Slashdot Mirror


The Interview Bombs In US, Kills In China, Threatens N. Korea

First time accepted submitter twitnutttt (2958183) writes "While it has been broadly panned in the U.S. as not very funny, The Interview is surprisingly getting good reviews in China. And the North Korean government's fears of the threat posed by this movie are apparently merited: "It is powerful because it depicts Kim Jong-un as a vain, buffoonish despot, alternating between threats and weeping that he's been misunderstood. The people around him have all the signs of fear you might expect with a despot — they second-guess his likes and dislikes. Maybe he — and they — were right to fear the film. North Korean defectors sometimes smuggle USB sticks with films and soaps into the closed-off country, and there is a view in the south that these are a particularly powerful means of undermining the regime in Pyongyang. If that's so, The Interview might be a good candidate for inclusion." If you've seen the movie, and have your own reactions, please label any real spoilers out of courtesy.

288 comments

  1. Bombs in the US? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Informative

    It may be an unfunny movie, but reports are that in the limited number of theatres it has been relieased in, the shows are sold out.

    That's hardly "bombing".

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Bombs in the US? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      well due to the big chains pulling out sony may lose big $ on this. While other bad movies still do good at the box office.

    2. Re:Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bombed with critics. Which is why the first two sentences explain that it was panned in the US and received good reviews in China - explaining how it's "killing" in China. This wasn't that hard to figure out, was it?

      I'm more curious about how North Korean defectors are smuggling things into the country.

    3. Re:Bombs in the US? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bombed with critics...

      Meaningless when talking about Seth Rogen movies. The "critics" are not who goes to his movies. People who laugh at fart jokes go to his movies.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:Bombs in the US? by conoviator · · Score: 1

      From the previews that I saw earlier this year, it was obviously intended to appeal to high school and fraternity boys. So, it'll have one good weekend at the box office. Then unkind word of mouth will spread

    5. Re:Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      i thought the movie was great, and i found it funny

    6. Re:Bombs in the US? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm more curious about how North Korean defectors are smuggling things into the country.

      The same way they got out? A little help on the inside? Helium-filled balloons are all the rage:

      South Korea’s military said North Korean firing was first heard Friday afternoon, directed at balloons carrying anti-North Korean regime propaganda launched by South Korean activists.

      Activists frequently launch helium-filled balloons carrying thousands of leaflets with pro-democracy, anti-North Korea messages, as well as DVDs and other items. Many North Korean refugees say access to outside media motivated their escape from the country, but critics say the balloons contribute to inter-Korean frictions.

      North Korea has repeatedly demanded that South Korea prevent the launches and threatened to fire at the balloons, but it had never previously done so.

      "The leaflet-scattering operation, part of the psychological warfare targeting [North Korea], can never be overlooked as it is a deliberate and premeditated provocation," North Korea’s state media said Thursday.

      South Korea sometimes intervenes to prevent launches when there are complaints from local residents worried about the North’s retaliation.

      The North’s firing appeared to be aimed at balloons launched by a group headed by North Korean defector Lee Min-bok, who said no one in the group was hurt. Late Friday, Mr. Lee said he was looking for new locations to launch more balloons.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re:Bombs in the US? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I saw video last week of one defector sending largish bundles of "The Interview" DVDs over the DMZ with large plastic bags filled with helium.

    8. Re:Bombs in the US? by Threni · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bombing relates to how much money a movie takes, not how well it does in n cinemas. It can sell out in 100 cinemas for weeks but still bomb.

    9. Re:Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's at 49% on Rotten Tomatoes... It is in fact hardly "bombing"... It's just very average... It's part of the "buzz" that the movie "even sucks" (as in "the North Korean government reacts so strongly even though the movie is so stupidly bad"...), and others exagerate their rejection of the movie in reaction to "buzzing" in general or (in some media, including Slashdot) because it involves Sony, or try to take the movie too seriously even though it is mostly derisive of everyone and everything involved, including the viewer...

    10. Re:Bombs in the US? by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      People who laugh at fart jokes go to his movies.

      There's a reason why fart is an anagram of frat...

    11. Re:Bombs in the US? by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 2

      Me too. It was certainly funny enough. It was one of the funnier movies I've seen in a while. Excellent pacing too.

    12. Re:Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >While other bad movies still do good at the box office.

      Yes, Adam Sandler would agree.

    13. Re: Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because of all the hype and about 50-75ish people went to one theatre. With the limited number of theaters showing it, I think about 500, that not that many people

    14. Re: Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the dumbest thing I read all morning

    15. Re:Bombs in the US? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      People who laugh at fart jokes go to his movies.

      There's a reason why fart is an anagram of frat...

      And "raft" but I'm not sure I see either your or my point, unless you're confusing coincidence with reason.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    16. Re: Bombs in the US? by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

      >>That is the dumbest thing I read all morning

      Then get hold of some of the script for this movie, your superlatives are about to be reset.
      Can't say I didn't laugh, but I felt I was watching The Two Stooges Play James Bond in North Korea.

    17. Re:Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the minute it was published that Seth Rogan was attached to the project I figured the movie was in one of the other demographics...

    18. Re:Bombs in the US? by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      And there ain't nothing wrong with that.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    19. Re:Bombs in the US? by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

      This is why we need mod points for articles themselves.

    20. Re:Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wouldn't knowing how defeat purpose of smuggling?

    21. Re:Bombs in the US? by quenda · · Score: 2

      Meh. I'm waiting for their next comedy movie, "Life of Mohammed" (working title). Should be a blast.

    22. Re:Bombs in the US? by dj245 · · Score: 0

      I'm more curious about how North Korean defectors are smuggling things into the country.

      The same way they got out? A little help on the inside? Helium-filled balloons are all the rage:

      South Korea’s military said North Korean firing was first heard Friday afternoon, directed at balloons carrying anti-North Korean regime propaganda launched by South Korean activists.

      Activists frequently launch helium-filled balloons carrying thousands of leaflets with pro-democracy, anti-North Korea messages, as well as DVDs and other items. Many North Korean refugees say access to outside media motivated their escape from the country, but critics say the balloons contribute to inter-Korean frictions.

      North Korea has repeatedly demanded that South Korea prevent the launches and threatened to fire at the balloons, but it had never previously done so.

      "The leaflet-scattering operation, part of the psychological warfare targeting [North Korea], can never be overlooked as it is a deliberate and premeditated provocation," North Korea’s state media said Thursday.

      South Korea sometimes intervenes to prevent launches when there are complaints from local residents worried about the North’s retaliation.

      The North’s firing appeared to be aimed at balloons launched by a group headed by North Korean defector Lee Min-bok, who said no one in the group was hurt. Late Friday, Mr. Lee said he was looking for new locations to launch more balloons.

      A lot of the balloons have religious messages attached. Most people launching balloons aren't doing it just because they think the citizens of the DPRK want these things. They are doing it because they are religious evangelist fanatics and it is part of their conversion strategy.

      As an agnostic, I completely understand why the DPRK hates these balloons. It is the equivalent of Mormons dumping tracts (pamphlets) in your back yard. Not once, not a handful of times, but whenever the winds are favorable.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    23. Re:Bombs in the US? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Based upon actual behaviour that would have to be a porn flick and even worse not only would it get banned but it would be a criminal act to own a copy, not because of any insult to religion but because of the child porn aspects of it. Seriously the Koran itself should be banned as should the bible or the Torah for any criminal actions it promotes and most definitely none of them should be given to minors until such time as they are edited and the criminal aspects removed.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    24. Re:Bombs in the US? by readin · · Score: 1

      It may be an unfunny movie, but reports are that in the limited number of theatres it has been relieased in, the shows are sold out.

      That's hardly "bombing".

      And there is more to come. I haven't seen it yet but I will make sure I see it (legally, not pirated) when I can. I'm sure most of the sales in America are coming from people with the same thought.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    25. Re:Bombs in the US? by marcello_dl · · Score: 0

      > Seriously the Koran itself should be banned as should the bible or the Torah for any criminal actions it promotes

      Some of those books delegate the exclusive right of life and death to a hidden god, so removing it from man.
      Which means I'd ban atheism too, as it's far more dangerous in theory, and Mammon, aka money, which is far more dangerous in practice.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    26. Re: Bombs in the US? by donscarletti · · Score: 0

      And what is wrong with sharing something you believe to be one of the most important parts of your life with a group of people who have no other means of hearing it?

      Sounds to me that you are a bigot that would have all those with different beleifs to you silenced.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    27. Re:Bombs in the US? by rebelwarlock · · Score: 1

      So we're doing Borderlands 2 references now?

    28. Re: Bombs in the US? by shafty023 · · Score: 1

      I thought it was funny too. I never listen to critics. I wasn't looking to see the movie 7 pounds, or The Notebook. I was hoping to see demeaning dumb jokes and laugh.

    29. Re:Bombs in the US? by haruchai · · Score: 2

      You can expect to hear a raft of fart jokes at a frat party.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    30. Re: Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nobody wants to hear about your stupid fairy tales. Keep them to yourself.

    31. Re: Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is that these people don't have easy access to information, so whatever you send them ends up being one of the few sources of 'facts' that they have. It is propaganda, nothing more, nothing less.

    32. Re:Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As an agnostic, I completely understand why the DPRK hates these balloons."
      Because you love Commies starving the proats right? People who love religion suck and commies are good?

    33. Re:Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      True, and I'm a fart joke fanatic, but this Interview wasn't a good movie in any sense, and for any audience. It just wasn't funny. A few good gags and surprises don't make a film. Based on watching the entire thing even past credits I can confidently call The Interview a disappointment whose infamy is the sole reason for any rating over 4 on imdb.

    34. Re: Bombs in the US? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But at least it's consistent. If you truly believed that people will go to Hell if they don't convert, wouldn't it be your moral obligation to do everything you could to help them?
      Sure, the least annoying fanatics are the ones who leave you alone, but they are also, at best, hypocrites.

    35. Re: Bombs in the US? by dryeo · · Score: 0

      The same problem as sharing anything that somebody thinks is important but really isn't. Would you be happy to be bombarded with atheist messages, communist messages or perhaps Muslim messages?
      People often get mentally ill and believe weird shit that doesn't have any relevance to reality and the rest of us don't want to hear it as it is like listening to someone going on about what they dreamed last night, not real.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    36. Re: Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not? Games got better writing than most movie nowadays.

    37. Re:Bombs in the US? by TheKidWho · · Score: 2

      By fart of course, you mean, Fucking Art.

    38. Re: Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have enough loathing towards the damn people who fill my letter box despite the label stating that no circulars are to be received. If I had to keep pulling their balloon distributed garbage out of my gutters all the time I'd consider shooting the balloons down too.

    39. Re: Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't mind me asking, which country are you in?

      While passive aggressive, would it be illegal to leave the junk mail in the mailbox with the flag up?

    40. Re:Bombs in the US? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Slingshots.

      Care packages back to the friends and family they left behind.

    41. Re: Bombs in the US? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe. Mormons always confused me. They come to your door and try to get you to convert, but they also believe that heaven only has room for 5000 people. So wouldn't you be better off keeping it to yourself?

      It turns out that God gives you afterlife credits for every unbeliever you convert. So it's important to convert a bunch of people so you can hopefully slip into one of the limited spots. Ahead of everyone you converted (and most of your co-religionists) presumably.

      Logical, non-hypocritical, but kinda mercenary if you ask me.

    42. Re: Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be confused. Mormons do not believe in a limit. That is Jehovah Witnesses, but even that is outdated. It used to be JW's believed in a limit of 12x12000, so 144k people, but I guess once their church got big enough they had to change that.

    43. Re: Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the 5000 people thing is actually a tenant of the Jehova's Witnesses.

    44. Re: Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who made up this garbage? 5000? Even if you take the 144,000 talked about in Revelation 7 to mean all those who make it to heaven, you're still off by more than an order of magnitude. And I'm pretty sure Mormons believe heaven is bigger than that.

      Maybe you're confusing Mormons with Jehova's Witnesses.

    45. Re: Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even.

      I will admit, this is not the kind of movie I would normally see, because toilet humor often screams of bad writing. If you can bear how annoyingly frustrating James Franco is, the rest of the movie actually is worth a watch. If it's not your cup of tea, fast forward to the taxi cab scene and watch from that point forward. The entire China montage is great for the payoff. All the scenes with Randall Park are great. Likewise all the scenes with Diana Bang are great. Most of Seth Rogen's scenes aren't too painful to watch. How the character of Kim Jong-Un dies is actually respectable, though the last scenes from the interview to the end of the film are more wannabe-an-action-flick and drops the comedic tone.

    46. Re:Bombs in the US? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's not the Cold War anymore. You don't have to pretend that any country that you don't like is communist. The hereditary dictatorship in North Korea is about as far as you can get from communism and stopped pretending to be communist some time ago. It still claims to be democratic though, so if you're going to object to political philosophies based on the buzzwords that dictators use, you should probably be complaining about democracy, not communism...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    47. Re:Bombs in the US? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It's not the Cold War anymore.

      Yeah. About that... you might want to check a news site at least once a year.

    48. Re: Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't played Borderlands: The Pre Sequel.

    49. Re: Bombs in the US? by thaylin · · Score: 1

      There is nothing consistent about Christianity. As a former Christian it is a bunch of hypocrisy.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    50. Re: Bombs in the US? by Cabriel · · Score: 1

      Not as such. The command was to spread the word about the glory of God and the promises He made. Going to hell isn't one of the promises; not spending eternity with him was. There isn't a whole lot of tangible information on what happens if you're a non-believer or a believer who falls short.

      Either way, if someone refuses the word of God, the instruction is DBAD (Don't Be A Dick).

    51. Re:Bombs in the US? by zieroh · · Score: 1

      And "raft" but I'm not sure I see either your or my point, unless you're confusing coincidence with reason.

      Sounds like someone hit a nerve.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    52. Re: Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      simple minded people liked a shit movie

      So you saw it then or are you just being prejudice?

    53. Re:Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bravo, Threni! Don't the rest of you self-styled linguologists get it?

      The article headline is employing a witty parallelism for effect: the movie *BOMBS*, *KILLS*, and *THREATENS*. Get it!?
      ("Bombs in the U.S.," no less. Get the irony?)

      You can argue all day the distinctions of meaning in the different definitions of "to bomb," but you're missing the point.
      The post body provides you the subtler refinements. ;-)

    54. Re:Bombs in the US? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      And said jokes will have been spread by someone named fahrbot. Who will deny any involvement vigorously.

    55. Re:Bombs in the US? by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      On a raft.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    56. Re:Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if it only shows in 100 sold out cinemas, saying it bombed because it didn't sell out 5000 cinemas that didn't show it means absolutely nothing.

    57. Re: Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could 'The Two Stooges Play James Bond in North Korea' ever be a bad thing? That sounds amazing!

    58. Re: Bombs in the US? by whois_drek · · Score: 1

      No, that's not what Mormons believe. Perhaps you're thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses, who believe that 144,000 will go to heaven?

    59. Re:Bombs in the US? by Senior+Frac · · Score: 1

      This just in. My turkey sandwiches are absolute the best in the world! No one beats my turkey sandwich.

      How do I know? i made 3 and my family ate them all! Every single one!

    60. Re:Bombs in the US? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with theory, it is the literal contents of the books themselves, including slavery, rape, murder, demonising individuals etc. etc. etc.. If anyone wrote those books today and gathered a group of followers they would find themselves in prison. Seriously, those books should be subject to a class action lawsuit to force a public review of their true contents. You print and distribute them, means you should be held legally liable for the illegal contents, especially with regard to distribution to minors.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    61. Re:Bombs in the US? by Mattcelt · · Score: 1

      Interesting point. And what other books should we censor solely at your recommendation while we're at it?

    62. Re:Bombs in the US? by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      If you follow the literal contents of the books you end up with the 10 commandments and good luck imitating God's killings without being God (a capital sin justified with a sin? sorry, it's downstairs for you).

      If you follow the literal contents you also assert you understand them 100% which is quite a feat, but never mind that.

      If somebody wrote books like those today, he'd find himself in the same position as the Mohammed guy, where his assertions would either be questioned or used, if fitting some powerful interest's agenda.

      So if you blame Mohammed instead of those interests, you make a great favor to those interests because they can change their ideology as easily as you can buy a pair of shoes.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    63. Re: Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a ponzi scheme to me!

    64. Re:Bombs in the US? by Optali · · Score: 1

      They send balloons with stuff.
      http://www.newsweek.com/activi...

      They are doign this for years already and seemingly with good results.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    65. Re:Bombs in the US? by fuzzy2k · · Score: 1

      When I saw it (Egyptian Theater, Hollywood CA, 12/25 5 PM) it was not sold out. The theater looked to be 25% to 35% of capacity.

      Spoiler Alert: It was a stupid movie, filled with lots of sophomoric humor. If you saw the trailer, you probably were expecting this movie as the one you would get.

      --
      --- Say something clever. Pretend it was me. Thanks.
    66. Re: Bombs in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you've confused Mormons with Jehova's Witnesses... to the best of my knowledge the mormons do not believe there is a capacity restriction on heaven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses

  2. Re: Hopefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you dumb? This is how free publicity works. Expect many more seth rogen movies to follow.

  3. Why would I buy it when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you can download or watch it for free. I have never gotten the people around here who say piracy doesn't hurt sales, of course I am going to seek the cheapest method possible to get it. I don't give a shit about DRM/IP/etc.. I am cheap and not some evangelical mission.

    1. Re:Why would I buy it when... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      When you can download or watch it for free. I have never gotten the people around here who say piracy doesn't hurt sales, of course I am going to seek the cheapest method possible to get it. I don't give a shit about DRM/IP/etc.. I am cheap and not some evangelical mission.

      Because you wouldn't have bought it anyway, duh.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:Why would I buy it when... by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you can download or watch it for free. I have never gotten the people around here who say piracy doesn't hurt sales, of course I am going to seek the cheapest method possible to get it. I don't give a shit about DRM/IP/etc.. I am cheap and not some evangelical mission.

      Because you wouldn't have bought it anyway, duh.

      Mod parent up. Piracy has always been a non-threat. Pirates don't buy. They're never a missed sale, they're simply a no-sale.

    3. Re:Why would I buy it when... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0, Troll

      Pirates don't buy.

      Of course they don't. They're too cheap to pay for something someone has produced and believe they are entitled to take what they want.

      They're never a missed sale, they're simply a no-sale.

      Hardly. They obviously believe the product has some value or they wouldn't have stolen it. Whether every single pirate would have paid for the product is another story.

      If one doesn't believe something have value, why steal it in the first place?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    4. Re:Why would I buy it when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Pirates" are not definable in absolutes like that. Some studies have shown they are the biggest consumers of both paid and "stolen" media.

      Saying they are simply a non-threat/no-sale is just as intellectually dishonest as when the RIAA/MPAA claim every pirated copy is a fully lost sale.

    5. Re:Why would I buy it when... by Free+Censorship · · Score: 2

      Hardly. They obviously believe the product has some value or they wouldn't have stolen it.

      Worth downloading != worth paying money for.

    6. Re:Why would I buy it when... by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      "Piracy" is a propaganda term. Copyright infringement is a non-threat because, even in the event of a "lost sale" (you can't truly lose sales because you never had them in your possession), you still lose nothing; you merely don't gain.

    7. Re:Why would I buy it when... by Pentium100 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Piracy is convenient.

      Downloading - a few minutes of my time to start the download. Then after it finishes (which is very fast usually), I can watch the movie on whatever device that has enough processing power and a screen, at any time having full control of it.

      Going to the cinema (in general) - need to drive to wherever the cinema is, at a specified time, watch it with a bunch of strangers (that may include screaming children), no control whatsoever - cannot pause the movie to go to the toilet, cannot rewind a few seconds to rewatch a scene I missed, cannot increase or reduce the sound volume, cannot even have a conversation with whoever I came to watch the movie (assuming I did not come alone) during a boring part. Forced to watch ads before the movie. Cannot bring the food that I want (that is not sold (at high prices) in the cinema). The movie has to be recent enough to still be showed in cinemas.

      Going to the cinema (this particular movie) - All of the above but include traveling to the US, getting a hotel room etc.

      Buying a DVD/Bluray - Better than going to the cinema, but still have to go to a store that sells them, have to sit through a bunch of unskippable ads.

      Time from "Hey, let's watch a movie! Which one? [googles some previously unheard of movie] This one." to actually watching it:
      DVD: 30 minutes - 1 hour (assuming the store is open), days (if the store is closed).
      Cinema: 30 minutes - 3 hours (assuming the movie is being shown in cinemas and the cinema is open), days (if the cinema is closed), undefined (if the movie is not shown in cinemas).
      Download: 5 - 30 minutes (my internet connection is up to 500mbps).

      Oh, and Netflix is not available in my country in case you were going to suggest it.

      So, see, even if the tickets for the movie (or the DVDs at the store) were given away for free, downloading would be the preferred option.

    8. Re:Why would I buy it when... by nblender · · Score: 1

      We were just given a gift card to go to the movies as a family... I'm now dreading the experience. In a way, I feel like I'm being paid to go to the theater and watch a show and yet I'm still not looking forward to it.

    9. Re: Why would I buy it when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are pirates called pirates? Because they Arrrrrrr

    10. Re:Why would I buy it when... by stoploss · · Score: 1

      Pirates don't buy.

      Of course they don't. They're too cheap to pay for something someone has produced and believe they are entitled to take what they want. [...] They obviously believe the product has some value or they wouldn't have stolen it.

      Not really. I'm actively considering pirating the Interview then immediately deleting it, unwatched. I could easily afford to pay to stream the movie, but I hate Sony only slightly less than I hate the influenza A virus.

      If one doesn't believe something have value, why steal it in the first place?

      On principle. I don't actually want to see this movie. "Free" is a price too high for this. I imagine I would want to take a shower after viewing it, and I have no desire to invest a fraction of my life in watching such drivel.

      However, I strongly believe we should not be cowed into self-censorship by threats. Therefore, I feel a compulsion to access this movie in defiance of said threats, a goal which is in tension with my strong desire to give Sony nothing of value.

      Ergo, the degenerate solution of pirating and deleting the movie unwatched. It's a logically consistent position.

    11. Re: Why would I buy it when... by r33per · · Score: 1

      No no. It's because they'd cut me open and eat me hearties.

    12. Re:Why would I buy it when... by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      Ergo, the degenerate solution of pirating and deleting the movie unwatched. It's a logically consistent position.

      No, it's ridiculous. You're not sticking up for freedom of speech or against censorship by downloading one of Sony's awful movies. But at least you're not going to give an evil company like Sony money; only an absolute idiot would do that, and sadly there are a lot of those.

    13. Re:Why would I buy it when... by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      Actually this isn't completely true: there's been numerous times I have actually paid for something I otherwise would not have DUE TO having 'borrowed' it first; turning a 'no sale' into a sale directly via the mechanism of so-called 'piracy'.

    14. Re:Why would I buy it when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a 7:1 share of my torrent for this movie. I watched about 5 minutes of the torrent, then when on Xbox and rented it for $7, then deleted the torrent.

      I wanted to preview it to see if I wanted to support it with money, and I wanted those in other counties to have a chance to see it.

      Also, the $7 was well-spent. It was entertaining. Not high art, but a funny beer and pizza movie.

  4. What did you expect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    This ain't charlie chaplin folks, it's a guy who built a career on man-boy humor and dick jokes. The fact that North Korea is so offended by this only confirms how absurdly immature their fearless leader really can be. A chubby Jewish guy almost toppled the whole charade with toilet humor.

    1. Re:What did you expect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NK probably doesn't care that much, they just play the part to keep the insane ruler façade that has worked well for them so far.

  5. Oh yeah, it's "bombing" in the US alright... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re: Oh yeah, it's "bombing" in the US alright... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Muppet, sold out does not equal a good movie. All the hype leads to tourist viewers. Even though I like Seth's movies, this one was a pule of crap

    2. Re:Oh yeah, it's "bombing" in the US alright... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      You know, if it wasn't for the Slashdot boycott of Sony, the take would be at least double.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Oh yeah, it's "bombing" in the US alright... by Microlith · · Score: 4, Informative

      That doesn't mean it's a good movie. Most of the sold out showings are because of the hype surrounding this incident. The reviews are pretty uniformly bad.

      People aren't flocking to it because it looked good, or because it is good. They're going mostly to spite the group that hacked Sony and North Korea.

    4. Re: Oh yeah, it's "bombing" in the US alright... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "bomb":

      2 [ no obj. ] informal (of a movie, play, or other event) fail miserably: a big-budget movie that bombed at the box office | he bombed out at several tournaments.

      There's no question that this movie did not "bomb". Reviews are mixed, and it's about as financially successful as it could be under the circumstances.

    5. Re:Oh yeah, it's "bombing" in the US alright... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Originally, it was to open in 3000+ theaters and gross 20-25 milions over the weekend. It's now projected to be about 2-3 million. And once all the Seth Rogen fans, and morons that think going to this shitty movie and giving their money to a corporation is an act of patriotism, or some act in defense of free speech have seen it, it will likely migrate to the bargain theaters and dvd very quickly since its unlikely for the big chains to show it having missed out on opening day receipts. Yeah, its a bomb.

    6. Re:Oh yeah, it's "bombing" in the US alright... by Threni · · Score: 2

      "That doesn't mean it's a good movie."

      What's that got to do with bombing? Nobody cares if a movie is any good; the people who make it only care about return on investment, then making a profit, and people who like it will like it regardless of other people's opinions.

    7. Re: Oh yeah, it's "bombing" in the US alright... by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      Bombing means not selling tickets, it has nothing to do with the quality of the movie (other than indirectly).

      Though it'll bomb due to the limited release, but now Sony has an excuse...

    8. Re:Oh yeah, it's "bombing" in the US alright... by nicholas22 · · Score: 1

      I've seen this movie, it's not great... Just a stoner movie. That is all. It probably had a net gain from all the kerfuffle as of late, but still, I couldn't recommend it. Cohen's "The Dictator" was much better, and that wasn't amazing either.

    9. Re: Oh yeah, it's "bombing" in the US alright... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Selma", about MLK and the civil rights marches in Selma, Alabama opened in just 19 theaters on the 25th and took in about $340,00 a million. "American Sniper" opened in just 4 theaters on the 25th and took in $240,000 By contrast, "The Interview" opened in 331 theaters on the 25th and took in just over a million. Surely you can work out the ratios for your self.

    10. Re: Oh yeah, it's "bombing" in the US alright... by IANAAC · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure how much "Selma" and "American Sniper" cost to produce/market/release, but there's been a lot of news blurbs stating that "The Interview" cost around 80 million to put out, around 30 million of that just on marketing.

      They still have a long way to go to break even, even with Hollywood's underhanded accounting.

    11. Re:Oh yeah, it's "bombing" in the US alright... by readin · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean it's a good movie. Most of the sold out showings are because of the hype surrounding this incident. The reviews are pretty uniformly bad.

      People aren't flocking to it because it looked good, or because it is good. They're going mostly to spite the group that hacked Sony and North Korea.

      The way you say "hype" makes it sounds like advertising. I suspect this isn't people saying "let's go see what all the hype is about", it's Americans saying "we're going to reward Sony for releasing the film despite Kim's hissy fit, and we're going to make it clear to Kim that you can't mess with Americans and their right to free speech.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    12. Re: Oh yeah, it's "bombing" in the US alright... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They still have a long way to go to break even, even with Hollywood's underhanded accounting.

      Not "even with" but "especially with". You can make a movie for $30M and it grosses $300M and that'll still be a "loss" on the books if anyone is due points on profit.

    13. Re: Oh yeah, it's "bombing" in the US alright... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      You're a little screwed up there. Hollywood accounting is used to "prove" a movie DIDN'T make money, not that it did. It means they don't pay out the percentages of gross that big money actors are paid.

    14. Re:Oh yeah, it's "bombing" in the US alright... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will, however, interfere with anyone else's right to free speech, and whine if someone else doesn't ban something you hate and bans something you like. Because the only definition of free speech is the one you merkins believe in, right?

    15. Re:Oh yeah, it's "bombing" in the US alright... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Art is subjective. I liked it. So, go fuck yourself.

  6. Not very funny? Is anybody surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You want a good movie mocking a dictator?

    Duck Soup. It's like a thousand times as good as the Interview.

  7. Re:Hopefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seth Rogan is a Tyler Perry for stoners.

  8. I wish everyone could talk to dolphins by Bob_Who · · Score: 0

    I really admire the way he does not need to urinate or defecate. I'm gonna eat less like his people. The movie made me less hungry.

  9. Re: Hopefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sound like someone straight out of his target audience, the dumbed-down crowd who will laugh at any calumnious and poor attempt at comedy.

  10. Worst Movie Ever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is so bad I am not even going to bother watching it! I mean, Seth Rogan? Joe Flaco? That is bad from the gitgo.

    #GOP is an inside job

  11. Silly Movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw it due to a holiday event gone wrong when someone wanted to order it. It would have been much better if it had starred Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck. Don't pay for this, please.

  12. I'll wait for it on Netflix. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Streaming.

    I can't even be bothered to look for a download or torrent.

    1. Re:I'll wait for it on Netflix. by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      Me neither.

      "Steaming" would be more appropriate for this turd...

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
  13. Its not a good film by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    and acting was pretty bad although it was funny 1/3 of ht show. Basically it was border line Borat style shock comedy. The guy playing Kim Jong did the best acting vs the main stars.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Its not a good film by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem is the length. If they had cut out twenty to thirty minutes it would have been better. There is a tolerable 90 minute movie sitting there.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Its not a good film by guacamole · · Score: 1

      Typical Seth Rogen movie, made by stoners, for other stoners. The best way to watch a Rogen movie is after smoking a joint. Then all the childish jokes you hear will make complete sense. This movie is about on the level with Pineapple Express, or slightly below. My favorite Rogen movie was "This is The End". That one was extremely well done comedy, and funny to most people, even without smoking a joint.

      The funniest thing about The Interview is that people all around the world, after learning of the Sony hack debacle, initially think about the movie as the flag bearer of the western values for its resolve to stand up to the brutal dictatorships Then they get shocked by the sophomoric jokes thrown around the movie, often involving words like dick and vaginas. It's unfortunate that The Interview wasn't anywhere as good as "This is The End"

    3. Re:Its not a good film by guacamole · · Score: 1

      PS: And please don't compare it to Borat. Borat was a well-made, innovative iconic film comedy and it still has a cult-like following. Without the Sony hack debacle, no one would remember The Interview six months from now.

    4. Re:Its not a good film by Uzuri · · Score: 1

      Maybe the joke really is on us. NK made a stink so that we'd all go waste time and money watching an awful movie (and being offended by it).

      Well played, NK, well played...

      --
      I'm a she-slashdotter... but I make up for it by living with my folks.
  14. Why? by skam240 · · Score: 1, Informative

    Why do I keep seeing news agencies and the like reporting that The Interview is being "broadly panned" when it's not?

    http://www.metacritic.com/movi...
    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/...

    The consensus seems to be that while it's a mediocre film it's good for a few laughs.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  15. Nobel? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "It is powerful because it depicts Kim Jong-un as a vain, buffoonish despot, alternating between threats and weeping that he's been misunderstood. The people around him have all the signs of fear you might expect with a despot â" they second-guess his likes and dislikes. Maybe he â" and they â" were right to fear the film. North Korean defectors sometimes smuggle USB sticks with films and soaps into the closed-off country, and there is a view in the south that these are a particularly powerful means of undermining the regime in Pyongyang. If that's so, The Interview might be a good candidate for inclusion."

    If nothing else, it's rather sad that Seth Rogen and James Franco are able to have a bigger impact on North Korea than sanctions and every diplomat and US president since the end of the Korean War.

    This sounds like Nobel Peace Prize buzz to me. ;-)

    1. Re:Nobel? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This.

      I was watching the news the other day. They were reporting that the UN was considering what to do about Kim Jong Un and his horrid regime's human rights violations, in the wake of the Sony cyber-attack.

      The first thing that crossed my mind was: the only thing that prompted the UN to start worrying about the poor North Koreans is essentially a computer attack on some big corporation, and the damage it did to its bottom line. Before that, they really didn't give much of a shit, did they?

      The UN was really crass, both with their response and with their timing, and if it doesn't show you with glaring clarity whose interests they really have at heart, nothing else will.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Nobel? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's utter BS. The UN released a report on human rights violations months before The Interview became a big issue. You should read it. The treatment of political prisoners (and christ, even unlucky bastards who happen to be distaff kin) is so harrowing that the only thing that really does come close was the Nazi death camps.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Nobel? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I think Seth Rogen and James Franco should make dictator-mocking their shtick- they're way more likely to succeed with that strategy than anything they'll dream up by themselves. The jokes practically write themselves; in fact KJU is the only interesting character in this movie. So here are some ideas for sequels:
      • Benjamin Netanyahu: While on a trip to congratulate Netanyahu for winning a beauty pageant, Rogen and Franco realize that he won by launching missiles at all the other contestants.
      • Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi: Rogen and Franco are held hostage by the ISIS leader until he realizes that nobody in the U.S. cares if their heads get chopped off.
      • Vladimir Putin: Rogen and Franco score an interview with the shirtless ruthless dictator. Unfortunately Franco enters the country with a dollar bill in his pocket and inadvertently causes a currency crisis. Then one day Rogen drinks tea laced with polonium 210 and things get wild.
    4. Re:Nobel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the UN going to do (or anyone else for that matter) that isn't already being done? More sanctions? That only hurts the innocent civilians. Military pressure? That endangers South Korea and pulls China in the mix.

    5. Re: Nobel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes sounds even better then this one

      Maybe al shabaab? Or what about seth and rogen joining the nsa and finding something about obama?

      Offtopic: i think satire has a good impact against isis and the likes, but on north korea not likely because they dont actively recruit from outside their operating area.

      Secondly satire works best when done by the people of said group/nationstate otherwise it divides and only contribute to the stereotypes of both parties

    6. Re:Nobel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First they will write a very mean letter to North Korea. Then they will pat themselves on the back for all that hard work and stroke each others' penis. Just another average day at the UN.
      Meanwhile North Korea will write a mean letter to send back to the UN, execute a few undesirables, pat themselves on the back for all that hard work and stroke each others' penis. Just another average day at NK.

    7. Re:Nobel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If nothing else, it's rather sad that Seth Rogen and James Franco are able to have a bigger impact on North Korea than sanctions and every diplomat and US president since the end of the Korean War.

      You misspelled "Guardians of Peace".

    8. Re:Nobel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now now. You're interfering with a perfectly good corporate hate meme that might serve well if you leave it alone. The ends justify the means, even when the premise is pure fiction.

      And when you're all done hating the corporates for this crime, remember, Antonio Martin was murdered while running away on his knees with his empty hands in the air shouting "don't shoot!"

    9. Re:Nobel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would pay to watch a Putin mockumentary
      It writes itself

    10. Re:Nobel? by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      It's very nice that they released a report. Maybe the next move will be a very strongly worded letter!

      --
      Love sees no species.
    11. Re:Nobel? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't get all your news from television. Especially American television.

      The UN has a regular stream of reports going back decades investigating North Korean human rights abuses and recommending sanctions be eased on necessities in order to improve the standard of living. You've only heard about it this week because the media is interested, because of the Sony hack.

    12. Re:Nobel? by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      The part about the depiction of Kim Jong-un being perceived as dangerous is very believable. The Vice Guide to North Korea rather powerfully demonstrates the absurd levels of state propoganda in North Korea. The government portrays their dear leaders as a sort of god-man who is regarded as the greatest of all leaders by every nation on earth.

      A film that mocks the leader as a buffoon and crybaby would indeed be a very dangerous thing inside that country.

    13. Re:Nobel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Seth Rogen and James Franco should make dictator-mocking their shtick- they're way more likely to succeed with that strategy than anything they'll dream up by themselves. The jokes practically write themselves; in fact KJU is the only interesting character in this movie. So here are some ideas for sequels:

      • Benjamin Netanyahu: While on a trip to congratulate Netanyahu for winning a beauty pageant, Rogen and Franco realize that he won by launching missiles at all the other contestants.
      • Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi: Rogen and Franco are held hostage by the ISIS leader until he realizes that nobody in the U.S. cares if their heads get chopped off.
      • Vladimir Putin: Rogen and Franco score an interview with the shirtless ruthless dictator. Unfortunately Franco enters the country with a dollar bill in his pocket and inadvertently causes a currency crisis. Then one day Rogen drinks tea laced with polonium 210 and things get wild.

      ... and ...
       
        Barack Hussein Obama

    14. Re:Nobel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you're joking, but the sad reality is they won't even be able to complete a strongly worded letter, i.e., a resolution. Why? Because China and/or Russia systematically block any condemnation of N. Korea, Iran, or Syria, of course. In case anyone had any doubt about what side of humanity these two giants stand on, there you have it.

    15. Re:Nobel? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      I think Seth Rogen and James Franco should make dictator-mocking their shtick- they're way more likely to succeed with that strategy than anything they'll dream up by themselves. The jokes practically write themselves; in fact KJU is the only interesting character in this movie. So here are some ideas for sequels:

      • Benjamin Netanyahu: While on a trip to congratulate Netanyahu for winning a beauty pageant, Rogen and Franco realize that he won by launching missiles at all the other contestants.
      • Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi: Rogen and Franco are held hostage by the ISIS leader until he realizes that nobody in the U.S. cares if their heads get chopped off.
      • Vladimir Putin: Rogen and Franco score an interview with the shirtless ruthless dictator. Unfortunately Franco enters the country with a dollar bill in his pocket and inadvertently causes a currency crisis. Then one day Rogen drinks tea laced with polonium 210 and things get wild.

      I was thinking, if someone started making a movie about the assassination of Barak Obama (while he is in office) and for the research on the movie they visited the USA, I bet that would turn out really well for them.

      Just sayin, when the shoe is on the other foot...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    16. Re:Nobel? by DeVilla · · Score: 2

      If nothing else, it's rather sad that Seth Rogen and James Franco are able to have a bigger impact on North Korea than sanctions and every diplomat and US president since the end of the Korean War.

      This sounds like Nobel Peace Prize buzz to me. ;-)

      It's been given for less.

    17. Re:Nobel? by goddidit · · Score: 1

      OK, Hans. I'll show you. Stand to your reft.

      --
      This .sig is exactly 120 characters long.
  16. Three out of four stars by Associated Press by Rick+Richardson · · Score: 0

    Three out of four stars by Associated Press:

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7935e58fe70b4b749b69b8e1841611ec/review-interview-deserves-be-seen

  17. It's funny guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alienating other countries is soooo funny guise. Why haven't we tortured them yet? It'll be cray-cray.

    1. Re:It's funny guys by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It's North Korea. They spend half their time proclaiming how they're going to wipe out their enemies. They're media is in a constant state of hysteria.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re: It's funny guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah they do a pretty good job of mocking themselves. Funniest since the Iraqi information minister.

  18. They hate us cause they aint us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I watched this movie with my roommate who never ever swears. We were laughing so hard!!! We watch a crap load of movies and this was more funny then the movie Annie, to which I watched twice.
    This entire hack of Sony was done by Sony please. I got stank d**k! Yo!

  19. Meets Expectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taken in the context of what is, namely a screwball slapstick mid budget Hollywood comedy: its about what I'd expect. It has a few gags that made me laugh and a few that made me wince. There was a plot line but it served mainly as a framework to from which to hang various bit gags, again some working and some not. It had nothing particularly exceptional about it in terms of performances or production values but nothing obviously severely deficient either. For anyone who had greater expectations for this film my question would be why?

    1. Re:Meets Expectations by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The real highlight came with the "I'm gay" Eminem interview at the beginning. My hats off to Marshall Mathers.

      The next 105 minutes was a bit of a let down.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  20. Counter-culture in full effect! by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

    So many people are panning this movie. Have you guys posting negative comments actually seen it, or are you just reacting to the press?

    I mean, I get it -- there's bound to be some sort of automatic counter-culture response to defend against the massive amount of press talking about how controversial and important it is.

    Yes, it's a little controversial to target an actual country and an actual leader so directly. But you know what, their message while embellished for comedic effect isn't really far off base. I think the world could use some more of this controversy, and there's nothing saying this type of thing needs to be in dry journalistic form.

    As far as the movie itself goes --- it's a Seth Rogan bromance dick joke movie. It really doesn't bring anything new to the table. It's not his best movie, but it's by no means bad. It's fun and entertained me the whole way through.

    1. Re:Counter-culture in full effect! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as the movie itself goes --- it's a Seth Rogan bromance dick joke movie. It really doesn't bring anything new to the table. It's not his best movie, but it's by no means bad. It's fun and entertained me the whole way through.

      And I thought *I* was easily amused.

    2. Re:Counter-culture in full effect! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So many people are panning this movie. Have you guys posting negative comments actually seen it, or are you just reacting to the press?

      If you've seen anything else Seth Rogan has done, you'll already have an opinion going into this movie. Maybe you think he's been funny before. Fine; go see the movie and laugh. But many of us who have seen him before don't think anything that he's written, directed, or starred in has been particularly funny. Since he wrote, directed, and starred in this movie, I have a very low expectation that it would be anything different.

      I was actually hoping it would be funny enough to go see, just because I think it's always funny to mock a dictator. I also like Liz Caplan, so it had a chance. But so far everything I've heard sounds like it lives up to every one of my expectations of being just another crappy Seth Rogan movie.

  21. Meh by lennier1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a movie that includes Seth Rogen!
    What did you expect? A new Schindler's List?!?

    1. Re:Meh by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      It's a movie that includes Seth Rogen!
      What did you expect? A new Schindler's List?!?

      Well at this time of the year you should always check your lists twice.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't seen either movie yet. Was "Schindler's List" funnier?

    3. Re:Meh by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I wouldn't say it was quite as good as "This is the end"; but it was still exactly what I thought it would be and was fun entertainment. Seems like with the hype the critics went in looking for an Oscar winning think-piece. They must have missed all the trailers...

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
  22. wow, it's not even Jan 1, let alone April 1 by wardk · · Score: 1

    the movie has been sold out in limited theaters
    the most pirated movie of christmas (this should be a slashdot money shot)
    the movie is funny as hell.

    I hope this article is meant to be satire

  23. Re: Hopefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's richer than you'll ever be.

  24. it's a frat-boy stoner movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but it isn't pretentious and trying to be something else. It's low-brow, but it's pretty good at it.

  25. Re: Hopefully by Free+Censorship · · Score: 2

    I don't see why only disliking stupid jokes is a liberal-only thing. It seems more like what is and is not funny is subjective.

  26. Re: Hopefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While I'm almost embarrassingly rich thanks to a wealthy family, I've never understood the US obsession with wealth as an indicator of anything except... that a person has cash or other material assets. There are many ways to become rich, and almost none of them involve much productivity, let alone effort.

  27. Culture and information matter. by coldsalmon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The North Korean regime's survival depends on keeping its people completely uninformed. Here's an article about how even a little bit of information about the outside world can destroy the carefully constructed myths that sustain North Korean society: http://articles.latimes.com/20...

    "About two years ago, a North Korean who worked in the state fisheries division was on a boat in the Yellow Sea when his transistor radio picked up a South Korean situation comedy. The radio program featured two young women who were fighting over a parking space in their apartment complex.
    A parking space? The North Korean was astonished by the idea that there was a place with so many cars that there would be a shortage of places to park them. Although he was in his late 30s and a director of his division, he had never met anyone who owned their own car.
    The North Korean never forgot that radio show and ended up defecting to South Korea last year."

    The article is old, but I don't think things have changed much in North Korea.

    1. Re:Culture and information matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      The United States government's survival depends on keeping its people completely uninformed.

      FYP

    2. Re:Culture and information matter. by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because you can't check alternative media sources in the United States. No sirree, there's only one state broadcaster that plays nothing but pro-US government material all year long...

      Fucking hell, you fucking moron. There's lots to condemn the US over, but I'd say it would be hard to think of a country with more diversity of voices, to the point of a loud braying cacophony.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Culture and information matter. by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Oh I'm not a righty.

    4. Re:Culture and information matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard to tell if you are being sarcastic or not

    5. Re:Culture and information matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's somewhat true, though. People can check alternate sources, but so many choose not to, and most people in general are too busy with bread and circuses to do anything about 'petty' issues like mass unconstitutional surveillance. The US government would be in trouble (at least those currently in power) if the people did a bit more than they do now.

    6. Re: Culture and information matter. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about USA or the Fox News Nation?

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    7. Re:Culture and information matter. by dj245 · · Score: 1

      The North Korean regime's survival depends on keeping its people completely uninformed. Here's an article about how even a little bit of information about the outside world can destroy the carefully constructed myths that sustain North Korean society: http://articles.latimes.com/20...

      "About two years ago, a North Korean who worked in the state fisheries division was on a boat in the Yellow Sea when his transistor radio picked up a South Korean situation comedy. The radio program featured two young women who were fighting over a parking space in their apartment complex. A parking space? The North Korean was astonished by the idea that there was a place with so many cars that there would be a shortage of places to park them. Although he was in his late 30s and a director of his division, he had never met anyone who owned their own car. The North Korean never forgot that radio show and ended up defecting to South Korea last year."

      The article is old, but I don't think things have changed much in North Korea.

      They have. When I was there earlier this year, we got stuck in legitimate traffic jams a couple of different times. There are about 10 times as many cars on the road as there were just 5 years ago, according to the (Australian) tour guide. It is the single biggest and most visible sign of change he had seen.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    8. Re:Culture and information matter. by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      Ted, more likely a Libertarian, the Right's useful idiots.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:Culture and information matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lefty prick. FOAD.

    10. Re:Culture and information matter. by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 0

      A swing and a miss.

      Still you can't deny that lefties have all the sense of humour of an average lake trout. The best yuks anyone's ever gotten out of them have been at their expense, and so the circle is complete.

    11. Re:Culture and information matter. by Livius · · Score: 1

      If North Korea tries to prevent people from seeing it, it may convince those who do see it that all the implicit criticism of the regime is based on reality. (Which I suspect it largely is.)

    12. Re:Culture and information matter. by Livius · · Score: 2

      It keeps its people *largely* uninformed. Any attempt to completely cut off reliable information would trigger push back and be counter-productive. Actually, they seem to have found a very good balance where for minimal effort the people keep themselves mostly uninformed.

      Completely uninformed, however, is flat-out wrong.

    13. Re:Culture and information matter. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Oh the hell they do. That's simply bullshit.

    14. Re:Culture and information matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's lots to condemn the US over, but I'd say it would be hard to think of a country with more diversity of voices, to the point of a loud braying cacophony.

      Hahahahahahaha. Diversity. Hahahahahahaha. That's a good one. I fully concur on the load braying cacophony, with the emphasis on phony.

    15. Re:Culture and information matter. by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Historically speaking, defectors from the Soviet Union were most utterly shocked and amazed by grocery stores.

      The idea that there could be SO MUCH FOOD that people could browse around, pick and choose, pass up fruits or vegetables as not quite pretty enough, and that the stores would routinely throw out unwanted food was simply unfathomable.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    16. Re:Culture and information matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, over here both sides have a voice - Clear Channel and Cumulus.

    17. Re:Culture and information matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's lots to condemn the US over, but I'd say it would be hard to think of a country with more diversity of voices, to the point of a loud braying cacophony.

      Hahahahahahaha. Diversity. Hahahahahahaha. That's a good one. I fully concur on the load braying cacophony, with the emphasis on phony.

      You are flat wrong and the OP is correct. The USA is highly diverse and may well be the most ethnically and culturally diverse of any country. Are you confusing cultural diversity with racial harmony? It's two different things and you can well have cultural diversity and racial conflict.

    18. Re:Culture and information matter. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      A swing and a miss? More like knocking himself out with the follow-through.

      Anybody who honestly thinks Libertarians are tools of the Right is too ignorant to be dangerous.

      And anyone who thinks Ted Cruz is a Libertarian could probably learn a lot from a school of those trout.

    19. Re:Culture and information matter. by drfred79 · · Score: 1

      I gotta kinda agree with you. The final jobs report before the re-election of President Obama was doctored by practically a whole percentage to help his re-election. The press reported it as fact and didn't bother looking into a mega huge bump in jobs. Additionally, there was the equivalent of radio silence when an American ambassador was under assault for hours and available troops were told not to save him. The extent the media went to to re-elect President Obama was unethical.

    20. Re:Culture and information matter. by drfred79 · · Score: 1

      I appreciate that your suggestions were government owned media.

    21. Re: Culture and information matter. by drfred79 · · Score: 1

      Benghazi

    22. Re:Culture and information matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the early 1990s, I lived in Webster, Tx and shopped at a Kroger near NASA-JSC. One evening, 3 Russian Cosmonauts were in there walking around as I did my weekly shopping. They were walking up and down every row of the store, eyes wide.

      Went to the checkout with about $50 in food and checked out. Fruits, canned stuff, meats, breads ... The Russians had each picked a large chocolate candy bar, each had a $10 bill in hand ready to pay, and were in line behind me - it was about 10p, so only 1 lane was open.

      They had huge smiles on their faces. As I drove away, they were walking towards a nearby hotel, eating the chocolate.

      I have never underestimated the power of the full grocery store or miles and miles of detached, middle-class housing across the free world since that time. Living in small apartments is for rats, not people. Humans are meant to be surrounded by trees, grasses, plants and go outside daily to forage .... er ... at their local Krogers. ;)

    23. Re:Culture and information matter. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      No they are not government owned.
      Get a clue how other countries media world works.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    24. Re:Culture and information matter. by g4sy · · Score: 1

      Both are government funded. Both only represent viewpoints which are approved by the political class of their respective countries. What's your definition of owned? You think that because they spun it off into a "public corporation" that things a-ok?

      --
      somewhere, on a Big Red Sign:
      if(color==blue){speed--;}
    25. Re:Culture and information matter. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      They are not government owned.

      Or do you think every election the broadcaster changes its owner?

      They are not even state owned if that is what you want to say ... perhaps read about the relevant laws.

      And neither government nor state has any influence on their programs.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  28. It had some funny bits by JeffElkins · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But not enough to justify a pair of full-price tickets. I will give it this; it was better than any Adam Sandler or Jim Carrey movie I've seen.

    --
    Why is all the good stuff already modded 5, when I have mod points?
    1. Re:It had some funny bits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are really only one movie apiece for those guys: Ace Ventura (the first one) and Happy Gilmore.

    2. Re:It had some funny bits by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I will give it this; it was better than any Adam Sandler or Jim Carrey movie I've seen.

      The movie "Click" was a good reminder to me to not let work-related worries cause me to miss my childrens' childhoods.

    3. Re:It had some funny bits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly haven't seen Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or Punch Drunk Love.

    4. Re:It had some funny bits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing Adam Sandler makes is worth watching especially if you have to pay money to see it. The Studio should be paying you to sit through that crap he churns out.
      The same goes for Tim Allen.
      I'd rather watch paint dry than see him try to act.

    5. Re:It had some funny bits by excelsior_gr · · Score: 3, Informative

      You might want to reconsider Jim Carrey. The Truman Show, Man On The Moon and Eternal Sunshine Of The Spottless Mind are quite good movies.

    6. Re:It had some funny bits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      punch drunk love, otherwise i agree. between duck factory and the mask, carrey never entertained me

  29. what China should do is by FudRucker · · Score: 1, Interesting

    invade North Korea, depose the North Korean government, and depose & disarm the North Korean military, and once they stabilized it, hand it over to South Korea

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:what China should do is by xlsior · · Score: 4, Insightful

      invade North Korea, depose the North Korean government, and depose & disarm the North Korean military, and once they stabilized it, hand it over to South Korea

      ...Except China likes having North Korea as a buffer zone between it and the much more democratic and western-aligned South Korea. Having a crackpot dictatorship on its borders helps China's own citizens from getting to many 'crazy' ideas in their head -- "Look how great we have it here!"

    2. Re:what China should do is by Livius · · Score: 1

      China should do lots of things. I'm not hold my breath on China doing any of them.

      I could say the same about a lot of countries and quite a few corporations.

    3. Re:what China should do is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because China is completely retarded. They got were they are out of sheer luck. Your "plan" would:
      - Cost China PR (the evil imperialist Chinese invade poor little Korea; who is next?)
      - Cost China money
      - Cost China men
      - Cost China an ally who is useful against South Korea
      - Cost South Korea lives from the North Korean inevitable bombing of Seoul
      - Cost South Korea money rebuilding Seoul
      - Cost South Korea money (fixing North Korea would cost billions)
      - Cost South Korean politicians votes
      - Piss off South Korea
      - Piss off North Korea
      - Really annoy other Asian countries

    4. Re:what China should do is by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      The problem is then they would own North Korea.

      North Korea still exists because it is a mountainous wasteland that nobody particularly wants. It does not have a rich cache of resources, and can't even grow enough food to feed its people.

      China likes the buffer to South Korea. South Korea looks at all the money they'd have to spend to uplift North Korea and says, "We'll pass".

    5. Re:what China should do is by gman003 · · Score: 1

      What South Korea should do is invade North Korea, topple their government, depose their "glorious leader", disarm their military, and then hand it over to China, saying "you're the ones who propped up their insane government and made all this mess, you get to deal with all the consequences."

    6. Re:what China should do is by belmolis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That isn't entirely true. North Korea is not well suited for agriculture, and due to the war and mismanagement the economy is a mess, but it has large ore deposits. Mining is a significant component of the economy even now, and with good management and investment for infrastructure (such as adequate electrical power) could grow considerably.

    7. Re:what China should do is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if China and the rest of the world would approve of South Korea doing such a thing, South Korea would not approve of such a thing. The Koreans still see North and South Korea as "Korea." The only question is the type of government and leadership the combined Korea should have. That ideological difference as well as the desires of the U.S. and China are substantial reasons why the two Koreas can reunite.

    8. Re:what China should do is by guacamole · · Score: 1

      It's strange that China is afraid of having a Western style democracy and a market economy right at its border considering that within China's own borders and territory one can witness a wild west style of capitalist economy and a sharp division between the haves and havenots.

    9. Re:what China should do is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China's already in there doing that.

      Look at the trucks carrying raw materials over every day at the border in Dandong.

    10. Re:what China should do is by g4sy · · Score: 1

      Such inequality is only possible with a strong central government. But it was funny to watch you observe reality and get confused because it didn't match the government propaganda you've been spoon-fed 18hrs a day since the age of 5.

      --
      somewhere, on a Big Red Sign:
      if(color==blue){speed--;}
    11. Re:what China should do is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such inequality is only possible with a strong central government.

      Incorrect. Inequality is a function of the economy, not of the government.

      Inequality tends to increase as available wealth increases. Doesn't matter if you got that wealth through good old capitalism or use of government violence.

      When your society has little access to wealth, you tend to share what little you have. Even thieves and thugs share amongst themselves. That is, before they pull of that heist, then they fight over who gets what.

      China is seeing rising inequality because it is gaining wealth at an unprecedented rate. Those who managed to dig at the wealth first get ahead, creating inequality.

      And it's not like the same isn't happening to the Western world. Contrary to anti-government propaganda (it's not only government who does propaganda, you know), the Western world is still producing a lot of wealth. Inequality exists in the West too.

  30. Re:Hopefully by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    First Seth Rogen movie for you? I thought it was one of his better ones, though I still think it sucked. Still, despite all the schlock, it did make the important point that North Korea is a vile regime that condemns millions to near-starvation conditions while the elite live in astonishing luxury. It paints with a broad brush to be sure, but beneath it all there is a true chord playing.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  31. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  32. Re:Label: Out of Courtesy by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    I thought the head explosion scene was pretty anticlimactic. If you're going to make this kind of movie, why tuck your balls away at the climax?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  33. Re: Hopefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Embarrassingly rich guy writes comments about seth rogen on the internet. Seems legot. What's the matter bored with hookers and coke?

  34. Re: Hopefully by sjames · · Score: 1

    Or someone who is aware that that audience exists and is fairly large. I'm not part of it but I don't have to be to know it's size is significant.

  35. Re: Hopefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just did a line while having my dick sucked browsing slashdot. It's the only way to live.

  36. For a country where Kim Jong UN by dixonpete · · Score: 2

    is revered as a god, I can see an awful lot of North Koreans trying to sneak a look at this movie. it could potentially be a game changer for them to see how the world looks at their perfect leader. Might even topple the government. Probably not, but one can hope.

    1. Re:For a country where Kim Jong UN by Livius · · Score: 1

      If it gives people a shared experience of criticizing or at least questioning their leadership -- well, lots of revolutions started with less.

  37. The only negative reviews are coming from... by Karmashock · · Score: 1, Troll

    ... either people that don't like slapstick comedy or people that don't like the political message of the movie.

    Actually read the bad reviews. They're like reading bad Amazon reviews... "This 20 dollar jack is no where near as good as my 400 dollar jacket... 1 star!" Or "I can't recharge my computer with this USB cable... 1 star!"... They're fucking stupid.

    They keep saying stuff like "the humor is crude"... really, you complete waste of human life? That is fucking shocking. It is a stupid screw ball comedy, fuckwit.

    Anyway, you just need to filter the idiot reviewers from the ones that understand what genre they're reviewing. And my god there are a lot of fucking idiots working for the mainstream newspapers. I read these reviews and can see very clearly why these newspapers are having circulation issues. They are staffed almost entirely with morons.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:The only negative reviews are coming from... by mean+pun · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying you have to be intelligent to appreciate movies like this?

      That's a rather, er, unusual point of view.

      Or perhaps the critics are the wrong kind of idiot?

    2. Re:The only negative reviews are coming from... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Anyway, you just need to filter the idiot reviewers from the ones that understand what genre they're reviewing.

      You mean, movies for idiots. Which suggests the question, who are these movies for? I mean, if you have to be an idiot to enjoy them, but idiots are panning them...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:The only negative reviews are coming from... by Copid · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think he's saying that a restaurant reviewer who goes into a burger joint and shits all over it in his review because they didn't have sushi is probably not adding much useful information to the review-o-sphere.

      I don't like most childrens movies because I'm an adult and I find them childish. But if somebody was paying me to write informative reviews and I had to review a kids' movie, I wouldn't spend a lot of time bemoaning the simplistic plot line, limited charater development or overly bright color pallette. Complaining that the latest Disney Princess movie didn't have the same set of elements that made No Country for Old Men appealing sort of misses the point. It's not even sensible enough to be considered wrong.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    4. Re:The only negative reviews are coming from... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      False. Slapstick comedies have been around for as long as film itself and many of the producers of such films have been amongst the most talented actors.

      Imagine if there were a movie where Laurel and Hardy were recruited by the some intelligence service to kill Hitler or something... same thing.

      The only people getting upset by this are either people that simply don't like slap stick comedy. Or people that find the political message of the movie disturbing and realizing that criticizing it directly is counter productive... simply attack the movie itself.

      I've seen no criticism of the movie that can fall into anything but those two categories.

      If you have a problem with the politics as most of the stuffier political types do... then just admit it and we can talk about that honestly. If rather you don't like slap stick comedies... that's fine. However they are a genre of film much like romantic comedies or horror films etc. You judge such films by the standards of their genre. If you are unfamiliar with the genre or unwilling to recognize its own internal rules then you're just disqualifying yourself from having a meaningful opinion.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    5. Re:The only negative reviews are coming from... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Bingo. It is always gratifying to run into someone that doesn't have their head shoved directly up their own ass.

      *tips hat*

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    6. Re:The only negative reviews are coming from... by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      Would it be reasonable to judge an automobile by the standards of a submarine? What if I gave a review for a car and started out with the observation that it wasn't water tight to even 1 meter? Or pointed out that when put in the water whether submerged or not it would stall the engine? Or pointed out that its built in sonar system was only capable of detecting objects a couple feet behind it and only when it reversed?

      Does any of that sound rational? Obviously not. It is fucking retarded.

      And that is what most of the bad reviewers are doing... especially from the newspapers. They're idiot observations like "Dopey and gorey" - the boston globe. No shit, boston globe... it is a screw ball comedy. They're all dopey, you fucking morons.

      Or this genius observation: "Has gross jokes" - Star Tribune. Really? Crass humor in a screw ball comedy? That is fucking shocking.

      Or how about this idiot comment: ""A silly, sloppy and sophomoric slob-comedy...to paraphrase Shakespeare, it's much ado about very little. "" - SSG Syndicate. Really? A slapstick comedy that is sophomoric? And anyone even vaguely familiar with Shakespeare knows that the "great bard" wrote lots of stupid comedies that weren't about anything either. Much ado about nothing for example was not especially about anything either. It was a lot of jokes and funny situations stitched together into an improbably plot. Yet this twit ironically cites Shakespeare's play in a pathetic attempt to make herself sound sophisticated. When really all she did was confess a lack of understanding as to the subject matter as well as sound laughably pretentious.

      I could go on, but you get the point.

      Judge a slap stick comedy by the standard of slap stick comedies. Not by the standards of submarines, computer graphics cards, or women's lipstick.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    7. Re:The only negative reviews are coming from... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      False. Slapstick comedies have been around for as long as film itself and many of the producers of such films have been amongst the most talented actors.

      So you're comparing this to Keaton or Chaplin? I think you missed the mark there.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:The only negative reviews are coming from... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a modern laurel and hardy or three stooges. You're allowing yourself to get turned off too easily by dirty jokes and violence.

      The culture has changed to make such things acceptable. If Chaplin or the Marx brothers were making movies today they'd doubtless contain some dirtier jokes then what they told in their day.

      You have to compensate for the times.

      Regardless, if you're determined to be unreasonable then I can't do anything for you here. The error is yours and the imperfection is yours.

      This is what slapstick comedy is in the 21st century in large part because this is what gets people in the 21st century to laugh.

      If you did a Chaplin movie today, everyone would find it very boring and it would be a financial disaster.

      Compensate for the times and compensate for the genre or you're not judging the movie. Rather you're judging the times and judging the genre. Which is like complaining that there was a lot of blood in a horror movie.

      It is an opinion too flawed and confused to be worthy of note.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    9. Re:The only negative reviews are coming from... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You're allowing yourself to get turned off too easily by dirty jokes and violence.

      No, I'm turned off easily by crudeness substituted for cleverness, and violence used in lieu of plot. The idea that viewers cannot be arsed to care unless something is exploding and/or someone is dying is insulting.

      If you did a Chaplin movie today, everyone would find it very boring and it would be a financial disaster.

      And if The Interview were released on its own merits, the same thing would happen.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:The only negative reviews are coming from... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      As to crudeness substituted for cleverness, there is little difference from the old slapstick comedies. The only change is to make the joke dirtier. But the actual cleverness of the joke is generally the same.

      Slapstick comedy is actually quite ancient and the jokes are pretty much always the same. You could have watched one 1000 years ago that had jokes of a similar nature.

      As to the merits of the interview, that would be making people laugh. And it does... so... you're wrong.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    11. Re:The only negative reviews are coming from... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      As to the merits of the interview, that would be making people laugh. And it does... so... you're wrong.

      The question is whether enough people who saw it would recommend it to people who hadn't seen it to get this many asses in seats, so that the movie would be successful. This is a question that probably cannot be answered, but I suspect that the answer is actually no. When people come to the theater determined to have a good time, it's more likely that they will, and if they didn't have a good time then the terrists woulda won, by god and all that is holy, et cetera.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:The only negative reviews are coming from... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      The problem with that argument is that it works on anything and therefore is fallacious.

      Any system that outputs the same answer despite input is not a system.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    13. Re:The only negative reviews are coming from... by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Complaining that the latest Disney Princess movie didn't have the same set of elements that made No Country for Old Men appealing sort of misses the point.

      What an awesome juxtaposition. It is a shame it is too long for a .sig heh. :)

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  38. As others have said... by ArtFart · · Score: 2

    ...it's about what we've come to expect from Rogen and his pals. In parts hilarious, disgusting, inane, chaotic (well, most of it was that...), thought-provoking, puerile and brilliant. Not unlike reality.

    1. Re:As others have said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had no interest in seeing "The Interview" mainly because I was bored with the last Rogen/Franco movie I saw, "Pineapple-Express". And I've not changed my mind after the Sony hack. However, I would love to see a satirical movie about this hullabaloo, ala something like "Network".

  39. Re:Not very funny? Is anybody surprised? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

    I'd say Last King Of Scotland but that's hardly a comedy...

    relevance to Slashdotters: Dana Scully is in a supporting role! :)

  40. Low-key, subtle humour by ve3oat · · Score: 1

    The movie "suffers from" low-key and subtle humour, much appreciated in a number of different countries and cultures but not so much in the USA. (Several of these countries also spell "humor" with two U's.)

  41. Submission Title by Nemyst · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it just me who found the title for this submission a little strange, especially considering the hackers threatened to bomb the theaters which'd show the movie? I initially misread it into thinking they actually did it somehow.

  42. USBs are smuggled like cocain in NK by cheekyboy · · Score: 0

    Yes up your butthole, or swallowed.

    But data is being sneaker netted everywhere in NK, there are docos to show how they do it.

    How do they get it in? Well, even the ones in the military smuggle stuff in, actually, they are the ones most often with the money and friends outside who can do it.

    Eventually, it trickles down to the ultra poor, who might want that USB stick more desperately than food, it at least can be copied/traded for food.

    There are a few cities that are one side china, one side NK. I am sure they have smuggled 3G devices in so people in NK can download from China. Put USBs on drones or baloons, or floated.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:USBs are smuggled like cocain in NK by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Of course this raises the question of how people too poor to eat can read a USB stick. Perhaps the average N. Korean owns a computer?

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    2. Re:USBs are smuggled like cocain in NK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cheap chinese dvd players + tv.
      commonplace in dprk.

  43. Not a single teenager READS REVIEWS!!! by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Do you reviewers understand!?

    If buying a $40 3DBluray sure, but $5 movie, no.

    Teens use their friends as guides, "Hey I saw this, you gota see it", or "X was so so sad, dont waste your money"

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:Not a single teenager READS REVIEWS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "X was so so sad, dont waste your money"

      I like sad movies, you insensitive clod!

  44. DHS Threat Level - Red++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bombs, US, China, North Korea, Threat, USB stick...TFS has induced a state of panic within the DHS's freedom monitoring network, prepare to engage the internet kill switch!!!

  45. watched the interview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the entire movie had been played straight the way Marshall Mather's played his scene it could have been a classic satire not just of north Korea but also of the CIA, news media and pop culture.

    As it was the movie is forgetable except it touches on some of the basic realities of the north Korean dictatorship and the psychological trap in which both dictator and supporters find themselves.

  46. Re:Not very funny? Is anybody surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Great Dictator

    Der Fuehrer's Face

    etc...

  47. depiction by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    "It depicts Kim Jong-un as a vain, buffoonish despot, alternating between threats and weeping that he's been misunderstood..."

    Yeah, I highly doubt he gives a shit about being misunderstood. The rest of it is spot on.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  48. So they're actually getting dumber? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    When I was a kid, we read reviews, we had a free paper and we used it. Now you have so many options for free reviews that the hardest part is deciding which one you like the best, and kids don't read reviews any more?

    Either you're off your nut, or kids are actually getting dumber.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  49. A review from someone who's actually seen it by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

    I saw it earlier today via YouTube. It certainly wasn't great, and it can't be compared with classics like "The Great Dictator" or "Duck Soup", but I was surprised how much I liked it. It was much more entertaining than either the trailer or the reviews suggested. The story was reasonably engaging, there were some good gags, the actors weren't bad, and it even had a few points to make. I always count my yawns during a movie, and FWIW, it ended up getting my highest rating of zero yawns - go figure.

    My major complaint with it was its near-continuous use of the "F" word. (Sorry to spoil that for those of you who were wondering.) If Seth Rogen and his buddies talk like in real life, maybe they were just being realistic relative to their particular juvenile reality. But the movie would have been better without that.

    In the old days, a movie would use just one or two F-words to guarantee an "R" rating, and with the mission accomplished, they'd move on. I seem to remember that one film even cut in an "R" rating notice in the middle of the film just after the first F-word. (Help me out Kids: which movie was that?) And of course, there's the famous South Park episode where the F-word was basically the whole point of the episode. But I don't see any point to it here. Less is more on that, Folks: after one or two F-bombs, it doesn't have any effect and just becomes annoying. (BTW: same goes here. :-) It's like those folks who constantly say "like" or "knowwhatamsayin?" Like, knowwhatamsayin?

    1. Re:A review from someone who's actually seen it by I_Lost_My_Puppy · · Score: 1


      The movie you are looking for is Student Bodies.

      Ladies and gentlemen, in order to achieve an "R" rating today, a motion picture must contain full frontal nudity, graphic violence, or an explicit reference to the sex act.

    2. Re:A review from someone who's actually seen it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right "F" this and "F" that was peppered throughout the movie. I can actually put up with that to a degree. My big complaint was the continual pornographic references that became tiresome. I thought that the movie didn't really need it and was more distracting than anything. I'd suggest people wait for the cleansed "TV 14" version when it shows up.

      I really think they have enough skill that they really didn't need to lean on the potty humor so much.

    3. Re:A review from someone who's actually seen it by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      Someone worrying about F-count == someone whose opinions are based on such antiquated measures as to be wholly irrelevant to me. And I'm 40, so ... Hmm.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    4. Re:A review from someone who's actually seen it by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

      Likewise, the opinions of someone who throws out the baby with the bathwater are wholly irrelevant to me. ;-)

      Anyway, it sounds like you're from the more-is-more school of the F-word. As someone who is over 17, I don't quite understand that, but to each his own, so ... Hmm.

    5. Re:A review from someone who's actually seen it by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      My wife watched American History X once with me and some friends on cable or something where a lot of the swearing was bleeped out. She commented that the profuse swearing seemed totally unrealistic to her. My friends thought it was hilarous because it made very evident her different upbringing and social circles. Some people really do talk like that, and yes it probably means that they don't mean that swearing as emphatically as if my wife were to do it. The context of swearing, as with anything else, is a key part of understanding it. If you think a movie is over using swearing you probably are missing the context.

      Speaking of mediocre to poor movies and swearing though. My wife got me Dark Shadows this year as a gag gift. One of the few redeeming bits of the movie was the main characters insults. He didn't use swear words because they weren't part of his vocabularly but instead used eloquent verses of curse.

    6. Re:A review from someone who's actually seen it by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe people really do talk like that in real life, but I've never met any myself. Anyway, I guess that explains the extensive use of that word here on \., which has puzzled me at times. Every time I see that, I think "Don't they know that they come off as kindda coarse and dumb when they write that?"

      Regardless, my original point was that the overuse of any word gets old, in real life and especially in a movie. Along with the F-word, I had cited "like" and "knowwhatimsaying?" as common examples. The latter two get overused in real life more than in movies, but imagine a movie overflowing with either one. Now *that* would be grounds for a cyberattack on a film.

      My "less is more" point of view basically comes down to the idea that writing is about communication, and the overuse of any word communicates little. Or, as stated more succinctly in Strunk and White, "Omit needless words." IIRC, in "The Interview", the use of the F-word only conveyed actual information (about the sex act) in a couple of instances. Otherwise, it conveyed the idea that the main characters were kindda coarse and dumb. But that idea got communicated in a matter of seconds. And The Three Stooges managed to convey that idea throughout their entire career without using the F-word once. Clearly, Rogen and Franco are no Three Stooges...

    7. Re:A review from someone who's actually seen it by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

      Coincidentally, the other day I ran into an article called Why I Don't Use Coffeescript that uses the F word repeatedly in an article that doesn't seem to have any need for it. But maybe the author really talks and thinks that way, so it's just natural for him to write stuff (er, sorry, "sh*t") that way.

    8. Re:A review from someone who's actually seen it by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      This kind of reminds me of 1984 and Newspeak. Only it seems that in reality many people are willing to self limit their vocabulary. I wonder what ramificaions that will have in our society in the long term.

    9. Re:A review from someone who's actually seen it by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

      I think self-limiting of vocabulary has always been the case in polite society. I assume English is not unique in terms of having a set of taboo words. These words derive their power from their taboo-ness: otherwise, they're just the same as any other word.

      When people use these things in a casual way, they dilute their power. It's notable that people who use the F-word regularly have to use it a LOT - just as I saw in "The Interview". They somehow seem to think that repetition brings the word's power back, whereas that only dilutes it further.

      There has always been a hierarchy of how taboo each of these words actually is. The F-word is somewhere near the top of the hierarchy, along with the G-word. One word near the bottom is "crap". But I now hear teenagers using that very causually, so perhaps it soon will drop off the list. Or maybe (as they see it) it already has, and I'm just another clueless adult.

    10. Re:A review from someone who's actually seen it by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I was actually thinking of self limiting vocabulary in the opposite direction, people using profuse vulgarities instead of a more diverse vocabulary.

  50. Funny Crappy Movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    40+ critics might think this movie is shit and it is a shit movie but god damn was it a funny movie. If you're looking for cinematic enlightenment then you're stupider than the movie you've criticized.

  51. Re: Hopefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So true.

  52. Blockbuster? Bomb? by Nethead · · Score: 2

    I've never understood this one, a blockbuster is a great movie while a bomb is a bad one. But a blockbuster is a bomb. WTF?

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    1. Re:Blockbuster? Bomb? by quenda · · Score: 1
  53. Re: Hopefully by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

    You keep speaking of "liberals" as if they're a hivemind, much as some speak of "conservatives" as if they're a hivemind. You're just making hasty generalizations.

    Looks like you've been duped into believing the left vs right/liberal vs conservative false dichotomy scam.

  54. It's even funnier by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    When retards make a comment like that on a public site, hosted in the US, viewed primarily by US citizens. You would think they could see the inherently contradictory nature of such a thing but no, they are convinced somehow that the US government clamps down on information like a repressive regime, yet somehow managed to miss this, and the millions of other, sites hosted in its borders.

  55. Re: Hopefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Have you ever actually watched the Daily Show? They go after the president when the president does something ridiculous. Fox News is a pretty easy target because they're extremely hypocritical and they give air time to idiots like Palin. CNN is also a frequent target. Don't worry about Hillary. I'm sure Boehner will find something in the 8th congressional witch hunt that he didn't turn up in the first seven.

  56. Re: Hopefully by lgw · · Score: 1

    "Liberals" could mean just about anyone, but the very vocal SJW crowd are famous for being humorless, prudish buzzkills. What used to be the case for the right wing religious whackos is now true of the left wing SJWs: they lay awake at night worrying that someone, somewhere might be having a good time. No more representative of the mainstream left than the televangelists were of the mainstream right, but boy are they vocal. Heck, some of them are probably the same people, just with a new excuse for moral scolding and finger wagging.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  57. "Bombs in the US" by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 1

    OMG can you imagine?... "bombs in the US" NSA smokes computers on misguided info...haaaah! Nice to think for yourself now a days. Who can you believe? Not the media-owned networks. (have you seen the forgotten?) Damn NBC / Universal Studios pluggin' crap

  58. Rogen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a Seth Rogen movie and on a scale of his movies it is in the upper half. All the people on imdb rating it with a 1 are unbelievable. If you don't like his movies don't watch them. If you rated it a 1 what did you rate "Synecdoche, New York"?

  59. The critics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. Are honey ducking you.

    This movie was laugh out loud funny. Maybe it was because it was my first time with Franco in a comedy, or the ridiculousness of it.

    Either way. I enjoyed it.

  60. Re:Not very funny? Is anybody surprised? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    Duck Soup. It's like a thousand times as good as the Interview.

    Plus it's got the mirror scene. I'll bet The Interview doesn't have that.

  61. Watched it three times already, still love it by drfred79 · · Score: 1

    The only people who hate this movie are those who want to look like sophisticated critics and the overly sensitive. Every bad review I've read are borderline illiterate and moronic, and they are on legitimate websites. I'm sorry but this movie isn't serious, because it's a comedy. Yes there are sexist, anti-semetic, and homophobic jokes. The writers realize these aren't allowed in a normal public situation, that's the joke. We never hear about North Korea because we don't really have a solution to a nuclear capable totalitarian dictatorship. It's good to put the spotlight on them.

  62. Bombed? by schlachter · · Score: 1

    Really? I thought it was really funny. Most of my friends rented it on release day, and most of them thought it was at least kinda funny. No one thought it was bad.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  63. Funny at moments. by mapuche · · Score: 1

    It's very Seth Rogen driven comedy, funny at moments but most part of it smells a little like US propaganda. It depicts a smart, maniac and manipulative Kim Jung Un. Funny enough, we know CIA it's capable of trying to murder a foreign leader.

  64. This is a memetic weapon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Basically weaponized meme's designed to alter public perception.
    AKA propaganda

    The whole drama of the Sony hack and geting the press and the State department to even talk about the B movie.

  65. are you kidding me? by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    It has Seth Rogan in it and it has the setting of an intellectual comedy film sort of like Frasier and people are surprise it "isn't very funny?" THEY'RE SURPRISED?! How is that surprising to anyone?

  66. It had some funny bits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then I guess you never saw Eternal sunshine of a spotless mind? Too bad, it's awsome. I'm no Jim Carrey fan, but he is far above Seth.

  67. Atheism doesn't give man the right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given that atheism doesn't give any exclusive right of life and death to man, under what reasoning do you want atheism banned.

    And what book would be banned? All non-religious texts?

    1. Re:Atheism doesn't give man the right by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      > Given that atheism doesn't give any exclusive right of life and death to man...
      not directly, but those are details.
      who is the source of any system of values so far? for atheism, man.

      > All non-religious texts?
      yes, if you follow the rationale behind banning the description of a god's action, you ought to realize that the removal of such god is even more dangerous. In other words, waiting for a god to possess you and make you kill (which is the only way to be sure a god is behind it) is safer than wondering whether to kill or not.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  68. OP is merely drumming up trade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're not allowed to pan it until you've seen it (remember Gigli?), then it will never pan because everyone hating it will have had to see it, and anyone not seeing it isn't allowed to hate it.

    Or you "pirate" it and then you're a criminal and unworthy because you're an anarchist anti-corporatist, therefore hate it because it's Sony.

    1. Re:OP is merely drumming up trade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This movie is bad, because I've heard it's bad."
      Yes, that's a good basis for reviews.

  69. I didn't think it was that bad.... by ogdenk · · Score: 1

    For a Seth Rogen movie, it wasn't bad. Certainly no worse than most of the other movies he's done. I thought it was funny personally.

  70. Re:Not very funny? Is anybody surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You want a good movie mocking a dictator?

    Duck Soup. It's like a thousand times as good as the Interview.

    I thought "Team America" was pretty amusing.

  71. Bombs in the U.S.? by Drgan · · Score: 1

    I highly doubt that the movie is being heralded as unfunny or even a failed movie in the US. The movie was also released online which means that people did not need to go to the limited number of theaters it was released in to go see it. Just about everyone I know, myself included, have watched the movie and found it to be hilarious. We all watched it online.

  72. I don't think Chinese like it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TFA itself admits that

    In their comments, some people acknowledged having not seen the film, but wanted to show their support

    According to Reuters:

    Most viewers [in China and South Korea] said they watched the low-brow spoof because of the devastating cyberattack on the Hollywood studio that produced it, Sony Pictures, but they were not impressed.
    Even in South Korea, technically at war with the North, viewers panned the movie.
    "A lot of it is unrealistic and the people who play North Koreans are so bad at speaking Korean," said a viewer on Naver, an online portal. "In the scene where Kim Jong Un gets mad...I couldn't quite understand what he was saying."
    []
    "It doesn't matter whether the film is any good, it's become something everyone has to see," said one user on the Chinese microblogging site Weibo.
    []
    Sony's international executives have previously said the movie was "desperately unfunny" and would have flopped overseas, according to e-mails leaked by the hackers.
    China is North Korea's only major ally, but Kim Jong Un is not a popular figure in the country, being widely lampooned on social media as "Fatty Kim."
    Many viewers said the film was not very good

    So Chinese viewers don't like Kim but neither do they like another formulaic and "desperately unfunny" bromedy that is so culturally blind that it misses all the great comedy material there is in North Korean reality, because the filmmakers know nothing but clichés about North Korea. The jokes are all on a ching-chong-chinaman level. I can see how East Asians wouldn't appreciate that.

  73. What do the French think of it? by sudon't · · Score: 1

    The Interview Bombs In US, Kills In China, Threatens N. Korea

    Yeah, but what do the French think of it?

    --
    -- sudon't

    Air-ride Equipped

  74. Choices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The North Korean people have a choice between an incompetent dictator or the USA that killed 25% of the North Korean population for no apparent reason.

    1. Re:Choices... by chasm22 · · Score: 1

      Kim , You seem to be confusing the US with your father.

  75. Re: Hopefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *eyeroll* please...

    Liberal SJW and conservative SJW differ only in who listens. Liberal SJW is dominated by feminist,POC and GLBT types. Conservatives are the greater joykill because they are dominated by regressive thinking like somehow we would be better off in a Ayn Rand fantasyland of no moochers because somehow the world has unlimited resources and no consequences for extraction of everything. I'll take the progressive liberal SJW over the conservative one any day.

  76. My opinion by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    I've never seen a Seth Rogan movie before. I probably won't ever see one again. It was better than I expected, but that's not saying much. It had its funny points, but it was still a crap movie. The good thing is, I only paid 6 bucks, I watched it in the comfort of my own home, and my food was a whole lot cheaper and better than the theater crap.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  77. Bombed, always by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to Hollywood accounting, every film ever produced loses money...

  78. Bomb? by Dripdry · · Score: 1

    I saw it!

    Movie was juvenile, but I actually found it pretty hilarious. Not high-brow funny, and a little stunted sometimes, but I laughed. I'm not sure I need to see the movie again (ok ok, it was pretty low-brow yuks, for sure) but it was a good enough time (I didn't pay to see it, so....)

    SPOILERTH:
    it could have had a much better ending, with Kim Jong-un faking his death and moving to a different country, or abdicating and becoming a disco dancing star, or something happier than getting blown up, but that's just my 2 cents.

    --
    -