That same photo of Cage has been going around on FB for a while now with the caption, "Only Nicolas Cage could make a real beard look fake!"
Get off Verhoven's ****! The originals, while I loved them too, are terrible films. They were filled with unforgivably bad acting, excessive violence and as much pointless action as any modern cash-grab. They would have been better had they NOT been satire. When I think back to the originals, I don't think "that was a great satire film" I think, that was a fun action movie I liked as a kid that I am now embarrassed to be caught watching now.
The new movie chooses not to make a bad joke out of the story of a man struggling to maintain/reclaim his humanity after being turned into a cyborg cop by a greedy corporation and still manages to be an awesome but more intelligent action movie.
We can alway comment on the negative. Regardless if he was a saint or not. .right is right and wrong is wrong. Sometimes I feel the people that make silly comments as above no not actually know what it feel like to go through some type of discrimination. Your imagination can take you places that you never imagined going...so take a moment and just imagine the shoes being on the other foot...
I knew I would find one of these condescending ass articles... It never fails when a Black Male is murdered... Like Michael B. Jordan said... Black Men are Americas Pit bulls... White folks are so fucking pathetic...
I'm a liberal, a minority, and a feminist---and I loved the movie. The female character in the film who is "treated like a prey animal" according to the reviewer, was NOT "annoying but harmless." Lucy (not Gru) shoots her with a dart because the woman was about to pull Gru's hairpiece off in front of an entire restaurant. It was a bit of comedy and it would be a fair bit of exaggeration to call this evidence of some sexist worldview.
Yes, lighten up.....including Mr. Liberal Basher up there.
What a load! ^^^^ Let me set everyone straight. if you loved Indiana Jones, you'll love The Lone Ranger. We laughed throughout the film and came away thinking it a shame that people weren't seeing it because of untrue, nasty reviews. this could have been a wonderful start to a series of Lone Ranger movies. Go see it people.
While I think that the shooting of Oscar Grant was awful and caused by extreme negligence by all of the officers involved, the story could have been told at least as powerfully if the director and screenwriters had been willing to be both factually and intellectually honest regarding who Grant actually was and how he lived his life.
Plainly and simply, the filmaking team chose to make Grant more saintly than he actually was to force the audience to their viewpoint, instead of letting us make up our own minds. The director's use of provocative tropes was not only dishonest at its core, but also lousy filmaking. Had Coogler been true to both the story and his subject, he could have created a film that made a difference. Instead, I suspect that most of us will forget the film once the manipulation has leached from our systems.
If you're going to use a big word like Verisimilitude please make sure you understand what that word means. Your reviews tend to be extremely pompous and self-righteous yet intellectually dishonest at best, so I don't know why I'm bothering to waste my time reading this trifling "review".
"Verisimilitude is not a "Get Out of Narrative Plausibility Free" card" Yes it is, by definition. Also, if you can't handle the truth, that's your problem.
As a mexican who saw this film in a theater full of Mexicans in Mexico, I can tell you: nobody was offended. See, the rest of the world doesn't expect anything better from americans, so we take it with a grin and enjoy the show. If there's anybody offended out there it's the mexicanAMERICANS or whatever-AMERICANS or white-guilt people who've sold their souls to the PC apocalypse where comedic violence only ever must happens to cis-gendered, white, well-accomodate men, otherwise it's wrong to laugh about it. I suppose you didn't take notice of the main character being humiliated by dressing in drag and being assaulted by the female lead, then unceremoniously being thrown into the trunk of her car as if the role of the stereotypical caveman who knocks her bride unconscious and drags her to his man cave to commit rape was reversed. Or, you know, maybe it was just a bit of fun.
Tell me, if men and female are equal in regards to rights and social standing, or at least, we want them to be equal, why is it that it's wrong for a white female character to be the subject of cartoon violence but it's perfectly acceptable for a male to be the victim?
Yes, the film wasn't as good as the first one and it definitely didn't change my life, but it isn't an atrocity that spits on the face of society and equal rights for everyone. Good day.
In some ways I agree. Steriotypes are annoying. But in the end I think I laughed once. Just not a good movie. Boring, tedious, reaching. It's like they took a bunch of shorts, added a Mexican, slapped them together into a movie. I'm not impressed. If you liked the lorax or rango you might like this film. It lacks heart. I wonder if they even had fun making this movie. Or maybe this was just a really long preview for minions comming out in 2014. Sad sad sad...
Wow... "Me 2 is crude, racist, sexist and in entirely well-worn ways"? Seriously?
The movie was fun, silly and exactly what I had hoped for from a fun and silly movie. I suppose you *could* (and have) over-analyzed this light-hearted movie as though it was Tolstoy or Plath - but I think most people would simply enjoy the movie for what it is. Fun!
Lighten up, Ms. Johanson.
Ummmmm, no. According to all reports in this film the explanation of why the Ranger wears a mask is because he is ashamed to be a white person. Awesome, If Depp and this director think we are going to pay good money to get the message "all white people are racist" for 2 and a half hours they are mistaken. If I want to hear that message, I'll watch the George Zimmerman trial or read the Colorado Springs Independent's own Ranger Rich.
I don't mind Johnny Depp doing eccentric and quirky per se. After all he does do it well. But it's really misplaced in a film that I think should have been played straight. I think that one of the reasons that the Marvel films have done so well, despite their faults is that they were about heroes. Fallible and (mostly) human, but clearly heroes. George Trendle created two characters with great cultural impact in the 1930's, and both of those characters got lousy movies made about them in the last couple of years. Maybe if the Green Hornet and the Lone Ranger had been played as heroes instead of punchlines, people would have wanted to see them in the movies.
What a bitter review. The only thing I could take away from it was that hand-wringing liberals should just steer clear of the cinema if all they can do is see the worst in everything.
I must see this!
Another plot ripoff (sigh). Remember the popular made-for-TV movie/series, "V?" "V" was just a plot ripoff of the novel, "The Greks Bring Gifts." And now we have "The Purge" - which is nothing more than a plot ripoff of the original series Star Trek episode, "Return Of The Archons." The difference? In the Star Trek episode, they called it "Festival" - and while "Festival" didn't last as long as "The Purge," it did happen more often.
I didn't like this film nearly as much as the first. It was formulated to provide continuous action and any of the character interaction that makes ST special was just incidental during heavy action where it garnered no laughs at all from the early-bird viewers I was with. "Star Trek Into Darkness" was designed to appeal to a mass audience, the lowest common denominator. From my perspective, that was a huge mistake for the future of Star Trek, but not for Abrams wallet.
I really enjoyed the first film because it did a great job at being a classic Star Trek reboot, bringing back the characters, their quirks, and their interrelationships which was a significant and important part of the original series.
This is a Star Trek that apparently needs explosions every ten minutes to keep the audience interested, most of whom are not Trekkers. Hot blonds and Kirk having threesomes and endless "booms, bangs, and pows!" is the equation for getting teen males in the seats and having the ridiculous love story between "NuSpock" and "NuUhura" gets the teen girls in the seats. Having Kirk act like a whiny emo kid keeps all of them in the seats because now they can identify with him. "Parents suck! LOL!"
This is a predictable formula action film with predictable formula dialog utilizing characters and even plot lines that someone else created mixed in with some great special effects. This is 180 degrees from what Roddenberry created: daring ideas, imaginative concepts and innovative characters and dialog with lackluster special effects, the best that they could do. CGI has allowed bubblegum where once intelligent plots were required.
First: A definition of hagiography: noun, the writing of the lives of saints.
Saw the movie recently; thought it was excellent and worth seeing. Go.
Any movie about baseball is worth seeing. How sad to see today's game, full of steroid strongmen, greedy agents and idiot owners (Luria, anyone?).
By comparison to some of today's clowns, like A-Rod, maybe JR was a saint.
Great review because I couldn't agree more with you. I personally am sick of the Hollywood RRR syndrome = Remake, Relaunch, Re-Release.
Horror movies suffer the most from the RRR's. That or the endless sequel's.
Wrong Turn 5, seriously? Final Destination 5...
My favorite part of this remake was when the credits finally started to roll.
Sam Raimi should be ashamed of himself for allowing this to happen.
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation