Time Traveling Bong

I have been a fan of broad city for a long time, and if you too, then you will instantly understand Ilana and Paul characters, but I don't think you need to watch broad city to enjoy these characters, because their can stand out on their own.

I must say that the writing in this series is very funny. My favorite part is Michael Jackson scene, its one of the most brilliant writing in comedy (applause to Ilana's partner Abbie Jacobson from Broad City who pitched this idea). They are not just focusing on delivering funny lines, but also tackling some issue like race, women, and equality. The acting in this series also very outstanding, I can't imagine anyone else doing their lines of joke, their acting put the jokes into another level, I don't think it will be funny if it wasn't them who do it. One thing that I hate is that the series is only 3 episodes, I wish it was longer, but it is still fine with me.

I don't think this show for everybody, but I do think if you watch this with open mind, you will find joy through their characters. And when you do find the joy watching this series, I suggest you to watch Broad City, you will thank me later.

Ilana Glazer and Paul W. Downs of their hit show 'Broad City' have created a 4/20 comedy special called "Time Traveling Bong," and it's hilarious.

These two leads have great chemistry together and are so fun to watch as they travel through time together, ending up in ridiculous situations. If you're a history buff, a marijuana advocate or a fan of comedy, you'll find Time Traveling Bong enjoyable.

It may not be as funny as Broad City, but it's hilarious none-the-less. Ilana Glazer has grown a large fan base very quickly and Time Traveling bong will only bring in more. This 3 episode special is worth watching and you could definitely expect some good laughs throughout. Kick back, pack a bong and enjoy the crazy adventures and witty situational-comedy.

I would rate this show 15 stars if I could simply because it is clever as can be and Outside of the norm. The only reason to get seven stars from me is because they only made three episodes and wham Bam done. One theory I have is the title they settle on is absolutely offputting to far too many average TV surfers looking for something intriguing sounding. I am a bit of a daredevil I guess ha ha because the only reason I decided to press play was the title.

I was so prepared for terrible acting and most likely childish stupid script, but wow, total opposite of what people would think. The simple three episode show that I popped in and out of in simply an hour renewed my faith in searching for extremely auto or unknown titles and never letting reviews get the best of me at all. After all I am in charge of simply pushing stop or the home button if I start something that is truly not worthy of being aired. There are reviews of this show that I hope maybe the creators/producers or whoever may aggressively pursue inventing this thing and here's an offering on a new title... "The Marijuana Diaries: A TRIP through TIME" You're welcome and I will be waiting👍🏻

Time Traveling Bong is a funny comedy that has potential to run longer than just three episodes. You could go anywhere in time to make great hysterical episodes. I don't know why they only made three. Is it because of the budget, or because people didn't start watching this show, I don't know. But you could definitely do more with this concept. A concept that sounds ridiculous but as a light comedy for stoners it works perfectly well. Ilana Glazer and Paul W. Downs are a good couple to make you laugh in Time Traveling Bong. To me the scenes could be more graphic, it wouldn't bother me at all, and I think it would make the show even better. The special effects are a bit lame but it doesn't really matter because that's not what this show need or is about. Too bad there are only three episodes.

I understand it's a fictional show, but if you include actual historical characters and genuine slanderous accusations leveled against them, it's still a subject of discussion, with no evidence. Then that's just poor writing.