2 guns

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1272878

denzel and mark wahlberg are pretty watchable by themselves, but when you put them together, they are just sort of watchable.  kind of like duct tape.  there is a light side and a dark side and in the middle a bunch of stringy bits arrayed in a grid that give the light side and dark side some structure.

two guns should have been more entertaining than it was.  the twists and betrayals were pretty well telegraphed, and ultimately it was only about 43 million dollars.  what was the big deal?  was it really worth burning all those resources for only 43 million dollars?  well maybe.  43 million is kind of a lot of  money.  between you and me, i would probably not have killed quite so many people for only 43 million, though.

two guns gets two guns.

cheap thrills

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2389182

well, they got the "cheap" part right.  phew.  "what would you do for $X?" is not really a new question, nor was any other part of this movie.

cheap thrills gets one dog choking on a severed finger.  i hope that is spoiler enough to dissuade you from sitting through this crap.

odd thomas

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1767354

odd thomas would have been a fine b-movie, and maybe that is what it is, at these days' rates.  i tend to think that if you spend 27 million on a movie, you should get a bit more out of it than this.  the effects were fine, the story was also basically fine, and all the actors seemed to be putting their best foot forward.  the script was painfully sloppy, though.  i mean, seriously.  written by a 14 year old, perhaps?  or maybe written *for* a 14 year old.  i recently saw frozen and was shocked at how terrible children's movies are.  perhaps the fault is in my stars.  OR LACK THEREOF.

odd thomas gets two startling contrasts between the quality of its various aspects.