9 thoughts on “No.”

    1. My issue isn’t really about the casting of Segel or even the work’s quality as a film. I just think the whole thing—no matter how respectful or whatever the film’s tone is—is pretty gross. I’m fine with folks who wanna see it, and I hope they like it. I hope it introduces people to Wallace’s fiction, too. But for me, it’s just gross, foul.


      1. From A.A. Dowd’s glowing review of the film at the AV Club:

        The revelation here is clearly Segel, who disappears completely into the role of a depressed, reluctant genius. I’m not familiar enough with what Wallace looked or sounded like to know if this is an uncanny impersonation, nor can I say if the actor captures the soul of the artist he’s playing. (I’ve never read any DFW—I know, I know, I’m getting on it.) What I can say is that Segel definitely understands the secret insecurity that plagues so many writers, even the ones who achieved the level of success DFW did. We really believe we’re watching a man who has wrestled with personal demons, and who’s still trying to reconcile his widespread popularity with his discontent.

        That sounds awful to me.


  1. “The casting, too, is crucial. By now, Eisenberg has proven himself more than adept at capturing a full spectrum of neurotics, from the adorkable nice guys to the petty geek tyrants”.
    Don’t forget from adorkable geek tyrants to petty nice guys. Wait are James Franco and Seth Rogan in this too? Is it another Freaks and Geeks reunion? How can this be any good? Oh, I know. “The casting, too, is crucial”


Your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.