|
|
Posted by Bill on 07/15/06 16:06
Hope you don't try to get a job reviewing for a major newspaper anytime
soon.
HellPopeHuey wrote:
>
> I went to see that damned movie and PHEWWEEEE! what a stench. The
> acting is about as good as you could ask for, the effects are
> outstanding and the soundtrack was a cut above.
>
> However, the whole thing reeks of sniveling, emo-band breast-beating.
> There's no damned humor in it, a gross oversight and its essentially a
> giant chick-flick with none of the endearing attributes that rescue a
> certain number of them from terminal insipidity. Aside from the
> all-too-few super-power scenes, which do rock, its a buncha longing
> looks, melodramatic shticks and retreaded, RETARDED classic Superman
> sayings reworked so as not to offend the politically-correct
> puckerbutts. Its almost like Goethe's "The Sorrows of Young Werther" in
> red and blue tights.
>
> One of the biggest stinks is several visuals and bits of dialogue that
> are a revolting sop to the Christian crowd that keeps pressing us all
> forward into dynamic mediocrity. Its SUPERMAN, NOT FUCKING DAMNED JESUS.
> You might as well press raccoon crap into discs as make DVDs of this
> wimptastic cod's wallop.
>
> The real offense of it is that it really TRIES to be a good flick and
> it has many of the overtones one would associate with same. It does flow
> well and a lot of obvious craft went into it, but it fails on so many
> counts, even a fanboy should be revolted. Its also 30 minutes too long.
> I knew it was a flop when I realized my mind had wandered enough to be
> thinking about dinner and whatever had my shoe stuck to the floor.
>
> "Batman Begins" had balls; "Superman Returns" has a floppy vagina.
>
> --
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|