MovieChat Forums > mitzibishi > Replies
mitzibishi's Replies
And to generate clicks.
The fans will not read any of their articles unless it is rage bait. That's one way to get the fans interested in their failing rag.
They cannot speak negatively about the studio, or the studio will pull access and advertising.
So they have to manufacture clicks from somewhere, and this is the kind of article we get. Attack the fans.
Journalism is dead.
You're the one gas lighting.
Wiffing the smell of your own farts around. I've never read so much rubbish.
>I enjoy the fact that it is a psychological drama as much as it is a game of thrones in season 2
Ha ha Rings of Power only reaches the heights of Game of Thrones Season 8.
Psychological drama, what a flowery picture you paint.
>this show actually sets the foundation for LotR trilogy
Trashes on it and condenses 1000 years into a couple of weeks. Gandalf and Saruman weren't even alive then and shoehorned in for the purpose of MEMBERBERRIES. The writers could have used the other wizards alive at the time and built something "new" in the cinematic universe. But no, we needed MEMBERBERRIES.
This show has been denounced by fans. It's reviled.
Nice write up. Appreciated.
Apart from the bit about part 4. I sat through them all and most were pretty rough.
4 had an awful Mike Myers. He looked like a geography teacher with shoulder pads. The kills were very basic, and it didn't look like they used much SFX, especially compared to Friday the 13th even with those movies being chopped to hell by the MPAA you could see there was a lot of SFX work and pride to make the kills cool.
4 also looked like a TV move.
Part 5 I was into more at the beginning, then it really slowed down. Michael didn't kill anybody in what seemed like an age, and was driving his date around in a car for some reason.
Part 6 looked very polished like a real movie rather than looking like a flat TV movie. Then it all fell apart and crumbled. What a mess.
The only one I'd rate after Halloween 3 is H20, because I liked that teen movie vibe and Josh Hartnett in his "teen" prime with a decent cast of capable actors.
Wow
>Another page.
Another edited reply.
Notice how my response highlights the word "embarrassing" TWICE??????!!!!
Yet your response has been edited only to show
>Another page.
You even admit that you are editing! Where's the paragraph of insult porn below "Another page"? IS this website glitching, or are you going back to edit all your replies? Last time I looked, there was at least 50 words in your last reply!!!!
>I have to edit things
What a saddo. So dedicated to securing a win by being a loser.
Just take that L and move along, you sad, pathetic loser.
No counterpoints, only off-topic diversions and insult porn.
I think we are done here.
Just take the L and move along.
>I have to edit things because you don't understand simple English.
We know why you edited, my friend. Because you F'd up. Do I need to screenshot every reply you make?
>I haven't made a single "counter point" yet
I agree.
>Slasher movies are simple fun. That's it.
Your whole point is wanting a detailed backstory with a complicated motive for the killer.
My whole point was SIMPLE AND BEAUTIFUL!
Contradicting much??? LMAOOOOO!!!
Strange comparison with Talented Mr. Ripley.
Tenuous at best.
As it goes against:
Believe all women.
Men are automatically bad, women good.
I do think it missed the mark with the ending, though. I thought she was going to walk away the victim, with the every kill, and the serial killer tag pinned on him because a woman shed a fake tear and said it was true.
Throughout history, people have oppressed each other. Men, women, both.
Put a woman on the throne and its not raining fluffy animals and pretty flowers.
A woman in power doesn't automatically make things Barbie world with everybody heading to the beach, surfboards in hand.
And if you counter with "well, the only reason women in power did that is because they were manipulated by men"
Then if you consider women so infantile, maybe they shouldn't be seated in power. If women are so weak willed, even with a countries power behind them and a man, any man can so easily sway their opinion and manipulate them, if you think women are so infant minded, and should be classed as infants when times are hard, tough decisions to make.
Then maybe it's time to revert back and remove women's right to vote. Maybe it's time to adopt the Muslim way of thinking about women.
There's nothing less feminist and progressive than infantilising women, excusing, and turning a blind eye when the going gets, mildly tough.
She ironed out most of these "gripes" with surgery.
Now her boobs looks like bolts being shot by the hands of Zeus himself and only being held by a bra crafted from the net of Greek fishermen 3000 years ago.
Did you watch this movie?
Racist ass.
They weren't a couple. As the guy says above, that character was gay and a friend.
This wasn't forced DEI check box ticking. An organic character who happens to be black and is friends with a white girl.
Nothing wrong with that.
You're the one trolling my friend. You haven't made a single counter point yet.
You've edited your replies so you don't look silly, and you know very little about the horror genre, as your edited replies have shown.
Move along and take the L if you can't muster a counter point.
>I'm not reading something that goes on like that.
*puts fingers in ears* "Waaaah I'm not listening to you, I'm not listening to you!!!"
Run along now.
Sydney Sweeney was in Madame Web as teenager number 3.
Not the lead.
While Sydney was busy not being a lead Ana De Armas was playing Marilyn Monroe in a biopic.
Ya know. Lead actress shit.
They put Sydney with Glenn Powell in a romantic comedy once to see how she would do.
That's one real lead role with support from another upcoming star in a fluffy movie. She's being tested right now.
Ana De Armas has been with Ben Affleck, Ryan Gosling and Chris Evans (no matter the quality) as well as coming up for another lead role as the female John Wick.
When Sydney Sweeney is the only face on the movie poster in something more than a small horror, then we'll talk.
IGN = 70 out of 100
The usual again.
In Friday the 13th Part 5 a somebody takes their top off in front of the mirror and says "it's show time!"
Part and parcel
Your "retorts" are embarrassing. Just take the L and move on if you have nothing to say.
Not as embarrassing as you editing your replies so you don't look as dumb.
Could have turned it down for all we know. That's why we get the 50 Shades girl because nobody else wanted it?
But the point still stands. Ana de Armas is a lead and could fit into any high profile role next to any high profile actor.
Sydney Sweeney is not.
That's not a counter argument, that's a cop out.
Just take the L and move along.
Also:
>The original film gives us a little something. Myers kills his sister. Then, he comes back, focusing on the home where he killed his sister. A number of victims are like his sister. So, there was something of a motivation.
YOU CHANGED IT! Ha haaaaa
You said his motivation was killing people JUST LIKE HIS SISTER.
Hence, my strange reply addressing your buffoonery.
Well, it's strange now, after you changed your comment so mine doesn't line up with what you said.
Howling laughing.
Not really.
Sydney Sweeney isn't sucking up the lead roles.
She's still a 3rd player to Madame Web and other cast, when Ana de Armas would be Madame Web.
Case. Point.
You don't need to read a whole book for motivations, and back story of a great horror film bad guy.
Especially if they barely had a backstory and only one motive beforehand.
>his motivation was killing people JUST LIKE HIS SISTER
So why does he kill dudes, old people and animals? Black men, black women, mechanics, cops, and he killed 2 dogs in the first movie.....just like his sister huh.
He has no motive other than the want to kill. His pattern is only killing, and he doesn't even enjoy it. He's a killing machine. Simple and beautiful.
Carpenter added a second motive in part 2 of him chasing his sister. That's the only other decent motive. He didn't even want to direct it, and begrudgingly wrote, adding a little twist of Michael Myers, and Laurie Strode being related.
It's when the studio wanted to churn out cheap sequels with poor writers and a lot of studio meddling, we have the awful "The Cult of Thorn". When the series gets several movies in with low quality writers people want to add their "piece" to the series and start adding lame motives and back stories that don't work we have:
<b>The cult is comprised of several Haddonfield residents who believe in an ancient Druid demon that spreads sickness and death. To save themselves, they place a curse on a child from their tribe (currently Michael Myers). The child is then possessed by Thorn, driving them to kill their entire family on the night of Samhain (Halloween), whenever the Thorn constellation appears. They planned to pass the curse on to Danny Strode after Michael made his final sacrifice, which would have ended the Myers family bloodline. However, Tommy Doyle intervened on their ceremony and used the power of ancient runes of light and protection to defeat Michael.</b>
I'd take no motive over that convoluted mess.
Same with Jason Voorhees in Friday the 13th. He kills because he's pissed. His mam killed because she was pissed at councillors and the camp, so she killed people around the camp.
When they start adding hell demons, possessing members of his bloodline and sacred daggers (9 movies in and bloodline was never mentioned before) it becomes lame.