Jim Gaffigan: Beyond the Pale

Jim Gaffigan: Beyond the Pale

The affable, towheaded comic demonstrates his hysterical brand of self-effacing comedy and deadpan delivery at two sold-out shows at Chicago's Vic Theater. It's OK to laugh at this pale white guy...'cause nobody's laughing at Jim Gaffigan harder than Jim Gaffigan!

In this brand-new comedy performance, he's more hilarious than ever with his unique style of self-deprecating observations and catty audience commentary. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Jim Gaffigan: Beyond the Pale torrent reviews

JoAnn M (au) wrote: A very amusing and heart warming movie. I really liked it.

val a (de) wrote: A great and inspiring movie-you are not afraid to watch it with your kids.Where is wrong doing there is redemption if regret and change comes.

Pamela U (kr) wrote: I'm the drama queen here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Robert B (it) wrote: Elias Merhige's first film, Begotten, is one of Nicolas Cage's favorite movies. So when Cage started up his production company and financed his first flick, he called Merhige. He had other reasons, of course, but the rather tenuous connection has caused a number of people who have seen both movies to ask why Merhige came out of semi-retirement (and a lucrative business designing stage sets and directing creepy videos for Marilyn Manson) to work on a film that's as commercially accessible as Begotten was commercially deadly?The obvious reason that no one seems to have come up with is that Merhige is one of only two living directors who's made a major silent film, and Mel Brooks would have been inappropriate for the material. The less obvious reason is that Merhige's favorite trope, the long repetition cut, makes itself known in this movie. It's far more subtle than it was in Begotten-no ten-minute shots of robed figures dragging Son of Earth up a hill in this one. But as in Begotten, there are long, loving shots of landscape (and I use the term loosely; the most noticeable shot like this focuses on different parts of a train for a few minutes) with action going on around them that has nothing, really to do with the landscape whatsoever. The juxtaposition is just out-of-kilter enough to add a veneer of disturbance. With the increased action in this film, the viewer is less compelled to focus on the juxtaposition, and thus less disturbed; but for this film, in the back of the mind is enough.Much has been made (and very rightly so) of Willem Dafoe's portrayal of Count Orlok, who takes on the persona of character actor Max Schreck through a shady deal with obsessed film director F. W. Murnau (John Malkovich). Dafoe does a fantastic job not only of playing Count Orlok as a vampire who's forced by his own greed into contact with humans he can't kill, but he also takes the silent-film exaggeration of expression and uses it in a sound film. It's unexpected, and it's wonderful. Dafoe is quite deserving of his est Supporting Actor nomination, but if you're a betting man, remember that Dafoe was overlooked for his two finest roles (in The Last Temptation of Christ and To Live and Die in L.A.).All the flap over Dafoe's brilliance has unfortunately eclipsed some of the minor performances in the movie which are equally as brilliant, e.g. Udo Kier as the perpetually-stressed producer Albin Grau, Catherine McCormack as the spoiled and bitchy star of the film, Eddie Izzard as her co-star, and Cary Elwes as a replacement cameraman (after the original, played by Ronan Vibert, is sent to the hospital thanks to Orlok's inability to, erm, contain himself) whose arrival on the scene is the catalyst that sets everything in motion.Elwes' role, and the way his arrival changes the dynamic of the film set, is the one piece of this film that elevates it from an amusing, hyperbolic character sketch of a director who will go to any lengths to get his film to a piece of art. While Elwes himself is about as subtle as a cold chisel to the ear, the effects of his coming are masked by his (and those around him) aping until the final scene, when the true implications of the whole mess come to light. The final scene is so beautifully set up, and so well constructed, that the payoff would have been worth any number of errors. Fortunately, we have very few to contend with, most of which have nothing to do with the film itself (the person who composed the main title credits, for example, should be exiled from Hollywood forevermore).As a side note, the actual scenes we see Murnau directing are quite close to the scenes in the original. Given the flights of fantasy used in other parts of the film, this is a detail that could have easily been overlooked, but it wasn't. Kudos.While it's not Begotten-nothing that's come out since has equaled the artistry and beauty of Begotten-one can't say by any means that Merhige found himself in a sophomore slump. To the contrary, the accessibility, the likability, of this film is astonishing, given the endurance-test qualities of Begotten. Very highly recommended. ****

Robert Z (jp) wrote: Decent courtroom drama; Ford is great, as usual. The ending has a twist which couldn't be forseen

Robert M (jp) wrote: Wes tries too create another Freddy and fails miserably. Pinker is no Krueger, heck he's hardly Leprechaun.

stefano l (fr) wrote: Amazing, every other word is superfluous

Adam R (de) wrote: (First and only viewing - In my early twenties)

Thomas N (gb) wrote: Originally this movie was suppose to star King Kong but instead was changed to Godzilla. Either way it still made for an okay movie but not a very important entry in the Godzilla series. Mothra makes an appearance but it doesn't help the movie much. Kids will enjoy this movie, Godzilla fans will find this movie to be okay, and to everyone else, well, you aren't missing much.

Joe L (it) wrote: Fans of the original series... beware: this movie deviates quite a bit as to the nature and origin of the doctor, tardis itself as well as the original companions a bit. This might annoy you more than a bit if you're a true Whovian. But if you can let that go it's not all that bad given the era and when compared to the series (effects wise, plot, etc.). And in a way Cushing's Who is a bit more likeable than Hartnell's Who imo.Btw, you can currently watch this on Hulu.

Paul D (us) wrote: Fun for Elivis fans, and it does have a fair bit of novelty value in seeing him next to Ursula Andress, however the story is pretty weak.

Alisa R (ru) wrote: The line in the movie about Crohns Disease was sooooo not funny. Not funny at all. Not even in a dark-and-twisted-way kind of funny. It's bad enough to live with this Disease. It's even worse to have idiot writers include it in a stupid movie.

Sylvester K (ag) wrote: Better than average slasher about a bunch of idiotic teenagers accidentally summoned a evil spirit in a haunted house, the spirit possessed them and then the fun began. The acting was dreadful, seriously, some of the minor characters were actually better than the main ones. Amelia Kinkade was quite hot being the villainess, but that doesn't mean she's a good actress. All the characters were pretty much shouting into the microphones. It's a comedy? I don't think so. The nice set and make did not save this film from the bad acting.