Movie Tab II

Tools    





Behind the enemy lines



A Reconnaissance aircraft flying over Bosnian territory gets shot down into the jungle. Having recorded some sensitive information , the pilot(Owen Wilson) becomes the target of a shoot on sight manhunt by Bosnian rebels.

An interesting thing happened with this movie.I remember it being good a long time ago when i watched it the first time. So when i re watched it now, I did like it a lot. But then when i looked up the review for it by Roeper and Ebert, I could find the flaws in the movie. This movie has lot of things going for it. The production values , the topic of the movie and gene Hackman. But once you look closer you will notice that it has lot of commercial elements that make it untruthful. The production value is very good, they shot in European locations and it shows on camera. The gritty look is there. But the direction is not good and very commercial. Quick takes or fast camera movement is included so audience can get the visceral feeling and not through actual directing skills. I think this is one of those movies that explains the difference between commercial movies and artistic movies. It was so close to being an artistic endeavor but ultimately it ends up as commercial movie. You can tell that from the shots of Owen Wilson on top of a hill in the middle of nowhere when he is escaping from enemies.On the face value this looks like a cool shot that has to be included in a big budget survival movie. But it doesn't make any sense. Why would he go to the top of a hill when being hunted as it would make him easier to spot. During a village attack we can see that the protagonist manages to walk past the antagonist dressed in Bosnian soldier outfit and it is sort of a cool hero moment and the scene ends with him revealing his face to audience as he silently escapes so audience know that the character whose back is being followed by camera for the past 7 seconds is the protagonist . But from logical point of view there is no need for him to do that and it would increase his chances of getting caught. All these are commercial elements. There is also a scene involving pile of dead bodies underneath whom the protagonist hides. Its was well shot but it was too obvious. The scene is the most basic thing anyone could have done given the scenario. There was nothing new to it. He hides and they pokes and shots at dead bodies to make sure he wasn't hiding as one of them. But they miss him and he survives. All these are plot holes that are easily ripped apart by critics. People also criticized its portrayal of Bosnians with thick accent as all bad guys.

Now , a comparison could easily be made to the recent movie the revenant. Why was it given the highest number of Oscar nominations the year it was released and something like behind enemy lines is far less successful in every way imaginable. Well , the answer is multi fold. The things to understand here are , its made for 100+ million dollars. It is directed by Innaritu and it stars DiCaprio. That is what I call a high profile project. The admiration for the movie comes in multi fold as well. You have fans of Innaritu in the industry that applaud the movie. If there is one thing that has never happened in Hollywood before and that would be that a commercial director for a studio making a prestige picture being embraced by Oscars. That has never happened. A hired gun by studio never gets to make a prestige project. Ambitious projects take years of experience to pull off. Studio movies have skeletons laid down as to what the story beats need to be to make money. Moreover , established movie stars and actors don't want to take such huge risks with this unproven director. They always fear that their credibility will be misused by these directors to start off as a prestige movie and end up as a commercial movie. So getting to a place like Innaritu is close to impossible.Then you have DiCaprio. One of the most interesting things about Hollywood is that vast majority of actors want to be famous. Yes, they want to work for their craft and make a living and take risks. But in the end they always want to be famous in kick ass movies that are not paint by numbers. A biker going to bar and getting into fights is not appealing but the same fight if it takes place in a wall-street building in a movie done by Martin Scorsese , then its awesome , because people usually don't come to movies to see guys in their office room settings no matter what they do.So the fact that this movie is interweaving office setting with crime and attracting audience surprises people. America is a movie star culture. If an actor can merge that with quality movies then you get both a critical darling and a crowd-pleaser. DiCaprio falls into that category. He is someone who never fails because he wait for the perfect script and when he gets it he finds the perfect director to make that movie. Its a match made in heaven. He is going for making classics with each outing as an actor. Thats only possible if you only work with top directors. Just like Matt Damon wants to work with Steven soderberg, DiCaprio works with Scorsese. But the only difference is , Scorsese is an icon and soderberg is not. Their movies tend to be different in terms of memorability. Lighthearted movies are not memorable. And then the budget, through out the history of Hollywood when a movie is made for more than 100 million dollars the reaction is very polarizing almost all the time. Its either a very good(the dark knight , titanic or avatar) or its the worst movie of the year(water-world, king Arthur, battleship). There is no middle ground for 100 million $ blockbusters. So the pressure on the movies is incredibly high. The interesting thing is they will get publicity. Good or bad. So all these push revenant over the edge and not behind the enemy lines.

Behind enemy lines on the other hand is one of those movies that is very realistic to a point but the camera tricks and the thin story lines and character development sort of wastes all the realism achieved by production budget. The ending scene set piece is barely used and I could easily figure out the miniatures of the climax set used for close ups and Ariel shots in the movie.Which i figured were used while editing the movie when they thought they needed some set up shots. If you can just watch it for fun you will be entertained because the story itself has a cat and mouse structure to it. But the actual film making is very dry. For fellow filmmakers its easy to figure out the flaws but for audience its serviceable. This is probably where most directors end up being if they try their hands at epic scale film making and do a good job . The truly great ones excel and make much better movies. But the rest end up in this semi commercial stuff.Its fun, but that's about it.The appearances by coca cola is really cheesy but that's for american crowd who need to feel that there is familiarity to them even in Bosnia.



The Dark knight



Batman saga continues with joker as his foe.

I can't say anything more about this movie that hasn't been said already.So the rest of this review will contain an answer to the question - how did this movie impact Hollywood ? well the best way to summarize the answer is in using a quote by joker from the movie which goes as "Nobody panics when the expected people gets killed. Nobody panics when things go according to plan, even if the plan is horrifying.If I tell the press that tomorrow a gangbanger will get shot or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics because it’s all part of the plan.But when I say that one little old mayor will die, everybody lose their minds." This movie is not part of the plan. There has always been this unspoken rule in Hollywood about the demarcation between prestige pictures and popular commercial movies. Popular commercial movies are considered low art. Prestige movies can be box office hits but they shouldn't have certain elements that are commercial in their most superficial sense like action scenes in cityscape or based on IP. All the great actors traditionally are picked from prestige filmmaking arena and all the movie stars that are just money making machines for studios are second tier actors used to present awards and show up at events. No one can makes a peep. If you try and veer off course like Jim Carrey, your head will be cut out. He wasn't even nominated for Oscar for Truman show and man on the moon, which I think has more to do with his performance but far subpar performances have been recognized by academy.

So how is this movie not part of the plan ? its not part of the plan in terms of the people involved , the career boosts they got from this movie and the legendary status this movie has got. As a simple example, when Denis Villeneuve was starting out in Hollywood he could only get Jake Gyllenhaal or Hugh Jackman but after the success of Arrival he was able to get Ryan Gosling for blade runner and a 200 million $ budget. Its a step up. The funny thing was no one knew that Nolan was a genius when making batman begins. Even after that movie people still felt that Nolan was a good director on par with some commercial directors. So he could only get Hugh Jackman and Christian bale for the prestige. It was only after this movie aka the dark knight that Nolan was stepped up to work with DiCaprio. So the reality is, according to Hollywood had they known his talent way before the dark knight he wouldn't even be allowed to work with an actor like Christian bale.They would have asked bigger stars to work with him. So the collaboration between director of talent like Nolan and actor of the popularity of christian bale was never part of the plan to being with. And the career boost a commercial director like Nolan got ,to the point of making his own passion projects like Interstellar and Dunkirk is not part of the plan. Even more surprising is the star power increase of christian bale to the point of being able to make movies with his name brand. All these are not part of the plan. He according to Hollywood machine is supposed to be making commercial action movies for studios and make third rate period movies and end his career.But when you are lead in a billion dollar franchise and you are in a movie star role, then things won't be the same again and emphasis has to be given to "movie star role" because Elijah wood can't sell a ticket outside Lord of the rings and even in that he is worthless as a box office draw. Because, at the heart of this whole thing there is a contradiction between movie star role and disappearing into character.If you disappear into roles, you can't actually be a box office draw because audience are not identifying you as a movie star. But if you are not doing that then you are playing yourself. So the more you disappear into your roles you are not becoming a box office draw. The content of the movie needs to draw you in. That means your movie needs Oscar buzz. And finally in terms of the movie itself, an action movie is never part of Hollywood's plan to be considered a classic. But in IMDB which is the most visited movie based site on the planet this is among the very best rated movies of all time and according to various polls , it is among the greatest movies every made. So thats not part of the plan.

So all these set this movie apart. it is a gentle reminder that taking risk beyond prestige filmmaking and making other genre movies but make them great to the point of transcending the genre altogether are risks worth taking because you never know, there could be dark knight in the making.

One more important thing to understand is, great actor or best actor of the generation is a moniker that is passed along generations. You can't be called a great actor of your generation if you are not approved by auteurs or legends of previous generation of actors and directors. Academy award wins is one way to do that. But also the collaborations with directors of previous generations. The funny thing about movie stars in commercial fair is that they are always considered as lone sharks. They are as good as money they bring in. But when you are a box office draw in a prestige picture setting, then you supported by industry to stay as box office draw using awards buzz and awards. So the other day I was listening to this interview after screening of a movie with Robert De Niro. The interviewer is is in his 40s or 50s or 60s with a British accent and he is asking De Niro who the best actor of current generation is and he is feeding names to him like DiCaprio or Matt Damon. The problem is , even though De Niro thinks someone else is better he can't say because Matt Damon starred in Good Shepherd and helped De Niro finance his movie and DiCaprio is collaborating with Scorsese and keeping his career alive. So he is in this weird circle. Moreover he played the father of Bradley Cooper , who seems very savvy in terms to maintaining Hollywood connections and doing and getting favors. So he is this weird spot where he can't passover the crown to another chameleon like christian bale because it appears to me that Christian bale is kind of a recluse and only interacts with people that he needs to. He is not someone who shows up to others premieres or works with others may be because thats the best way he works. There are two ways of getting to the top in Hollywood. One is to be extremely talented and keep proving that you are and the other is to get and do favors with decent talent. Actors like Daniel day Lewis and bale fall into the former category and actors like Bradley Cooper and Damon fall into latter category. So the reality is , Warner bros. had they knew the talent of Nolan would have forced him to make batman with Bradley Cooper or someone but the fact that he was allowed to make a movie with Bale whose biggest solo hit was 20 million $ in American psycho is not part of the plan.

So all in all this movie is masterpiece and it really helped improve the star power of some of the most valuable artists in Hollywood like Nolan and Bale.



Magnolia



A series of unrelated events which collectively help build the tension of life.

Paul Thomas Anderson is considered a great director by his peers. This bleeds into critics community. Critics crave freshness and they have a knack for spotting commercial beats in a movie, which isn't that hard to find. So any movie that can pass these test is already on the good side of critics. Add to that a good pace and an energy in direction, you have a perfect movie for critics. PTA and directors like Spike Jonze or Andy Kaufman are the pioneers of independent film making community. They struggled like all others and through their talent and being able to connect to audience they became high profile. So all independent artists look forward to their movies and often times are soft on their movies. This is the summary for another of PTA's movie Inherent vice on rotten tomatoes - "Inherent Vice may prove frustrating for viewers who demand absolute coherence, but it does justice to its acclaimed source material -- and should satisfy fans of director P.T. Anderson." Tell me where the negative elements are highlighted ? nowhere.Compare this to a movie by Scott Cooper called hostiles and here is the summary - " Hostiles benefits from stunning visuals and a solid central performance from Christian Bale, both of which help elevate its uneven story."Here the critics have already made up their mind that the director has made a sub-par movie and they totally got his movie and they are fully qualified to judge his movie. So this is the difference between an auteur and a sub-par director.People assume he must be right just because he made some great movies and it their own fault that they didn't get the movie. Critics are like that. Since they all know that he is a director who came from indie background and is a voice for independent cinema and has made some great movies they feel like he is honest filmmaker and so they don't have to make fun of him and his self important attitude.

All these opinions and attitudes are very important if you want to build a consensus to win an Oscar. Your movie should be challenging and at the same time shouldn't be self important. It should be entertaining but not pandering to audience.This movie has different people in different stages of their lives and the director uses all their plights to create this coherent emotional arc in a way of trying to make sense of life and world. It doesn't do anything magical but its just the first of its kind.

So the major take away from the movie is that its funny and interesting.But the circumstances surrounding the reaction to this movie sort of gives us an insight into auteur worship culture which is very much based in Los Angeles and they have a huge microphone and reach. So its attracts similar kind into the orbit of this culture.



Magnolia



A series of unrelated events which collectively help build the tension of life.

Paul Thomas Anderson is considered a great director by his peers. This bleeds into critics community. Critics crave freshness and they have a knack for spotting commercial beats in a movie, which isn't that hard to find. So any movie that can pass these test is already on the good side of critics. Add to that a good pace and an energy in direction, you have a perfect movie for critics. PTA and directors like Spike Jonze or Andy Kaufman are the pioneers of independent film making community. They struggled like all others and through their talent and being able to connect to audience they became high profile. So all independent artists look forward to their movies and often times are soft on their movies. This is the summary for another of PTA's movie Inherent vice on rotten tomatoes - "Inherent Vice may prove frustrating for viewers who demand absolute coherence, but it does justice to its acclaimed source material -- and should satisfy fans of director P.T. Anderson." Tell me where the negative elements are highlighted ? nowhere.Compare this to a movie by Scott Cooper called hostiles and here is the summary - " Hostiles benefits from stunning visuals and a solid central performance from Christian Bale, both of which help elevate its uneven story."Here the critics have already made up their mind that the director has made a sub-par movie and they totally got his movie and they are fully qualified to judge his movie. So this is the difference between an auteur and a sub-par director.People assume he must be right just because he made some great movies and it their own fault that they didn't get the movie. Critics are like that. Since they all know that he is a director who came from indie background and is a voice for independent cinema and has made some great movies they feel like he is honest filmmaker and so they don't have to make fun of him and his self important attitude.

All these opinions and attitudes are very important if you want to build a consensus to win an Oscar. Your movie should be challenging and at the same time shouldn't be self important. It should be entertaining but not pandering to audience.This movie has different people in different stages of their lives and the director uses all their plights to create this coherent emotional arc in a way of trying to make sense of life and world. It doesn't do anything magical but its just the first of its kind.

So the major take away from the movie is that its funny and interesting.But the circumstances surrounding the reaction to this movie sort of gives us an insight into auteur worship culture which is very much based in Los Angeles and they have a huge microphone and reach. So its attracts similar kind into the orbit of this culture.
Yeah but, how can you say this is a good movie, but only give a sub par rating based on audience/critic reaction? That makes zero sense. Inherent Vice makes more sense than that, lol.



Yeah but, how can you say this is a good movie, but only give a sub par rating based on audience/critic reaction? That makes zero sense. Inherent Vice makes more sense than that, lol.
Or write a long review of a film without saying almost anything about it?



Welcome to the human race...
Baal (Volker Schlöndorff, 1970) -


A collaboration between New German contemporaries Schlöndorff and Fassbinder sees the former directing the latter in a Brecht adaptation that has some aggressively freewheeling counter-cultural energy behind it that makes it feel like an obnoxious, interminable mess more than anything.

As Good As It Gets (James L. Brooks, 1997) -


While this tale of a crotchety obsessive-compulsive author slowly warming up to the people in his life starts off somewhat promisingly and has a few decent performances in it, it definitely wears out its welcome by the time it's over.

Wall Street (Oliver Stone, 1987) -


I think I can consider this an example of a film with a broadly agreeable mission statement (capitalism is bad) that's a little let down by some strangely lacklustre execution, which is saying something considering Stone's knack for punchy directing. Even Michael Douglas's Oscar-winning turn just seems...okay.

Mouchette (Robert Bresson, 1967) -


I've found Bresson to be a pretty consistent director so far and this story about the various trials of a young girl living a hard life in a small village may lack the relative levels of excitement one would associate with the likes of A Man Escaped or Pickpocket but it still provides an experience that is emotionally compelling even in its external mundanity.

Chinese Roulette (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1976) -


Fassbinder does a chamber drama about a teenager setting up a twisted parlour game at an isolated mansion between her parents, their lovers, and the help. It starts off a little slow and even the way that the eponymous game unfolds isn't exactly perfect, but as far as Fassbinder's second-tier films goes it's definitely alright.

Satan's Brew (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1976) -


Fassbinder does an especially absurdist comedy about a deranged poet whose struggles with both writer's block and a dysfunctional home life start off at fever pitch and only escalate from there. While it unfortunately ends up drifting into the area where the absurdism becomes too numbing to have any affect (comedic or otherwise), I can't fault it too hard in this regard.

Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (Jeff Burr, 1990) -


Because the only thing worse than a sequel that plays like a weak retread of the original is a threequel that plays like a weak retread of the original (though I guess there was nowhere else to go after the second one's over-the-top '80s trashiness). There are a couple of nice touches (Viggo Mortensen and Ken Foree are obvious highlights) and it doesn't do too badly at finding its own balance between the vastly different tones of its predecessors, but it's still only a halfway-watchable excuse for a horror movie.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation (Kim Henkel, 1994) -


On second thought, maybe I was too harsh on Part III. This especially heinous sequel once again opts to retread the same basic plot of cannibals terrorising youths but somehow manages to be the worst of all worlds as it somehow takes the franchise's trademark capacity for ugly backwoods insanity into a whole new area that somehow manages to be aggressively dull and also insultingly inane.

The Third Generation (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1979) -


Fassbinder does a terrorist thriller, albeit one laced with his trademark capacity for self-effacing satire and interpersonal dysfunction. I'm also starting to wonder if there's an unspoken Hays Code-like requirement where movies about leftists also have to criticise their ideology to some extent, though I suppose it's fair if it's for the sake of outlining said flaws so that left-leaning audiences can address them and do better rather than just being out of a cynical lack of conviction (and I think Fassbinder leans towards the former, though it does get a little hard to tell at times).

In a Year with 13 Moons (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1978) -


Fassbinder does what I guess you could consider a classically archetypal Fassbinder film that deals in the twisted intersection of class, romance, and the ways in which power imbalances can pervert and undermine the two. The key difference with this one is that it involves the subject of gender reassignment surgery in such a way that at once provides a remarkable change-up to the Fassbinder formula while also threatening to tear the entire film down through the more questionable aspects of its application.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



Or write a long review of a film without saying almost anything about it?
there is nothing to spoil in the story...its the point of the view thats important to highlight and its not a comment ..its a review....you are spoilt by regular reviews where they give in the whole plot..Jesus



Yeah but, how can you say this is a good movie, but only give a sub par rating based on audience/critic reaction? That makes zero sense. Inherent Vice makes more sense than that, lol.
3 is not that bad IMO...it is good to keep your mind occupied but not blow your socks off



3 is not that bad IMO...it is good to keep your mind occupied but not blow your socks off
I just think it's funny, the overall reaction to this film outside the realm of critical consensus. Most people love glossing this one over and discounting it...and then some of these same people praise Altman and his pioneering work. But this stays shoulder to shoulder with the obvious Alman influences..as well as Scorsese, and to me, entertains and pulls off the emotional manipulation as well or much better than any Spielberg confection of the past.

I mean, how can someone watch this movie and just be like "eh, it's ok.."?

It's like an acne ridden nerd criticizing a supermodel for not having big enough breasts when they're already a D cup.

No one is worthy until they make something better, or at least land a date with a girl that isn't wearing a flea collar.



I just think it's funny, the overall reaction to this film outside the realm of critical consensus. Most people love glossing this one over and discounting it...and then some of these same people praise Altman and his pioneering work. But this stays shoulder to shoulder with the obvious Alman influences..as well as Scorsese, and to me, entertains and pulls off the emotional manipulation as well or much better than any Spielberg confection of the past.

I mean, how can someone watch this movie and just be like "eh, it's ok.."?

It's like an acne ridden nerd criticizing a supermodel for not having big enough breasts when they're already a D cup.

No one is worthy until they make something better, or at least land a date with a girl that isn't wearing a flea collar.
it has this compound emotional effect...agree on Scorsese and Spielberg points. Opinions are always subjective. A marketing genius may not get this movie but that doesn't mean they are worthless. Movies are still entertainment. There is reason why people still watch fast and furious movies. Absolute geniuses in other fields want to turn their brain off and enjoy movies. So to them fast and furious is much more engaging that a PTA movie.



I prefer PTA's earlier films because they went from A to B and were pretty straightforward while still showcasing some real artistic flair with all the mechanics that make a good script even better with visuals and sound, editing, etc.

The abstract later stuff of PTA lost me, though I did reappraise TWBB and really, really like it now. It's damn near perfect.

Anyway, Magnolia..I guess it really annoys some people or underwhelms. Some films scream at the top of theuir lungs "I'M AN ART FILM!"..Magnoliadid this a little bit but was wrapped inside of a typical picture with a ..ok enough.



there is nothing to spoil in the story...its the point of the view thats important to highlight and its not a comment ..its a review....you are spoilt by regular reviews where they give in the whole plot..Jesus
I don't mean a need to spoil the story but the fact that without the movie's name and pop corns at the top I wouldn't have a clue it's about Magnolia or even a review of something. But it's not really my business so carry on as you wish.



Don’t Draft Me, I Watch Anime!
Part I:


Gone Baby Gone (Affleck, 2007)

I’m all for the Ben Affleck-iasance that this movie launched. Almost all of the chances taken pay off big time. Everything from the way he showcases a police raid without showing the police, to knowing when to lean into younger brother Casey’s performance exemplifies Ben’s confidence.

Gone Baby Gone isnt flawless. It’s certainly got some wasted characters with Michael K Jordan’s Dev and Slaine’s Bubba pretty much amounting to NPCs in a video game. It still doesn’t take away the fact that this is the best Dennis Lehane adaptation with a moral quandary you’ll want to discuss well after the credits.

+


Drive (Refn, 2011)

Look, I love neo-noir (see above). Put a gun to my head and ask my favorite film, I’ll more than likely answer with any number of crime movies. Refn's Drive will certainly be among that roster.

Damn near perfectly shot, it’s slow and lets you linger in its universe. We’re introduced to Gosling’s unassuming character only referred to as “the driver”. To make ends meet, he’s a stuntman by day, getaway driver by night. He’s the best at what he does, but what happens when he goes on the wrong heist?

Answer? He tracks down the mobsters responsible. The pair (Rob Perlman and Albert Brooks) do competent enough, but ultimately feel like wasted characters. We hardly get their motivations, but the glimpses we do get makes me yearn to know more about them.

But don’t worry, there’s enough payoff in this shockingly violent masterpiece to be worthy of your time.




Freaks (Browning, 1932)

This was my most nervous rewatch. Let’s admit it, sometimes films from the past don’t age well (especially those that are over 80 years old and have titles like Freaks). However, Browning’s masterpiece provides a surprisingly humane treatment and is infinitely entertaining.

Once called the most terrifying film, you don’t get much scares in this. Instead, we get a slice of life with a “mess with one, mess with all” code.




An American Crime (O’Haver, 2007)

Ugh.




Big Fan (Siegel, 2009)

Certainly an interesting dramatic turn for Patton Oswalt. The story is engaging enough, and Oswalt brings life into the sad loser role. All I can really say is that it’s alright.




Election (Payne, 1999)

Everything a smart high school comedy should be. Well written, well shot, well performed. It’s just very well done.




Don’t Draft Me, I Watch Anime!
Part ii:


My Friend Dahmer (Meyers, 2017)

All I really care about saying regarding this movie: Slow-moving, bloated and boring. The more I think about it, the more I dislike it.




Hereditary (Aster, 2018)

WOW WOW WOW. This is horror done right. Aster’s debut is one for the books. The way they play with your expectations is nothing short of perfection. If I was in the academy, both Collette and Wolff would have genuine consideration in their categories.

+


The Incredibles (Bird, 2004)

Pixar at its best. I love the real-world stakes of everything. Its probably my most listened to film score. It’s Watchmen under a family dynamic and a delight all around.




The Incredibles 2 (Bird, 2018)

A superb sequel proving Brad Bird can really do no wrong. I was nervous under the weight of 14 years of hype but it is certainly a fantastic follow up.

It does everything a sequel should: it explores our characters into new areas and builds upon their world. While we get a less interesting villain, I really loved every second of this.

+


House (Obayashi, 1977)

One of the only films that gave me a genuine “what” reaction. I really don’t know how I feel. It’s stylish, but tonally all over the place. I think I disliked it? But I’m genuinely confounded.




I mean, how can someone watch this movie and just be like "eh, it's ok.."?

It's like an acne ridden nerd criticizing a supermodel for not having big enough breasts when they're already a D cup.

No one is worthy until they make something better, or at least land a date with a girl that isn't wearing a flea collar.
__________________
Yeah, there's no body mutilation in it



I mean, how can someone watch this movie and just be like "eh, it's ok.."?

It's like an acne ridden nerd criticizing a supermodel for not having big enough breasts when they're already a D cup.

No one is worthy until they make something better, or at least land a date with a girl that isn't wearing a flea collar.

Haha nice!