• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Kick *spoon* Roger Ebert Review: One Star!

Started by PeasOfCrap,

122 posts in this topic

comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am shocked....SHOCKED....that a 68 year old person didn't like this movie.

 

I was sure that it had the crossover appeal of Titanic. Shucksy-Darn. :sorry:

 

If they had included the rest of KickASS family, like Wilfred Brimley as Grandpa KickASS and Danny Glover, Walter Matthau and Lloyd Bridges as the Lieutenant KickASSES.

 

 

 

PS: If these guys are already dead and you think it's a burn to point that out, then suck it.

 

I believe Brimley is still kicking spoon, the others are merely kicked.

 

Being stiff as a board hasn't stopped actors from working before...just look at Keanu Reeves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am shocked....SHOCKED....that a 68 year old person didn't like this movie.

 

I was sure that it had the crossover appeal of Titanic. Shucksy-Darn. :sorry:

 

If they had included the rest of KickASS family, like Wilfred Brimley as Grandpa KickASS and Danny Glover, Walter Matthau and Lloyd Bridges as the Lieutenant KickASSES.

 

 

 

PS: If these guys are already dead and you think it's a burn to point that out, then suck it.

 

I believe Brimley is still kicking spoon, the others are merely kicked.

 

Being stiff as a board hasn't stopped actors from working before...just look at Keanu Reeves.

 

Or look at the whole cast of Twilight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NewEnglandGothic

NewEnglandGothic

Posted
Posted
Or go with your parent, but that would be too easy to miss as a choice.

 

This is not consistent through all theaters and some will not allow this, especially if the parent does not watch the same movie.

From the ultra-violence in the previews, this movie screams out to teenagers to watch in packs anyway. I hardly ever see a teen bringing their parent/s anymore, because of the risk of humiliation from their fellow peers that might go, the next Monday at school.

Exactly,It will be just as violent as the latest Nightmare on Elm street movie that comes out in a few weeks.I am sure more teenagers who will go see that as well.

Back in '91 when I was 16 with my 15 year old friends, we had to get tickets to Hot Shots! or something, when we saw Freddy's Dead. We snuck into the Freddy showing, but back then, I didn't think they enforced it as much. Bringing our parents was not an option, lol .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PokerKid

PokerKid

Posted
Posted
I really can't wait to see this flick!

This isn't comic violence. These men, and many others in the film, are really stone-cold dead. And the 11-year-old apparently experiences no emotions about this. Many children that age would be, I dunno, affected somehow, don't you think, after killing eight or 12 men who were trying to kill her?

 

How come you spelled out 8 but used numbers for 12 ...and only one word apart ? :baiting:

 

It's proper grammar. Spell out single-digit whole numbers. Use numerals for numbers greater than nine.

 

Nope, you lose! You still need to be consistent within the same category:

 

http://www.grammarbook.com/numbers/numbers.asp

 

Be consistent within a category. For example, if you choose numerals because one of the numbers is greater than nine, use numerals for all numbers in that category. If you choose to spell out numbers because one of the numbers is a single digit, spell out all numbers in that category.

 

If you have numbers in different categories, use numerals for one category and spell out the other.

 

Correct Examples:

 

My 10 cats fought with their 2 cats.

My ten cats fought with their two cats.

 

Newspaper style does not always agree with every grammar book. In this case, AP's rule is simple: "Spell out the numbers one through nine; for 10 and up, use Arabic numerals" The newspaper and Ebert's review follow the style correctly.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oakman29

oakman29

Posted
Posted
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am shocked....SHOCKED....that a 68 year old person didn't like this movie.

 

68? This movie is clearly targeted directly at adolescents, and I can't imagine anyone over 20 being entertained by it. It's like Hotel for Dogs with guns.

 

 

True, which is why a 68 year old reviewer's opinion of the film might not be the most accurate gauge of content.

 

It's certainly aimed at 20 and under, and meant to shock 40 and under, and quite likely meant to annoy 40 and over.

 

Everyone knows that if the review is bad it's going to be a great movie (shrug) I am shocked at some of the moral elitist talk on here,have you lost your way old folks :preach:

 

Knowing that this movie is ruffling feathers,I want to see it even more :baiting:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
he gave 2012 3.5/4 stars :sick:

 

 

I love the smell of John Cusack boot-licking in the morning.

 

425.2012.cusack.harrelson.lc.102609.jpgFilms_4-1_jpg_216564t.jpg

 

COINCIDENCE?!?!?!?!

 

 

I

 

THINK

 

NOT!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ComicConnoisseur

ComicConnoisseur

Posted
Posted
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am shocked....SHOCKED....that a 68 year old person didn't like this movie.

 

68? This movie is clearly targeted directly at adolescents, and I can't imagine anyone over 20 being entertained by it. It's like Hotel for Dogs with guns.

 

 

True, which is why a 68 year old reviewer's opinion of the film might not be the most accurate gauge of content.

 

It's certainly aimed at 20 and under, and meant to shock 40 and under, and quite likely meant to annoy 40 and over.

 

Everyone knows that if the review is bad it's going to be a great movie (shrug) I am shocked at some of the moral elitist talk on here,have you lost your way old folks :preach:

 

Knowing that this movie is ruffling feathers,I want to see it even more :baiting:

I guess the girl says a very naughty swear word in the movie and thats one of the reasons why this movie is very controversial now! (tsk)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pirate

Pirate

Posted
Posted
when is Chris Jr arriving at the McCormick Place?

 

 

Bringing him on Sunday after the matinee showing of Kick-. :insane:

 

lol make sure you find me as I have something for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted
he gave 2012 3.5/4 stars :sick:

 

 

I love the smell of John Cusack boot-licking in the morning.

 

425.2012.cusack.harrelson.lc.102609.jpgFilms_4-1_jpg_216564t.jpg

 

COINCIDENCE?!?!?!?!

 

 

I

 

THINK

 

NOT!!!!

 

From Ebert's review of Hot Tub Time Machine...

 

"Hot Tub Time Machine," which wants nothing more than to be a screwball farce, succeeds beyond any expectations suggested by the title and extends John Cusack's remarkable run: Since 1983, in 55 films, he's hardly ever made a bad one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
seanfingh

seanfingh

Posted
Posted
he gave 2012 3.5/4 stars :sick:

 

 

I love the smell of John Cusack boot-licking in the morning.

 

425.2012.cusack.harrelson.lc.102609.jpgFilms_4-1_jpg_216564t.jpg

 

COINCIDENCE?!?!?!?!

 

 

I

 

THINK

 

NOT!!!!

 

From Ebert's review of Hot Tub Time Machine...

 

"Hot Tub Time Machine," which wants nothing more than to be a screwball farce, succeeds beyond any expectations suggested by the title and extends John Cusack's remarkable run: Since 1983, in 55 films, he's hardly ever made a bad one.

 

He must have forgotten Con Air . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
he gave 2012 3.5/4 stars :sick:

 

 

I love the smell of John Cusack boot-licking in the morning.

 

425.2012.cusack.harrelson.lc.102609.jpgFilms_4-1_jpg_216564t.jpg

 

COINCIDENCE?!?!?!?!

 

 

I

 

THINK

 

NOT!!!!

 

From Ebert's review of Hot Tub Time Machine...

 

"Hot Tub Time Machine," which wants nothing more than to be a screwball farce, succeeds beyond any expectations suggested by the title and extends John Cusack's remarkable run: Since 1983, in 55 films, he's hardly ever made a bad one.

 

Yep...

 

kiss_smileys.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted
he gave 2012 3.5/4 stars :sick:

 

 

I love the smell of John Cusack boot-licking in the morning.

 

425.2012.cusack.harrelson.lc.102609.jpgFilms_4-1_jpg_216564t.jpg

 

COINCIDENCE?!?!?!?!

 

 

I

 

THINK

 

NOT!!!!

 

From Ebert's review of Hot Tub Time Machine...

 

"Hot Tub Time Machine," which wants nothing more than to be a screwball farce, succeeds beyond any expectations suggested by the title and extends John Cusack's remarkable run: Since 1983, in 55 films, he's hardly ever made a bad one.

 

He must have forgotten Con Air . . .

 

3 stars!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
seanfingh

seanfingh

Posted
Posted
He must have forgotten Con Air . . .
He gave Con Air three stars.

 

 

Wow. That is a real mancrush. I like Cusack. Gross Pointe Blank is great anytime and the Grifters was good as well. But Con Air, c'mon. It was very mildly entertaining and slightly less substantial than a popcorn fart. Three Stars is an insult to three star movies everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing