. On to my movie thoughts.

Spectre does deliver on some of the "deal" points I mentioned earlier for the Bond films. The action sequences are tremendous. The movie opens with a long tracking shot that is pretty impressive. Amazing costumes, set design and action scenes. Some of the panoramic vista shots are awesome. And none of the action is too ridiculous to ruin our suspension of belief. Unlike some of the older bonds movies, we could go along with and believe a super agent could pull of these fight maneuvers. The first half of the movie delivers.

None of the user reviews mention the second half flaw at all, much to my chagrin. You never want to feel hoodwinked out of your money. I was never given any warning to how the plot spiraled into nonsense and was so jarred by what happened I could not enjoy the end. None of the reviews I read touched upon how outlandish the plot got. Like I said, as long as the plot makes some sense, the audience goes along with it. I was not expecting the realism or heart of Good Will Hunting, but I was expecting a super villain to have some semblance of competence.

The plot is so bad and unbelievable in the second half, it distracts from the movie and that is a fatal flaw in my opinion. When the viewer cannot stay in the moment, and the plot is so bad you are reminded you are watching a movie, it really messes up the experience. Unfortunately, I am not exaggerating. I am a Daniel Craig fan. I am a Bond fan. The plot twist literally makes no sense at all. This flaw is all the more frustrating, because of the lost potential. This isn't some low budget indie movie. The director had one of the largest budgets of all time. He could not have used some of that $250 million to pay a team of writers to work on a script. I do not understand how Hollywood veterans with the proper financial backing, can invest so much energy into costumes, stunts and locations and not give a crap about the screenplay. Sigh.

I hope my review gave you a better understanding of the what you are in for. If I had known I would get great action scenes, but not plausible plot I still would have seen the movie. I would not have felt tricked. Or maybe I could have saved my money and seen the DVD. I hope this review tempers your expectations and lets you know what you are in for.

I typically prefer to write reviews for movies that have less than 10 user reviews, so people can know what they are in for when deciding to spend their time and money on a less well known flick. I find user reviews infinitely more valuable and telling than so called "professional critic reviews". Users factor in the enjoyment experience much more accurately than the pros. In fact I am surprised pro critics even exist with the power of the internet to unite users. Self/less was a wide release and has many reviews, but I decided to write a review because I felt misled by my fellow users and their suggestions to overlook the low rating and give the movie a watch.

When a trailer does not excite me, it is always a red flag. How can you not make any movie look exciting in two minutes? I'm always flabbergasted at poor trailers. I can recall seeing many great trailers for poorly executed movies, so I'm always surprised when a trailer is failure and when I saw the trailer for this movie I felt as if it was boring summary of the movie. I immediately flagged this as a pass.

A few days ago I was reading the list of scripts on the black list and came across this title. The original script must have been terrific. Then I thought Ben Kingsley is in it so maybe it has some value. And after reading user reviews like give it a chance, great premise and ignore the low rating - I said why not.

I am very patient with movies and always try to give the benefit of the doubt, even if I don't fully understand what the director was trying to do. But man did this movie disappoint. I am very surprised at the user comments. I thought Ben did a great job, but he has a very minor part. Ryan does not seem enthusiastic about the role he is cast in. You know he doesn't need the money, so maybe the script really was great and the director fumbled it. Or maybe Ryan is going through movie fatigue. He seems to be in quite a few these days. Maybe it is time he started being more selective.

I think I may have gone off on a slight tangent, but I want someone who decides to spend his time and money on this to know what to expect. The premise is unique, but the movie stumbles in execution and the performances. The set pieces are not even that great. If you are going to have lethargic performances and boring, low stakes action at least have awesome fight scenes. This would be a pass for me. Not even an attempt at a crazy plot twist. Very straightforward. Instead, read the wiki plot review if you are curious about the movie's story. But I bet you will guess the obvious, unsatisfactory ending after the first few lines.

One of the sub genres I really enjoy as a change of pace from US films are British street gangster films. Some are classics, some are OK to kill two hours and some make you feel like you wasted your time. I like Vincent Regan, but unfortunately this movie has to be a pass. Watching movies of this quality always makes me wonder why an established actor would ever agree to partake in the film. Even if he was hard up for money, you can tell the movie does not have a large budget, so I just never understand their motivations for starring in the film. Maybe movies are really fun to be a part of, regardless on the final quality.

The movie format is very similar to Saw. People contained in a small area and the movie flashes back and forth to explain how they got there. The acting was not so bad as to detract from the film, but the story was just so stale you never got hooked. A hackneyed story, bland dialogue, very little violence and no real twists - I just never understand how movies like this get made. If you are going to go to the trouble of making a movie, at least focus on one aspect to make the effort worth it. Make the fight scenes gritty or create great characters or have a great story.

Unfortunately, this movie did do a single thing well. If you want to kill time before bed and want something on the TV while flipping through a magazine, then this movie fits the bill. Otherwise pass on this one and check out another British gangster film.

Let me start by saying this is a great indie movie. As has been proved before, you do not need a large budget to make a great movie. I was so impressed with the quality and realism of the violence in the movie. The acting and cinematography were also very well done. If the actors had been more famous, this easily could have been a wide release. If you enjoyed Out of the Furnace or liked Ain't Them Bodies Saints but wished that movie was a little faster paced, this movie is right up your alley.

However, many of the user reviews I have read have contained effusive praise. While I acknowledge I liked the movie and was impressed with the execution, it is not an all time classic so I just wanted to temper people's expectations when they spent their time watching it.

The trailer promises a violent tale of a loner and delivers on the promise. For fans of this genre, you will not be disappointed at all - I just felt some of the reviews were so glowing they would set people's expectations too high.

As I watch more and more movies, I have started to judge them based on their promise and delivery. The trailer is the promise and the movie is the delivery. The Departed marketed itself as a realistic crime drama and delivered. It was also a great movie. So it gets very high scores. American Pie promised to be a raunchy high school comedy and delivered. But it's not exactly Oscar worthy, so it gets a high score. Adventureland promised to be like superbad in its trailers, and even though I thought it was a solid indie drama, I was upset watching it because I felt like I was misled. So it gets a mixed score. It is through this scope that I write my reviews.

I read user reviews over critics reviews because they tend to be more honest and trustworthy. And I want anyone who stumbles across any of mine to feel like after reading it they know exactly what they are in for. Nothing is more annoying than reading a review, watching that movie, and feeling like you were just hoodwinked into wasting your time and money.

Visions is not a great movie that will stay with you. But it delivers on exactly what it purports to be - a B movie with some cheap thrills and scares. It also had a satisfactory ending, which is a nice bonus for these types of movies. There is a creepy storyline, the acting is not so bad or unenthusiastic that it distracts from the story and does not have too many slow moments where your interest could wander. Movies like this always have plot holes where the character would have certainly done something more logical in real life and sometimes these holes are so large they cannot be overlooked and ruin the movie - but this one did not have any major holes. Of course, the character could have been a little safer but nothing too outrageous.

I would have preferred a little more creepiness in the shots and sometimes the stakes did not feel high enough, but going in you are not really expecting a horror movie on par with the Shining so I cannot really complain too much.

My advice is this - if you want to kill a couple of hours before bed with a low budget horror movie, whose scares are more psychological than gore, Visions is a watch.

I feel that, like most people, I have begun to rely on user reviews much more than so called "critic" reviews. Before the internet, we were all kind of beholden to what the experts said and many times the reviews were misleading. Large blockbusters were typically panned, and slow indie dramas were universally acclaimed. The reviews were filled with fancy and unnecessary adjectives and never really told us what type of audience would enjoy the movie. And for the most part, user reviews and ratings are much more accurate for whatever reason. So I was a little surprised at the great reviews and nearly a 7 rating this movie has been getting. I think a 5 / 10 is much more appropriate.

For me, this movie was much closer to an amateur film, than an indie film. The other reviews and rating led me to believe that the film would be closer the Guvnors, We Still Kill the Old Way, the Sweeny or Football Factory. Violent films of the British underworld that are solid and have respectable acting, but never get to the "classic" level of Lock, Stock or Snatch. These movies are entertaining and keep you engaged, but never achieve the level of your favorites.

Anti-social did not deliver based on the other user reviews and its high rating. I try to give films the benefit of the doubt and maybe I am being harsh because of what I expected, but for me this movie would be a pass. The acting is rather stilted and contrived. I have not researched the actors who play the two main brothers, but I have to believe that they are not seasoned actors. The actions scenes were not nearly gritty enough and cut away right when the actual hit would take place. And the ending left me unsatisfied, although I kept hoping for a realistic close.

I feel as though the movie suffered from a very small budget and was annoyed the reviews did not prepare me for this. If you do give this movie a try, expect more of a low budget made for TV film, rather than a B movie on teenage gangsters.

I find the movie reviews the most helpful when they focus on whether or not the movie delivers on its promise. American pie is obviously not in the same class as the Godfather using any metric you want. However, both movies deliver on what they promise and in my mind would bother garner an A rating. The Godfather promises to be a crime epic. It has a great story, superb acting and is one of the best crime movies ever made.

American Pie marketed itself as a raunchy, teen comedy that would make you laugh. And it delivered. Does Ain't Them Bodies Saints deliver on being an indie crime drama? Well, my answer is yes and no.

When you decide to spend your time watching an indie movie in this genre you are expecting raw acting, a tight script and realistic violence to make up for the lack of big budget action. These movies like showing the aftermath of a big battle as opposed to the big fireworks and explosions of the big battle. They promise to focus more on the plot and character and cinematography and less on trappings of large spectacles. This movie does have strong acting. Rooney and Ben do a great job respectively.

Casey seems a little aloof, but that may have been because his character was a little reserved and understated. None of the supporting cast made much of an impact on me, but none were bad enough to distract me either. The action was not as much as I would have liked, but for an indie drama I thought it was enough. There was nothing the movie did very poorly, but unfortunately there was nothing it did amazing either. It promised to be a story about two lovers who decided to commit a crime and the aftermath of their actions. There are no crazy twists, no gratuitous violence and no silly plot holes. But there were also no memorable scenes, intense action sequences or ingenious plot set ups.

When I was younger I would get frustrated watching movies like this. Where the movie seems to just tell a story without a huge reveal or unexpected turn. Without a creative set up or elaborate trick. As I have gotten older, I have learned to become more appreciate of great acting and dialogue. Just because the story is simple and straightforward, does not mean it is not worth watching. However, if a crime is going to be part of the plot and trailer, there should be some more violence or just a slight twist or violent ending.

Did you enjoy No Country for Old Men or Into the Furnace? Both movie had a crime element and just told a story, albeit with great acting performances. But there were no twists and the action sequences were understated. Ain't Them Bodies Saints would classify as these films' younger brother. I would recommend if you were in the mood for a solid, well acted but ultimately forgettable indie drama.

One of the movie sub-genres I enjoy is British underworld / British Football Hooliganism. It is a nice change of pace from American mob movies, yet still includes the violence and action I enjoy. I go into these movies acknowledging there probably will be an absence of award winning dialogue, emotional relationships and gripping plot. But I expect gritty violence and for the movie to bring realism to that type of criminal behavior. Some movies do end up having great acting and a nice plot twist and that can elevate the underworld movie to a classic, but the Guvnors is not one of those. The movie has its pros, but its cons ultimately would make this a pass for me.

The movie's plot revolves around a local hoodlum with an established gang. Not satisfied with earning an illegal income and terrorizing innocent members of the community, he also craves respect. Some community members mention the old gang that use to run the streets, and how that gang "ran things the right way". Some he sets off by causing mayhem and coercing the retired old timer to come and meet him for a showdown on the street. It is a little silly how some recent British crime movies draw on this premise – that old time gangsters were somehow more noble that current gangsters. I guess if you steal and rob by only being somewhat violent, you are considered more civilized that someone who uses more violent methods. But alas, that is the premise of this movie.

The somewhat irrational plot can be overlooked, because when we rent these movies we just want violence in a realistic atmosphere. And the fight scenes do deliver. There are typical slow motion fight scenes and drug den robberies. The hoodlum actors do a good job of making us believe we are witnessing how a drug dealer behaves. However, for some reason the screenwriter tried to involve way too many plot lines and twists. And this leads to scenes introducing characters for no reason, twists that begin to distract the viewer due to their implausibility and an ending that does not really make sense.

It is a little frustrating spending time watching a movie and then being rewarded with such a poor ending. I feel as though it is easy to deliver on a crime drama. Just give us a crime story with one twist and punctuate the movie with violence. And the viewer agrees to overlook a hackneyed plot and weak character motivations. But when the plot beings to get muddled and characters make choices that make no logical sense, it can be a problem. And when these problems are so severe that they actually being to distract the viewer and ruin the realism of the movie, that is a problem. I would suggest trying another movie in this genre. Ultimately, plot revelations that made no sense and a rather silly ending will leave you very unsatisfied.

I watched this movie when it first came out on Comedy Central several years ago and just rediscovered it again. It is a very funny and elaborate prank played on an aspiring actor named Perry. Perry is part of a comedy group known as the Big 3. The other members are Don Barris and another actor that goes by the screen name Mole. These two comedic actors "discovered" Perry at the comedy store in 1992 and have been messing with him ever since.

I advise you to give the movie a chance. And if you enjoyed the high jinx in the movie, try listening to the Big 3 podcasts, where Don and Mole continue to mess around with Perry.

As to whether or not the movie is "real" or not, I am not sure you need to have that question answered to enjoy the movie. However, I have listened to many of the podcasts and it seems pretty apparent Perry is not in on the joke. It seems as though he has a narcissistic personality disorder, is very gullible, and, rather unfortunately, has a low IQ. He was in a car accident as a teenager and this may have stripped him of some intelligence or he may have just had this personality disorder from birth. Either way, the result is hilarious.

While the pranks and personal nature of the jokes Don and Mole pull could be viewed as cruel, Perry's racist, misogynistic and xenophobic behavior make the viewer OK with the pranks. If you give the movie a chance and enjoy the pranks, I suggest you give the podcasts a listen!