Did they not try on the dresses and then all get violently ill right after eating the lunch that supposedly got them all sick? Because of the nature of food poisoning, especially food poisoning which causes diarrhea (Which their illness obviously did), it usually has an onset time of over 12 hours. There just isn't enough time for the bacteria to get where it needs to go in the digestive system, and then to multiply to a point where it can have an effect on the body. They all got violently ill like an hour or two after lunch. In real life, that just doesn't happen.
On two separate occasions I ate at a particular restaurant and had the same meal. Each time I got sick about an hour after eating. Oddly enough on both of those occasions I ended up getting sick at Rite Aid and throwing in the store. I don't know if it as food poisoning or what but it happened.
Nope. Sorry, it just doesn't happen like that. It is also widely misunderstood. Bacteria needs several hours inside a human body to reproduce to a point where it can be harmful.
Have you ever wondered why humans have to cook a lot of their food? Many animals eat meat raw and they don't get sick, so why do humans? It's because food stays in the human body digesting much longer than most animals. This allows the bacteria enough time to reproduce to dangerous levels. Raw food doesn't stay inside a tiger's body for long enough; it's why they don't get sick when they eat raw meat.
Most people don't understand that this is how it works. Most people think that if you get violently ill 2 hours after eating, then the meal you just ate was what got you sick. It doesn't work that way. This is the biggest reason that food poisoning is so widely missed. If you think you have food poisoning, don't think about what you ate today; think about what you are yesterday; that's what got you sick.
Nonsense. Sorry, it does just happen like that. It is widely misunderstood namely by you. Food poisoning covers a variety of categories
Just because it *CAN* take far longer does not mean that is always the case, same as if it happens quickly, it does not mean that it was food you just ate, since it could be caused by a meal you had the day before.
My last case of food poisoning occurred inside of three hours. I dined with 5 people at a chinese restaurant. None of us had eaten together in the previous three days... three of us had egg rolls, two did not. All three of us that had egg rolls became violently sick.
- SALMONELLA Disease: Salmonellosis Source: Spread when contaminated food (meat, poultry, eggs) is eaten raw or undercooked. Also, when cooked food comes in contact with contaminated raw food, or when an infected person prepares food. Symptoms (after eating): Onset: 6-48 hours; nausea, fever, headache, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, and vomiting lasting 2-7 days. Can be fatal to infants, the elderly, the infirm, and the immune-compromised. Prevention: Separate raw foods from cooked foods. Thoroughly cook meat, poultry, and eggs. Consume only pasteurized milk, dairy products, and egg nog. Don't leave food at room temperature over 2 hours. Refrigerate below 40 degrees F.
STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS Disease: Staph Source: Carried by people on skin, in boils, pimples, and throat infections; spread when carriers handle food. Staph bacteria produce toxins (poisons) at warm temperatures. Meat, poultry, salads, cheese, eggs, custards, and cream-filled desserts are susceptible foods. Symptoms (after eating):Onset: 1-8 hours;vomiting, diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal cramps lasting 1-2 days. Rarely fatal. Prevention: Cooking won't destroy staph poison, so practice good personal hygiene and sanitary food handling. Don't leave perishable food unrefrigerated over 2 hours. For quick cooling, place hot food in small containers no more than 4 inches deep; cover when cool and refrigerate.
CLOSTRIDIUM BOTULINUM Disease: Botulism Source: Most common in low acid foods canned improperly at home. The presence of these bacteria or their poisons is sometimes signaled by clear liquids turned milky, cracked jars, loose or dented lids, swollen or dented cans, or an "off" odor. Recently, botulism has also been associated with low oxygen cooked foods (i.e. foil wrapped; vacuum packaged) which have been held at room temperatures for long periods of time. Symptoms (after eating): Onset: 4-72 hours; nervous system disturbances such as double vision, droopy eyelids, trouble speaking, swallowing, breathing. Untreated botulism can be fatal. If you or a family member have botulism symptoms, get medical help immediately. Then call health authorities. Prevention: Carefully examine canned goods (particularly those canned at home), and don't use any canned goods showing danger signs. Also, cook and reheat foods thoroughly, keep cooked foods hot (above 140 degrees F) or cold (below 40 degrees F) and divide large portions of cooked food into smaller portions for serving and cooling.
CLOSTRIDIUM PERFRINGENS Disease: Perfringens food poisoning Source: "Buffet germ" that grows rapidly in large portions of food that cool slowly. It grows in chafing dishes which may not keep food sufficiently hot and in the refrigerator if food is stored in portions too large to cool quickly. Symptoms (after eating): Onset: 8-24 hours; diarrhea, gas pains, nausea, and sometimes vomiting lasting only a day. Usually mild, but can be serious in ulcer patients, the elderly, ill, or immune-compromised. Prevention: Keep food hot (above 140 degrees F) or cold (below 40 degrees F). Divide bulk cooked foods into small portions for serving and cooling. Reheat leftovers to at least 165 degrees F. Take special care with poultry, stew, soup, gravy, and casseroles.
Thank you for responding with links and actual facts. It's funny how some people make claims without any facts to back them up and then want to debate about their opinions. If you are stating an opinion, just say so.
One of my frat brothers once ate nine hot dogs and drank six Killians in twenty minutes. Then wouldn't you know it, three months later, he was on his bicycle and got hit by a car.
So, there's your proof.
Proof that making IMDB posts is not the best way to deal with insomnia.
So how come a few years ago when I went to see Star Trek, I only ate one thing that before the movie, KFC, and I got very very ill during the course of the movie.
I don't need to "peruse the links"; my level of education in this matter is more than sufficient. My minor in university was microbiology and my wife works for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I assure you, I know what I am talking about.
Yes, the initial symptoms of food poisoning can present within 12 hours, but diarrhea ALWAYS presents closer to the end of the usual onset period. Not "sometimes", not "most of the time", but "ALWAYS".
The food poisoning scene was pretty clearly very shortly after they had eaten. Of the 5 infected, 2 of them presented with diarrhea. This is simply, not possible.
Don't worry about it though; you will just continue on as one of the "MANY" who don't understand... I won't sweat it.
Then I'll assume you know that it does not mean "always"
as such, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the supposition that the women came down with Staph, or something else based on this:
STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS Disease: Staph Source: Carried by people on skin, in boils, pimples, and throat infections; spread when carriers handle food. Staph bacteria produce toxins (poisons) at warm temperatures. Meat, poultry, salads, cheese, eggs, custards, and cream-filled desserts are susceptible foods. Symptoms (after eating):Onset: 1-8 hours;vomiting, diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal cramps lasting 1-2 days. Rarely fatal. Prevention: Cooking won't destroy staph poison, so practice good personal hygiene and sanitary food handling. Don't leave perishable food unrefrigerated over 2 hours. For quick cooling, place hot food in small containers no more than 4 inches deep; cover when cool and refrigerate.
"I assure you, I know what I am talking about. "
Sorry, your assurances don't mean anything....when myself and the three friends all had onset of vomiting and nausea within three hours, then diarrhea around 4 hours and it was coming out like wildfire from both ends, I should have saved you a bucket and smashed your head into it...then you could really assure me.
I have had norovirus, where the onset was 24-36 hours...I have also had the experience I mentioned where it was under three for vomiting and four for diarrhea
You do not know more than the FDA and this stipulates multiple instances of food poisoning of different types that contradict the stupid, useless war you have started in this thread regarding initial onset times
Oh and get a grip...it is a stupid comedy movie...not the Center For Disease Control you idiot.
As the FDA and Government of NSW state "Usually diarrhoea from a contaminated food does not start until at least 4-6 hours after having eaten that food and can be as long as 3 days after consumption."
Not to mention, there was nothing in the film that stated that they went *RIGHT* to the bridal store you pedantic nonce. Also, since you are so pedantic, you should note the word "usually" which immediately blows everything you have said out of the water since you said it too.
Do you know what "usually" means?
"Most of the time; less than always, but more than occasionally."
that is not all the time, and as a science you should know that if it is not always, then it can and does happen and your proof is not empirical or correct, you fool.
They could have been at the restaurant for two hours having a grand old time drinking and had eaten the contaminated food in the first half hour. They could have then gone shopping, went to the park, walked around for two hours..then had another half hour before they were standing there in the fitting line...that would hit the four hour mark for onset.
so your whole stupid thread is irrelevant.
P*ss off, useless twit. Call me back when you *MAJOR* in microbiology and actually provide assurances that are actually assured.
LOL... it figures that this thread turns into a name-calling, insult-tossing thread, and all by somebody who has no idea what he is talking about; I should have expected it. I am right and you are wrong. That's fine; you continue bashing me. I promise you I won't lose a moment sleep knowing that you think I am wrong, perhaps if you were more important it would bother me what you think.
Actually you are not right, since in your very first claim you said "usually".
Write back when you know what "usually" means. Usually is the operative word here.
Sorry, you were wrong. It most certainly can and does happen not "usually" though. As such it does happen and is not rare, so your scientific claims are simply wrong, since you now claim it cannot happen.
You said usually, the FDA said usually, CDC said usually.
Call me when you actually work at the CDC or FDA and aren't pretending you are so important as to be whining about food poisoning in a scene in a chick flick on movie boards.
You are the one who looks like he wants to be important...not I.
Call back when you are Jonas Salk, Mr. Minor Microbe.
Oh I know what the word "usually" means. Apparently, you think that if somebody says "usually symptoms present 4-6 hours after consumption" that it MUST mean that it CAN present BEFORE 4 hours. Of course, this isn't necessarily true. It MAY mean that symptoms CAN present AFTER 6 hours.
It's like me saying " I am thinking of a number between 1 and 10". You say "8?" I say "no". You say "well it MUST be 4 then!!!"
Again, I get it. I am an expert on the subject. My wife is an expert on the subject. We talk anout this thing on a regular basis. One of the things my wife does daily, is to investigate claims against restaurant caused illness. You think that because you ate a bad egg roll and because you can use the Internet, that you are an expert on food borne illnesses. You are a sheep. It's all good.
Again, Usually is the operative word. I never said it meant that the symptoms may not present later, I merely said that it is absolutely, completely within the realm of science that they presented earlier than the window you claimed by your use of the word "usually".
Save your breath and stop trying to wriggle off the hook you put yourself on as an "alleged" expert.
and it was not merely me...it was two other people out of a group of five. the other two who did not consume the tainted food showed no symptoms of illness whatsoever. Egg rolls, as you know, have shrimp in them along with several other ingredients. I assume you know about shellfish and the fact that they can and often do contribute mightily to a variety of food poisoning scenarios. Whether it was shellfish in this case, or something else, is up for debate. But it most certainly happened
All three that did consume egg rolls, presented symptoms within 3 hours and diarrhea inside of 4.
You were not there, I was. As such as I scientist, you have zero evidence, while we have three corroborated accounts. You were not a witness, nor a participant.
I also had not eaten a meal with the other two ill people all together in three and 12 weeks respectively, and none of us were all together in more than 6 months prior in food consumption terms, since one was only visiting.
You obviously don't get it.
If you are such an expert, than explain it. You just can't handle the fact that you are a "tourist" not an expert, and you are whining on a board about a fictional movie and a real encounter which you were not present for.
If you are such an expert, you should be off fighting food-borne illnesses around the globe...instead, here you are bitching about Bridesmaids and telling other people that the experience they had, which you were not there for, did not actually happen the way it was described.
As I said...call back when you are Jonas Salk or you can prove that you are a verified expert in this particular field as well as scientific studies you have conducted that have been cited in medical journals as well as your credentials.
LOL... well ok, this has entertained me for long enough; you keep waiting. You are right; I wasn't there during your "alleged" egg roll encounter. If you had said that you "ran over 100 miles per hour", or "you plucked out your own eyes, but you were still able to see", would you suggest that I need to be there in order to dispute your claim? You aren't the first one to either lie about something that happened, or misremember some of the details of something that happened; and you won't be the last.
As far as me explaining it, I already have; you just chose to ignore the science. As for your "usually" defense, you read into it what you thought worked, even though it was flawed logic.
I am confident in my claim that I am an expert in the field and I have absolutely no desire to prove my credentials to you. If you don't believe me, I could care less. As I have said, I am right and you are wrong.
I am glad that you are entertained so much by your errors, that you would think I would lie about a horrible experience when I wound up retching and crapping my guts out and two other people did too.
NO, I would not in those cases suggest that you needed to be there for your ludicrous examples, precisely because they are scientifically impossible. The human body at this point in evolution, is incapable of producing leg motion fast enough to run over a certain speed (somewhere around 30 mph, if Usain Bolt is the standard) let alone 100 mph. If a cheetah cannot pass 65, there is no possibility of a human doing it. Without eyes, light cannot be properly focused and transmitted to the brain.
*HOWEVER* food poisoning symptoms *CAN* and *DO* present themselves in three hours with certain strains of food poisoning, and diarrhea *CAN* present in four hours.
*FACT* according to the CDC, FDA and countless others, Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins included. Sorry, you are not an expert compared to those people those high level organizations have at their disposal for research. Maybe your girlfriend is close...but you sure as hell aren't.
Science is the search for fact, reason, truth, probability... It is a scientific *FACT* that I encountered, along with two other people onset of food poisoning symptoms
I did not need to read what I "thought worked" since it did happen.
You merely cannot handle the scientific fact that if you ask yourself this question "Can certain types of food poisoning symptoms, present in under three hours and can in those same cases Diarrhea present in four hours" then as a scientist, you have to admit that *Yes* it can and does happen even though it is not the norm.
But keep dancing around that scientific question, since you know the answer is yes.
You are an insanely absurd pseudo-scientist who started whining because some actresses began barfing and crapping before standard onset of food poisoning symptoms.
I am sure that whatever scientific organization you represent is absolutely thrilled by your dogged pursuit of inaccuracies regarding food poisoning in chick flicks.
Quite a feather in your scientific cap...please make sure and present this case study at your next meeting of the Royal Academy of Sciences Pedantic Idiot meeting on Foodborne Illness.
How the hell are you right? Saying you are right doesn't mean that you are right. LOL!! You have received an excellent response with links showing that diarrhea could result from food poisoning within a couple of hours. You have pointed to zero links to show otherwise, i.e., to back up your claims.
Do people like you go to movies just so you can have a terrible time? Or is it so you can nitpick and criticize irrelevant points afterwards? Or maybe just to be an arrogant dick? It has to be one of these and I'm just dying to know which one.
I know this thread is old, etc., but seriously Rylant. First of all the food poisoning scene was not necessarily or "pretty clearly" very shortly after they had eaten, secondly you sound like a jackass. People get diarrhea shortly after eating food their system disagrees with all the time.
Reach out your hand, if your cup be empty if your cup is full, may it be again
The time between their lunch and the fitting is not revealed. In "movie time" it seems like it was right after lunch, but it could also have very well been several hours (although not likely) between those two times.
But I also got food poisoning a couple hours after eating at a Chinese 'restaurant.' a couple hours after.
I do understand that the the bacteria needs time to do its damage, but everyone is different.
It wasn't food poisoning though! The new friend put something in their food. Don't you guys pay attention?
I feel like we're the only ones that caught that.
You are the only ones that caught that because it's not what happened. It was food poisoning, and the new friend (Helen) didn't get it because she didn't eat the food (not because she poisoned everyone but herself). Your assumption that she poisoned everybody doesn't make sense--why would Helen do that to Lillian, who she wanted to be preferred by?
I hated the scene, but the point of it (and pretty much the whole movie) is that Annie will go to extreme lengths to deny her shortcomings and failures in life--that she refuses to admit that going to that restaurant was a bad choice made out of economic need rather than actual enthusiasm for the food there, even when the evidence of what a bad choice it is literally spewing out of peoples' orifices.
reply share
I didn't catch that because you didn't give any sign of it. You know I can't see you, right? So if you were winking or making those air quotes with your fingers while posting, I couldn't tell. On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
Whatever the time frame food poisoning can take (there are different times for different sicknesses) this was one of the funniest parts of the movie. You don't find this very often in movies these days, it is mostly a "taboo" subject. I think it is great that they added it, even though it is kind of gross. There really are some people out there who do have this problem so it is nice to see it being a brought about in a movie, even though it is gross. I think it just makes it that more real. Nobody's perfect. LOL!!!
Two things. One, there's no point in trying to say something different to the OP, because their arrogance clearly shows that they don't give a toss what you all think. They just wanted to post here to show off how clever they think they are, because they have "a degree". Two, the OP is getting on their high horse over a 'film', a comedy, which intended that scene to be an over-exaggeration of events, in order to get maximum laughs. So original post doesn't show they're clever. It shows they need to chill the heck out.
So original post doesn't show they're clever. It shows they need to chill the heck out.
I actually wasn't trying to be clever and I also wasn't freaking out. I was just trying to point out that a super-mediocre film had an innaccurate food-borne ilness scene in it. If it was a scene which was intended to be an over-eaggeration of events, great; really, it isn't that big a deal and in a year, I promise you that I won't remember a single thing about this movie.
Flash came along said some not nice things to me; I said some not nice things to him; whatever... this thread was more entertaining to me than the movie was in the first place. I hold no ill-will towards him; maybe he holds ill-will towards me, maybe he doesn't. Maybe this thread made him angry; maybe it entertained him. I hope it entertained him. At the end of the day, I am wracking my mind to come up with something more insignificant than 2 guys arguing on the internet.
I most certainly did not "Come along and say some not nice things to you".
I related a personal unpleasant story. Nothing more
"Op, that is nonsense.
I had food poisoning three times in the past decade...onset in all three cases was inside of three hours. "
There is nothing "not nice to you" in that. You just decided to go on a screed
You become rotten and pedantic and obnoxious, telling me about an experience I had that you did not witness.
I hold ill-will towards you because you started a stupid thread, someone disagreed with you, you then proceeded to lecture them about something you did not witness. I found you to be stupid and I found your bullheaded defense of your little corner based, rather pathetic, based on evidence you did not see and that I had no agenda to promote, other than relating an experience. You then begin an assault, telling me I did not actually have the experience I did and made your fatal "Usually" mistake. Ever since, you have been dancing, knowing that my predicament with my three friends was completely possible in scientific terms and not all that strange, even if not the norm.
You are hardly "super chill". Super chill people don't whine about a food-poisoning scene in a stupid comedy movie because it was not biologically viable and whose inaccuracy might destroy the particular mis-en-scene of any actual film where the Bridesmaids scene could occur.
Oh Great, Rylant has come to the kegger everyone! You sound like a ball of fun. Do you talk about the fermentation process and the affects of alcohol on the human nervous system, when every one just wants to drink their beer? Or *USUALLY* not.
The only other thing less significant is one guy being a pedantic jackass who claims to be some type of scholarly scientist, because he minored in Microbiology, which of course he did not major in, or seemingly get a masters or doctorate in, but is not much use when it comes to actual things like empirical evidence, possibility and other people's eyewitness and firsthand experiences.
I am simply glad that microbiology is as casual a hobby for you as film criticism...you seem to do both quite stridently and neither particularly well.
Really quite a pleasure discussing things with such a reasonable and settled scientific mind. Or such a scientific never-mind.
I most certainly did not "Come along and say some not nice things to you".
I related a personal unpleasant story. Nothing more
Now, I might be wrong here; admittedly, my field of expertise is in science and biology and I am NOT an expert on "not nice things", but in this thread, you have called me "stupid", a "useless twit", a "baby", a "whiner", an "insanely absurd pseudo-scientist", "rotten", and a "jackass". Again, not an expert on this, but those all sound like "not nice things" to me... So, again, like your "magical food-borne illness story", you seem to be wrong...
Look, it became pretty clear to me that I wasn't going to change your mind, and you weren't going to change mine. I was willing to move on; I still am. I also find it incredibly ironic that one of your complaints about me, is that I came to this board to "whine" about a scene in the movie, when looking over your post history, you seem to have "whined" about scenes in movies yourself. You are allowed to, but I am not? Is that it?
You also go off on these hugely amusing rants about what I do at "keggers", or what might happen at the "next meeting of the Royal Academy of Sciences Pedantic Idiot meeting on Foodborne Illness", or that I "should be off fighting food-borne illnesses around the globe". Clearly, of the two of us, YOU are the one who is super-chill!
And here I was thinking that all of the entertainment value of this thread had been used up... :-)
You could put the facts in his face all you want but he's going to ignore what it says because he deemed himself an expert. I think it's amusing that he can be so ridiculous while arguing about this fictional movie being ridiculous.
I don't know, there has to be something that is the body reacting to reject some food it knows is going to make it sick, for this to happen.
It happened to me. I ate a salad at a diner, then about 1.5 hours later threw up, after lots of nausea. I figure it was bad salad dressing.
The human mind can definitely play a role in these types of things. If your mind is convinced that something was wrong with something you just ate, it definitely can put the human body through the process of nausea which then can lead to vomitting. It's a self defense mechanism that the body uses, and in these cases, it is the human brain which causes the symptoms, not a build up of bacteria.
In cases where diarrhea is present, it is always caused by something physical that is wrong with the body; the human brain just doesn't have that kind of effect on that part of the digestive system. The fact that there was diarrhea present was the compelling piece of evidence here.
nooo i studied food poisoning, some can be early as 10 minutes. Depending on the amount of bacteria. I had it once and sh*t in my pants 10 minutes after eating. Plus they did make it realistic, helen skipped eating meat which most food poisoning phobics like myself often do in a shady restaurant.And megan didn't throw up she only had diarrhea, which is pretty realistic. people have different bodies and some have a high tolerance for bacteria, cast iron stomachs. hilarious scene and yes, it can happen. My dad ate overseas and he said it hit him when he was still at the table and he had to take an elevator 2 stories up to use the toilet. He didn't make it lol
nooo i studied food poisoning, some can be early as 10 minutes. Depending on the amount of bacteria. I had it once and sh*t in my pants 10 minutes after eating. Plus they did make it realistic, helen skipped eating meat which most food poisoning phobics like myself often do in a shady restaurant.And megan didn't throw up she only had diarrhea, which is pretty realistic. people have different bodies and some have a high tolerance for bacteria, cast iron stomachs. hilarious scene and yes, it can happen. My dad ate overseas and he said it hit him when he was still at the table and he had to take an elevator 2 stories up to use the toilet. He didn't make it lol
Have you ever wondered why humans have to cook a lot of their food? Many animals eat meat raw and they don't get sick, so why do humans? It's because food stays in the human body digesting much longer than most animals. This allows the bacteria enough time to reproduce to dangerous levels. Raw food doesn't stay inside a tiger's body for long enough; it's why they don't get sick when they eat raw meat.
Predators that dine on rotten meat, like hyenas, do have shorter intestines, and their food passes through them quicker; however, their excrement usually is mostly tiny bone shards, hooves & horns. The reason they can eat all that stuff is less because it passes through quickly and more because they have powerful stomach acid that kills the bacteria before it gets a chance to get much of a foothold in the first place. And scavengers & predators DO get sick from eating bad meat, you just don't see it documented much on TV programs. On top of that, humans can actually eat quite spoiled food & not get sick from it. Our sense of smell & taste repulse us from eating something rotting, but if we HAD to, we could handle it without necessarily getting violently ill. It's not the bacteria on rotting meat that makes people ill so much as someone touching the food they're preparing after, say, going to the bathroom & not washing their hands. You could get sick from that even in a high-end restaurant. And the thing about eating a salad to avoid bacteria is wrong, actually, because there have been many cases of people getting salmonella from salad bars. Someone could cut a head of lettuce on a cutting board where someone had chopped raw chicken a few hours prior without washing it off, and there you go.
Most people don't understand that this is how it works. Most people think that if you get violently ill 2 hours after eating, then the meal you just ate was what got you sick. It doesn't work that way. This is the biggest reason that food poisoning is so widely missed. If you think you have food poisoning, don't think about what you ate today; think about what you are yesterday; that's what got you sick.
I don't agree with you. It might happen that most of the time it takes a day or so to get sick from bad food, but there was one time I ate a chicken sandwich I bought where I worked. It tasted slightly off...I realized it at the time but I ate it anyway. Within 3 hours, my shift had ended, I had gone home, and shortly I was curled up on the bed with horrible stomach cramps. The floodgates opened & I didn't stop going every 15 minutes until there was nothing left in me. I couldn't even hold a cup of water in my stomach without it flying right through my intestines, and I ended up in the ER on a saline drip because of how dehydrated I was.
»«ëÕ|{¥(V) I can't understand your crazy moon language. reply share
Wait--that was your problem with he scene? That it was medically inaccurate? Not that it was a obvious and insulting tacked-on pander to try to hook in a gross-out comedy audience to a movie that simultaneously had pretensions of being above that kind of thing?
Not that it was a obvious and insulting tacked-on pander to try to hook in a gross-out comedy audience to a movie that simultaneously had pretensions of being above that kind of thing?
That was more my problem with the scene. I'm sure someone would say "It was meant to be like that!" but regardless of intent, that scene was obligatory and, with the exception of Melissa McCarthy, not very funny. Not to mention cheap. When all else fails, go for bodily fluid chaos. That'll hook the Epic Movie idiots into this rom-com. reply share