Recent Comments from

  • Comment on Johnny Depp Mad Hatter
    I'm sorry, but he had his chance at being The Hatter in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and did a crap version of it.
  • Comment on Sailor Moon
    For the love of god and all that is holy...
  • Comment on usage of my cell phone
    It says usage of cell phone-- maybe it means "number of times used" rather than "amount of time used." It's accurate for me if it's based in numbers of times used.
  • Comment on 300 - Prepare for glory
    @ColombianMonkey: Well, that whole thing sure showed me, considering you touched on a total of-- what-- zero of my points? The style in Sin City was superior to 300, and was (all in all) a much better film. I mean, not great, but it was at least watchable. The thing is, the "300 effect," as you're putting it, does make a film bad. One of those things, inertly, may not make a film bad-- but combining those things in the way that they're combined is crap. It's like the difference between putting a little bit of milk in your oatmeal and dumping a freaking gallon in there. There's a difference in taste: one is decent, the other is horrible. The movie, inherently, was horrible. For all of the reasons I listed above. If you want to like the movie, that's your right. I can't STOP you from liking crappy cinema, but the fact of the matter is, you didn't actually rebuke the stuff I listed above. If you want a movie that's charming with its own unique graphical style, go for something like Waking Life (or, Hell, even Sin City, as I said above). @iamevilhomer: Irrelevant. It's slanted, yes, but why should we inherently presume the narrator isn't objective? Even if we do, it was still based on Thermopylae and simple things like the Phalanx (even if narrated by an unreliable source) should stand because that was a huge part of their culture. There have been countless tales about those Spartans and about Thermopylae, and none of them (from ANY point of view) have been that stilted. Simple as that. Lame, since you're so clever by insinuating that I can't insult anything without doing it myself: don't ever complain about music, literature, film, or anything like that ever again. Because unless you do it yourself, you're apparently not allowed to have an opinion. Bullshit. 300 wasn't JUST bullshit-- I love how you guys are missing the rest of it. It was a bad fucking film. It's not JUST that it was inaccurate. It also was horribly acted, terribly directed, had characters that didn't change at all, poorly costumed, laughably written, overly stylized to the point of absurdity (along with that wretched slow motion), and had the stupidest thematics ever. It's a lot of stuff that goes into making a truly WRETCHED film. 300 had it all!
  • Comment on 300 - Prepare for glory
    @ColombianMonkey: Columbian, I'm sorry, but I tend to enjoy a good action flick as well as the next person (the original Matrix was epic, Taken, recently, was very well done)-- but the thing is, nothing about 300 was very good. The CGI was not in any way, shape, or form, magnificent. I'm sorry, it just... wasn't. CG is best done when it doesn't APPEAR to be done. I don't even mind stylized, if the stylization is clever, but the stuff just ended up looking laughable. A movie with a guy running around screaming half the time just isn't my cup o' tea. The actors did train "themselves," but CG was used to enhance the abdomens (the same way it's used to enhance some actresses' breasts in films). Last time you checked, EVERY form of media is out there to make money and not inherently educate people (with the exception of things like PBS and nonprofit ventures)-- but there's a difference between clever fiction (1984) and bullshit (300), and good fiction normally DOES educate. Most fiction also doesn't masquerade around events that did, in fact occur, and have people forgetting what actually did happen in its lieu (what I mean is, things like "A Beautiful Mind," where none of that shit was even close to what happened in real life). I realize fiction always needs to take some liberties, but it doesn't need to suck ass. The slow motion was not done well (good? Seriously, dude) -- it was overused and trite, and done to the point of absurdity. The movie was shoddy, hands down. The acting was complete and utter crap (I was a theatre and visual arts major, so I feel like I have some place to talk about these kinds of things), the plot was ridiculous, the cinematography was horrible-- it was just a crappy movie with a stupid "WAR = PEACE" agenda that dumbass kids on the internet keep quoting in meme form because it makes them feel like they're cool.