Dragon Ball Z Uncensored

[johnbuisthegreat]

Great movie all around not much to say just great movie

[8 bit orgy]

It's tremendously impossible to live up to the $100 million ad campaign.

[L Ron Butterfly]

I saw it tonight. The plot was very forced and artificial, and it didn't really go anywhere. The guy is engaged when the movie starts, and he gets married in the last scene. There is a five minute time span where he almost doesn't get married, but the conflict is resolved quickly, and the dilemna is generic and not substantial ("I'm not sure why I want to marry you" [fiance gets upset, but two scenes later, they're cool again]

It's a pretty good movie for a bunch of guys to watch together because there is extensive male bonding, and the homosexual tension is diffused by the main character's situation (he is getting married but doesn't have a best friend to be he best man... although he does have a brother, and you're never really sure why he isn't the best man by default).

The plot isn't so much a plot as it is a framework for a bunch of gags that are for the most part above par, so the movie isn't all bad. It doesn't feel like a long movie. It never gets tiresome.

There is bong that never gets smoked. Two out of five stars.

[8 bit orgy]

You actually made it sound good.

[L Ron Butterfly]

It should be noted that this movie is insultingly feel-good, the characters are preposterously one-dimensional, and it's basically a two-hour commercial for Apple products.

The development is so self-conscious, they may as well have had the screenwriter in a box on the lower-right-hand side of the screen writing the script as it happens.

[L Ron Butterfly]

Also, I dare anyone to read Ebert's review of this movie and generate a compelling argument that he was NOT paid off by the producers.

[Big Fagot]

So there was a ... CONSPIRACY?

[Big Fagot]

It's crazy that one can't look anywhere without seeing the hallmarks of malicious intelligence that lie behind every facet of existence.

I mean, how did we, as a species, get to this point where people are getting together and making clandestine, evil decisions that are responsible for everything that happens?

[L Ron Butterfly]

I guess you're probably trolling, but refusing to believe that critics in the entertainment industry are paid off for positive reviews isn't skepticism of conspiracy theories, it's naivity.

I invited people to debate my point about the specific movie in question, not the larger cultural situation. It happens, and it's obvious. When you read a strained positive review, what do you think the cause is?

(Roger Ebert falls in love with yet another Disney movie)

I guess you don't believe that record companies pay radio stations to play their bands' music either, even though tons of DJs have been caught in this practice.

[L Ron Butterfly]

It would be insane to assume that the guy on the street with his "Pick the right card and win a hundred dollars" stand might be a con artist.



Jesus, Roger Ebert even alludes to a similar practice in the review itself:

"I heard a lot of real laughter from a preview audience, not the perfunctory laughter at manufactured payoffs."

[Magic Juan]

Yes, people pay Roger Ebert to write movie reviews.

[YES]

no punkasss is righ when you take in to account his "ebert"

[L Ron Butterfly]

People who make movies pay Roger Ebert to write good things about their movie.

Of course, he is established now and doesn't have to do this very much (as evidenced by his high rate of scathing reviews). Rather than getting a cash payout at this point, the higher-ups probably tell him, "Hey these guys spent a lot of money on this one, so you're gonna like the movie, OK? Let's say four stars."

And he says "OK" because to get anywhere near his level in the film criticism industry, he has to be totally used to shit like that and is just glad he dosen't have to do it very much anymore.

I mean, it's not like everybody in the world is evil. But like, I'm sure whatever company finances Roger Ebert is some big media corporation that is involved in certain productions. If they're invested in a movie, Roger Ebert is going to like it. His job depends on it. It's a conflict of interest, and that sucks, but it happens. He's basically admitted it on the David Letterman show before. Letterman was like, "Yeah, I love to see you trash movies, but your list is getting narrower. You can't really bash Disney movies anymore." And Ebert was like, "Luckily, there's always Adam Sandler."

And then he janked on Adam Sandler for a while.

[Big Fagot]

How do these studios have any money left after paying illegal taxes to the Federal Reserve reptilians to fund the Idaho militiamen who wear fake beards and pretend to be the Taliban?

[Big Fagot]

It's nativity to think that the Taliban isn't funded by the money Barack Obama makes from chemtrails.

[L Ron Butterfly]

Two

[L Ron Butterfly]

post response

[Big Fagot]

Your dumbness makes me crazy.

[Big Fagot]

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aperfunctory

He's talking about people laughing at dumb shit simply because the punchline was delivered, not reviewers pretending to laugh, in private, where no one except other reviewers can see them and no benefit can be had.

[L Ron Butterfly]

Whatever, you know that sentence is filled with all kinds of "I'm being paid to say this" overtones.