Don't Hold Your Breath: CHOKE review! **SPOILERS**

Burn the heretic!!

Aaaah!

to continue with that theme, I feel like someone pissed on a religious doctrine

i've said since the beginning, they made this with 2 million bucks and a 21 day shoot. if it's better than a roger corman movie i'll be impressed.

That's insane for a movie to cost that little and for the advertisements to cost that much

Your review is horrible. Or as you put it, "fucking horrible!" And thats just from reading a small portion of it. You comparing Victor to coming of more like "Fonzi" than a sex addict is retarded. Nowhere does he ever try coming off cool and collected. He's a wreck the whole time, even when Denny tells him he might not be that bad a person, Victor says he is in fact bad.

Also realize that they had a $2 million budget to make the movie. Once the film was picked up at the Sundance Film Festival, where they able to drop some change on ads.

I think its a travesty to turn such a layered dark masterpiece into a zany buddy film

I think it's a travesty that you think you know what you're talking about.

check out the indie wire review

I had reservations about the film based on the casting and from what I saw in the trailer but I was still genuinely excited about seeing the film. I was so excited that I arrived at the Egyptian Theatre on Capitol Hill hours before show time. The tickets were already all accounted for and some creepy mother fucker tried to scalp some to me. “How much are tickets anyway?” I asked him. “How much are MY tickets?” he asked. “Fuck off, you pedophile looking bastard.“ I got the inside scoop that there was a specific number of tickets held for V.I.P. ticket holders and more would open up to the public if they failed to arrive. I came back an hour before show time and stood in line, holding spots for my girlfriend and little sister while rain sprinkled down on me. About 10-15 minutes before the movie started, they released some tickets and we funneled into the theater looking for any open seats that we could find in the packed house.I had planned to pace this review and put more thought into it’s structure than the film itself had but, I’ve already waited 3 months to write this so I’m just gonna say it: “THIS MOVIE IS ABSOLUTE SHIT!” It was fucking horrible. Sorry, but I needed to finally get that off my chest. Whooo… I actually feel a lot better. I tried to like it, I really did try but it was soooo bad. I knew that it would be difficult to adjust to director, Clark Gregg’s interpretation of the story and characters. I tried to account for that in my mind, but there aren’t enough excuses to exonerate Gregg for his merciless rape of this magnificent novel.

The movie began with the speech about the “legends” of sexual disaster from chapter 2. This monologue was taken straight from the text and, for those who haven’t read the book, it’s all about the different urban legends of doctors removing household objects from some guys ass or the lady having her dog lick peanut butter off of her snatch, etc. etc. The main character, Victor Mancini, has a sex addiction and is explaining that these aforementioned sexual perverts are, not only real, but that he comes in contact with them regularly. I thought that was a nice place to start the film but they lost me almost immediately after wards. Here, let’s dissect some of the characters and the storyline a bit further. It really is a tangled disaster but I will try to locate a good place to start.

This is the intro...and I've seen maybe two sentences therein containing soemwhat of a review...although, it's not really a review as much as "I was looking at the screen and saw people moving on it discussing the following..."

What next?

Palahniuk’s book starts with Victor as a young child traveling with his eccentric and neglectful mother. The introduction warns the reader that they are wasting their time reading about the “stupid little boy” and helps to establish Mancini’s self hatred and source of his addictive personality. Victor’s mother, Ida, is a former political activist that was regularly on the run from the law and transfers her paranoia to her son. She randomly reappears in his life to kidnap him from whoever his current foster parents are at the time. Victor’s best friend is a fellow sex addict names Denny who has a masturbation problem. He works with Victor at a Colonial Williamsburg-style tourist attraction acting in historical reenactments. The novel and it’s characters are dark and complex. It’s brilliance stems from it’s moral ambiguity and multi-dimensional characters. The film is far from that- did I mention that it was “fucking horrible?!”

Did I mention you've scarcely discussed the fucking film? Is this really a "review"? Really?

Sam Rockwell portrays Victor as a super slick bad ass. Palahniuk’s Victor slept with a lot of women but it wasn’t because he was supposed to be like Fonzi;

WHOA! Stop right there. You do NOT misspell the street name of one Arthur Herbert Fonzarelli. Fonzie. I.E. MAKE SOME RESERCH (sic, re: Ironman)!

it was because he had emotional and abandonment issues from his upbringing. Rockwell’s character seems all too proud of himself in the film and becomes the kind of character that is only appealing to assholes and the type of dipshit fratboys that Palahniuk takes subtle jabs at. In this film, Victor is a guy with a smug attitude that gets a lot of pussy and acts like he has it all figured out. The character in the book, on the other hand, is constantly aware that he doesn’t have shit figured out and is deeply resentful of his mother for creating his relationship barriers. There’s a quote from the book that reads, “The magic of sex is its acquisition without the burdon of possessions. No matter how many women you take home, there’s never a storage problem.“ I have a feeling that comments like these were misinterpreted by Gregg. The same things that represent Mancini’s contemplative nature and struggle to redefine his course in life are translated into little more than bragging and opportunities to measure his cock on the big screen.

blahblahblahdefuckingblah....(burdon?)...blahblahblah

Seriously, junior, this holds no merit. I'm not a huge Palahniuk fanboy water-carrier, but having listened to interviews with Gregg and Rockwell and Palahniuk, and knowing more than a little about what happens when books are adapted to film, I'd say you're off on this one.

Despite what you say, I'm still going to see it on Friday. Ha!

First off MonkeyWright you are a fanboy. This site is packed with people sucking up to the filmmakers and gushing over a film that is completely different than the novel that it was adapted from. Indie Wire got the same thing from the film that I did and it's crazy how defensive you people are about a different viewpoint.

Every critic is a human and an opinion is only worth as much as the person behind it. I was establishing the fact that I was going into this film excited and that I made every effort I could to get inside. I didn't go in to trash it, I went in hopeful.

Most of the responses that I see deal with the lack of funding and the appreciation that people feel for the energy that Gregg put in to making the film and his perseverance. That can be appreciated but it's irrelevant in the overall product. I'm not reviewing a film based on the funding, I was simply reviewing a film. My friend's grandma made us "spaghetti" once but used fettucini and pace picante sauce. I appreciated the effort but if I was a food critic, my review would not have been that great.

I have interviewed Charlie Day and Mary Elizabeth Ellis from "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" and their show had little to no funding when it started and was still great. They made the pilot for no more than the price of DV tape. We have an interview going up on my site soon with the makers of the film "Murder Party". They made that film without any funding and I really enjoyed it. Many great projects have been produced with a lot less than 2 million dollars, the rights to a brilliant story, and numerous Hollywood connections. The book was original but the film wasn't. I have seen all of these one-dimensional characters before and that was a disappointment to say the least.

I understand that this is a "fan site", believe me I do. I get it, but what's the point of a discussion forum when everyone has the same bland opinion? There are great film adaptations and this wasn't one of them. For a site full of people that love Chuck Palahniuk's work, I would have expected a little more. As for your breakdown of my breakdown of the story, I was comparing key points in the novel that were torn out. Key points that I felt were the soul of the film and, without them, the film felt flat and soulless. There were so many abandoned plot-lines in the film that it did not come off as a concise piece overall.

Sorry, but it's odd that here, of all places, a controversial viewpoint is not welcome. My only loyalty is to print what I honestly believe to be the truth and not pander to the disposable masses. That's what this film was for.

Spunck- You should see it and form your own opinions. As an individual and a human it's your obligation to figure out what you believe for yourself. My review isn't a personal attack on you so I don't understand the "HA". I'm not the only one that dislikes this movie and I used my review to voice the opinion of those who are like-minded. It's clear that there are already enough people hailing this puff film as a tour de force. Someone needs to balance the scales.

I will apologize for the Fonzie typo, though. You're right about that part

Two people don't like you're review and you're pulling the martyr card already? Yeeesh!

The film should stand or fall on its own merits. You spent at least the first 2 paragraphs describing how you hated the film, loved the book, the book wasn't the film, etc etc. You've colored your entire review with your love of the book. No Country For Old Men as a film was entirely different from the book. Clark Gregg, by all written accounts, loved and fought for the right to adapt the book into a movie. I'm not saying you have to love it, I'm saying you need to do a better job explaining why it fails as a film on its own merits. I'm saying your review, as a piece of writing, sucked. I'm saying your view is your view, but you're probably in the minority. I'm thinking the film is going to be a B- to solid B, carried by Sam Rockwell. I'll find out tomorrow night.

dead c,

perhaps you "read" too much into a film that hasnt been completed as of the time you saw it. well, perhaps did view the sound mastered version, i dont know. but had i seen the original first screening of fight fight club, before the conversion to the completed film, i'd have probably thought it stupid and kinda low run

part one of all i'm saying is that you cant give an honest review of a film prior to its release. that's kind of like judging a novel arc, before it's even an actual arc, prior to the actual book release--after the editors do their job and the author finishes it. cant imagine what youd have thought of chuck's book prior to release

part two is, mike isnt a "fanboy". in fact, overall here, on this fan website, we dont spend a lot of time chatting about chuck. read through the forums. outside of the workshops and update threads for the upcoming, we very seldom mention chucky p

so for you to search this place out and tell us all about your thoughts about whatever means little here and most of us dont care. we dont know you. maybe we will. but if this is your moment to shine and tell us all of the ill of whatever and self-making yourself into an idol, good luck with that. i mean, i dont mean to be mean or demeaning. we do appreciate opinions. but we dont know you, so your opinions only merit that of a tourist. dont blame us for that fact, and dont come in calling folks you dont know "fanboys". that's more like the special Olympics than conversation among peers.

just some thoughts
-kabol

.

.

.

.

I "get" what you're saying, at least portions of it, but the film, at least at the time that I viewed it, did not stand on it's own merits. The hype behind the film is based on the fact that it's an adaption of the book, otherwise that hype would not be there. I completely agree that the film should stand on it's own merit and, in fact, that is my main argument here. Whether they ran out of money or not, they bring up storylines and then abandon them without any explanation. I filled in the pieces from my own memories of the novel just to make the film flow, so I don't feel that it can really "stand alone".

My comparisons to the novel are strongly focused on what has been changed but there is a reason for that. I can understand that I could come off as someone who simply did not like the "differences" between the two and that is somewhat accurate, but the reason that I point out the differences is because the differences aren't subtle. It's not like I was upset by little irrelevant changes, they removed everything about the book that I enjoyed about it. Everything that made it a new and refreshing story. I'm serious, they pretty much removed the whole book and left a frame to build hype and replaced it with standard redundant Hollywood stock characters with bland generic love stories and storylines. Sure, it's a completely different story and should be judged as such, but I don't like the new story.

I may be in the minority here, and I understand that, but I am in the minority as one of the only people who has even seen the film and people are vehemently defending something that they haven't even seen yet. I explain that there are spoilers and warn people before reading it. I will try to put my time here and would like to see what viewpoints (both Chuck related and otherwise) come from this forum, but I did bring my review here assuming that some people were already as equally disappointed by the result of this film and would be happy to see someone finally scream their sentiments. I'm sure there will be some here come Friday.

Chuck stated at a stop on the SNUFF tour that he began writing because he couldn't find books that he wanted to read. It's hard more me to find honest reviews that don't fear advertiser withdraws and, when a friend asks me about the film and wants to know what it was like I'm gonna let them know the same way that I did in my review. I'm gonna say, "Man that was awful. You know that part where....? They totally fucked that up" etc. etc.
(You might like my snuff tour review more. It's written the same as this one but, because it's more "positive" it will probably receive a more positive reaction)

I hope they adjust some things. Just removing the cartoony soundtrack would work wonders.

Here's a few excerpts from the indie wire review of the movie
"it will astonish no one that Gregg has a lengthy resume in television comedy"
and
"This is why the comedy's so flat; the deviance is so omnipresent that it ceases to register as deviant (It's all Groucho, no Margaret Dumont)"

i'm sorry that i cant talk more on the subject. it feels inappropriate. ive not read the review, or a majority of the posts in this thread. i will, but not until after i view the film for the first time. i havent even been keeping up with interviews with sam rock and clark g and even chuck. anyone speaking on the film, ive avoided like someone with a respiratory virus. after i view the film, that's when i'll spend serious time ingesting other peoples thoughts on it. it just surprised me to see someone rip this movie with a review and it hasnt even released yet except for the film festival and that is missing the mastering of the completed sound spots and fixes needed. and it surprised me to see a new member come here, sign up and all of that, and start calling members we know fanboys and whatnot. not a cool start. learn about this community before you start talking about what you know about the people here. too many of us have been here for years.. that's because there are a lot of good people here. dont look in through that glass and make judgments from the hip. and i'll catch the rest of this thread after the movie in a few days
and welcome to the cult
-kabol

Yeah, like I said, I truly hope that they are able to adjust some of the issues especially with continuity and with the music. I read a few reviews after I wrote my own and this seems to be a common complaint.

I didn't mean to start off with accusing people of being "fanboys", if you read the post that I was referring to, I had been attacked and told that he was "not a fanboy" so I was responding by saying that it sounds like he is.

Although I've visited this site quite a bit to read interviews, like the one with John Waters which I really enjoyed, I've never felt the need to sign up to another community that is so specific. Looking deeper into this aspect of the site I noticed that it's a place for people who write and thought that, after writing about Chuck it was as good a time as any to sign up. I didn't start off attacking the members here, I started off dismantling a film and stating my disappointment in it and was I attacked for that. My views on a movie seem to have riled up some folks but I was offended first by what I viewed as bad cinema.

<---not a fanboy.

Having said that...

I'm merely annoyed at a rant that was thinly (if at all) disguised as a movie review. You should ESPECIALLY know that you need to take into consideration that you're watching a rough cut/unfinished film.

I saw a screening early on of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, and while the finished movie was nothing close to great, I tried to keep in mind as I saw fight sequences jump cut into storyboard drawings, bad sound effects, etc, that the finished product would at least look a lot better and run tighter.

My beef is that you start by positing yourself as an authority on the book, loving it, knowing the good parts, etc, and then start your "review" with such pithy phrases as

“THIS MOVIE IS ABSOLUTE SHIT!”

Which it clearly isn't, because it won an audience prize. That means that people who saw it liked it.

Lack of money ain't the issue. Transformers was, in my opinion, one of the worst pieces of cinematic dreck to be made in the last 25 years, and look what they spent on it. Small budget films typically have more heart, less studio interference, and stay truer to the director's vision.

I will argue all day that Clerks 2 is a bad movie. But it got a lot of positive audience reaction, so I can't say it's absolute shit. I COULD, were I motivated enough, make an argument deconstructing the film, presenting and analyzing certain moments and comparing them and contrasting them to an earlier work (Clerks, in this case, Choke in yours...)I could make a valid, grounded argument on why I didn't like the film. You shoot yourself in the foot at the starting line, then stumble and flail around the track. You don't justify your use of terms like "absolute shit", :"disaster" etc. For God's sake, the movie had author approval, I'm sure the plot is mostly intact, the characters have the same name and basically the same appearance...I'll finish this up tonight after I see the film.

/BROCKPOST

You shut up, Tourist! I'm not a fan boy! I'm not my fucking khakis!

Small budget films typically have more heart, less studio interference, and stay truer to the director's vision

.
Yeah, you would think so. Who gives a shit about what "typically" happens. I agree that this stayed true to the director's vision, but I don't like his cookie-cutter assembly line vision.

I'm sure the plot is mostly intact, the characters have the same name and basically the same appearance

You're sure of a lot for someone who hasn't even seen this film. If you would have paid attention to my review, and yes it was a review, you would realize that the plot isn't mostly in tact as I described in detail and the new plot is extremely generic. I would say that it's very loosely in tact at best. Try not to paint yourself into a corner too much because you seem like the type of guy whose going to try and back up his original post regardless of how much evidence is shown to the contrary. So you've been here for a while, that doesn't make your comments valid.

The only valid point made on this thread was that I may have seen a rough version. That makes a lot of sense and I can accept that as a possibility. You're going to continue to deny anything I post regardless of how much logic is behind it or how much sense that it might make to you. If I saw this film again and it was different (ie: good) I would post something like "Damn, they really fixed this up. I'm sincerely happy to see that it has really turned around" but if you see this film tonight and it's horrible, there is no way that you can agree with me because you'll just look like an asshole. If you're reading this, you're forming a response right now in your head without absorbing any of my comments, just like you did when you read my review.

“THIS MOVIE IS ABSOLUTE SHIT!”

Which it clearly isn't, because it won an audience prize. That means that people who saw it liked it.

Marisa Tomei has an Oscar and 50 Cent sold 11 million albums but that doesn't mean that they deserved it. Sundance has become a redcarpet event at this point. The Audience opinion is irrelevant because, if I am reviewing a festival version, I disagree with those people regardless. I'll make sure to try and write my next review more like this:

"This was a terrific album, unless of course you guys don't like it. I don't know... what does everybody else think?"

Lack of money ain't the issue.

I know. I hope that people stop trying to use that as an excuse.

Listen, I don't mind feedback or people talking shit to me, but try to make stronger arguments against me. I know you feel that you're doing a good job and that I may be trying to flip the argument that you used against me first, but seriously step it up. Comments like "It is good because other people said so" make you sound foolish.

I'm glad that people will be seeing this soon so that a real conversation can be generated but, don't even bother responding if you're next post is going to be
"That's what you are"

Hey, guess what? Just saw the movie.
What were you smoking? It was good, the plot from the book was IN TACT, different ending, yes, but it was a solid movie top to bottom. Very enjoyable.

You like apples...?

Next time you write a movie review, try using grammar.

grammar? check

Hey monkeywright what did you like about the film?
Did you think it was great or "good"?
I'm curious if the ending changed too because when I saw it there wasn't much of one. It was extremely overt in the explanations at the end to compensate and wrap everything up. It just sort of disintegrated off of the screen.

Did they do anything interesting with it?
I read something about them maybe changing it.

Unfortunately I wasn't smoking anything, but point noted. Maybe that would have helped.

It was solid, not Best Picture worthy, but worth paying money to see. The cast really made it shine. Anjelica Huston and Sam Rockwell had some extremely moving scenes. The iconic moments from the book (the rape, the silhouette, the choking, etc) all there, exactly how they needed to be for the screen. The ending was more about Victor coming to resolution with his mother, and while it would have been great to have the rebuilding scene at the end, Victor experienced a change, a shift in perception, growth as a character. That's enough for me. Idon't want to discuss the what of it, since it is different from the book and I don't want to throw spoilers around here.

That's cool but I viewed this as a SPOILER thread from the beginning.
Hopefully it looks a little less like a home movie but does it still have that plucky sitcom soundtrack?

Basically, I just felt that the idea of focusing on a "Who's my real daddy" storyline and the "She's really changed me. I can't sleep with this one/this girl's different" approaches were really generic and played out concepts. Although they were addressed in the book, they are much more multi-dimensional and explored in an original and new way in the novel. I felt like it was being dumbed down and processed for a mainstream audience and I was offended by its dilution, especially in an independent film.

I don't think that this film lives up to the hype that people have been bestowing on it.

Since the creative liberties taken through its transition into cinema are so vast and affect the overall result so much, I wouldn’t know how to approach this review without referring to them with specifics.

I wrote that in my article and have restated that I tried to separate the two but if the novel didn't exist, I probably wouldn't have even bothered writing a review or giving the film a second thought. It felt very homogenized and became an unoriginal and forgettable film at best, in my opinion.

I made my judgements based on my feelings on 3 criteria:
1) The things that did work were the things taken from the book directly
2) The stuff that didn't work was the material that was altered and/or added.
3) Necessary sections were removed damaging the heart and tone of the story and
unnecessary things were added that did the same (ie: Lord High Charlie)

Just based on that, it's hard for me to find the adaptation to be successful or to see Clark Gregg's involvement as beneficial to the story. I think that a lot of people are going to argue over this but many arguments will be based only and simply around the different levels of disappointment. I said that I felt the movie was shit and I knew that would offend somebody. I've read a review on this site that said it was amazing and that offended me because it felt dishonest.

I know that everyone thinks I'm an asshole that has grammatical issues. The asshole part I get but I've scored in the 99 percentile on the grammar section of every aptitude test that I've ever taken, including the A.C.T.s. I do like smoking the weed though, so you may be on to something there as well. I just wanted to pull someone else into the rocking unstable canoe that I paddled into these rapid currents of the ChuckPalahniuk.net forum by posted one more quote from the Indie Wire review about the film. It seems like this guy and myself were on the same page and I'm willing to siphon his support without his approval.

Here's his intro:

Let's say the least you expect of art is that it shows signs of a coherent designing intelligence, and the least you expect of entertainment is that it doesn't make you wish you were looking at something else. Now let's move on to "Choke," which is neither, adapted from a Chuck Palahniuk novel by actor Clark Gregg.

I edited the title to reflect spoilage.

yeah, usually if you smoke a little weed it makes you enjoy things a lot more rather than despise them.

Guy, you're a fucking tool box.

I don't mean to sound so rude and blunt, but I just wanted to seperate that statement from the rest of my retort so that you don't have to confuse your worried little head in the midst of logic. Which, clearly, you have a very small concept of. And I mean this in a broader sense of things. See, I know your kind. You're not an asshole at all. What you are is a pseudo-intellectual dude (probably a kid, at that) who's discovered the wonderful world of having an opinion, and in the joy of said discovery, it has mindfucked you into thinking that yours matters. It doesn't. And neither do you, anymore, because you're still trying to regain control of the high horse you rode in on.

Now, I'm not a fanboy of Palahniuk. Fuck, I don't like most of his work. But I am a connoisseur of common sense, and you have none.

I congratulate you for having thoughts, but they are no where near worth defending as vigorously as you've been doing, fer reels.

Jane S. thanks for adding the *spoilers* warning. The article itself states that but this thread doesn't so I appreciate it.

Jill's tit
I know your kind too, you think you're me.

I've been known to throw around the "I know your type" line now and again but mostly just to agitate people. Don't jump the gun. I know that I'm new to this forum and expect assumptions like this. One thing I do know is that the whole "you never get a second chance to make a first impression" cliche is completely inaccurate because most of my friends that I've had for over a decade hated me at first and I them. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not trying to be your pal.

I'm pushing 30 and have done interviews and reviews for years. I'm an anti-intellectual if anything. I've gone through school systems and honors programs, like many others, and have always felt that the message is more important than the presentation. I care more about the minds eye than technical ability. Political jargon and scientific terminology are oppressive and are are used to create a distance between people and concepts that are very common. I just try to eliminate that elitist separation from people that feel opinions that come from certified and accredited sources are more valid. An opinion isn't worth more if it comes from a "writer" or "authority" with a nationally publication.

I figured that people may be worried about a Hollywoodization of the film and, for those who had yet to see it and had no reference, I wanted to express that I felt that those fears are warranted in this film. I went in excited to see a film and everyone I was with walked out bumbed for the rest of the night.

Don't get ahead of yourself cowboy. You know as much as I've let you know as of this point, which isn't much. I simply posted a link and watched the comments pour in.

I'll apologize now for any typos. I'm not too concerned about them but I am fairly drunk right now.

Oh, and I think that it's important to add that I never claimed that my opinion was "right", I've only stated that I have a basis for it to anyone who's come here to tell me that it's "wrong".

It's not a right or wrong issue, it never is. The world was undeniably flat for a long fucking time. The important thing is to create a dialogue and discussions. That's how things progress. That's why people have lost faith in politics and government because there is no unity or discussion.

So you're starting flame wars because you're an alcoholic who thinks he has friends but they're people who just put up with his shit 'cause they probably have too much courtesy. You probably are single too and getting bitter because of your age. Boo hoo. Find something constructive to do.

But you wouldn't know much about that would you. You're a douche bag.

Stop wasting our time trying to pick fights with fans and build a rep.

Well that's not even remotely true.

If you're serious about being thirty, that's even worse. I gave you the benifit of the doubt, but... Anyway, it's all very simple: You're an individual who is much too impressed with his opinions than the rest of the world is. You have a skill for observation, which I honestly do commend you for. But you use it like a thirteen year old girl (to dumb that down: you're getting worked up as a defense mechanism because, well, you know for yourself).

I'm not mad at you. And I won't piss on you if I see you in any other thread (unless you're pulling shit like this), but just forget about this thread and go be a normal human being in the other ones. We're not THAT bad. We take new people in without a second thought, but only if they're presenting themselves in a positive way. Because, we're all a bunch of assholes (STARTING WITH YOU, JANE *stares*), but we wanna lighten up so we're taking in some of the sweetest people I've ever seen on the interwebs. So be nice, and learn to shut the fuck up when it's time (now).

I only said half of what came to me after reading your posts, and yet, I've said too much. Alex would shoot some sly, crafty one-liner to shut you up, but you wouldn't learn anything. An entirely different Alex would go into excruciating detail, picking apart your bits and pieces with such ease, it'll be sad to watch. I'm trying to do the in-between. Please, just pay mind. I know you can.

Jane S. that is actually very true. By that logic you shouldn't even bother with CHOKE because it holds less merit than something from a large studio. I've seen more typos and misinformation in large publications than anywhere else. Let's not forget that the mainstream media originally reported that Radiohead did the score for CHOKE and then had to retract it. They are held to limitation based on their sources of funding. You shouldn't feel that someone's views are more valid because someone chose to print something of theirs in People magazine. I've researched enough in that realm to know that many, if not most, writers are on assignments and have no interest in their subjects, which is why so many interviews are so redundant with the questioning.

Jill's Tit what I meant by my "blah, blah, blah" is that there's one forum that I spent a lot of time on. Occasionally someone would come on with a post along the lines of "You are all fucking idiots on this forum" and he would get swarmed. Swarmed like I'm getting right now, and I'd throw a zinger or two at him and then another regular from the forum who's approach I was familiar with would do the same. Blah, blah, blah. Don't act like your original comment wasn't meant to be condescending.

My point is that I'm sure, if this forum is anything like every other forum, that has happened before here and it will happen again. The comments being posted here have slowly floated towards hypocrisy and no one seems to be realizing it. You all seem very reactionary and are backing each other up because you think that you recognize this scenario but it's not the same. It's understandable that you've had to shoot people down now again but these reactions are more primitive than anything. Defending your village... and such, even defending the honor of the same people that you've had heated debates with on other threads, no doubt, because at least their place here has been established. I get it, I've done it. Cool. I don't mind being on the other side of it.

Nathaniel Parker is probably the only one who didn't flip out and attack me and might understand where I'm coming from. I'm not saying that he agrees with me, so don't get that confused. If you honestly did read the posts without the personal defensiveness, you would understand that I never came in and attacked anyone. I can understand why my coming here and posting my disdain for a Chuck Palahniuk related project could be viewed as an attack on an entire forum that is located on his fan site, but I didn't come here to shit on everybody.

You have a skill for observation, which I honestly do commend you for

Thanks, because all I was doing was "REVIEWING" a film and making observations. The responses to my review were insults about me. If it was incredibly poorly written (I know everyone already thinks that it was) but was positive everyone would feel bad and pat me on the back for trying because I have a good nature and made an attempt. It's hard to interpret tone on the internet and that's the biggest barrier. I'm assuming that everyone else on here is getting riled up and it's ruining their whole day, while I casually type with 3 different browser tabs on different sites. You all think that I'm pissed off an defensive and don't have a leg to stand on. Whatever, it's a perception issue.

I will admit that I've been guilty of a few things. The first is not liking a movie. The second is ignorantly trying to continue to establish a conversation and some communication regardless of how ineffective it has been with everyone here. Pay attention to my comments without imposing your own loaded assumptions about the energy you feel that I've put behind them and you'll realize that I keep trying to push the thread into a discussion but everyone is so hyped on the mob mentality that it's never gonna happen. The third thing that I was guilty for was believing that anyone would finally come in with a constructive comment instead of hoping to kick someone in the neck. I don't sweat it, I'm like Heathcliff in this shit. There may be a fight cloud but, emotionally, I'm not really in it.

Thanks for that.

Now go home and get yer fuckin' shinebox.

this is the dumbest thread ive ever read

it is pretty dumb, you're right.

lol, monkey. and dead_c i won't attack you at all, everyone is entitled to there own opinion, but damn! those postings are some of the longest in history. i don't have time to read all that.

Almost everyone that talked shit to me on this thread is on another thread repeating my original sentiments after calling me misguided. This thread is ridiculous

Federov
Don't talk about being constructive. I have a website and wrote a film review you while you just posted an attack on my character with an uninformed comment. In the review I talked about seeing it with my girlfriend. You didn't even fucking read it because you just posted your similar disappointment in another thread. Eat a dick.

Holy Shit!
You have a website?!!

this thread wouldve been better if everyone had collectively ignored it.
whoever dead guy is, he sucks and isnt worth discussing anything with. especially discussing his 'review'.

let me just say that i was very surprised by this movie, i thought no way could sam pull off victor, no way you could adapt this to my liking but damn if i wasn't wrong. i thought kell as paige was just amazing, and i was just so exited through it. it didn't blow me away but i was very happy with it.

i contest this. the title still goes to that pseudo-intellectual user who had a riff with stonecoyote about drugs. i can't remember that dude's name.

the movie is good for what it is. i've learned to separate print and film versions of stories to enjoy them on their own merit. there are a lot of funny and poignant moments in the movie, the cast was great and though it's not as technically polished as big budget films, gregg made a screenplay that was close to the spirit of the book version as possible, which is an incredibly difficult feat.

I read the book so recently that I don't know if it would have been possible for me to separate them as you have.

I still know that I would have felt that the movie was forgettable but, being aware of the changes that I felt were unnecessarily made and that I feel hurt the storyline, it was upsetting to me. It's really tough because the book is so cinematic in its own right.

Either way, I would prefer to read a book first and have the movie fall flat than to watch a movie and have it ruin the book.

Thanks for posting an actual opinion about the film based on your own experience though. I do hope that it helps Chuck gain some ground in having another adaptation in the future.