From: william ahearn <>
Subject: Re: Good Time (US) 2017
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id 94mr3654686qkr.43.1509663640526;
Thu, 02 Nov 2017 16:00:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by with SMTP id 65mr142022otv.13.1509663640451; Thu,
02 Nov 2017 16:00:40 -0700 (PDT)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 16:00:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <l292sntpcl0n$.1iau8q95xpjqo$>
Injection-Info:; posting-host=; posting-account=4C3ScwoAAAA2wbWb7EB6D20HjAcd2OwZ
References: <>
<59fb817c$0$46137$b1db1813$> <>
<59fb8e8e$0$34669$b1db1813$> <l292sntpcl0n$.1iau8q95xpjqo$>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Good Time (US) 2017
From: william ahearn <>
Injection-Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 23:00:40 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 11
Print Article
Forward Article
On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 6:53:56 PM UTC-4, alvey wrote:

> That could also be due to critics writing things like; "[Good Time] is a
> standard crime caper/heist movie featuring the kinds of twists, bad
> decisions, and downbeat ending that often pass for an indie film’s fresh
> take on the genre."
Roger Ebert? Was it at a seance or a bunch of posers using his name? Critical response has been
positive notwithstanding some knucklehead at that website. But then again, you haven't seen it and
need someone to take up the slack of your usual uninformed drivel. Just another dickhead troll.