posted
Everyone is. It's kind of hard to give an objective review when you walk out 30 minutes in, though.
Complaint: The main character was unlikeable.
Hmmm....yes, at the beginning. That's the point of a good story. Character growth / change. Imagine that, starting a movie off with an unlikeable main character, only to have him redeem himself. Pretty radical idea, I guess.....
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i think i will start my own review article. I will begin and end it this month with "maybe people should not see Jack or Oz"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: i think i will start my own review article. I will begin and end it this month with "maybe people should not see Jack or Oz"
Make sure that you don't see it. Or walk out before it gets going. So that you really have something to post about.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the part (same article as the Jack story) where he goes off on a rant about seasons and astronomers is just pretty horrible in general. Basically because he decided to think about something, thought it made sense to him, and didn't think to check if it was actually true.
For instance:
quote:As far as astronomy is concerned, there are no seasons -- seasons only have meaning on the surface of an inhabited planet, of which we have only one example. Seasons are not the business of astronomy.
Granted, I work in planetary astronomy. Off the top of my head, I have heard the terms terms equinox, solstice, summer and winter bandied about for Mars, Saturn, and Pluto. And if you understand the astronomical definition of a season, ring plane crossing, I have friends who work on modeling the climate of other planets.
So did a planetary astronomer tell you they were not in the season business?
Also this:
quote: Maybe we came to rely on astronomers to define seasons when we first realized that south of the tropics, seasons were flipped, and it took astronomers to explain it.
No. Pretty much anyone who has watches the sun set (and rise) throughout the year (and you know, makes a record of the event, and then goes back and looks at it) knows how to define the seasons, astronomically speaking. Including people who had no clue the earth was round. Or ever travelled more than 50 miles from where they were born.
Also, did you know there is a limit to how many wallbashes you can put in a post?
quote:And second, the astronomical events are only tangentially tied to our seasons.
No. Axial tilt is the reason for the season. It's not just atheists being jerks. Everything else is noise and thermal inertia that goes atop the underlying pattern of day length and solar flux (why you need to know trig) caused by axial tilt! Tangential my butt. The weather would not be warmer in the summer and colder in the winter if there was not axial tilt. The solstices and the equinoxes mark when the sun has switched sides and changed direction.
Also, your flowers probably bloom around the same calendar date every year. Photoperiodism is interesting stuff. You can fool plants though if you know how they work. We learned about it in high school science class.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: i think i will start my own review article. I will begin and end it this month with "maybe people should not see Jack or Oz"
Make sure that you don't see it. Or walk out before it gets going. So that you really have something to post about.
My review of Oz: MAN this sure was a movie I watched the opening credits of. I was so incensed by this movie's use of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE in text form that I immediately exercised my right as a FREE AMERICAN to walk right back out of that theater and write an article about Oz. Oz is a movie that contains CHARACTERS and a SETTING. It was probably displayed in a room I was NOT IN, where they probably attempted to set a TONE and work a scenario involving a PLOT to a sort of CLIMAX and RESOLUTION. I would not know myself because I was in the lobby berating a 17 year old theater employee. My drink was a coke with LIME FLAVORING that I got at one of those NEWFANGLED MACHINES THAT THOSE FANCY PLACES HAVE. Like the Century 14 I go to and pay FOURTEEN DOLLARS just to go see some CGI punting like that OTHER MOVIE we almost forgot about called like the ROODS or the CROODZ or something which is about CGI neanderthals who go out of their cage and discover that THE ACADEMY AWARDS AND THE HOLLYWOOD ELITE ARE TERRIBLE AND I AM TALKING ABOUT THEM INSTEAD. They think they are so smart let me tell you how they are really not smart, I do not like them. In conclusion Oz was a movie, in theaters.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like for serious now I legitimately had no idea what he was on about with the astronomy and seasons thing. I was all like "Yeah, I am not really on the staff of the farmer's almanac but I really do not think any of this is true, it does not make sense, where .. where is this coming from, what .."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, I did not read it as a rant against science and complaints of Godless-heathens taken away people's rights to define seasons. It seemed like he was making a pretty simple point that seasons as they relate to various activities change from location to location and year to year. Basically that it's planting season when it's consistently warm enough and jacket-season when it's cold enough.
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I'm aghast. A positive review for Jack the Giant Slayer. And he walked out of Oz.
IIRC Jack was mostly a lukewarm review.
Yeah, I kept waiting for it to become positive based on Aros's post. Never did.
As for the seasons talk, I have no idea what that was all about. The "point" he made was no real point at all. It's not as if people in tropical countries/places talk of having 4 seasons, or as if seasons are somewhat imposed by law...
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:When did we decide to let the astronomers coopt the names of seasons?
how do you mean?
quote:As far as astronomy is concerned, there are no seasons
that's not true?
quote:Let's just admit that calendaring is pretty arbitrary.
ok? you mean especially the calendar we use now, as designed by a church?
etc
in the process of its meandering it says some weird things which need clarification and qualification and is fairly nonsensical in regard to astronomical realities that lead to the general classification of seasons, and .. yeah.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: i think i will start my own review article. I will begin and end it this month with "maybe people should not see Jack or Oz"
Make sure that you don't see it. Or walk out before it gets going. So that you really have something to post about.
My review of Oz: MAN this sure was a movie I watched the opening credits of. I was so incensed by this movie's use of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE in text form that I immediately exercised my right as a FREE AMERICAN to walk right back out of that theater and write an article about Oz. Oz is a movie that contains CHARACTERS and a SETTING. It was probably displayed in a room I was NOT IN, where they probably attempted to set a TONE and work a scenario involving a PLOT to a sort of CLIMAX and RESOLUTION. I would not know myself because I was in the lobby berating a 17 year old theater employee. My drink was a coke with LIME FLAVORING that I got at one of those NEWFANGLED MACHINES THAT THOSE FANCY PLACES HAVE. Like the Century 14 I go to and pay FOURTEEN DOLLARS just to go see some CGI punting like that OTHER MOVIE we almost forgot about called like the ROODS or the CROODZ or something which is about CGI neanderthals who go out of their cage and discover that THE ACADEMY AWARDS AND THE HOLLYWOOD ELITE ARE TERRIBLE AND I AM TALKING ABOUT THEM INSTEAD. They think they are so smart let me tell you how they are really not smart, I do not like them. In conclusion Oz was a movie, in theaters.
You can definitely feel the generation gap when you read his reviews. It's a wonder he hasn't kicked anyone off his lawn yet.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Complaint: The main character was unlikeable.
Hmmm....yes, at the beginning. That's the point of a good story. Character growth / change. Imagine that, starting a movie off with an unlikeable main character, only to have him redeem himself. Pretty radical idea, I guess.....
(The following is about storytelling in general, not Oz, which I haven't seen)
No, I think it's pretty important that the audience likes the main character (or at least one important character) throughout. Yes, it's a well-honed tradition to have protagonists experience character growth through the story, but if you don't care about the character in the first place, it's hard to care about that growth.
You can (and should) start out with a flawed character, but that doesn't mean you have to have a shallow character. If it's clear that the character's motives are selfish and unsympathetic, the the point where you don't want the character to succeed, you have not built a strong flawed character. I'd rather be able to have a sense that there is something human in the flawed protagonist than wait for the story to force him to grow up a bit.
That's not to say that characters who start out fundamentally unsympathetic cannot redeem themselves. The character of Charles Winchester on M*A*S*H comes to mind: he starts out as irritatingly dismissive, elitist, and abrasive. I tolerated him in his early appearances only because the actor delivered his lines with great timing and finesse, such that it was a relief that at the very least the character wasn't a stupid, shallow chew-toy like Frank Burns. But when he started experiencing growth of his own – defending a stutterer, comforting a pianist who lost his arm, growing fond of the Korean musician prisoners, anonymously donating to an orphanage, relating with Hawkeye's experiences with his father – he became one of the best characters on the show, no longer an outlier along the strong characters of B.J., Potter, and Hawkeye. But I wouldn't have tolerated the show in general if there weren't already other sympathetic characters to pick up the slack.
You have to be able to latch on to something about a character to say, "I care about what happens to this person," to suspend your disbelief long enough to let their character growth become apparent.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't find the Oz review. It's not part of the most recent review. Was it taken down, maybe?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: You can definitely feel the generation gap when you read his reviews. It's a wonder he hasn't kicked anyone off his lawn yet.
i haven't even really read the review, that's just me creating a parody of the sorts of reviews you get by people who are the type to walk out of a movie and review the movie they didn't watch
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: I can't find the Oz review. It's not part of the most recent review. Was it taken down, maybe?
His reviews are all published first on the website for the Rhinoceros Times, a strange Southern conservative paper. They're published here haphazardly and frequently (exceedingly) late. I think they're four articles behind.
quote:Originally posted by OSC: Every lie he told was obvious – he showed us (and therefore the other characters) that he was lying. This is how you act and direct farce, pointing to every artifice. But wasn't the point of this to bring the Wizard to life?
He would have seen, had he watched the rest of the movie, that this was on purpose. Oz was a hoax, a sham in the real world. It WAS obvious to everyone. But some people still loved him, some still believed in him.
In the land of Oz, he could finally become not a great man, but a GOOD man. He could earn people's respect without lying or being a weasel.
Kind of one of the running themes....
Maybe the one thing that acted toward the film's detriment for OSC and some of the critics, is that the movie was played very over the top. Franco's performance was VERY hammy. But my impression is that Sam Raimi (director) was hearkening back to his Evil Dead / Army of Darkness motifs. I thought it was a strength, not a weakness. Heck, I'm pretty sure he recreated his demon witch from Army of Darkness. I wonder if Disney figured that out?
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Wow, I did not read it as a rant against science and complaints of Godless-heathens taken away people's rights to define seasons. It seemed like he was making a pretty simple point that seasons as they relate to various activities change from location to location and year to year. Basically that it's planting season when it's consistently warm enough and jacket-season when it's cold enough.
Hobbes
This was my read too. The rants in this thread have left me scratching my head.
Hey, that sort of rhymed.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: oz is a pretty bad movie, but for different reasons than have been discussed.
Why is this? I'd be interested to hear.
From an entertainment perspective, I rather enjoyed it. It was a very pretty movie. I laughed, quite a bit, throughout. The ending wasn't the average "giant battle" ending that we see so often these days. And both the script and acting, at times, rose a little above the standard popcorn fare being dished out at the cinemas.
Sure, compared to The Wizard of Oz, it was fluffy crap. But the 3D was fun. There were a lot of cool "shout outs" to the original, and it was certainly superior to similar Disney flicks (Alice in Wonderland). And Raimi put a lot of interesting shots and made some interesting directing decisions.
Depending on someone's expectations, I can certainly see it receiving a negative review. But regardless of flaws, it had an awful lot going for it.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Though Baum brushed off claims that Oz was at all political, he made a decided choice to make women front and center of the series. They're princesses, ordinary farmgirls, witches (both good and bad), rag dolls, generals, pastry chefs, and problem-solving faeries. They have adventures, lead search parties, rescue one another, solve difficulties, and challenge the Nome King in combat. Perhaps most significantly, none of the characters -– not Ozma, Glinda, Betsy or Dorothy –- ever engage in romantic relationships. Baum made a point of avoiding such trappings as love interests, because he believed children would find passionate romance boring, and an emotional element which they wouldn't truly understand. Perhaps there was a personal element in this as well, as Baum, conscious of what Maud sacrificed in order to marry him, allowed his heroines perpetual youth and personal freedom.
With such a rich tapestry on and off the Oz page, it's depressing that 2013 finds our return to Oz burdened with a reluctant hero (the dominant kind in the 21st century), and not one of Baum's plucky young heroines. In a bitter reversal of Baum's stories, "Great and Powerful" casts the women as the sidekicks, standing by to aid the Wizard should he need it. No longer instigators of action, the witches Glinda, Theodora, and Evanora now clasp their hands at arrival, thrilled the prophesied hero has arrived ("Aren't you the great man we've been waiting for?" asks Theodora, voice trembling. Actually, all the female dialogue seems to be on the wobbly verge of tears). Whereas Baum's charlatan Wizard accidentally became ruler of Oz, making a mess of things in the process, now we have one who has a place carved out for him, and is hailed as the man "who can set things right" (silly witches, always making a mess of their kingdoms!). Who knew three sorceresses –- who were all-seeing and all-knowing in prior Oz tales -– were actually helpless compared to a man from Kansas? And helpless against him! Yes, Michelle Williams' Glinda is smart enough to see through our hero's lies and bluster, but otherwise she's completely stripped of any real agency. "Great and Powerful" corrects Baum's grievous abstinence, and reminds us all women must fall for a handsome traveler. The modern day Wizard now wins at least 2/3 of the onscreen hearts instead of being shamed as a liar.
No doubt the focus group responsible for "Great and Powerful" convinced themselves that female protagonists weren't marketable (odd coming from the studio of Disney Princesses), and that a pouty, doubting hero would draw in a wider range of moviegoers. It was probably believed no one would ever see an Oz film unless it directly tied into the version they already knew and loved, and that trying to draw on original Oz tales would be too confusing and difficult. Audiences can follow along with Marvel and Tolkien, but the origin of Ozma would undoubtedly be too complicated. Why bring in Betsy and her mule, when we can have a Hollywood hunk on the poster, and witchy cleavage at the denouement?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: by rant do you mean people mostly saying it does not make a lot of sense to them
Mostly I was thinking of theamazeeaz's post, but didn't want to call them out by name. Because their name is hard to remember and spell correctly.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Everyone is. It's kind of hard to give an objective review when you walk out 30 minutes in, though.
You're talking about a person who regularly posts vitriolic reviews of films he has never seen. Objective doesn't even factor in.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You're talking about a person who regularly posts vitriolic reviews of films he has never seen. Objective doesn't even factor in.
His constant bashing of Lincoln is particularly surreal. Especially since many of the reasons he claims it's "so terrible he'll never watch it" are based on things that don't actually happen in the movie. What's particularly frustrating is that he's probably spent a bit more than 2 hours by now writing about how terrible it is and how he will never watch it - effectively wasting more time than, you know, just watching it.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You're talking about a person who regularly posts vitriolic reviews of films he has never seen. Objective doesn't even factor in.
His constant bashing of Lincoln is particularly surreal. Especially since many of the reasons he claims it's "so terrible he'll never watch it" are based on things that don't actually happen in the movie. What's particularly frustrating is that he's probably spent a bit more than 2 hours by now writing about how terrible it is and how he will never watch it - effectively wasting more time than, you know, just watching it.
Pretty sure he only says that he hates Spielberg movies, especially historical ones, and that he didn't like the voice.
I don't think he says much else about the movie.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
What are the cliff notes to Card's opinion of Lincoln?
IP: Logged |
He hates Spielberg and Day-Lewis, and thinks he was miscast. And he hates historical movies in subjects he's knowledgable of, especially Spielberg ones. That was basically it.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Wait, does he hate Day Lewis in general?
Maybe? Maybe not. Here's what he says:
quote: Originally posted by OSC: It also didn't help that Daniel Day-Lewis's makeup looked almost as rigid and masklike as the hideous big-face makeup Dustin Hoffman wore at the end of Little Big Man. Day-Lewis is as cold an actor as ever existed; Lincoln himself was a warm and funny man, even in the midst of adversity.
Except for a vague physical resemblance (obviously you can't cast Philip Seymour Hoffman as Lincoln), I can't think of many worse casting decisions. People say he's brilliant in the part, but knowing who created the script, I fear that the more convincing his performance, the falser the understanding of Lincoln in the minds of people who watch the movie.
So, I originally read "Cold" as a purely negative descriptor, but perhaps not? In hindsight I can interpret it other ways.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ]Pretty sure he only says that he hates Spielberg movies, especially historical ones, and that he didn't like the voice.
I don't think he says much else about the movie.
Bleh...
quote:Though I've seen enough of Daniel Day-Lewis's performance to know that he completely missed Lincoln's voice (even when he orated, Lincoln never sounded like an orator; Day-Lewis's every word sounded engraved on stone)
Most of Lincoln has DDL talking in a folksy, conversational tone, telling jokes, etc. There's one speech at the end, and a handful of times where he orated for effect ("I am the president of the United States, clothed in immense power!"), but those are pretty much word for word quotes... heck, even the flag raising "speech" demonstrates the opposite of what Card is saying.
But the quote I'm talking about is:
quote:...When you add to that his penchant for the cheap pandering ending, I know exactly what Lincoln is. They will pretend that Lincoln wrestled with issues about which in real life his vision was clear; they will pick villains and lie about them; they will pretend that the Right Thing happened in spite of the people who actually brought it into being; and at the end we will be expected to respond with cheers and tears.
You've seen the movie. Do you think his claim to "know exactly what Lincoln is" without having even seen the movie is accurate? Do you agree with his assessment? For example, the movie shows Lincoln has being very clear minded and forceful about his plan for abolishing slavery - to the point where he extended the war for several months and indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of people so that congress would vote to pass the 13th amendment. Do you think this movie, which is pretty much about a man who is so passionate and unwavering about his desire to end slavery at any cost, by any means, is about Lincoln "wrestling with those issues"?
I mean, there are several scenes which show him obviously sad and grieving that his actions and the war in general caused so much destruction and death, but those scenes are necessary to establish that he wasn'ta complete bastard. At no point does he actually change his mind, nor does the movie even hint he's seriously considering any course of action that would jeopardize the 13th amendment.
quote:If Lincoln wins the Oscar, it will be evidence, not the cause, of Americans' abysmal ignorance of and contempt for their own history.
Again, he judges the historical accuracy of the movie, as well as insults anyone who appreciates the movie and considers it accurate, without actually seeing the movie. How arrogant and condescending is that?
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Wait, does he hate Day Lewis in general?
Dude, he's an AWESOME actor. He was fantastic in My Left Foot. That guy didn't just skim on the surface of the character. He DROWNED in that character. No, he grew GILLS and let the waters of the character merge with his being until they were indistinguishable. Dude is a terrific actor.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: rather say a lot with a little than a little with a lot.
When this is the response it gets, it really says more than I could ever say about it, in a way which reinforces the point, sooooo
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Wait, does he hate Day Lewis in general?
Maybe? Maybe not. Here's what he says:
quote: Originally posted by OSC:
Except for a vague physical resemblance (obviously you can't cast Philip Seymour Hoffman as Lincoln), I can't think of many worse casting decisions. People say he's brilliant in the part, but knowing who created the script, I fear that the more convincing his performance, the falser the understanding of Lincoln in the minds of people who watch the movie.
So, I originally read "Cold" as a purely negative descriptor, but perhaps not? In hindsight I can interpret it other ways.
It reads to me as a way of inching ass-first into a condemnation of the author, in a sort of tautological origami of logic: the actor sucks therefore the film was badly made, and/or/even if the acting was good it was a bad performance *because* it was based on the writing of a bad writer and bad person.
What he really wants to say is: "I hate the person that wrote this," and possibly: "therefore I must complain about everything in it, whether that makes sense or no."
And what's more surreal about all this is that I've read the source material for the film, and seen the film, and I have to say that Day-Lewis' performance captures *a lot* of the wit and humor and grace of Lincoln so often mentioned as a counterpoint to his popular elementary school interpretation as a stoic old fogey.
Granted, he was still a semi-stoic old fogey in the film, but maybe that interpretation is more or less right. Lincoln *acted* the stoic old fogey for much of his political career. And I'll say as little more than an amateur actor myself: it is one thing to play a man. It is quite another to play a man, who is himself playing another role. That takes the kind of depth that can leave the passive glance with the impression that an actor is *bad* when he is really brilliant. Of course you would have to watch the whole film, and OSC is not a fan of giving things a chance.
This is of course comes with a breathless lack of irony from an author who is notoriously stingy with exposition in his own writings. It takes eons for OSC stories, especially the ones from the part of his career generally seen as of the best quality, to get going. So his intolerance of this demand for patience in others is amusing- though understandable.
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: rather say a lot with a little than a little with a lot.
When this is the response it gets, it really says more than I could ever say about it, in a way which reinforces the point, sooooo
I groaned too. Rather than positing an original argument, you regurgitated a feminist ranting that failed to evaluate the movie from any angle other than the self-aggrandizing perspective of the author.
Eh, it was a fun popcorn flick with (purposefully) cheesy acting that (at times) rose above expectations. As a tribute to the original film, it flunks. As a fun, family film in the dearth of early spring? A+
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Wait, does he hate Day Lewis in general?
No, actually. He also said that Day-Lewis' Oscar acceptance speech was the finest one he'd ever heard at the Oscars. He also mentioned that perhaps there was more warmth to Day-Lewis than he had realized as he enjoyed the jokes he made.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: rather say a lot with a little than a little with a lot.
When this is the response it gets, it really says more than I could ever say about it, in a way which reinforces the point, sooooo
I groaned too. Rather than positing an original argument, you regurgitated a feminist ranting that failed to evaluate the movie from any angle other than the self-aggrandizing perspective of the author.
"feminist ranting"
well then.
It is a completely legitimate charge. "Self-aggrandizing" doesn't make sense here; the decisions made in the development of this movie are a perfectly valid consideration. Moviemakers usually make the argument that it's hard to integrate women into most anything other than primarily passive or background roles when it comes to legacy adapted content, because the original content did not have female leads, usually just male leads and female background characters or Damsels in Distress and objects of desire. Oz — and the entire example of Baum's work — presents exactly the opposite situation. It was a work featuring lead female heroes. It is a noteworthy franchise in the regard that that's what Oz is about - stories of girls going on adventures and being heroes. We even managed to get that right for the movie adaptation in the 1930's. It's a shame we decided that's not marketable enough in the 2010's, we better go out of our way to make it about a guy who either (1) tames female interests or (2) turns them wicked by spurning them
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: rather say a lot with a little than a little with a lot.
When this is the response it gets, it really says more than I could ever say about it, in a way which reinforces the point, sooooo
When you think a feminist is wrong, that just reinforces that she is right.
This is the standard strategy, so I don't really blame you for employing it, Sam. But it's the reason stuff like that gets the response it did. Any argument that one might give against it just reinforces that it's actually right, and the people arguing against it are blind because they're part of the patriarchy. So... groan.
Modern feminism has worked hard at being largely impervious to criticism in exactly this way.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: So the movie casts some pretty boy actor in a wedged in role in order to put female asses in seats, and this is evil men's fault now?
Okay.
Agree.
Mila Kunis' lovely face was certainly a reason I went to see it. Not the only one, but definitely one reason.
I have no idea if James Franco is actually attractive or not, but such things do help put butts in seats, as you say.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
