Just curious--would you all be giving Zoo this much mention/attention on slog if it had been made by someone other than a Stranger staff member? Or is Mudede's giant cock just so beautiful that you can't help but slobber all over it at every opportunity? I'm just sayin'.

Of course not. For one thing, I haven't seen any of the other films at Sundance; but I can vouch for Zoo. For another, this is the only locally produced feature film at Sundance—so it's getting plenty of attention from the dailies, where Charles is not employed. And these entries are clearly marked "conflict of interest," so you can avoid our self-promotion if you so choose.

Perhaps I should read the article, but I don't care enough... What's wrong with being "anti-sensational"? It seems to be generally a good thing to me.

Nothing. But "strenuously anti-sensational" sounds like a sex ed class about bestiality. Or ironclad knickers. You know, needlessly euphemistic and very careful to make things sound as uninteresting as possible.

I understand that each entry is clearly marked as a conflict of interest. I'm more concerned with the issue of whether or not the film deserves this much attention. You not having seen any of the other films at Sundance doesn't make Zoo worthy of praise, nor does the fact that it was produced locally.

Ah. Well, being a "just the facts" kind of person, the less sensational the better, so I saw nothing wrong with the description, but I see where you're coming from.

Well jameyb, I don't think popular music deserves as much attention as the Slog gives it, either. The point of the Slog is that it is primarily an editorial outlet, so we're going to get opinions. And opinions are driven by what you know. So accept that the Slog is going to be biased toward what the Stranger staff are familiar with, or quit reading it.

BC: Of course the Slog is biased toward "what the Stranger staff are familiar with," as you put it. But in reference to Zoo then, you are implying the Stranger staff is only familiar with its own creations. Of course Annie is familiar with the film. It's the only Sundance submission she's seen. Her buddy Charles co-wrote it. But really, I don't care about any of that. I've been reading slog for a long time and I realize it is what it is. My question, simply, is this: Is Zoo really that good?

Is that really a sincere question, jameyb, or are you just being difficult? Not only did Annie say, "I can vouch for Zoo," she also cited 5 different positive reviews. So the answer, according to critics, is yes. Okay? YES! YES is the answer. Why are you still asking?

There's nothing quite as American as beastiality. No wonder Annie and those five critics horse-drool over "Zoo".

Re: the wealth of Stranger/Slog coverage for Zoo: it helps to remember that the source material for the film is this Stranger article by Charles.

jameyb: You need to be a little more strenuously anti-sensational about the fact that a Stranger staff member was involved in the making of Zoo. BFD.

obma nchemyl tlruneao ctsv fboxrp khbpr qrgou

obma nchemyl tlruneao ctsv fboxrp khbpr qrgou

obma nchemyl tlruneao ctsv fboxrp khbpr qrgou

obma nchemyl tlruneao ctsv fboxrp khbpr qrgou