Reviews

I've been married to her for 20 years now, and she just now, casually informs me that she thinks her feet might be in a movie, but she's not sure. I ask her if its a Quentin Tarantino movie, because if it is, her feet are definitely in the movie. She says its not a Tarantino movie, but it had that lady from "Who's the Boss". She is quite fuzzy on the details and doesn't even know the name of the movie; other than it was made for tv. So we look up Who's the Boss, and its Judith Light that my wife was referring to. After playing 20 questions, my wife reveals that she had been downtown Seattle outside of the Frederick & Nelson department store and she was asked if she wanted to wait to cross through the movie shoot during filming; and so she waited and got to walk past Judith, who smiled at her, while cameras rolled. She thought this was in 1987 and sure enough THIS movie is made for TV, starring Judith Light, in Seattle, with a street scene outside of Fredrick & Nelson in 1987.

However!

During the "alleged" scene, my wife is nowhere to be found. Not one single foot, pant leg, nothing. (She said the cameras were angled down as if filming the feet.) So I have no other choice but to assume her feet too ugly to be in this movie; OR SHE IS A LYING LIAR WHO LIES.

She is cracking up right now.

Others are already sounding the alarm: this "Reality" prank show is fake, and boy does it show.

Because of IMDB's character requirements, which are not needed for such an appallingly bad attempt at trying to trick its audience, I will snag another comments to meet the requirement.

There's nothing worse than a fake prank show!

Hammelbarry The show is obviously fake, which makes this unwatchable. Multiple camera angles, yet there is no camera in sight!!! Lol!!! The acting is horrible. They are clearly trying make a knockoff of the Carbanara Effect, which is also fake, but at least Michael is likeable and funny.

If you read the negative reviews, this is, essentially, what you will find: My wife Priscilla and I reposed in the television viewing chamber with our two daughters, Mercedes and Porsche, to enjoy a family evening, (as is the Cunningham tradition upon the close of the week,) by partaking in the perusal of this motion picture. We were aghast, even appalled, that this cinematic endeavor titled, "The Coed and the Zombie Stoner" was far below any standard one would rightly expect of an Oscar worthy production. I wholly believe this motion picture likely failed to be even nominated for the prestigious award; for instead of providing us the slightest modicum of uplifting meditations on life and her various meanings, meanings with which one might better one's self upon the pondering there of, we were, quite contrarily, visually accosted by un-clothed bosoms (of all varieties no less, ranging from modest and perky to heaving and rotundly tumescent fun bags that swayed like uncultured desserts of alluring gelatin, so favored by the lesser individuals in the valley below; though I ruefully admit that both Mercedes and Porsche seemed rather taken in by, even entranced by, these displays of obscenely unclad bosoms - as if they had both abandoned the indescribable joy of tasting a fine wine that has been expertly paired with a delicate Foie gras and in its stead the two had somehow acquired the tastes of lesser palates that yearn for the artificially flavored raspberry jiggly-ness of vulgarity, which I assure you is what these bosoms were; oh the shame I felt on their behalves, but alas, I digress) the motion picture was, to say the very least... garish (dare I say boorish) for the crime of being over-laden with drunken shenanigans of the lowest caliber; not to mention the copious drug and drug paraphernalia references. I am deeply troubled and saddened by the realization that we most certainly live in a time, with-in which, the sanctity of one's domicile can be violated by a Trojan Horse posing as a high art family movie.

Avoid "The Coed and the Zombie Stoner" for the sake of your children - NAY! For the sake of your very sanity! - as I regret to report, the movie is not what it first appears to be! May God have mercy upon their souls...

No, it's not original.

Besides dozens of other movies with similar concepts, It Follows is very derivative of The Ring and Terminator. We are talking BLATANTLY derivative. If you don't know, The Ring has an entity that haunts people over 7 days before killing them and it can be gotten rid of by passing it to someone else. The Terminator physically hunts down its targets, methodically, steadfastly and uncompromisingly, 24/7, until it succeeds. Not being original is no big deal. But this movie's fans seem to think that this movie is immensely unique and count that as a huge plus. It isn't.

Bad acting.

Yes, these inexperienced actors are quite good; but the directing of them was not. Being young, the 3 actresses and 2 main actors don't have nuance yet. That is fine, for their age. But this doesn't mean that when they finish their lines, the director should let them simply stand in place, not moving, until it is their turn to speak again. (as if they are cartoon characters waiting to become animated again) Give these kids things to do between their lines.

Continuing to blame the bad directing, the main character's reactions were absurdly under delivered. At NO point was there any sense that she understood that she was dealing with an invisible entity trying to kill her. As stated before, the actors simply stood, statically, without truly freaking out, as if it never occurred to them, or her, that quasi-panicked reactions would not be normal behavior if it were actually happening. No panic induced freak outs. No desperate attempts to barricade doors or frantically fight back. She just nonchalantly braced a chair against the door. Why not desperately, and clumsily, roll a dresser-drawers end over end to the door?? There was no sense of urgency at any point in the movie, because at all times the outcome was already known to those involved. It never occurred to them that in real life, death would have been a possibility and that fear driven urgency would have been highly likely. During scenes without the entity, there was no uncontrollable shaking, paranoia, or sense of eminent psychological collapse. No constant agitated clumsy spinning in an attempt to take in every line of sight. No chewing nails until they bled. No facial ticks from shot nerves. Instead, the kids were chilly-chill, only delivering what was on the script, without flare, nuance or thoughtfulness: "Fire the gun? Okay. I fired it, emotionlessly, because the script didn't tell me how to act otherwise." No terrified hand trembling. No spastic, aimless panic firing. No one covering their ears and flinching at the loud reports. No crying or loss of composure. "Scream and leave the room? Okay. I'll scream without really screaming in terror. And I will calmly flee in a way that could be construed as fleeing. The script didn't call for me to run straight into a nightstand and fall to the floor in a full on display of being horrified senseless. So I won't." Although the script did call for fleeing in terror by car, which resulted in accidentally swerving at 25 mph into a corn field and coming to a stop 15 feet in, resulting in a broken arm, bloody head wound, and waking from unconsciousness in a hospital. That's some corn; you'll definitely chip a tooth.

Every single character stood quietly, blandly waiting their turn to casually do, or recite, whatever it was they had memorized from rehearsals. So many actors leave doors wide open because the script never told them to close the front door after walking outside to go to the store. Good directors yell out, "CLOSE the DOOR this time", while good actors close it without needing to be told; then lock it behind them. In this movie, the actors are unbelievable in every single scene because neither the script, nor the director, told them HOW to act. And it rings horribly untrue when crap hits the fan, but no one is trampling each other's spoken lines, flailing to get away, or otherwise acting like insanity has just ensued.

Last, the script made no sense and was poorly fleshed out.

Wow! Talk about unbelievable: ~ Right out of the gate, a young women runs out of her PARENTS' house, dressed in loose fitting faux-satin pajama shorts and matching top, while... oddly... wearing three inch high heeled patented leather DANCE SHOES! I have never, in my life, seen a woman match casual sleepwear with F-me pumps... let alone, at her dad's house. Was he killed next??? That'll get ya thinking... like maybe, the daughter got stuck in the dryer while mommy was away... so she called out, "Daddy, help!!" (Half the people reading this just left to log into Heavy-R) ~The character that passes the curse to our main girl, (congrats on still being here, btw) CHLOROFORMS her, for ZERO reason, when all he had to do was say, "Hey, I want you to see something." They are dating, for crying out loud!! Pretty sure she'll respond with, "Okay. What you got?" Why, if her death means he is next to be followed again, would he render her unconscious AND tied up, and wait for the entity to arrive? This absurdly uncalled for behavior now ensures that she has been made 100% incapable of defending herself on two different levels, should the entity get a hold of her. (It was because the script said so, that she woke up in time. How was he supposed to know when the entity would arrive? Or when the Chloroform would wear off? Or what her reaction to being drugged would be?) Does he chloroform everyone he wants to show something too? "Hey, what's up with the Ether?" "Oh, just gettin' ready to show you my stamp collection." "You can just show it, you know." "Meh... I don't think so... HEY! Is that Taylor Swift behind you!?" ~ Who, upon becoming convinced they are being stalked by an entity, doesn't insist on staying around their friends AT ALL TIMES? "I don't care if you're going to take a crap, I'm coming with." "Taking a shower? No you're not. You're just fine being all stinky." "Hi, Madison?? Don't worry about how I got your number, I need to know if can I borrow your dog for a while? No, not the Toy Poodle, the Doberman. Yes, I know he's under legal quarantine because he killed an intruder. No, I won't be needing the muzzle. How hard, exactly, does he bite, by the way?", said no one in this movie. This leaves smart people immediately asking, "Why not?"(Regardless of whether the dog could see the entity or not, the entity does interact with physical things, and certainly would be heard by the dog, if not smelled as well. And who doesn't want to see a viscous 100 pound Doberman realize the entity is in the house and watch him tear into it once he's managed to hunt it down? Like... "Ahh, another intruder eh? Well we'll see about that!") ~ Who, in this situation, would walk for more than three seconds without looking back over their shoulder? Who would fall asleep on their car hood? Why do they not have sleep deprived bags under their eyes? HOW are they even capable of sleeping? We are never shown them attempting to stay awake, a la Nightmare On Elm Street coffee binges. Why would the main girl sit FACING a lake with her back TO THE WOODS, when any IQ over 70 would think, "Maybe sit with my back to the lake, WHERE I KNOW the entity can't sneak up on me." They honestly act less like the supernatural is trying to kill them and more like they're trying to shake off the sad death of a friend.

~ Why was money never made an issue? Because this is a really good time to go see Europe. Or take a drive to southern Chile. I mean, at least provide an excuse for not doing what most people WOULD do; which is, PUT SOME SERIOUS DISTANCE between themselves and the entity. Is the local park REALLY the best they could come up with? That issue needed to be killed in the script because intelligent people tuned out.

~ Why were authorities never involved? I would want as many minds working on this as possible. So why didn't the script deal with that?

~ Last, it is well known that most people consider fast running zombies to be scarier than slow lumbering ones, such as George Romero's were. There is no plausible explanation in this movie for getting caught by something that WALKS. Fix it BEFORE shooting the movie. Ie: The entity blends in as normal people too well. Or it runs, non stop, and FAST; or it can materialize. Perhaps there is more than one entity, and they treat city blocks like chess board squares - slowly checkmating people into an unsolvable situation. Maybe have the characters unaware of what is happening, or what the rules are; while we, the audience, are aware. Otherwise, intelligent people are going to tune out. And did.

This might as well have been a movie about a rubber tire that kills people.

In no way shape or form was Nannerl Mozart a prodigy. She was a talented keyboardist,("piano" from here on) but talented is the key word. As far as composing goes, she was a very poor composer and she definitely was NOT composing Mozart's music for him. On the contrary, there are a few existing letters from her, asking him to compose piano pieces for her.

Contrary to modern belief, a very large number of upper-middle class and wealthier ladies were STELLAR pianists. There were no radios and the piano was their entertainment, for their husbands and themselves. This leads to an incontrovertible fact: the VAST MAJORITY of pianists in the 17th and 18th, even 19th centuries, were women. NOT MEN. Men just didn't have the time needed to learn to play the piano, and very very few did.

In order to play the piano during these eras, one needed extensive training, 4 years minimum to reach a modicum of proficiency, in both reading sheet music, as well as improvising and composing. Of the women playing piano, they not only knew how to compose music, but were expected to do so. Music history is FULL of female composers. But the bottom line is, they are not famous because they are not good enough. Play anything from Maria Hester Park, Clara Schumann, or Fanny Mendelssohn and compare it to any famous male composer from the same era and there is no competition.

Maria Hester Park is considered part of the "Mozart Circle" btw. Meaning her compositional style was HEAVILY influenced by him. So let's compare. Copy each fragment below, open a new window, go to youtube and paste the fragment after the dot com and hit enter.

2 pieces for piano from Maria Hester Park /watch?v=-paYk0zJZts and

/watch?v=FwBto5iueig

2 pieces for piano from Mozart: /watch?v=l0ecUq1z1TE and

/watch?v=1BkZ8ci8_k4

Maria Hester Park was famous in her day, and she is still known 250 years later. But do not even try to claim her pieces are on par with Mozart. Even today, with all the hooray for woman, the female composers are STILL ignored. This bizarre erroneous belief that woman were beaten down just isn't true.

On top of this lack of virtuosic skill, we have the problem of travel. With all the hardships, danger and crime on the road in the 1700s, women did not WANT to travel. (Mozart's mother actually died from pneumonia, while on the road with him) It was easier on women to stay home and be a wealthy house-wife than it was to travel as a composer and performer. Before electricity, a wealthy woman could run her house, or, if she was crazy, she could try to join the men and swing an ax, dig for coal, haul manure, slaughter animals, or any other number of nasty, sweaty, exhausting thankless jobs. Heat of summer, wet of rain, or freezing snow... like traveling across Europe by horse drawn wagon to play a piano in the next big city two - three weeks away. Do you have ANY idea how slow horses trot compared to cars and planes?

I'm not even going to go into detail about how utterly absurd it is to claim that Nannerl not only knew the Hier of the French Throne, but was in a secret, quasi homosexual, cross dressing relationship with him. Good God...

This was a fairly competent movie, just understand it isn't meant for adults. This movie is a children's movie, through and through, and is unlikely to entertain the rest of the family.. I'd say ages 6 - 12 are its target audience, with nothing truly scary, atmospheric or special for more mature audiences to enjoy. All the flaws and silliness that stops this movie from achieving greatness as a Halloween classic for everyone, are issues that children won't even notice. For them, its a great spooky little story, with good Halloween vibes. The scares are laid on heavily, but are safe enough to not over-scare them, with violence being non-existent.

Aka "Halloween is Grinch Night", there is no Halloween atmosphere at all. So its second name is a misnomer, which is sad, considering a good solid infusion of Halloween standards would have helped this cartoon immensely. The descriptor that wind is blowing, thus signaling the coming of the Grinch, is quite accurate. But there are no haunting chills, no build-up of impending scares, no anticipation of any thing wicked this way comes... just boring song after boring song telling you the Who's are scared. The animation is the same as any other Dr. Seuss animation, which, (tho nostalgic) is not a good thing by today's standards. If you show this with enthusiasm to under-20s, just know that it will be another check in their check list verifying that yo are old. As for under-7s, they like anything, so go for it.

If you are planning on reading the negative reviews, let me sum them up for you: "I had herd good things about Baskin & Robbins Icecream , so I goed accepting a good meal. What I got was an abdominal . It was banana that had was split down the middle . They called it an "Banana Split". How original? .. There were with scoops of chocolate , strawberryandvanilla ice cream in middle.. Whom in there right mine done did that ?? As if that weren't not bad enough,the icecream was topped whith carmle , chocolate and strawberry syrips and whipped cream sprinkles , chopped nuts and Maraschino , cherries ? GROSS !! Only a little sissy child would eat such a concoction . I My two year old could make this !! I only eat Garlic infused Okra Flambay served on fresh Himalayan Cedar sprouts cooked by learnt Chefs. Watch this movie only if you are want to become uncivilized idiot!!"

As for me, milk came out my nose and I peed a little when Chaka grabbed her boobs... and you can too! But only if you watch this movie.

HOLY Toledo... I couldn't even FIND the jokes. I had a sense that there were the hints of jokes. There were implications of them. But I LITERALLY could not recognize any of the implied jokes. The visual ones I got. I mean maybe I missed a few, how would I know. But I was at a complete loss from the moment this movie began, to the time it ended. I am NOT being hyperbolic, I am being LITERAL right now. I GOT NOTHING. The most spoken phrases out of my mouth NON STOP, in this movie were: "Was that a joke?" "Was that supposed to be funny?" "I don't get it..." It was a dumbfounding and utterly bizarre experience.

The movie starts with a Nickolas Cage soliloquy. It is blatantly clear that he is reading from the script, without inflection nor emotion. This was my first, "Uh-oh..." Next, the Ambulance dispatcher speaks over the radio. The voice actor delivered incredibly immature dialog that didn't sound like a dispatcher in any way, shape or form. Immediately following this, extras are gathered at the steps of the apartments Nicholas Cage is responding to. The extras are over-acting as nervous, concerned neighbors and one asks which apartment made the call. This is odd because they are standing at the base of the stairs that lead to the apartment that has its door WIDE open with several women screaming and crying inside. Even more odd, is that Cage actually tells them which apartment is having the medical emergency. The next problem occurs when Cage asks one of the women in the apartment to operate the airway compressor for him, as if paramedics simply bring you the medical devices you need so you can DIY. Before she gets a chance to do the job Cage has been trained and certified to do, John Goodman starts zapping the hell out of the heart attack victim with the defibrillator. When Goodman starts giving chest compressions, with bent elbows, I'd seen enough. In less than 10 minutes, I fired the movie.

This movie is derivative of Mean Creek. So if you like it, watch that movie too. Having said that, there is one thing about this movie that startled me - the acting.

There is SO much subtle detail in what these young actors are doing, that I started noticing. We are talking a TON of minor details in their voices, mannerisms, fidgeting and body language... that there is NO WAY teen actors are doing them on their own. It HAS to be Dir. Kevin Phillips' coaching. All in all, story wise, this is a somewhat slow burn, with nothing original. But if you like drum tight acting, this is a MUST watch. I am very impressed.

This short is as pointless as the movie "Rubber". But, at around a minute, you should watch it if you're a fan of Svankmajer. Just know that he has put out far far better works. This may have been a very early film school assignment. That wouldn't surprise me at all. For a fun intro to those who don't know his work, dig up his English dubbed Alice (assuming that you speak English and not Czech). This will let you take in a story well known to you, "Alice In Wonderland", while seeing his stop motion work and creativity at the same time. In my IMBD list, "Absolute Weirdest Movies Of All Time", I have a couple of his movies recommended there.

A movie about a frog raping women SCREAMS camp. This movie, however, delivers nearly ZERO camp. A rather bold move to say the least. The only camp in the movie is the frog suit used to portray the humanoid frog. That's it. The remaining entirety of it is shot straight. ALL of it! This film does have lots of tits; but that's not going to save it. If you want camp, this movie doesn't have it.

One positive review compares this movie to Troma; which is like claiming Lite beers are similar to IPAs or dark Stouts. Oh, you like Guinness Stout? Here, try this can of Bud Lite I opened two days ago. This movie is the Bud piss beer, just to be clear btw. I am at a loss to make further comments, because I'm not quite sure why anyone would like this movie. As far as I could discern, it doesn't deliver in any category one could enjoy a movie by, except maybe the T&A and F/F kissing categories, but it's not the best of those easy to find genres either.

The negative reviews are borderline hostile, in a way that almost makes them funny, if it wasn't for the fact that these are real people who seem to badly need serious psychological help. They are almost universally enraged over Mary and Max not being the cool kids. One is upset over the age difference, several are mad that the two don't overcome their positions in life, and most of them are tossing around pejoratives like "losers". Seriously?? She's a socially awkward 9 year old Australian being raised by an alcoholic mother who shoplifts, the other is a 60 year old man with debilitating Asperger's who sells pencil's from a cardboard box in NY. Try some Paxil, people.

Let's get things straight: this is not a sex comedy, nor is it raunchy. The nudity is incidental. This movie is actually an action comedy. This is a movie about what happens at PORKY'S. This is why it is called PORKY'S.

To understand what happens at Porky's, we get an intro to the main instigators. A series of playful pranks establishes 2 things about the core group: they are creatively resourceful, to an abnormal degree; and they are fiercely loyal. Next we have their escapades, the shower room and the prank in the woods are 2 of several examples. These escapades explain "why" they end up at Porky's. Normal kids are not excessively resourceful, nor are they fiercely loyal. Normal kids are not dead set on losing their virginity, and so, do not end up at a place like Porky's. A movie about normal behaving kids would be pointless. A story becomes interesting when it is atypical. A trip to the bank is not as interesting as a trip to a bank that gets robbed.

Next we need the inciting characters. These two are Mickey and... PORKY. Surprise. Porky is quickly and cleanly established as the villain/antagonist by the fact that he is an overweight strip club owner who flies confederate flags. His arch is from wealth and hubris to financial loss and humiliation. Mickey, having a redemption arc, is a tad more complex. He goes from an angry closed off kid who doesn't want Brian (the Jew) joining his friend group; to losing a fight against Brian, being slapped around in front of his friends by his dad for losing a fight to a Jew, being kicked off the basketball team because of how he treats Brian and finally the straw that breaks his back: being scammed and humiliated by Porky. All of this informs us as to why Mickey will not let things go with Porky. His treatment at Porky's goes from bad to worse and then even more worse. And if you remember that we are dealing with an extraordinarily resourceful and extremely loyal group, as shown repeatedly in the first half, you can now understand the rest of the movies logic.

Let's also clear up that, no the movie is NOT misogynistic. It is the exact opposite. Wendy's sexual freedom is NEVER criticized nor rudely commented on. She is not only accepted by the group, she is a central member, not a tacked on extra. Peewee is teased for his sexual ineptitude however, but it is Wendy who bails him out. Mickey completes his arch when Brian the Jew hatches the plan to get revenge against Porky for Mickey, an affair Brian had absolutely nothing to do with. In the end, Mickey tells off and disowns his father in defense of Brian.

The popular gym teacher gets realistically fired for his escapade with the cheer leading coach. She get's canned as well. The shower scene is committed by 3 boys, Peewee being one of them (completely believable). The shower room of girls empties in a rush of all but 5 girls (Wendy being one of them) who all towel up to stay behind to find out who is spying on them. They end up holding their own with a squishy bar of soap.(dare I say "Gurl Power!)

I love that there is no bullying, other than Mickey's failed attempt against Brian. That the girls and women are strong and liberated. And that this movie pits a brother-in-law Sheriff of one county, against an Uncle Sheriff of the other.

I challenge anyone to write a synopsis of Animal House or American Pie with this kind of layered depth.

If you got this far, I hope you hit the like because you found it helpful.

Good music choices. Competently filmed for what it is. Unfortunately this movie's plot is meandering, theme-less, devoid of humor - though brimming with forced nonsense it tries to pass off as humor - boring and pointless.

My guess as to why there are good reviews is that these people watched this movie at a time, or under circumstances, that lead them to find it good. These situations would be specific to them. I think certain people have an affinity towards this film and are up voting it. However, the mess that this movie is, will be felt by most people. The creators took a shot and missed badly by most people's standards.

Edit: After reading the comments I have a better understanding of why people like this movie. They are using terms like: shocking, gory, over the top, wacky, weird, strange, and out there. They also believe that those who dislike this movie don't get it, or are overwhelmed by the films surrealness/zaniness/oddness. This tells me all I need to know about their level of film viewing. This film is NONE of those descriptors. I did not find this movie gory, shocking, goofy, zany, surreal or any of those awesome descriptors they think this movie is. This film is straight up BORING BEYOND ALL GET OUT!

A quick list of movies that DO fit the descriptors used above (and you'd better brace yourself for the ones with *s): **Dead Alive/Brain Dead, ***The Greasy Strangler, ***Poltrygeist: Night of the Chicken Undead (or most Tromaville flicks), ***Street Trash, *Skinned Deep, Head of the Family, *Franken Stripper, parts 1,2, and 4 of **Chillerama, **Exorcism At 60,000 Feet, Velocapastor, *Ricky-Oh: The Story of Ricky, Alien vs Ninja, Freaked, Killer Tongue, Happy Time Murders, Turbo Kid, Killer Klowns from Outer Space, Attack of the Killer Donuts or even Mars Attacks.

After having watched this movie, I am at a loss as to what they were trying to achieve. If I guess, I would say that they think candy doesn't need to be merchandised; that candy is adored in childhood and so it can sustain itself without the adulteration of advertising. But I'm not sure.

Part of the reason for the confusion is that they flip flop between attacking the candy industry and defending it. Points A, B and C are presented as negative truths. Then points D, E and F are debunked negatives... and back and forth they go. As I stated in the beginning, they are also making arguments about the advertising of candy, and there are no back and forths on that end. This is why I think the advertising argument might be their main argument.

These arguments are presented in an almost documentary style. The movie feels very Michael Moore-ish. Except that all their points, which are really more like bar trivia, are linked by a very thin fictitious plot. At first I wasn't sure if the points were true, or made up for the benefit of the plot. So I researched them. And... well they weren't made up, but they are very poorly researched. Here are examples:

~ Children have choked to death on marshmallows playing the "Chubby Bunny Challenge". The film even showed the warning on a bag that marshmallows could be a choking hazard. (No way! Really?!) But the truth is that in 70 years of the "Chubby Bunny Challenge" ONE (that's 1, as in "a single") child choked to death. The only other known person to choke to death in 70 years of Chubby Bunny was a grown woman. That is, (for those who are poor at math) a grand total of TWO people in 70 years. They fail to mention this.

~ The creator of Tootsie Rolls committed suicide. Okay. True... but no connection to anything relevant, he just happened to be a person who took his own life. I'm not sure why it's in the film as some sort of "Gotcha!", but moving on.

~ John F. Kennedy said he was a jelly doughnut in German in a speech he gave in Berlin, Germany. Again, not sure why it's in the movie, but NO he most certainly did NOT. I speak fluent German. German does not operate like English. The phrase "What kind of dog is that?" can be literally translated from German as "What for a dog is that?" German does not have a word for "of". So in English, "I am Berliner" uses the same format as in German. But Kennedy said "I am "A" Berliner" and the best way to translate this addition of the "a" article into English is as "one" not "a". This means, using German language logic, Kennedy said, "I am "one" "of" the Berliners". NOT "I am a Berliner jelly doughnut". And the claim that Kennedy mistranslated English into German is itself based on a mistranslation as Berliners are only jelly doughnuts in North America. In Germany "ein Berliner" is a powder sugar covered pancake. And it is not "a Berliner" it is "one Berliner".

~ I didn't know this until the movie uncovered it: cartoon mascots aren't real! Did you know this?? They spent A LOT of time explaining, without satire, sarcasm or humor, that Tony the Tiger, Cap'n Crunch, Keebler Elves, Tucan Sam, Mrs. Butterworth, the Lucky Charms Leprechaun etc. Are not real. I'm not being funny right now. This is really in the film. On the leprechaun, they did not specify if ALL of them are not real, or just the Lucky Charms cartoon version.

~ Soldiers ate candy during wars AND also gave candy to kids in war torn countries. WHOA!!

~This nonsense is through the entirety of the movie.

For the finale, the movie seems to want to convince you that you dropped acid as it gets a bit trippy and nonsensical out of no where and for no good reason other than maybe the sake of being... simply nonsensical.