deronny66
ene 2006 se unió
Te damos la bienvenida a nuevo perfil
Nuestras actualizaciones aún están en desarrollo. Si bien la versión anterior de el perfil ya no está disponible, estamos trabajando activamente en mejoras, ¡y algunas de las funciones que faltan regresarán pronto! Mantente al tanto para su regreso. Mientras tanto, el análisis de calificaciones sigue disponible en nuestras aplicaciones para iOS y Android, en la página de perfil. Para ver la distribución de tus calificaciones por año y género, consulta nuestra nueva Guía de ayuda.
Distintivos2
Para saber cómo ganar distintivos, ve a página de ayuda de distintivos.
Reseñas6
Clasificación de deronny66
It's sad that I can't review this film without the context of the preceding "controversy" surrounding its release. Where have all these 'die hard' ghostbusters fans come from? The original was great, sure, but let's be honest, for most of us it's a very enjoyable 'spooky comedy' rather than a life changing holy grail of cinema. So the overstated enthusiasm for the original at the time of writing is fairly exhausting.
I'll keep it short.
The film 2016 was impressively consistently funny, as evidenced by the numerous collective belly laughs in the cinema I attended. There were some misses too, much in the way an episode of, say, Family Guy has hits and misses, but the laughs outweighed the troughs. Actually, in terms of the audience's reactions to the jokes, I'd go as far as saying it was more consistently funny than your average episode of Family Guy (which has loads of misses all the time). Obviously the humour and style is different, so don't take that comparison as an absolute. But Ghostbusters 2016 was very funny in places.
The film triumphed over the pre-release criticisms that this was pandering to feminism. The issue didn't cross my mind at all. The characters and the actors were enjoyable. There was a decent explanation to all the ghostbusters' reasons for being part of the team. You'd have to enter the cinema wanting to be annoyed at this for it to actually be an issue. I'm a 28 year old male, by the way, as ridiculous as it is for me to confirm that.
The film isn't great though. It starts strong and, somewhere mid-way, begins to approach its climax clumsily. Things go from 'investigations' to 'total apocalypse' very quickly and get resolved equally quickly. Also, all the throwbacks to the original end up feeling forced and a bit awkward. It would be better without the cameos. The failings of this film are not linked to its pre-release criticisms.
If you want to have some fun, like you would when going to see any comedy, then this is worth your time. If you have low expectations, give it a chance and you will probably enjoy yourself.
I'll keep it short.
The film 2016 was impressively consistently funny, as evidenced by the numerous collective belly laughs in the cinema I attended. There were some misses too, much in the way an episode of, say, Family Guy has hits and misses, but the laughs outweighed the troughs. Actually, in terms of the audience's reactions to the jokes, I'd go as far as saying it was more consistently funny than your average episode of Family Guy (which has loads of misses all the time). Obviously the humour and style is different, so don't take that comparison as an absolute. But Ghostbusters 2016 was very funny in places.
The film triumphed over the pre-release criticisms that this was pandering to feminism. The issue didn't cross my mind at all. The characters and the actors were enjoyable. There was a decent explanation to all the ghostbusters' reasons for being part of the team. You'd have to enter the cinema wanting to be annoyed at this for it to actually be an issue. I'm a 28 year old male, by the way, as ridiculous as it is for me to confirm that.
The film isn't great though. It starts strong and, somewhere mid-way, begins to approach its climax clumsily. Things go from 'investigations' to 'total apocalypse' very quickly and get resolved equally quickly. Also, all the throwbacks to the original end up feeling forced and a bit awkward. It would be better without the cameos. The failings of this film are not linked to its pre-release criticisms.
If you want to have some fun, like you would when going to see any comedy, then this is worth your time. If you have low expectations, give it a chance and you will probably enjoy yourself.
Well, it finally arrived, after years of waiting. Sadly for James, it turns out that many people didn't like his character's outing to the big screen. However, I can't help but thinking a lot of the disgruntlement is misplaced. Don't get me wrong, it's not what most people would consider a good film, but I think I should offer an explanation of why it turned out the way it did.
First, this is more of a Cinemassacre feature than an Angry Video Game Nerd feature and you will be more inclined to like it if you have spent your time watching the endless movie reviews on the Cinemassacre website. James is a fan of what a lot of people would describe as trash and a lot of this film contains schlock content - dumb characters, corny jokes and silly special effects. Bad / over the top acting and silly dialogue therefore isn't really the point for this type of film - it's a given. If you don't like this sort of thing, then you aren't going to like this movie, period.
The reality, though, is that people love the Nerd character first and foremost above Cinemassacre and sadly he does suffer mildly in the context of this movie. His dislike of E.T. is taken from an amusing irrational hatred into irrational behaviour and his insistence that he won't review the game is a card played a little too strongly. Still, I really don't think the criticisms that there are ego issues going on here are valid. The Nerd is an enormously popular character and people have flocked to cinemas nationwide across the states to support their hero. James showed his popularity in the movie for the purposes of a joke, being that the fictional public assumed that the Nerd videos are for comedy/fun (which obviously they are), which dismayed the fictional Nerd character who simply hated the games - he is famous for the wrong reason. I think this has been wildly and widely misinterpreted as James stroking his own ego and I think that's unfair. It's driving to the plot point to the film.
The plot, of course, is ridiculous and silly. It's a fun concept but gets bogged down by being the film being too long, which makes the plot too slow. Things do get rather confusing towards the end as the Nerd's companions go off on their own mini-adventures but to no real consequence. People just want to see the Nerd. As for the ludicrous monster that appears towards the end, we are right back in Cinemassacre territory with plastic models and men in rubber suits - the ridiculousness is the point.
Regardless of the target audience, the film is at least partially a comedy and it does raise a few smirks. As the laughs are more frequent and punchier in the Nerd episodes, this has left a lot of people disappointed. What we all love is seeing the Nerd spit venom at "***** games", but he's not doing that here until the credits of the film (which is probably the most entertaining and interesting part). The various cameos and fan moments are kind tributes, but are mostly goofy and unnecessary.
I suppose I can summarise by saying that this is not the Nerd movie many of us were hoping for, but just a B-movie starring the Nerd. It was an ambitious project in which an amateur film-maker had the means to pay homage to the films he loved. Unfortunately this was at the expense of the character that the audience loved, which is what everyone really wanted to see. However, I have a huge amount of respect for the project as a whole. What James has achieved with his Nerd character is impressive and a lot of blood, sweat and tears went into this movie. There's a lot of heart here and that context gives it a special charm. Standing it by itself though, against slicker and meaner films, it's an easy target for criticism. But to do so in the overly aggressive way that others have is to miss the point entirely.
That's what I think anyway.
First, this is more of a Cinemassacre feature than an Angry Video Game Nerd feature and you will be more inclined to like it if you have spent your time watching the endless movie reviews on the Cinemassacre website. James is a fan of what a lot of people would describe as trash and a lot of this film contains schlock content - dumb characters, corny jokes and silly special effects. Bad / over the top acting and silly dialogue therefore isn't really the point for this type of film - it's a given. If you don't like this sort of thing, then you aren't going to like this movie, period.
The reality, though, is that people love the Nerd character first and foremost above Cinemassacre and sadly he does suffer mildly in the context of this movie. His dislike of E.T. is taken from an amusing irrational hatred into irrational behaviour and his insistence that he won't review the game is a card played a little too strongly. Still, I really don't think the criticisms that there are ego issues going on here are valid. The Nerd is an enormously popular character and people have flocked to cinemas nationwide across the states to support their hero. James showed his popularity in the movie for the purposes of a joke, being that the fictional public assumed that the Nerd videos are for comedy/fun (which obviously they are), which dismayed the fictional Nerd character who simply hated the games - he is famous for the wrong reason. I think this has been wildly and widely misinterpreted as James stroking his own ego and I think that's unfair. It's driving to the plot point to the film.
The plot, of course, is ridiculous and silly. It's a fun concept but gets bogged down by being the film being too long, which makes the plot too slow. Things do get rather confusing towards the end as the Nerd's companions go off on their own mini-adventures but to no real consequence. People just want to see the Nerd. As for the ludicrous monster that appears towards the end, we are right back in Cinemassacre territory with plastic models and men in rubber suits - the ridiculousness is the point.
Regardless of the target audience, the film is at least partially a comedy and it does raise a few smirks. As the laughs are more frequent and punchier in the Nerd episodes, this has left a lot of people disappointed. What we all love is seeing the Nerd spit venom at "***** games", but he's not doing that here until the credits of the film (which is probably the most entertaining and interesting part). The various cameos and fan moments are kind tributes, but are mostly goofy and unnecessary.
I suppose I can summarise by saying that this is not the Nerd movie many of us were hoping for, but just a B-movie starring the Nerd. It was an ambitious project in which an amateur film-maker had the means to pay homage to the films he loved. Unfortunately this was at the expense of the character that the audience loved, which is what everyone really wanted to see. However, I have a huge amount of respect for the project as a whole. What James has achieved with his Nerd character is impressive and a lot of blood, sweat and tears went into this movie. There's a lot of heart here and that context gives it a special charm. Standing it by itself though, against slicker and meaner films, it's an easy target for criticism. But to do so in the overly aggressive way that others have is to miss the point entirely.
That's what I think anyway.
There have been a string of 'outrageous' and silly films lately, including Planet Terror and Machete. I seem to quite enjoy the genre so I was looking forward to seeing this film. Sadly, it missed the mark so badly I thought I'd had to write this review.
Hobo with a Shotgun is an extremely violent film. And that's about it. It is really, really violent and at times shockingly sadistic. This could be fine if the violence was justified with big dollop of humour, but for the vast majority of the film it's not. The best way to describe this film is if you left a bunch of 14 year olds with a camcorder to make the most 'shocking' thing they could. Have you ever seen that episode of South Park where the children write the book 'The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs'? It's just like that.
The result is a film that tries so hard to be gory and sick that all other elements of the film are almost forgotten, most notably the elements that you probably wanted to watch the film for in the first place - fun and humour. Don't get me wrong, there are some amusing parts of the film, but these are relatively few and far between. Have you ever seen the film 'Brain Dead'? There is a very violent and very funny scene in that film whereby the lead attacks some zombies with a lawnmower. It's funny because of the music, the comic expressions of the actors and subtle silliness throughout. 'Hobo' has almost NONE of the funny part.
What really doesn't help matters is the pacing of the film. It starts of fairly slow, then you get a massive dose of violence to the point where it almost becomes boring. Then bizarrely, the film slows down in a hospital scene that seems to take its mood and music directly from 'Garth Marenghi's Darkplace'. This film really dragged for me and my friends - we were not impressed.
I honestly don't understand how they messed this film up. The premise sounds amazing - one hobo with a shotgun. It's not trying to be the Shawshank Redemption, there are few ingredients needed for this pot. How did they get it wrong? By trying to be violent and sick first, then funny and entertaining second.
If you are the type to be easily amused by gratuitous violence then this may float your boat, but for everyone else it remains a really disappointing film. 'More is less' has never been more apt.
See the 2010 film Machete instead, it's vastly superior.
Hobo with a Shotgun is an extremely violent film. And that's about it. It is really, really violent and at times shockingly sadistic. This could be fine if the violence was justified with big dollop of humour, but for the vast majority of the film it's not. The best way to describe this film is if you left a bunch of 14 year olds with a camcorder to make the most 'shocking' thing they could. Have you ever seen that episode of South Park where the children write the book 'The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs'? It's just like that.
The result is a film that tries so hard to be gory and sick that all other elements of the film are almost forgotten, most notably the elements that you probably wanted to watch the film for in the first place - fun and humour. Don't get me wrong, there are some amusing parts of the film, but these are relatively few and far between. Have you ever seen the film 'Brain Dead'? There is a very violent and very funny scene in that film whereby the lead attacks some zombies with a lawnmower. It's funny because of the music, the comic expressions of the actors and subtle silliness throughout. 'Hobo' has almost NONE of the funny part.
What really doesn't help matters is the pacing of the film. It starts of fairly slow, then you get a massive dose of violence to the point where it almost becomes boring. Then bizarrely, the film slows down in a hospital scene that seems to take its mood and music directly from 'Garth Marenghi's Darkplace'. This film really dragged for me and my friends - we were not impressed.
I honestly don't understand how they messed this film up. The premise sounds amazing - one hobo with a shotgun. It's not trying to be the Shawshank Redemption, there are few ingredients needed for this pot. How did they get it wrong? By trying to be violent and sick first, then funny and entertaining second.
If you are the type to be easily amused by gratuitous violence then this may float your boat, but for everyone else it remains a really disappointing film. 'More is less' has never been more apt.
See the 2010 film Machete instead, it's vastly superior.