|
Probably because Loki was referred to as Laufeyjarson, and so Stan Lee assumed it was his father. It is canon though. Marvel Laufey is a dude.
|
| # ? May 1, 2011 23:15 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 06:53 |
|
|
Dayton actually does have a drug trade the size of Tijuana. Relatively speaking of course. Also corn is loving hardcore, Ohio is thug as hell.
|
| # ? May 2, 2011 15:08 |
|
|
I'm thinking maybe it's time we added pointless videos that play automatically at the top of all our reviews. Everyone else is doing it. e: Like that guy. VVV Jay Dub fucked around with this message at May 2, 2011 around 20:28 |
| # ? May 2, 2011 19:53 |
|
|
So, every Sunday I tweet the link to the Current Releases reviews. This week, I recieved a direct response: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-596162 An old man describes the plot of Win Win, declares himself part of some intellectual elite for "getting it", calls it a review and then - and this is the most baffling part - decides that I, personally, need to see it.
|
| # ? May 2, 2011 20:12 |
|
|
I hate Twitter bots.
|
| # ? May 3, 2011 00:34 |
|
|
Professor Clumsy: wrong about Iron Man, wrong about Thor 
|
| # ? May 6, 2011 07:26 |
|
|
Nucular Carmul posted:Professor Clumsy: wrong about Iron Man, wrong about Thor Agreed.
|
| # ? May 6, 2011 12:58 |
|
|
Either of you care to elaborate?
Professor Clumsy fucked around with this message at Nov 20, 2012 around 18:19 |
| # ? May 6, 2011 13:30 |
|
|
They were made for the fans, not critics!  I don't remember your Iron Man review, or even which one it was.
|
| # ? May 6, 2011 13:45 |
|
|
John Dyne posted:They were made for the fans, not critics! Here's my Iron Man 2 review. I never reviewed the first, but it was marginally better.
|
| # ? May 6, 2011 14:05 |
|
|
ProfessorClumsy posted:Either of you homos care to elaborate? You are british.
|
| # ? May 6, 2011 17:14 |
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This. And we disagree with you
|
| # ? May 6, 2011 19:36 |
|
|
Nucular Carmul posted:You are british. This is something I'm ashamed of today. Rub it in why don't you?
|
| # ? May 6, 2011 20:59 |
|
|
Just get drunk and dream of emigrating. It's what I'm doing.
|
| # ? May 6, 2011 21:04 |
|
|
The truth is... I didn't think Thor was great either. It's not as bad as Clumsy says, but it's not that good.
|
| # ? May 6, 2011 21:38 |
|
|
Vargo posted:The truth is... I didn't think Thor was great either. It's not as bad as Clumsy says, but it's not that good. I guess I'm gonna have to be the white knight on this one. I had a lot of fun with Thor. Granted, that might be the 2AM daze of the midnight screening talking, but I really dug how thoroughly the film committed to the combination of Branagh's Shakespeare-crazy and Jack Kirby-celestial crazy. The film goes balls-out nuts in the design work and the silly operatics, and I really think that makes the film as a whole more palatable. It could've easily fallen into parody or drab/grittiness if it tipped its hand too far in either direction, but I thought it toed the line nicely. I'll admit that character development really isn't the film's strong suit, but I'm willing to forgive it because of how ultimately simple the story is. Some of the action sequences aren't shot particularly well and parts of the plot seem like pure happenstance, but otherwise I found Thor to be a perfectly serviceable superhero flick. It's a far sight more fun than most of the recent superhero films, anyway.
|
| # ? May 6, 2011 21:51 |
|
|
All I'm saying is if Clumsy gives Thor a 17 he drat better retroactively give Daredevil and Elektra like 6 or 4 or something (not that your scores matter, just like the points on Who's Line Is It Anyway)
|
| # ? May 7, 2011 02:33 |
|
|
I haven't seen either of those films and have no plans to.
|
| # ? May 7, 2011 17:38 |
|
|
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/cur...ng-borrowed.php Why wasn't there more of a fight over who would see the movie Kate Hudson wasn't in? Also, the "Barack and Michelle Obama" comparison isn't un-PC at all.
|
| # ? May 8, 2011 07:20 |
|
|
I just want to point out that the "Something Blue" joke in my review is not the one I originally wrote.
|
| # ? May 8, 2011 10:34 |
|
|
Vargo posted:I just want to point out that the "Something Blue" joke in my review is not the one I originally wrote. Yeah, I saw you pretending you were too good to make a testicles joke and brought you down to earth.
|
| # ? May 8, 2011 15:58 |
|
|
Y-Hat posted:http://www.somethingawful.com/d/cur...ng-borrowed.php Vargo let me choose. I chose. Wisely. And I realize it's no big deal to talk about the Obama comparison, I just figured it'd be a little funnier to pretend to make a big deal about it. Oh well. V  V
|
| # ? May 8, 2011 16:25 |
|
|
Vargo, how are you posting in this thread even though your whereabouts are unknown?  MY IMMERSIONSeriously though, loving hilarious work.
|
| # ? May 9, 2011 01:35 |
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Vargo, how are you posting in this thread even though your whereabouts are unknown? I actually escaped my captors long enough to get access to a laptop. This is what I chose to do with that time.
|
| # ? May 9, 2011 01:54 |
|
|
Vargo posted:I actually escaped my captors long enough to get access to a laptop. This is what I chose to do with that time. I told those idiots to password-lock that poo poo. 
|
| # ? May 9, 2011 02:12 |
|
|
Jay Dub posted:I told those idiots to password-lock that poo poo. You spend your time getting involved with this, and yet Peter Travers roams free? You people are stupid.
|
| # ? May 9, 2011 04:11 |
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:You spend your time getting involved with this, and yet Peter Travers roams free? You people are stupid. In all fairness, I am probably way easier to kidnap than Peter Travers.
|
| # ? May 9, 2011 04:16 |
|
|
You know, if the highest rated movie for a week is a 6/50, I think it's okay if you guys don't have a Movie of the Week.
|
| # ? May 10, 2011 02:15 |
|
|
ThemeMusicC posted:You know, if the highest rated movie for a week is a 6/50, I think it's okay if you guys don't have a Movie of the Week. This week actually made us talk about making a separate graphic for "Movie of the...Week?"
|
| # ? May 10, 2011 02:28 |
|
|
Vargo posted:This week actually made us talk about making a separate graphic for "Movie of the...Week?" Oh? The graphic guy never heard poo poo.
|
| # ? May 10, 2011 03:34 |
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Oh? The graphic guy never heard poo poo. Well, no, we don't tell that guy anything until it's time to drag him out of the cupboard with the water heater. We don't really like talking to him.
|
| # ? May 10, 2011 03:52 |
|
|
Vargo posted:Well, no, we don't tell that guy anything until it's time to drag him out of the cupboard with the water heater. We don't really like talking to him. You know, that actually explains a lot. P.S. The rats in here ate all the food. Send more food. TheBigBudgetSequel fucked around with this message at May 10, 2011 around 04:21 |
| # ? May 10, 2011 04:16 |
|
|
ThemeMusicC posted:You know, if the highest rated movie for a week is a 6/50, I think it's okay if you guys don't have a Movie of the Week. But if you're under extreme duress and must choose between Priest, Something Borrowed, and Jumping the Broom (for example, in the event that you find yourself in a Saw-esque cinematic death trap), how will you know what to choose?
|
| # ? May 10, 2011 05:46 |
|
|
Which one is the easiest to sleep through?
|
| # ? May 10, 2011 11:18 |
|
|
ProfessorClumsy posted:Here's my Iron Man 2 review. I never reviewed the first, but it was marginally better. Movie of the Weak. I honestly believe that the only reason Iron Man reviewed better than Daredevil or The Incredible Hulk is because it had Robert Downey Jr doing his usual shtick. It's a not a bad shtick, but always the same.
|
| # ? May 10, 2011 13:37 |
|
|
Dectilon posted:Movie of the Weak. Flubberty-druthers.
|
| # ? May 10, 2011 15:17 |
|
|
I can't tell you how awesome it was to read your review of "Bridesmaids," Jay Dub. I saw it with my girlfriend and we both expected it to be pretty bad, but we saw that Chris O'Dowd is in it and both love the IT Crowd so we thought we'd give it a shot. Hell, the film's even hovering around 90% on rotten tomatoes and Roger Ebert gave it a pretty favorable review, so we thought it might've been a case of bad advertising, a hope that was shattered before any bit of meaningful dialogue was uttered in the film. There are so many non-jokes within this movie that on several occasions I found myself sincerely confused about why the people around me were laughing. They're having sex and her legs are flailing in an unsexy manner? He's making a funny face at the moment of climax? At moments the humor is absurd and elsewhere it's gross and it never really brings anything to the point of comedy. In the few scenes where an actor strikes a right tone or two, the lagging pacing quickly wrings out any kind of enjoyment and brings us back to the sober, Judd-Apatow-With-Lipstick reality that is "Bridesmaids." I agree that the second half of the film is infinitely better than the "Oh look the fat one's pooping! IN A SINK!" first half, but it still felt incredibly flimsy. There never was a moment of "Oh! This is what was holding them back before!" where we can understand any of the characters' changes. I agree that the best part of the film is, unequivocally, Chris O'Dowd and I really hope he gets some substantial recognition for this. I am shocked at the critical acclaim that this film is receiving. I take "wedding" films with a grain of salt in general, but I'd put "Bride Wars" or "27 Dresses," the steaming piles of horse poo poo that both of those films are, head and shoulders above "Bridesmaids." Thanks for putting it in words better than I could've and grounding my suspicions that this film, despite the bizarre hype behind it, is pretty loving bad.
|
| # ? May 15, 2011 10:33 |
|
|
And here I was thinking I was crazy and that people were gonna give me poo poo for not loving it like everyone else did. The back end really did a lot to redeem the movie for me, but only in that I expected it to keep on being a comedy trainwreck, and then suddenly they gave us a story that actually kinda worked. Sadly, half of a lovely movie and half of a good movie don't equal out to one good movie.
|
| # ? May 15, 2011 21:55 |
|
|
Maybe you guys would have enjoyed the movie more if you had watched it while drinking a delicious healthy glass of Pom Wonderful 100% Pomegranate Juice.
|
| # ? May 16, 2011 14:36 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 06:53 |
|
|
Re: Pirates 4. I wish I had been able to read your review before I dragged my husband to see this today. I actually liked the first three movies, so I would have gritted my teeth and gone to see it by myself even with its desperate 38% on the Rotten Tomatometer, just for old times' sake if nothing else. But I didn't need to put my nearest and dearest through it, even though he was facing a boring Sunday afternoon by himself, plus I could've saved his $5.75, in addition to the price of the jumbo popcorn he was forced to resort to at the halfway mark (he the non-popcorn-eater) in order to get through it. As for myself, I realized that about the time he went out for popcorn, I was feeling cross because the theater's seats were just the wrong size and shape for me to settle back and go to sleep. And I'm a fan, remember. We too found the mermaid love story subplot to be baffling, and actually sat through the entire credits hoping there would be some kind of resolution of that huge ("Wait, what?") loose end.
|
| # ? May 23, 2011 02:47 |
|
