web
counter

serial podcast / the walking dead / snl / mindhole blowers / netflix / celebrity facts / marvel


Spoilers: 30 Brain-Bleaching Moments From Movie 43 That You Can Never Unsee

By Dustin Rowles | Film Reviews | January 25, 2013 | Comments ()


Movie43.png

Let me just preface the list of unseeable moments with a few words about Movie 43. It's a very bad movie. In fact, it may very well have been designed to be a bad movie. The conceit is this: Dennis Quaid plays a man who has manipulated himself inside a studio executive's office by sucking off a security guard (Will Sasso) who didn't want to be sucked off. Inside the executive's office, he delivers several pitches to the executive played by Greg Kinnear. These "pitches" are the shorts that make up the bulk of the film. The executive hates them, but the character played by Dennis Quaid forces him, at gunpoint, to buy his pitches anyway. Quaid's character knows they are bad; Kinnear's character knows they are bad; and the audience knows they are bad. Yet, the pitches are nevertheless brought to life by an insane cast of well-known actors, who are clearly doing it as a favor to someone, although I don't understand who or what was the lynchpin for the movie (Peter Farrelly?). It's a terrible movie, and everyone involved in Movie 43 seems to understand that it's terrible, and yet it is still made, almost as a dare, as though some studio executive said: If we cast recognizable actors, will audiences still turn out for a bad movie?

The answer, I hope, is no. Given the complete lack of promotion for the project (seriously, no one involved is doing press; they're probably very ashamed of the work), I can't imagine that many will see it. And they shouldn't. In fact, if you like any of the people involved in this film, avoid Movie 43 if you want to maintain your respect for them. It is meant to be a Kentucky Fried Movie kind of experiment, but whoever put the wheels in motion on this film clearly doesn't understand that that kind of film -- a series of intentionally offensive shorts designed to be as shocking, appalling and as politically incorrect as possible -- doesn't work in our current cultural environment, especially when the shocking and appalling pitches aren't actually funny. I mean, Trey Parker and Matt Stone backed out of this, not because it is offensive, but presumably because they didn't want to be associated with something as abhorrent to comedy as Movie 43. The whole movie -- from why it was made, to why the stars agreed to do it, to why it was released -- is just baffling. I'm not trying to sound hyperbolic; I honest-to-God don't understand.

Given the nature of the film -- each pitch is essentially a one-note joke stretched beyond that joke's limitations -- the list of unseeable moments below will spoil the movie. The entire movie. If you plan to see Movie 43 anyway, 1) don't read the list, and 2) ignore whatever urge it is that you have to see Movie 43. It's not doing anyone any favors to see it, least of all yourself and the actors involved. This list is designed not to pique your curiosity, but to quash it.

Here are: 30 Brain-Bleaching Moments From "Movie 43" That You Can Never Unsee

1. A character played by Kate Winslet goes on a blind date with a character played by Hugh Jackman, wonders why he's single, and then realizes why once he removes his scarf to reveal that he has testicles hanging from his neck. This, by the way, is the funniest short in the film (mostly owed to Winslet's reaction shots).

2. Pubes fall off of Jackman's testicle neck and into his soup.

3. Jackman picks up a baby, and rests his testicles on the baby's head.

4. Jackman dips his neck testicles into a tray of butter.

5. A character played by Anna Farris asks a character played by her husband, Chris Pratt, to poop on her. He reluctantly agrees.

6. Pratt's character has a conversation with J.B. Smoove about the types of food he should eat before pooping on his girlfriend, and Smoove suggests Mexican and offers his poop Viagra.

7. Chris Pratt, in an attempt to withhold his poop, flatulates repeatedly on his Anna Faris, especially around the neck area.

8. Pratt is hit by a car, and an ass full of fecal matter explodes onto the window and all over the street. This endears Farris to him because he stores so much poop inside of him, just for her.

9. Seth MacFarlane makes a joke confusing "American Dad" and "Family Guy" (MacFarlane, ironically, escapes the film mostly unscathed, having delivered only a few bad jokes but not fully embarrassing himself).

10. Naomi Watts plays a mother who home schools her son, and in order to give her son (Jeremy Allen White) a normal high-school experience, provides him with his first awkward kiss.

11. Again, to give his son a normal high-school experience, Liev Schreiber, who plays the father, pretends to be a friend that comes out of the closet and makes a pass at his son.

12. Emma Stone talks dirty to, and sucks on the fingers of a greasy Kieran Culkin (Stone's short may have been the least appalling, but also the least funny).

13. Richard Gere, Kate Bosworth, Jack McBrayer, and Aasif Mandvi play executives at a company that creates an iPod that looks like an actual naked woman (the iBabe), only teenagers end up trying to have sex with it and their dicks are mangled in the fan, which is placed inside the iBabe's vagina.

14. In Superhero Speed Dating, Justin Long plays Robin, who wears a speedo.

15. Jason Sudeikis plays a cock-blocking Batman, who spends much of his time looking up Supergirl's (Kristen Bell) skirt and commenting on the length of her bush.

16. Uma Thurman plays Lois Lane, who talks about what a stalker Superman (Bobby Cannavale) is, describing Superman as a guy who floats outside of her window, masturbates, and shoots his superhuman spunk through her window (also, the grease in his hair is not grease).

17. Leslie Bibb plays Wonder Woman, who is upset because Batman didn't call her after they had sex, and she had to have an abortion alone.

18. Chloë Moretz plays a 7th grader who experience her first period while making out with her boyfriend, leaving a pool of blood on the couch and a trail of it across a wall.

19. Patrick Warburton plays the Dad of the boyfriend, who has a straight-up pull-my-finger moment (there is a lot of farting in this movie).

20. Christopher Mintz Plasse plays the older brother of the boyfriend, who attempts to find household items to plug Moretz's vagina to prevent her from bleeding.

21. Gerard Butler plays two foul-mouthed leprechauns.

22. Johnny Knoxville and Sean William Scott get in a fight with the two foul-mouthed leprechauns. Knoxville shoots them.

23. Esti Ginzburg plays a fairy who exchanges blow jobs for gold coins.

24. Halle Berry makes guacamole with her bare right breast.

25. Halle Berry sticks a turkey baster full of hot sauce into her vagina.

25. Halle Berry gets a cartoonish breast enlargement and fondles her cartoonish boobs.

26. Stephen Merchant has a penis tattooed onto his face.

27. Stephen Merchant eats guacamole off of Halle Berry's cartoonish breast.

28. Stephen Merchant has plastic surgery to look like a buck-toothed Asian man.

29. Josh Duhamel makes out with a cartoon cat, and later, the cartoon cat fucks Josh Duhamel in the mouth.

30. The cartoon cat gives Elizabeth Banks a piss shower.


Upside Down Trailer: Your Sci-Fi Mindf*ck Of The Week | Biz Break: Kate Winslet Wants Some Sweet Franchise Money!


Are you following Pajiba on Facebook or Twitter? Every time you do, Bill Murray crashes a wedding.


Comments Are Welcome, Bigots and Trolls Are Not


  • Jo 'Mama' Besser

    So, has Emma Stone had a nose job since this was filmed, or what?

  • Alyson McManus

    Why didn't Stephen Merchant make Karl Pilkington take his place in this shit bag of a movie? Seriously they couldnt make it An Idiot Abroad Special!

  • Skyler Durden

    I saw it today, and was DYING during the period sketch. I'm sorry, but teenage boys freaking the fuck out because they don't know anything about periods? That's funny. Dialing 911 while screaming I HAVE SOME FROZEN PEAS AND A SPONGE? Come on, that's funny!

    I also thought that the Watts-Schriber one was pretty good, and the payoff joke was inspired.

  • Buck Forty

    I smell conspiracy. There must be a reason Dustin working so hard to stop anyone from seeing this movie. I bet everyone who goes gets a crisp new $100 bill as they leave the theatre.

  • "30. The cartoon cat gives Elizabeth Banks a piss shower. "

    Well, technically that was the anal gland. She was sprayed, not peed on. That was also the only segment in the entire film to get a laugh out of me. Leave it to James Gunn to somehow elevate something trashy to camp.

  • So what was the vibe like in the theater? Were people laughing - either earnestly or nervously? Or was it just stunned silence?

  • JeanUK

    No. Pissing. Way!!!!!!!!

  • Torgotronic

    None of the actual stars "in" this movie were in it; they're all CGI. That's the only possible explanation. Unless hostages and death threats were involved.

  • emmelemm

    You might be on to something there.

  • Yossarian

    This is the most convincing argument yet for the theory that I'm really dreaming right now and none of this and none of you are really real.

  • SeaKat Stabler

    Reading that list genuinely made me naus- ::pauses, remembers grammar thread, gets nervous::want to throw up.

  • Wealler

    Ok so why is it bad. are the jokes delivered with poor timing, were there no actual punchlines.

    You've only said things I can either learn from my friends who've seen this or off any site that just does generic list type stuff.

    I have seen more horrifying things than this so they really aren't crossing territory that has never been crossed before, just stuff that isn't crossed often.

    Also quad's character and his story are another short of their own.

  • Jezzer

    If you can read this list and still ask with a straight face, "Why is it bad?" there is no explaining it to you.

  • Louis

    WHAT?

  • Louis

    What??

  • Louis

    What?

  • malechai

    Johnny Knoxville and Sean William Scott...sounds legit. The rest of the cast...confusing indeed.

  • What the FUUUUUUUUUUUUCK.

    This sounds like one long, extended, horrifying visual version of 'The Aristocats'. WHAT THE FUCK.

    I can't stop thinking that. Kate Winslet has an OSCAR. WHAT THE FUUUUCK.

  • This sounds hilarious!

  • Frank Booth

    This list associated with all the names in this movie gives serious traction to the theory that Satan himself decided to collect on some career advancing contracts...I cannot get over the exceptionally banal nature of most of these jokes/sketches.

  • Slash

    "complete lack of promotion"? I've been seeing TV spots for this thing every single day for a couple weeks now.

    As for an explanation, I guess every generation gets its "Kentucky Fried Movie" (which I have never seen).

  • BIG JIM SLADE

    Kentucky Fried Movie is some funny shit. It contains actual jokes, rather than gross out humor designed merely to shock. Now excuse me while I satisfy someone's wife and/or girlfriend.

  • Drake

    I'll just wait for 29. to show up on youtube.

  • BAM

    The only possible explanation is that this movie was funded by a tabloid with a LOT of dirt on a LOT of different celebrities, and in exchange for secrecy, has forced them to participate in what will be known as the worst moment of all of their careers (arguable).

    The teenage idiot in me wants to see this so badly.

  • Devin E.

    There is no decency left in comedy anymore (apparently), only shock-value.

  • Sounds like someone finally bankrolled all of Awesome-o's pitches.

  • sjfromsj

    I was expecting to be completely grossed out by the end of that list, but after 10 and 11 they all sound stupid. Not bad, not gross, not unfunny, just stupid.

    But thank you for watching and reporting, Dustin, because I really did want to know what the hell was in this movie without having to watch it in case I ever desired those 2 hours back.

  • BobbFrapples

    Maybe this is an inside joke? All of these terrible shorts are actually from the dregs of the thousands of scripts that are submitted to Hollywood every month? Or someone pointed a flamethrower at a producer's head and said, "Make this movie or kiss your new hairplugs goodbye!"

  • lowercase_ryan

    Better reading this list than seeing this list. DR gets the public service award.

    Still, Kristin Bell as Supergirl....

  • Sara_Tonin00

    Nononono - that's how they get you.

  • John G.

    How is this movie happening?

  • Peter_the_Gr8

    I have been forced to watch a carpet bombing of promos for this movie whilst watching Hulu+. I'm glad to know that it is as bad as it looks.

  • I REALLY don't think I want anything to do with this movie.

  • hater from siloam springs

    No way. There's no way that's what this movie is all about.

    I thought this movie was about how racism isn't racism when black people do it.

  • "I thought this movie was about how racism isn't racism when black people do it."

    Where did you hear that? The Internet?
    ~~~

  • TSF

    I stopped reading the list at number 8. Not because 8 is worse than 1-7, but because 8 is enough. This is something of a milestone for me: the realisation that even I have standards.

  • So....are you saying Dick Van Patten is somehow responsible?

  • Everything after "The conceit is this: Dennis Quaid plays a man...". I couldn't finish reading that sentence.

  • tracey

    this can't be real.

  • Groundloop

    Jeeps. That really does sound appalling, but I have a question about item 4, "Jackman dips his neck testicles into a tray of butter". Is it intentional? Because that could be funny. But if it was an accident, that's just unfortunate and gross. In comedy, context is everything.

  • pajiba

    It was accidental. In fact, the whole premise of the sketch is that no one else pays any attention to Jackman's neck testicles (which, by the way, look disgustingly real). It's not an issue to them, so Winslet thinks she's going insane because she's the only one that seems to care that this handsome man has BALLS ON HIS NECK (at one point, a breeze comes through, and his neck balls shrivel). Warning: This movie should not be viewed while eating.

  • Uriah_Creep

    Warning: This movie should not be viewed while eating living.

    That's more like it.

  • Groundloop

    Wow. Maybe if the gods are good, something positive can come of this. Maybe in a future episode of "Archer", there will be a similarly afflicted villain and Archer could just keep calling him Neckticles.

  • Brown

    Maybe after the credits there is a scene that ends with somebody saying "The Aristocrats," because that's about the only way to explain it.

  • Frank Booth

    but it will never make you laugh like the doc of the same name did though.....

  • This.

  • pajiba

    Sadly, I stuck through the credits to ensure that there's not a joke at the end that explains it. Weirdly, the Elizabeth Banks skit -- where the cartoon cat masturbates to shirtless pictures of Duhamel and then fucks him in the mouth -- comes AFTER the end credits.

  • F'mal DeHyde

    I couldn't really get past the pubic hair in soup line. Jesus.

  • Tracer Bullet

    I remember when a movie this terrible would at least provide copious amounts of nudity as a reward for sitting through all the abysmal "comedy."

  • Fabius_Maximus

    "Gerard Butler plays two foul-mouthed leprechauns."

    Russel Crowe was not available, I take it.

  • Frank Booth

    I read and approved this comment so much

  • Pinky McLadybits

    Actually, Colin Farrell was supposed to play the other leprechaun and then said, "Hmmm. Better not."

  • Fabius_Maximus

    At least, Farrell would have been able to do the Irish accent. Butler apologized for his after filming that schmaltzy romcom with Hilary Swank.

    I don't know if Crowe can pull off the accent. But then, when I think "grumpy", "constantly drunk", and "punchy", his face appears before my inner eye.

  • ghisent

    Bonus points for Fat Amy references.

  • Green Lantern

    Jeebus creebus.

    I can't. I just can't. And I've got REALLY low standards for most things.

    But this time? No.

  • Ash

    Good lord I could barely make it through the list - there is no way I'm giving this movie 90 minutes of my life.
    Also, it's been given 6.3 on imdb, which is more than enough reason for me to emigrate.

  • L.O.V.E.

    Dustin, you just don't appreciate the high art of this movie. How is James Franco and Joaquin Phoenix not attached to this brilliance?

    All that shitting on the windshield, all those balls on the head, all that flatulence, is a commentary on what is thrust upon the movie-going public. They broke the fifth wall, man. That shit and balls is all over us.

    Also, we are talking meta film-making of the highest order. I got to believe lots of blow-jobs had to be given for this movie to be green-lighted and lots of blackmail (proverbial gun to the head) for these actors to make an appearance.

    So, based on a true story?

  • Sara_Tonin00

    now I'm envisioning a 3-D version of the film...

  • L.O.V.E.

    Well, if the movie is a success, we can all look forward to the theme park ride tie-in.

  • Wait, what?

  • indiemuse

    Perhaps an effort to decrease everyone's Bacon number?

  • E-Money

    I wish I hadn't read this list.

  • KC

    I second that....I pretty much had to stop eating my food to read this list. It was a harrowing ordeal.

  • fasha

    Really? Fah realsies? After reading this, I'd rather watch Scary Movie 6 starring Kim Kardashian and Nickleback.
    (Oh please nobody make that movie)

  • lowercase_ryan

    I could see all 30 happening to Kim Kardasian in real life.

  • Lindsey Gregory

    Well, she's already had had the piss shower.

  • fasha

    I'm sure if they did happen to Kim it would all be available on special edition bluray already. Perhaps she and Kanye have been in poop talks.

  • e jerry powell

    If it was that bad...
    I'd figure the director would be Thomas Lee.

  • Fredo

    the pitches are nevertheless brought to life by an insane cast of well-known actors, who are clearly doing it as a favor to someone, although I don’t understand who or what was the lynchpin for the movie

    IMDB does lists 12 directors, including Farrelly, Brett Ratner, Bob Oedenkirk and Elizabeth Banks.

    Honestly you read the IMDB cast list and I can't believe all the people who are involved. Look, some of them (Johnny Knoxville, Sean William Scott, Terrence Howard) will take any work that comes their way, irregardless of quality. But Kate Winslet? Emma Stone? I mean, we now have a movie where Snooki shares the same screen space as Halle Berry and Stephen Merchant.

    Who the hell paid what devil for this movie? For what purpose? Who is the audience for this?

    This is the movie equivalent of the puzzle box from Hellraiser -- you can't solve it but, if you do, horror comes at you.

  • pajiba

    The worst movie in a decade, and of course it provokes a debate about word choice. ONLY ON PAJIBA.

  • TK

    You built this hellhole, buddy. No one to blame but yourself.

  • Uriah_Creep

    Listen, TK, Rowles probably doesn't even know where the Murdertank is anymore, so why don't you grab it, we'll put together a posse, and we'll liberate Pajiba from the DR jackboot of oppression. LIBERATION NOW!!!

  • oilybohunk7

    So last night I watched Bad Girls Club (DON'T JUDGE ME, I DIDN'T ENJOY IT!) and one of the skanks said "conversate" and then one of the other skanks lectured her to not say it anymore because it isn't a word. These types of discussions can pop up in the most unlikely of places.

  • Fredo

    /walks in
    //sees what hell he has started
    ///walks right back out

  • BWeaves

    Hey, at least we're edumacated.

  • oilybohunk7

    This is true.

  • Nico

    "irregardless" is not a word

  • "Irregardless" is a part of nonstandard English, so yes, you're correct --- it's not necessarily a word. However, it's still acceptable to use, just like someone may consider "ain't" acceptable to use, and is included in dictionaries with the nonstandard label.

  • mograph

    I don't like it either, but as others have written, the language is ever evolving. To wit: "flammable" and "inflammable."

  • ghisent

    Makes me think of the bit in The Three Amigos, where they opine that "infamous" means that El Guapo is more famous than regular famous.

  • ,

    I remember that when I was in journalism school, one of the professors told us about a reporter who thought that, like "flammable" and inflammable," "famous" and "infamous" meant the same thing, and in print applied the latter to the county sheriff.

    The prof said they settled out of court.

  • oilybohunk7

    For all intensive purposes I could care less.

  • ghisent

    *eyetwtitch*

    *eyetwitch*

    STAHP.

  • gnibs

    Incorrect. "Ain't" is semi-adorable Southern slang, "irregardless" is an error by someone who meant to say "regardless".

  • NynjaSquirrel

    Sadly, irregardless has been around for a very long time, and while technically not correct, it's considered to be one of those words that are given a pass, and is increasing in use in the US particularly. Imagine if irrespective and regardless have a bastard baby that's really, really ugly...

  • superasente

    Language is ever evolving. I assert that if you have communicated in such a way that allows others to comprehend your meaning then you have performed the act successfully. Communication is inherently difficult. Words mean different things to different people. Take the word "home" for example. That will mean something completely different to Batman than it means to Superman. Focusing on grammar and semantics diminishes the task and dilutes the message.

    So, is "irregardless" a word? Is it a jumble of symbols that make a recognizable form, and does that form have a clear meaning? Because I believe it meets those criteria I would therefore assert that it is a word.

    However, simply being a word doesn't legitimize its use. The word's origins essentially stem from ignorance. Some people understand this and choose to use it anyway (such as they do with "ain't"), some people don't understand its origin and use it because of said ignorance, and some people choose to shun it like the plague because it makes them look stupid. I'm one of those people. Whenever I hear "irregardless" I make silly jokes in my head and add other unnecessary prefixes and suffixes. By the time I'm done it ends up being "Reirregardlesslyable" or some variation thereof.

    And perhaps that will be a word someday as well. But I probably won't use it either.

    Now, y'all, if'n that ain't an end t'this hea squabble, I dunno what is.

  • NynjaSquirrel

    Interesting though - does a word entering common use make it a real word?

  • Jo 'Mama' Besser

    If it negates its own meaning within that very word, it should not. 'Irregardless' makes no sense and NO ONE should invite her to the Neologism Cotillion! That's racist! And she lost it to it to that 'genius' who declared 'gif' to be the word of the year.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    fo' shizzle

  • superasente

    I guess what I'm trying to communicate is that there is nothing sacred or special about being a word. It's not an achievement.

  • ghisent

    No. Ain't is a colloquialism, a word originally used by a particular group of people and over time, came into the vernacular. It can also be argued that it's a contraction of two different words.

    "Irregardless" is neither a colloquialism, nor is it a contraction. At best it's an ill-chosen neologism, at worst it's just lousy grammar. Just because it's being used more often, doesn't mean it gets to qualify as a word. Similarly, just because people know what you're trying to say, despite saying it incorrectly, doesn't mean that it counts as a word. Casually accepting words like "irregardless" (unless it's being used ironically) is part of the dumbing down of language in general.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    I think "normalcy" would disagree with you.

    Regardless, "irregardless" is found in dictionaries. They may call it nonstandard, it may be redundant, but it has an official spelling and definition.

  • ghisent

    Hence my Harding reference, but yes.

    It's worth noting that I've had this argument hundreds of times, and I frequently lose in the face of overwhelming public opinion. I understand that, and I understand that I'm battling against the tides of change on this one. I just happen to think that in this case, change is wrong.

    Also, I'm a big nerd who likes to argue about language. As, apparently, are you people. So I guess what I'm really saying is that I think you're wrong, but we should probably make out nonetheless.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    MAKING OUT FOR EVERYONE! (really, how every intelligent argument should end)

    And in years to come...people would talk...shake their heads in proud wonder - at the how the greatest crop of American Grammarians ever to walk the face of the earth seemed to share October 2013 birthdays. What linguistic comet must have soared overhead?

  • superasente

    I agree to an extent - "irregardless" is undoubtedly a dumb word. But I don't think it diminishes the whole of language. That seems a bit hyperbolic. I believe that refusing admittance of new words (whatever their origin) stifles the natural growth of language.

    What if someone had heard "puke" for the first time and said, "That's no word!" They would have been right of course. And perhaps to that person the word would have seemed ignorant and gross. But here we are 400 years later using it whenever we're sick (thanks Marlowe).

    Language needs to be diverse. We need to have more words. We need them to have ever-so-slightly different meanings so we can refine our way of thinking. We need them to come from different aspects of our culture so we can broaden our base of thought. Even if their only purpose is to spark conversations like this, we need new words.

  • ghisent

    I would argue that there's a difference between the adoption of a brand-new word, and a word like irregardless which is simply an existing word that's been mangled by people who don't know better. It's a bit of a semantic argument, to be sure, but I do think the difference is an important one.

    And I agree about the diversity of language and the need for new words. I don't think that the English language should stand pat and never evolve. But I do think that we should be at least seeking to ensure that its existing words are being used properly and not casually accepting bastardized versions that were born out of simple ignorance.

    Of course, it's worth noting that Warren Harding's damn "return to normalcy" moment slaps my argument around a bit, but Warren Harding can go shit in his hat.

  • rocky

    Absolutely. We could all start saying "Youse" like millions of people do. It wouldn't make "Youse" a real word, or a replacement for the plural form of "You".

  • Green_Eggs_and_Hamster

    I'm furious. But my furity will not keep me from commenting here.
    I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is someone who brings people together, so I am going to offer my opinion as the decider. I'm the decider, and I decide what is best.
    Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning? Really, We ought to make the pie higher.
    Only in so doing can we come to an understanding on if words like irregardless are words.
    And the question is, are we going to be facile enough to change with--will we be nimble enough; will we be able to deal with the circumstances on the ground? And the answer is, yes, we will.
    So words change is, I think what I was trying to say.
    Why don't you mentor a child how to read?
    We hold dear what our Declaration of Independence says, that all have got uninalienable rights, endowed by a Creator. and using words how you want is one of those rights.

    There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again.

    So, in closing, Anyone engaging in improper word usage will be caught and persecuted.

  • emmelemm

    I kinda love you now.

  • It's a bit of a semantic argument, to be sure

    Wow. How very Meta...

blog comments powered by Disqus