He went on Conan and kept talking about how "historic" it is and never talked about how funny it is even though Conan kept asking if it was actually funny
Pretty much. At the very least he said he didn't want conservative gays to watch it. And considering he probably thinks people like Buttigieg are conservative gays, that's a good portion of your target market to be pissing off
Women love yaoi and brokeback mountain. It only work if the men are very handsome, the actors here are just gross so you can’t help but think how they get feces on their dicks and a lot of STIs.
>make a gay movie >hire a gay cast >hire a gay crew >market the movie as explicitly for gay people >call everyone "homophobic weirdos"
Why isn't anyone watching Bros, bros?
I'm laughing that you actually have shit like that image saved incase you need to post it on a fricking Cinemaphile thread about some queer's movie that bombed.
Get a fricking job son.
Well, they do like fecal matter, so pretty much by definition they're moronic but their belief likely comes both from wishful thinking (something they have in common with women) and society celebrating homosexuality. I can see why they might ask themselves "Why would straight men tolerate having gayness constantly shoved in their faces if they're not secretly gay?" and then come up with an answer that fulfills their wishes if it were true.
Using gays/eunuchs/etc as middle management has been a staple of stagnant empires since the ancient Chinese regimes. Ottomans and Americans fall into that club as well.
So they think they're much more common because they're surrounded by others like them in their spheres. They get just as delusional and out of touch as the elite
Eunuchs were slaves who had their dick chop off to prevent any incidents of the slave fricking the royal family`s daughter or 3000 wives. They are literally not gay. They really let any other morons post on this website huh.
What's it like to intentionally misunderstand what other people say and argue against your misunderstandings?
The post clearly highlights various people that have had their biological reasons for caring about the future removed or reduced to a non factor, this making them not a threat to those above them. Why is this difficult to understand?
Also saying Ottoman eunuchs are slaves and leaving it at that is a wildly dishonest and obviously subversive thing to do and you know enough to know better.
It isn’t just that-
Fatherhood is a driving force in a nation. A truly good father wants to build the best future for his children- this conflicts with various special interests from israelites to corporate parasites. Having men emasculated, effeminate, and self destructive is their aim- as you put it “brainwashed loyal commissars”- commissars incapable of realizing what is best for themselves.
I have gay friends but I still find actual gayness repulsive. I tolerate it for the sake of being a good friend and all that but I'd never want to watch a movie about gay people.
It made $1400 per theater this weekend. $4.8 million total. I have a hard time believing that those ticket sales weren't buoyed by the distributor. Its true box office take was probably less than a million.
>Hollywood (along with the rest of the world) declares they will no longer cater to straight, white men >Straight, white men no longer buy your product >Get upset at straight, white men >Rinse and repeat
>As Hollywood displays its ongoing artistic bankruptcy, we see the people responsible for this glut of unoriginality for what they really are morally and politically. That was the case last week with Olivia Wilde’s Don’t Worry Darling and now with Judd Apatow’s production of the Billy Eichner project Bros. The latest in Apatow’s series of vulgar introductory films (Knocked Up for Seth Rogan, Trainwreck for Amy Schumer, The King of Staten Island for Pete Davidson), Bros defends stunt-provocateur Eichner’s singularly hideous personality.
>Bros sells the only thing Eichner’s got to offer: his political identity as a white gay male. It has been the media’s excuse for tolerating his unapologetic boorishness as shtick. You may never have heard of Eichner, one of those minor cable-TV aberrations (shows such as Billy on the Street, in which he accosted passersby) who was marketed into Hollywood acceptance as a “comedian.” In the gratingly unfunny Bros, Eichner plays Bobby Leiber, a podcaster — which explains how an obnoxious blowhard makes a living, a podcaster being tantamount to a cultural influencer.
>Bobby gets an employment upgrade to curate an LGBTQ museum, which sets him up for another social gain: a romantic partner to certify his status. Goofy, smug, and insecure Bobby meets Aaron (Luke Macfarlane), a smiley, straight-appearing stereotype chosen for the film’s pretense of redefining all masculinity.
Through the title “Bros,” Hollywood — already a distinct political enclave — markets a protected social group. The film’s proper title could have been cultish –“Girls,” “Queens,” “Ladies,” even “Guys” — except that Apatow and director Nicholas Stoller (co-writing with Eichner) presume to instruct the public on its outmoded ideas of manhood. They want credit for being neither homophobic nor heteronormative (although the lamest jokes ridicule the latter). Witless Hollywood needs to flaunt its progressivism.
In those terms, Bros looks like a landmark, but not for its content (despite reviewers dutifully repeating the film’s dishonest sales pitch that it’s Hollywood’s first openly gay rom-com). Fact is, Bros is notable only for its surrounding context, a cultural low-water mark.
At a time when the only American who cannot offer a definition of a male homosexual is probably the disingenuous Ketanji Brown Jackson, Apatow, Stoller, and Eichner deal in the deliberate confusion of today’s sexual-equity circus — which derived from Hollywood liberalism as much as from the old Human Rights Campaign, now warped into the leading trans-activism organization.
>The context in which Bros is released as a major studio project is the trans sexualization now threatening children, gender roles, social privilege, and political preference. In this light, Bros presents a fairly mild version of Eichner’s street harangues. The scene of Bobby leaving Aaron to a sexual threesome is like a safe, pre-monkeypox, Disney-certified orgy. The erotic tension in the Jackass movies is more daring.
>Context being everything, Bros matches the announcement by the producer of the James Bond series: “Bond is evolving as men are evolving.” But the attempt to normalize Eichner by imitating the rom-com formula is what makes Bros bogus. Apatow and Stoller can’t domesticate their unruly pet, but they also lack the honesty to admit that Eichner’s insufferable bachelorhood actually exemplifies his own unevolved sense of entitlement — typical Hollywood narcissism.
>More context: The rom-com premise of treating gay males like Norah Ephron clichés narrows gay life to the Buttigieg, Obergefell standard. In the same year that Terence Davies’s Benediction boldly revealed the heartache behind gay male sexual self-sufficiency, Bros proffers trivializing comedy. This insults those gay filmmakers outside Hollywood, from Bruce La Bruce to Patrik-Ian Polk to James Sweeney, who struggled to honestly express their wit and acknowledge our common sexuality.
>Bros pretends to satirize Bobby’s fear of commitment, but the contempt Eichner showed to his on-the-street video victims has not been transformed into charm. Eichner bluffs his way through rom-com skits, unlike real actors Richard Burton and Rex Harrison putting themselves on the line in Staircase, the remarkably empathetic 1969 comedy revealing the depths of an aged gay couple’s unsettled needs and desires.
>The hateful museum-board-meeting scene mocking homosexual privilege (Bisexuals vs. Lesbians) is a disgraceful update of those Gay 101 lessons that writer Paul Rudnick provided in Jeffrey and In & Out. And nothing in Bros compares to that moment in James Sweeney’s brilliant Straight Up when Rory (Katie Findlay) observed: “I have a theory that Millennials overshare because we’re the most godless generation, so that’s why we confess everything on social media. It’s sort of our way to cling to some kind of permanence.”
>Apatow and Stoller can’t make a star of resentful, hang-dog Eichner. The real goal is to substantiate their industry’s agenda regarding sex, identity, and social position. (“Gay men are my jam,” boasts a moronic straight-girl character, one among the film’s celebrity-endorsement cameos by Debra Messing, Kristen Chenoweth, and Harvey Fierstein.) Stoller shows no interest in sensuality as broached in Straight Up or that Julián Hernández makes vivid in his romantic new short Dos entre muchos (Two Among Many). The fake rom-com of Bros makes light of gay male sensibility. It’s crude and dislikable.
>The context in which Bros is released as a major studio project is the trans sexualization now threatening children, gender roles, social privilege, and political preference. In this light, Bros presents a fairly mild version of Eichner’s street harangues. The scene of Bobby leaving Aaron to a sexual threesome is like a safe, pre-monkeypox, Disney-certified orgy. The erotic tension in the Jackass movies is more daring.
>Context being everything, Bros matches the announcement by the producer of the James Bond series: “Bond is evolving as men are evolving.” But the attempt to normalize Eichner by imitating the rom-com formula is what makes Bros bogus. Apatow and Stoller can’t domesticate their unruly pet, but they also lack the honesty to admit that Eichner’s insufferable bachelorhood actually exemplifies his own unevolved sense of entitlement — typical Hollywood narcissism.
>More context: The rom-com premise of treating gay males like Norah Ephron clichés narrows gay life to the Buttigieg, Obergefell standard. In the same year that Terence Davies’s Benediction boldly revealed the heartache behind gay male sexual self-sufficiency, Bros proffers trivializing comedy. This insults those gay filmmakers outside Hollywood, from Bruce La Bruce to Patrik-Ian Polk to James Sweeney, who struggled to honestly express their wit and acknowledge our common sexuality.
>As Hollywood displays its ongoing artistic bankruptcy, we see the people responsible for this glut of unoriginality for what they really are morally and politically. That was the case last week with Olivia Wilde’s Don’t Worry Darling and now with Judd Apatow’s production of the Billy Eichner project Bros. The latest in Apatow’s series of vulgar introductory films (Knocked Up for Seth Rogan, Trainwreck for Amy Schumer, The King of Staten Island for Pete Davidson), Bros defends stunt-provocateur Eichner’s singularly hideous personality.
>Bros sells the only thing Eichner’s got to offer: his political identity as a white gay male. It has been the media’s excuse for tolerating his unapologetic boorishness as shtick. You may never have heard of Eichner, one of those minor cable-TV aberrations (shows such as Billy on the Street, in which he accosted passersby) who was marketed into Hollywood acceptance as a “comedian.” In the gratingly unfunny Bros, Eichner plays Bobby Leiber, a podcaster — which explains how an obnoxious blowhard makes a living, a podcaster being tantamount to a cultural influencer.
>Bobby gets an employment upgrade to curate an LGBTQ museum, which sets him up for another social gain: a romantic partner to certify his status. Goofy, smug, and insecure Bobby meets Aaron (Luke Macfarlane), a smiley, straight-appearing stereotype chosen for the film’s pretense of redefining all masculinity.
Through the title “Bros,” Hollywood — already a distinct political enclave — markets a protected social group. The film’s proper title could have been cultish –“Girls,” “Queens,” “Ladies,” even “Guys” — except that Apatow and director Nicholas Stoller (co-writing with Eichner) presume to instruct the public on its outmoded ideas of manhood. They want credit for being neither homophobic nor heteronormative (although the lamest jokes ridicule the latter). Witless Hollywood needs to flaunt its progressivism.
In those terms, Bros looks like a landmark, but not for its content (despite reviewers dutifully repeating the film’s dishonest sales pitch that it’s Hollywood’s first openly gay rom-com). Fact is, Bros is notable only for its surrounding context, a cultural low-water mark.
At a time when the only American who cannot offer a definition of a male homosexual is probably the disingenuous Ketanji Brown Jackson, Apatow, Stoller, and Eichner deal in the deliberate confusion of today’s sexual-equity circus — which derived from Hollywood liberalism as much as from the old Human Rights Campaign, now warped into the leading trans-activism organization.
>The context in which Bros is released as a major studio project is the trans sexualization now threatening children, gender roles, social privilege, and political preference. In this light, Bros presents a fairly mild version of Eichner’s street harangues. The scene of Bobby leaving Aaron to a sexual threesome is like a safe, pre-monkeypox, Disney-certified orgy. The erotic tension in the Jackass movies is more daring.
>Context being everything, Bros matches the announcement by the producer of the James Bond series: “Bond is evolving as men are evolving.” But the attempt to normalize Eichner by imitating the rom-com formula is what makes Bros bogus. Apatow and Stoller can’t domesticate their unruly pet, but they also lack the honesty to admit that Eichner’s insufferable bachelorhood actually exemplifies his own unevolved sense of entitlement — typical Hollywood narcissism.
>More context: The rom-com premise of treating gay males like Norah Ephron clichés narrows gay life to the Buttigieg, Obergefell standard. In the same year that Terence Davies’s Benediction boldly revealed the heartache behind gay male sexual self-sufficiency, Bros proffers trivializing comedy. This insults those gay filmmakers outside Hollywood, from Bruce La Bruce to Patrik-Ian Polk to James Sweeney, who struggled to honestly express their wit and acknowledge our common sexuality.
>Bros pretends to satirize Bobby’s fear of commitment, but the contempt Eichner showed to his on-the-street video victims has not been transformed into charm. Eichner bluffs his way through rom-com skits, unlike real actors Richard Burton and Rex Harrison putting themselves on the line in Staircase, the remarkably empathetic 1969 comedy revealing the depths of an aged gay couple’s unsettled needs and desires.
>The hateful museum-board-meeting scene mocking homosexual privilege (Bisexuals vs. Lesbians) is a disgraceful update of those Gay 101 lessons that writer Paul Rudnick provided in Jeffrey and In & Out. And nothing in Bros compares to that moment in James Sweeney’s brilliant Straight Up when Rory (Katie Findlay) observed: “I have a theory that Millennials overshare because we’re the most godless generation, so that’s why we confess everything on social media. It’s sort of our way to cling to some kind of permanence.”
>Apatow and Stoller can’t make a star of resentful, hang-dog Eichner. The real goal is to substantiate their industry’s agenda regarding sex, identity, and social position. (“Gay men are my jam,” boasts a moronic straight-girl character, one among the film’s celebrity-endorsement cameos by Debra Messing, Kristen Chenoweth, and Harvey Fierstein.) Stoller shows no interest in sensuality as broached in Straight Up or that Julián Hernández makes vivid in his romantic new short Dos entre muchos (Two Among Many). The fake rom-com of Bros makes light of gay male sensibility. It’s crude and dislikable.
>Bros sells the only thing Eichner’s got to offer: his political identity as a white gay male. It has been the media’s excuse for tolerating his unapologetic boorishness as shtick. You may never have heard of Eichner, one of those minor cable-TV aberrations (shows such as Billy on the Street, in which he accosted passersby) who was marketed into Hollywood acceptance as a “comedian.” In the gratingly unfunny Bros, Eichner plays Bobby Leiber, a podcaster — which explains how an obnoxious blowhard makes a living, a podcaster being tantamount to a cultural influencer.
>Bobby gets an employment upgrade to curate an LGBTQ museum, which sets him up for another social gain: a romantic partner to certify his status. Goofy, smug, and insecure Bobby meets Aaron (Luke Macfarlane), a smiley, straight-appearing stereotype chosen for the film’s pretense of redefining all masculinity.
Through the title “Bros,” Hollywood — already a distinct political enclave — markets a protected social group. The film’s proper title could have been cultish –“Girls,” “Queens,” “Ladies,” even “Guys” — except that Apatow and director Nicholas Stoller (co-writing with Eichner) presume to instruct the public on its outmoded ideas of manhood. They want credit for being neither homophobic nor heteronormative (although the lamest jokes ridicule the latter). Witless Hollywood needs to flaunt its progressivism.
In those terms, Bros looks like a landmark, but not for its content (despite reviewers dutifully repeating the film’s dishonest sales pitch that it’s Hollywood’s first openly gay rom-com). Fact is, Bros is notable only for its surrounding context, a cultural low-water mark.
At a time when the only American who cannot offer a definition of a male homosexual is probably the disingenuous Ketanji Brown Jackson, Apatow, Stoller, and Eichner deal in the deliberate confusion of today’s sexual-equity circus — which derived from Hollywood liberalism as much as from the old Human Rights Campaign, now warped into the leading trans-activism organization.
>The context in which Bros is released as a major studio project is the trans sexualization now threatening children, gender roles, social privilege, and political preference. In this light, Bros presents a fairly mild version of Eichner’s street harangues. The scene of Bobby leaving Aaron to a sexual threesome is like a safe, pre-monkeypox, Disney-certified orgy. The erotic tension in the Jackass movies is more daring.
>Context being everything, Bros matches the announcement by the producer of the James Bond series: “Bond is evolving as men are evolving.” But the attempt to normalize Eichner by imitating the rom-com formula is what makes Bros bogus. Apatow and Stoller can’t domesticate their unruly pet, but they also lack the honesty to admit that Eichner’s insufferable bachelorhood actually exemplifies his own unevolved sense of entitlement — typical Hollywood narcissism.
>More context: The rom-com premise of treating gay males like Norah Ephron clichés narrows gay life to the Buttigieg, Obergefell standard. In the same year that Terence Davies’s Benediction boldly revealed the heartache behind gay male sexual self-sufficiency, Bros proffers trivializing comedy. This insults those gay filmmakers outside Hollywood, from Bruce La Bruce to Patrik-Ian Polk to James Sweeney, who struggled to honestly express their wit and acknowledge our common sexuality.
>Bros pretends to satirize Bobby’s fear of commitment, but the contempt Eichner showed to his on-the-street video victims has not been transformed into charm. Eichner bluffs his way through rom-com skits, unlike real actors Richard Burton and Rex Harrison putting themselves on the line in Staircase, the remarkably empathetic 1969 comedy revealing the depths of an aged gay couple’s unsettled needs and desires.
>The hateful museum-board-meeting scene mocking homosexual privilege (Bisexuals vs. Lesbians) is a disgraceful update of those Gay 101 lessons that writer Paul Rudnick provided in Jeffrey and In & Out. And nothing in Bros compares to that moment in James Sweeney’s brilliant Straight Up when Rory (Katie Findlay) observed: “I have a theory that Millennials overshare because we’re the most godless generation, so that’s why we confess everything on social media. It’s sort of our way to cling to some kind of permanence.”
>Apatow and Stoller can’t make a star of resentful, hang-dog Eichner. The real goal is to substantiate their industry’s agenda regarding sex, identity, and social position. (“Gay men are my jam,” boasts a moronic straight-girl character, one among the film’s celebrity-endorsement cameos by Debra Messing, Kristen Chenoweth, and Harvey Fierstein.) Stoller shows no interest in sensuality as broached in Straight Up or that Julián Hernández makes vivid in his romantic new short Dos entre muchos (Two Among Many). The fake rom-com of Bros makes light of gay male sensibility. It’s crude and dislikable.
would Cinemaphile take it up the ass once and deepthroat swallow if it meant having that hairline/grooming for life? maybe that's the secret Cinemaphileros...
Why don't they make a film exploring the phenomenon of gays having no personality except when being a somehow even more annoying imitation of black women?
the birdcage allowed itself to poke fun at gays being homosexuals, though
100% certain the israelites that made this bros movie would not allow any kind of critical lens at homosexualry
Different market for movies then as well. People were lining up to watch Robin Williams in anything at that point in his career. "Bros" starts a bunch of nobodies, comparatively speaking.
Who is that particularly repulsive troony that’s on the museum board with him? They showed the fricking trailer so many times I couldn’t help seeing it.
>NOT ALL MOVIES ARE MADE FOR YOU, CHUD >Ok well this movie doesn't seem to be in my wheelhouse, don't think I'll watch it >WHY AREN'T YOU SUPPORTING MY MOVIE YOU HOMOPHOBES
Eicher literally ruined the American Horror Stories franchise with all the obnoxious gay acting. Season 1 to 7 was so good but the diversity gay hires ruined the series for me. Frick this c**t.
But is it funny though?
I could care less about the actual content of the film as long as it's funny and I feel like I had no idea this was even a comedy film considering the way people have just said "IT'S A GAY ROMCOM!"
Hollywood still hasn't realized that to have a successful movie with gay central characters, the first step is to write a good movie with an interesting story and well-rounded characters who happen to be gay.
only an ultra-minority of gay people (already a ultra-minority) can even manage to be normal people that 'happen to be gay' irl. what the frick is hollywood supposed to do about that?
I didn't watch Euphoria but it's my understanding that it's a drama involving many relationships, not just homosexuals, I'd also assume the main demographic is women but the show may be tuned enough that almost anyone could find something they enjoy from it. Will and Grace has straight women being friends with gay men, most women want a gay friend.
Men usually won't watch romcoms, women watch romcoms and self-insert, lesbians don't give a frick about men even if they're gays and gays are too busy buttfricking eachother to care. The movie has no audience.
>Eichner is a native of Queens and grew up in Forest Hills, the son of Debbie, who worked for a phone company, and Jay Eichner, a rent tax auditor. >He was born to a israeli family and had a Madonna-themed bar mitzvah.
I don't like homosexuals
If we just would've let the thread die with the first post. This would've been a perfect screen cap.
FPBP
He probably talked a load of shit before the movie was even out to try and capitalize on outrage attention, and this is the end result.
He went on Conan and kept talking about how "historic" it is and never talked about how funny it is even though Conan kept asking if it was actually funny
>"historic"
This is the best buzzword to know when something is actually fricking worthless if applied to something new.
Pretty much. At the very least he said he didn't want conservative gays to watch it. And considering he probably thinks people like Buttigieg are conservative gays, that's a good portion of your target market to be pissing off
the pinworm population is not yet high enough to make this profitable
I love how entitled they are to my money.
>make a romcom, a genre which only women like, with no female character for women to relate to or self-insert
Holy shit how did it flop?
Women love yaoi and brokeback mountain. It only work if the men are very handsome, the actors here are just gross so you can’t help but think how they get feces on their dicks and a lot of STIs.
Only weird fujos like yaoi and they still self-insert into whoever the sissiest girl-like male is.
no eww gross no one likes gay shit kys
women love man on man romance. but only with handsome dudes.
>Certain parts of the country
>The same parts that voted to ban gay marriage in California when they turned out to vote for Obama in record numbers.
I like that the entire homosexual pedo world ignores this reality.
never heard of it, however it sounds insufferable and fricking grim
eat empty theater wagie
>my shitty movie (which I pretended is groundbreaking) wasn’t entertaining or funny?
>better blame everyone else
Later that night he made a thread on Cinemaphile crying about why everyone likes lesbians but doesn't want gay guys in cartoons.
>make a gay movie
>hire a gay cast
>hire a gay crew
>market the movie as explicitly for gay people
>call everyone "homophobic weirdos"
Why isn't anyone watching Bros, bros?
>make show about gays
>shit on gay customers
>wtf straight people did this
KWAB. hope this Black person got mogged by a homosexual Black person
>KWAB
What does that mean?
killing whites and blacks
Keep whining and b***hing
Let me take you back to the hot summer of 1992...
The LA riots? Okay but what does KWAB stand for?
Think more up north, with black men and a particularly tall professional wrestler….
Kill'em With A Bat
i don't want to see gay shit, frick off with your gay movies
Unless you're threatening people with poverty through HR, they won't tolerate homosexuals. Simple as.
Imagine sitting through two hours of this.
idk when they start making out after wrestling was funny
Bros got too wienery
Gays seems to be utterly delusional about how many of them exist.
They fell for their own propaganda
According to them, and Hollywood, you'd think 50% of the world population was gay.
Most gay men I've known were convinced that straight men don't really exist but that they're all really gay men in denial or too ashamed to come out.
so they're moronic or something?
No, they are just abuser like all homosexuals.
Some are. Others are Trump level delusional.
Uh sweety? Delusions are for leftists
I'm laughing that you actually have shit like that image saved incase you need to post it on a fricking Cinemaphile thread about some queer's movie that bombed.
Get a fricking job son.
Pretty sure libs are more likely to seek help
I wish that were true. I hate women so much.
Hating women doesn't mean you have to enjoy having thirty dudes piss in your mouth. You can hate women and gays at the same time.
Well, they do like fecal matter, so pretty much by definition they're moronic but their belief likely comes both from wishful thinking (something they have in common with women) and society celebrating homosexuality. I can see why they might ask themselves "Why would straight men tolerate having gayness constantly shoved in their faces if they're not secretly gay?" and then come up with an answer that fulfills their wishes if it were true.
Such a narcissistic way of thinking
All the gay guys I've known have a weird conversion fetish where they try to hook up with straight guys. This is the movie version of that.
Using gays/eunuchs/etc as middle management has been a staple of stagnant empires since the ancient Chinese regimes. Ottomans and Americans fall into that club as well.
So they think they're much more common because they're surrounded by others like them in their spheres. They get just as delusional and out of touch as the elite
Eunuchs were slaves who had their dick chop off to prevent any incidents of the slave fricking the royal family`s daughter or 3000 wives. They are literally not gay. They really let any other morons post on this website huh.
What's it like to intentionally misunderstand what other people say and argue against your misunderstandings?
The post clearly highlights various people that have had their biological reasons for caring about the future removed or reduced to a non factor, this making them not a threat to those above them. Why is this difficult to understand?
Also saying Ottoman eunuchs are slaves and leaving it at that is a wildly dishonest and obviously subversive thing to do and you know enough to know better.
Dvershme
Gays and troons are the most brainwashed loyal commissars
It isn’t just that-
Fatherhood is a driving force in a nation. A truly good father wants to build the best future for his children- this conflicts with various special interests from israelites to corporate parasites. Having men emasculated, effeminate, and self destructive is their aim- as you put it “brainwashed loyal commissars”- commissars incapable of realizing what is best for themselves.
This guy is repellant and he should not be in movies or allowed to voice opinions
Hmm, I wonder why...
spot on
That's accurate
I have gay friends but I still find actual gayness repulsive. I tolerate it for the sake of being a good friend and all that but I'd never want to watch a movie about gay people.
He's James Corden levels of funny
It made $1400 per theater this weekend. $4.8 million total. I have a hard time believing that those ticket sales weren't buoyed by the distributor. Its true box office take was probably less than a million.
damn, maybe barely one full showing filled per theater is still pretty bad to start with
I frickin hate this dude. He wasn't funny in Billy on the Street, and he actively ruined every scene of Parks and Rec he was in. Frick this homo.
People are tired of propaganda. If it's not about patriotism, it's not being watched.
>Hollywood (along with the rest of the world) declares they will no longer cater to straight, white men
>Straight, white men no longer buy your product
>Get upset at straight, white men
>Rinse and repeat
Am I missing something?
>As Hollywood displays its ongoing artistic bankruptcy, we see the people responsible for this glut of unoriginality for what they really are morally and politically. That was the case last week with Olivia Wilde’s Don’t Worry Darling and now with Judd Apatow’s production of the Billy Eichner project Bros. The latest in Apatow’s series of vulgar introductory films (Knocked Up for Seth Rogan, Trainwreck for Amy Schumer, The King of Staten Island for Pete Davidson), Bros defends stunt-provocateur Eichner’s singularly hideous personality.
>Bros sells the only thing Eichner’s got to offer: his political identity as a white gay male. It has been the media’s excuse for tolerating his unapologetic boorishness as shtick. You may never have heard of Eichner, one of those minor cable-TV aberrations (shows such as Billy on the Street, in which he accosted passersby) who was marketed into Hollywood acceptance as a “comedian.” In the gratingly unfunny Bros, Eichner plays Bobby Leiber, a podcaster — which explains how an obnoxious blowhard makes a living, a podcaster being tantamount to a cultural influencer.
>Bobby gets an employment upgrade to curate an LGBTQ museum, which sets him up for another social gain: a romantic partner to certify his status. Goofy, smug, and insecure Bobby meets Aaron (Luke Macfarlane), a smiley, straight-appearing stereotype chosen for the film’s pretense of redefining all masculinity.
Through the title “Bros,” Hollywood — already a distinct political enclave — markets a protected social group. The film’s proper title could have been cultish –“Girls,” “Queens,” “Ladies,” even “Guys” — except that Apatow and director Nicholas Stoller (co-writing with Eichner) presume to instruct the public on its outmoded ideas of manhood. They want credit for being neither homophobic nor heteronormative (although the lamest jokes ridicule the latter). Witless Hollywood needs to flaunt its progressivism.
In those terms, Bros looks like a landmark, but not for its content (despite reviewers dutifully repeating the film’s dishonest sales pitch that it’s Hollywood’s first openly gay rom-com). Fact is, Bros is notable only for its surrounding context, a cultural low-water mark.
At a time when the only American who cannot offer a definition of a male homosexual is probably the disingenuous Ketanji Brown Jackson, Apatow, Stoller, and Eichner deal in the deliberate confusion of today’s sexual-equity circus — which derived from Hollywood liberalism as much as from the old Human Rights Campaign, now warped into the leading trans-activism organization.
>The context in which Bros is released as a major studio project is the trans sexualization now threatening children, gender roles, social privilege, and political preference. In this light, Bros presents a fairly mild version of Eichner’s street harangues. The scene of Bobby leaving Aaron to a sexual threesome is like a safe, pre-monkeypox, Disney-certified orgy. The erotic tension in the Jackass movies is more daring.
>Context being everything, Bros matches the announcement by the producer of the James Bond series: “Bond is evolving as men are evolving.” But the attempt to normalize Eichner by imitating the rom-com formula is what makes Bros bogus. Apatow and Stoller can’t domesticate their unruly pet, but they also lack the honesty to admit that Eichner’s insufferable bachelorhood actually exemplifies his own unevolved sense of entitlement — typical Hollywood narcissism.
>More context: The rom-com premise of treating gay males like Norah Ephron clichés narrows gay life to the Buttigieg, Obergefell standard. In the same year that Terence Davies’s Benediction boldly revealed the heartache behind gay male sexual self-sufficiency, Bros proffers trivializing comedy. This insults those gay filmmakers outside Hollywood, from Bruce La Bruce to Patrik-Ian Polk to James Sweeney, who struggled to honestly express their wit and acknowledge our common sexuality.
>Bros pretends to satirize Bobby’s fear of commitment, but the contempt Eichner showed to his on-the-street video victims has not been transformed into charm. Eichner bluffs his way through rom-com skits, unlike real actors Richard Burton and Rex Harrison putting themselves on the line in Staircase, the remarkably empathetic 1969 comedy revealing the depths of an aged gay couple’s unsettled needs and desires.
>The hateful museum-board-meeting scene mocking homosexual privilege (Bisexuals vs. Lesbians) is a disgraceful update of those Gay 101 lessons that writer Paul Rudnick provided in Jeffrey and In & Out. And nothing in Bros compares to that moment in James Sweeney’s brilliant Straight Up when Rory (Katie Findlay) observed: “I have a theory that Millennials overshare because we’re the most godless generation, so that’s why we confess everything on social media. It’s sort of our way to cling to some kind of permanence.”
>Apatow and Stoller can’t make a star of resentful, hang-dog Eichner. The real goal is to substantiate their industry’s agenda regarding sex, identity, and social position. (“Gay men are my jam,” boasts a moronic straight-girl character, one among the film’s celebrity-endorsement cameos by Debra Messing, Kristen Chenoweth, and Harvey Fierstein.) Stoller shows no interest in sensuality as broached in Straight Up or that Julián Hernández makes vivid in his romantic new short Dos entre muchos (Two Among Many). The fake rom-com of Bros makes light of gay male sensibility. It’s crude and dislikable.
What /misc/tacular review site was this from?
If you have to ask you need to go back
>he can’t recognize the king of Cinemaphile
way to expose yourself, gay
>The erotic tension in the Jackass movies is more daring.
lol
Misspelled Nora Ephron, for shame
>white
He's israeli.
so is practically everyone involved in this psyop
weird
and hitler was trans. Your point?
Thanks for posting based black man
He might be the greatest film reviewer of all time.
As expected, completely based
>Name is White
>Is in fact black
Fricking kek every time
$20million+ budget for this buttfricker comedy. Whoever authorized this should be flayed.
With an estimated $30-$40 million for marketing which is baffling because this is the very first time in hearing about this movie
straight people didn't show up to watch a gay rom-com?
homosexual here. Never had any want to see this movie. Hate Billy and hate gay shit.
Stop being gay.
Did anyone who isn't a bigot memer see this movie? Is it any good?
Liberals every time.
>THIS ISN'T FOR YOU!
>Everyone: ok then.
>flops.
>REEEEE WHY DIDN'T ANYONE GIVE ME MONEY!?
>ITS THE HOMOPHOBES THAT ARE WRONG!
>>THIS ISN'T FOR YOU
It's for your kids so they think it's normal
People bought the premium streaming subscriptions so they wouldn’t have to see the commercials for this type of crap.
would Cinemaphile take it up the ass once and deepthroat swallow if it meant having that hairline/grooming for life? maybe that's the secret Cinemaphileros...
Why don't they make a film exploring the phenomenon of gays having no personality except when being a somehow even more annoying imitation of black women?
>You WILL watch my movie
Why would I go see a film I'm not interested in? Why didn't the 10% of Americans or whatever that are Elegy Beaty go so the fricking thing
We need less 12 Years a Slave and more Django
The Bird Cage came out 25 years ago and it was a huge hit. These homosexuals simply can't admit that they made a shitty movie.
the birdcage allowed itself to poke fun at gays being homosexuals, though
100% certain the israelites that made this bros movie would not allow any kind of critical lens at homosexualry
Different market for movies then as well. People were lining up to watch Robin Williams in anything at that point in his career. "Bros" starts a bunch of nobodies, comparatively speaking.
God dammit that’s such a good movie. Pure kino
same reason all the pride shit ends up in the discount section of Target. Nobody asked for and wants this homosexualry
doesnt the movie and the trailers literally make fun of people for being straight? why would they watch it?
>straight people in certain parts of the country
can he actually quantify that?
>blaming the audience who saw the trailer and went "eh, looks dumb as shit"
>NOOOO YOU'RE ALL GAY-HATING HITLERS WAAAHHHH
homosexuals, everyone.
why would i pay for fricking gay shit?the frick is this clown shit
Who is that particularly repulsive troony that’s on the museum board with him? They showed the fricking trailer so many times I couldn’t help seeing it.
hollywood studio forgets that twitter isnt real life and no one wants to watch gays fall into an artificial glib facsimile of love.
i had no idea this film even existed until i saw this thread.........
Why expect straight people show up to a movie that is made for the homosexuals? Is he moronic?
Hey guys, homosexual here, this movie looks fricking awful.
BALD IM KINO
>NOT ALL MOVIES ARE MADE FOR YOU, CHUD
>Ok well this movie doesn't seem to be in my wheelhouse, don't think I'll watch it
>WHY AREN'T YOU SUPPORTING MY MOVIE YOU HOMOPHOBES
Eicher literally ruined the American Horror Stories franchise with all the obnoxious gay acting. Season 1 to 7 was so good but the diversity gay hires ruined the series for me. Frick this c**t.
judging by those numbers it looks like the gays didn’t show up either. Don’t pin your shitty movies failure on me homosexual
Maybe he should yell some more
I am not obligated to attend a movie I am not interested in. You don't have the right to my money.
False. Apu partakes in fast food with his own frens, as seen many times.
>yes
It’s almost as if the people you pander too, don’t actually buy anything.
He's never been wrong
Its box office numbers almost as low as its T-Cell count.
But is it funny though?
I could care less about the actual content of the film as long as it's funny and I feel like I had no idea this was even a comedy film considering the way people have just said "IT'S A GAY ROMCOM!"
Hollywood still hasn't realized that to have a successful movie with gay central characters, the first step is to write a good movie with an interesting story and well-rounded characters who happen to be gay.
only an ultra-minority of gay people (already a ultra-minority) can even manage to be normal people that 'happen to be gay' irl. what the frick is hollywood supposed to do about that?
gays are disgusting
Maybe he should go back to what he knows best, which is unprotected anal sex and harassing strangers on the street.
>State mandated homosexuality
haha gay
Then why does Euphoria have such high ratings? And in the past Will and Grace was a hit show.
Women. Drama loving women.
I didn't watch Euphoria but it's my understanding that it's a drama involving many relationships, not just homosexuals, I'd also assume the main demographic is women but the show may be tuned enough that almost anyone could find something they enjoy from it. Will and Grace has straight women being friends with gay men, most women want a gay friend.
Men usually won't watch romcoms, women watch romcoms and self-insert, lesbians don't give a frick about men even if they're gays and gays are too busy buttfricking eachother to care. The movie has no audience.
It also looks really unfunny
didn't want to catch his monkey pox!
this is incredibly racist, black people can't be homophobic chud
>Eichner is a native of Queens and grew up in Forest Hills, the son of Debbie, who worked for a phone company, and Jay Eichner, a rent tax auditor.
>He was born to a israeli family and had a Madonna-themed bar mitzvah.