Comments on: Bruno: What Did You Think?

By: r4 revolution gold

r4 revolution gold — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:20:34 +0000

I thought it was hilarious! a little to much sausage for me and I am a grown women that like men but WOW too much, I also love love that this was the second time he decided to go to Arkansas and do that last scene…beacuse of the way the people are (bible belt) and tested there nerves so much!! funny. I actually thought the scene with the parents wanting there kids to be famous soo much they would have there daughter have lipo it just shows how many people should not have kids.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:42:25 +0000

this had to be the worst movie ive ever seen. it was funny at moments yes but it was basically straight up porn. it was a waste of money, and time. this deffinatly made me angry. no one wants to see a movie about a fag wanting to become famous showing other people how to suck another mans dick and finger some dudes asshole. no one wants to see that. i wasted an hour and forty five minutes of my life watching this movie. whoever decided to make this movie needs to be pushed off a cliff. no a cliff would be to good he needs to be mauled by a bear. after the receives major counseling. and after he gets hit in the nuts so hard he cant walk straight for five months. i hope to god that no child has seen this movie because they will never be the same. this movie took fucked up to a whole new level. DO NOT WATCH BRUNO. its FUCKING awful.

By: kiss917

kiss917 — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:30:45 +0000

when are we going to have a movie with some talking pussies with those hot wet lips staring me in the face for us non -gay men thats what i like to see. lol

By: mollyfromaustralia

mollyfromaustralia — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:22:02 +0000

Bruno was a filthy, digusting, waste of time. I cannot believe I was stupid enough to not read a review about it first. It is blatant homosexual pornography, anti-christian, and has child-abuse connotations. It was 60 minutes of vile filth, and a total utter waste of $17. PLEASE DO NOT SEE THIS SHOCKING MOVIE. It was trying to push the boundaries by using the worst abusive material possible. If you enjoy witnessing CHILD ABUSE, WATCHING GAY SEX, SWINGERS PORNOGRAPHY, then go and see this movie. It is PUTRID.

By: mollyfromaustralia

mollyfromaustralia — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:19:02 +0000

By: mollyfromaustralia

mollyfromaustralia — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:14:43 +0000

By: hornygrasshopper

hornygrasshopper — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:11:50 +0000

This movie was a bunch of scenes just spliced together. At least Borat had a plot to it; from the beginning he is tasked with interviewing Americans so that Kazakhs can learn to be more like them. Bruno, on the other hand, is just wandering around aimlessly from one gay sex scene to the next. Had Bruno, say, realized that he needed to turn straight from the get-go and gone around the States interviewing people on why he should be straight, why homosexuality is bad, and doing more typically heterosexual activities, then he would have made a much more valid social point and embarrassed the hell out of a lot more public figures than he did in even Borat.

By: Ravigotto

Ravigotto — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:51:01 +0000

The main problem for me with this film is that it raises, far more then in Borat, the question whether some scenes were 'real' or not. Most of the time I had the feeling that it was all acting, that the scenes were made up. I could be wrong, naturally, but this feeling ruined somewhat the film for me.
Furthermore, Bruno has a kind of 'Jackassvibe'. Idiotic man does idotic things and says idiotic stuff, so people react idiotic because they are freaked out. Hell, Sasha even puts himself in danger (is he? is he? isn't it fake?) so we can all laugh, and clap in our hands because of the possible pain-factor. Add pictures of a penis and a sex-party and you have, basically, a Jackass spin off.
I don't want Sasha Cohen to be a Jackass-dude. I want him to be razor-sharp social commentary and Bruno just isn't.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:10:00 +0000

Whatever your argument was, it was a false correlation. It’s black and white thinking – either you like something or you’re a homophobe. It doesn’t take into account any other of myriad options for someone to dislike the film (like, say, it’s pacing, story, characters, delivery, or design). Rather, you set up that false correlation, gave a claim that Bruno won’t resonate, and then didn’t back it up with any proof.

So here’s my version of your argument:

Either you hate this movie, or you’re a 30-foot tall Aardvark.

By: breakdance

breakdance — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:05:10 +0000

Thanks to a good site that has great ideas

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:16:00 +0000

I think you need to look up the definition of “straw man argument”, because mine surely wasn’t.

To the contrary, it was a logical explanation of why this character is unlikely to resonate with American audiences as well as Borat. And I even referenced the line used in the front page lead-in to this post (which, interestingly enough, has now been changed since my comment above). I rest my case.

You, on the other hand, challenged my assertion with nothing, but “self evident” and condescension. Kind of speaks for itself all right.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 07:09:00 +0000

As much as I love the “If you don’t like this, you’re a homophobe” straw man argument (since I use it for people that hate The Goonies), it’s pretty flat out wrong. So wrong in fact, that I don’t really need to logically point out why. It should be self-evident.

We could delve deeper into why the film is or isn’t funny, or as funny as you would have liked or funnier than – but I think the default setting of like it or be called a homophobe is a bit strong. Or, you know, just utterly baseless.

And by the way, “Megan Fox” is actually an actor named Dave Tennenbaum who wears a skanky hot girl suit 24 hours a day. He LIVES his craft. He’s both the Andy Kaufman and Pamela Anderson of our time.

By: cufford

cufford — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:49:14 +0000

I don't think that you can expect this character to resonate well with American audiences who are so prude and homophobic.

You can't compare this to Borat for this very reason. Borat was about being a macho man, which Americans are all into.

Bruno, on the other hand, makes many Americans uncomfortable because it makes fun of their illogical, homophobic nature.

People who don't like this film are clearly homophobic - and you can tell by the critics who have panned it before it even opened, so what do you expect. I mean, just read the leader into this post to see the homophobia in action.

I mean, contrast all the fawning over the completely talentless Megan Fox, who appears in Transformers as nothing more than the obligatory "make males feel macho" role, while Cohen, who's clearly head and shoulders above her talent wise, get's panned by all the homophobes, even though he's quite straight in real life.

He's a brilliant comic talent, and that's all that needs to be said.

Americans, who feel that they constantly have to prove to everyone around them that they are, ironically, so macho, clearly aren't mature enough to appreciate the comic artistry of this very straight comedian.

Still, this film is doing very well, which gives us hope for the American people after all.

Editors of sites like this notwithstanding.

By: Reebee7

Reebee7 — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:52:40 +0000

Interesting. But that doesn't completely excuse their behavior. Yes they can be mad that they were not getting a cage fight, but they didn't have to WEAR the T-shirts given to them.

I think we have to point out a major problem here: not that they were mad that they weren't seeing a cage fight and rather seeing two dudes grope each other, but why were they at a cage fight to begin with? Who the fuck goes to those things?

Just kidding cage fight lovers...

I'm never going to say this movie doesn't show some bigotry, but I get angry (as i did after Borat) when I knew people would assume everybody who lives in the South demonstrates the exact same views as those on screen.

By: RobertFure

RobertFure — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:24:39 +0000

The cage fight scene is not an honest depiction of what happened. Word on the street is that the audience was promised a real cage fight at Xpm and when they showed up they were sold $1 Beers for like 4 hours with NO cage fight going on. They had to sit and wait and drink. Then the movie crew threw anti-gay t-shirts into the crowd as prizes. Then, once they were drunk and angry, did the gay cage match start.

By: Reebee7

Reebee7 — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:52:40 +0000

By: RobertFure

RobertFure — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:24:39 +0000

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:53:00 +0000

it seemed cohen was trying so hard to be funny at others expense that he just came off as unbearably obnoxious.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:48:00 +0000

awesome movie.

By: KP

KP — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:49:00 +0000

viintaj, you have SHIT for brains! You have NEVER seen “vagina after vagina” in any R-rated film, you moron! The most you have ever seen of a woman is PUBIC HAIR. Pubic hair is NOT a woman’s vagina, anymore than pubic hair is a man’s penis. The vagina is the actual genitalia…the labia and clitoris. We are NOT ALLOWED to see this in an R-rated film. The MPAA rates it NC-17.

The male genitalia, which is the penis and scrotum, on the other hand has been shown in several R-rated films. How come we can see a close-up of a man’s full-genitalia, including his dick-hole, but we can’t see equally graphic nudity of a woman? How come we can’t see a close-up of a woman’s vagina and her pussy-hole opening up and “talking”??? That’s the REAL sexist double-standard! Men’s genitalia is being shown in graphic detail in R-rated films, but NOT women’s genitalia! Somebody needs to SUE THE MPAA over their sexist ratings policy. They allow the full genitalia of men to be shown in R-rated movies, but they won’t allow the genitalia of women to be shown. You need to GET A BRAIN, viintaj. You are so stupid. You must be some pea-brained feminist. Like all feminists you make completely incorrect and inaccurate comparisons. Try comparing apples to apples for a change; male genitalia to female genialia….not male genitalia to female pubic hair. Idiot.