Change Your Image
Chuckles_OToole_PBnJ
When I heard about the remake I was thrilled. I love Paul Feig's work. I love McCarthy, Wiig, Jones, McKinnon and the rest of the cast.
I love GB2016. I've seen it twice already and plan to see it again. I have no problem with the trailers or any of the marketing.
The fact is that the same fücks who populate the "Gamergate" mob are now trying to bomb this film because they're ball-less, soulless, clueless, infantile, lifeless, useless asshôles who have nothing better to do with their time than waste daylight playing videogames, killing brain cells, and shïtting on anyone who is more successful than they are. They fear strong women playing strong characters and they all gather around and line up in droves to lick Milo Yiannopoulis's ball sack.
The movie is great. The writers did nothing wrong. The cast did nothing wrong. The director did nothing wrong. The production company did nothing wrong. The trolls who are hating on this film are the entire problem, and all of you can go fück yourselves with a railroad spike.
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Ghostbusters (2016)
I loved this movie. Don't believe the hate.
I loved this movie. I loved the cast, I loved the SFX, I loved the dialogue and the jokes. I thought the plot was a bit thin but the chemistry between the main characters more than made up for it.
I loved the action sequences. I love McCarthy, Wiig, and Jones. Kate McKinnon in particular steals the show. I sincerely think Holtzmann is hands down the most badass sci-fi chick since River Tam.
I know and have known quite a few STEM geek-girls who are exactly- *exactly*- like Holtzmann in the real world. They're genius smart, they're dorky, they're oblivious to social cues and interactions, and they're totally into their work and the world as they see it.
Holtzmann's entire reason for existence is to kick some ghost ass. That's her obsession and her life's work. And not even because she's out for revenge or for any dark reason. She's a true nerd: she just wants to see if it can be done. She's absolutely giddy with all the tech she's tweaking and completely in her element in the lab. And when she pulls out her twin handguns in the big melee fight and licks one before proceeding to bust a bunch of balls, I literally pumped my fist and shrieked "YES HAHAHAHA" right out loud in the theater.
That and the scene where they walk into the rock concert lobby and she's carrying a huge duffel bag in addition to her proton pack like it's just nothing because she's all biznass, just made me swoon.
Now, let's talk about why this movie is getting bashed on the internet and doing poorly.
Here's the deal: For whatever reason, a bunch of pale, pasty, friendless internet nutjobs have decided that, because they are powerless in their own lives, they are going to mount an endless, absurd internet hate campaign on a film, simply because they don't like the gender demographic of the cast, so that they can feel like they have control over something. That's just stupid. At the end of the day, the entire cast of this film will still have careers, and your lives will still suck. So good luck with that.
It breaks my heart to watch this movie getting shot down in flames by a bunch of worthless, useless internet trolls. Oh well. A lot of my favorite films have been box-office bombs ("Buckaroo Banzai", "Dune", "The Thing", "Serenity"). I'm used to my film heroes getting screwed at the box office. This one in particular just really hurts because this cast deserved so much better. They really poured their guts into their characters. I detest bullying and it infuriates me that a bunch of pale pasty internet scum can influence a deserving group of actors in any way, shape or form. Some people need to be shot, seriously.
Honest rating, 7.5 or 8/10. But I gave it 10/10 because the trolls are spamming the rating with 1/10 votes out of sheer spite, so fair's fair.
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
I think I see the problem here.
I'm a big fan of the Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire "Spiderman" films. They were fun, light-hearted, silly, thrilling, special effects bonanzas. They were everything you'd expect from a movie based on a character from a 1960's comic book. They didn't take themselves too seriously. Even when people died, it was cartoonish enough that it didn't sting too deeply or for too long.
Now, enter the Webb/Garfield "Amazing Spiderman" film and, Wow. Holy crap. This is dark, man- *dark*. It's not at all what I was expecting from a superhero movie. This really isn't a comic book at all, is it? It's a horror movie that happens to have a superhero in it, not a superhero movie. I mean hey, I love this film and I think it's great, but wow is it disturbing. This is what you would get if you let Stuart Gordon ("Re-Animator," "From Beyond") direct a superhero film. I'm not familiar with Marc Webb's work- and his resumé seems remarkably thin- but I would be surprised if Stuart Gordon, Clive Barker and Wes Craven weren't deep influences of his.
It took me a long time to warm up to the idea of this film, and an even longer time to get around to actually seeing it, because I'm such a huge fan of the three previous Raimi films. I'm glad I watched it, it's very good... but it has little or nothing to do with "Spiderman" as I know it.
9/10 stars because it really is a great film, but -1 because seriously, Wow: *dark*.
Billy Jack (1971)
A timeless social commentary
This is one of the greatest movies ever captured on film, and your life will be better for watching it. It is more than a story, it is a moral fable, a priceless social allegory. Furthermore, it is a spectacularly accurate time-capsule of the period in which it was set, and as someone who grew up in the 70's I can assure you that the acting is supremely accurate. The cast delivers an emotionally powerful, spot-on depiction of human attitudes and behaviors in the time and place in which it is set.
The slightly muddled feeling that sometimes accompanies the interactions between characters in this movie isn't accidental, it is REALISM. Real people don't always know exactly what to say or how to behave under strain and duress. When people's souls are in turmoil, they seldom behave with the deft, precise, calloused mannerisms that modern Hollywood has accustomed us to viewing. Such was 1970's America near the end of the Viet Nam war.
It amazes me to read all the comments posted here on this board, even those posted by fans of the film, who completely missed certain key points about the plot line and the motivations of the characters. Allow me to clarify several points of confusion that keep getting raised over and over:
1) Sheriff Cole is an ELECTED OFFICIAL with a long personal history in the town and many close friends among the locals. He has little or no real authority. This is due to the fact that the senior Posner is a wealthy, well-connected landowner with a long payroll who shares many mutual friends with Sheriff Cole. It is Posner who calls most of the real shots in the town, legal and otherwise, and if you think this is overly "Hollywood" or far-fetched, you've never lived in a small, isolated mid-western town (two words: "Rotary Club"). Sheriff Cole appears helpless precisely because he mostly is. He is making the best of a bad situation, and he is trying to keep peace between friends and neighbors who he has no real power over, and can't arrest without making enemies or losing his job.
2) The Freedom School is NOT A REAL SCHOOL. Jean herself explains this in the voice-over narrative, in the first 30 minutes of the movie- go back and watch it again, and pay attention. The Freedom School is a halfway house, a haven for runaways, orphans, and any disturbed or abused or hurting kid who shows up on the doorstep looking for help. The kids aren't necessarily hippies- they represent all manner of different religions, races and cultures. The "teachers" are really counselors and social workers. The kids stay as long as they want to or need to, and leave when they're ready, "no questions asked". All they are required to do while they are there is stay clean (drug-free), and be creative. It is a therapeutic environment designed to help kids with problems. At the time, in the early 70's, the idea of helping disturbed runaways was unpopular and somewhat novel- the conservative view of society was that these kids just needed a little sense beaten into them, that the solution to their problems was more abuse.
3) Billy Jack's violent actions aren't SUPPOSED to make any sense. Billy Jack is an older, wiser, more-experienced, but still vulnerable and disturbed embodiment of the kids at the Freedom school. Billy himself has no bigger picture, no grand agenda which he is using violence as a tool to push forward, no larger view of the world other than total bewilderment over man's inhumanity to man. All he knows is that he sees injustice and hatred and hurt in the world, and it infuriates him to the breaking point, when he acts out his anger in bursts of physical violence. The fact that he is an ex-Green Beret with martial arts training is completely incidental. It simply serves to make his passionate outbursts of rage more dangerous than most people's; at the end of the day however, Billy Jack himself knows that violence doesn't change anything, that it often does more harm than good, and that he cannot solve the problems of the world through violence or by any other means. Billy Jack knows that the human condition is insurmountable, that life requires "mental toughness", that we will make mistakes all our lives and have to live with the consequences.
This movie is a work of art, a towering statement about the beauty and the triumph of the human spirit in the midst of the wretchedness and the suffering of the human condition. If you have any emotions at all, the sadness and senseless tragedy of the ending will bring tears to your eyes. I urge everyone to watch it at least once. When you're finished, watch it again and keep peeling away the hidden layers of meaning and symbolism.