http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2872732
lucy is an amateur. she gets up to 50% and starts dissolving? whatever, i have been using over 250% of my brain for years. you might think i am joking, but actually, i am notly. lucy is like the i cannot believe it is not science of butters, if that makes any sense. i sure hope it does not because that string of words bears only a passing resemblance to something something.
is your mind blown yet? keep reading.
i invented the usb stick way back in 1970, but the plans were stolen by *supposed* cheese merchants, who were only able to puzzle them out years later. my original design was able to fit 500 hojillion gigabytes on it, which is over thirty times as much as the one lucy made. the cheese merchants only managed a few megabytes.
all of this is real. none of this is fake.
sudo make me a sandwich.
i sort of want to give a thumbs up to this movie for not objectifying the main character, but i cannot really do it because they just switched to objectifying korean mobsters instead. plus lucy was paper-thin and operating on the thinnest of motivations, so it is still almost objectification.
lucy gets one thumbs up drive.
2014-08-15
2014-08-04
riddick
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1411250
riddick is an attempt to go back to the formula that worked for the original riddick movie, pitch black. the tie-in to the previous movie where he took over the necronomicon kingdom was clumsy at best. it seemed like they were trying extra hard to bring the expectations down a notch, since he was going from fighting a multi-planet kingdom of hardcore pain fanatics in the last movie to fighting a double handful of mercenaries, many of whom were incompetent, in this one.
i leave you with a single question. on a world filled with ferocious scorpion-monsters that bury themselves in mud and are capable of surviving long dry spells, what do they eat when they wake up? shirley, the answer is not "mercenaries and gazelle-dogs." unless the rain clouds themselves are sentient beings that only release moisture when a sufficient number of mercenaries and gazelle-dogs are present to feed the scorpion-monsters.
riddick gets two necromorphs, but only because of big hearts for vin diesel.
riddick is an attempt to go back to the formula that worked for the original riddick movie, pitch black. the tie-in to the previous movie where he took over the necronomicon kingdom was clumsy at best. it seemed like they were trying extra hard to bring the expectations down a notch, since he was going from fighting a multi-planet kingdom of hardcore pain fanatics in the last movie to fighting a double handful of mercenaries, many of whom were incompetent, in this one.
i leave you with a single question. on a world filled with ferocious scorpion-monsters that bury themselves in mud and are capable of surviving long dry spells, what do they eat when they wake up? shirley, the answer is not "mercenaries and gazelle-dogs." unless the rain clouds themselves are sentient beings that only release moisture when a sufficient number of mercenaries and gazelle-dogs are present to feed the scorpion-monsters.
riddick gets two necromorphs, but only because of big hearts for vin diesel.
2014-07-13
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)