Moderator: General Mods
dinky wrote:lol. smurfs is a stretch maxy.
dinky wrote:meh. I don't dislike it. but something about it...I find off putting. iunno. I want to say it's a bit too crude, but I love FAMILY GUY and ROBOT CHICKEN, so iunno...those aren't exactly "high art" as it were.
spudthedestroyer wrote:dinky wrote:meh. I don't dislike it. but something about it...I find off putting. iunno. I want to say it's a bit too crude, but I love FAMILY GUY and ROBOT CHICKEN, so iunno...those aren't exactly "high art" as it were.
South Park owns both family guy (last episode was pathetically shit btw), and Robot Chicken (hit and miss ). South Park film came out after series 1 iirc, the early series (shock/'immature' humour) of south park are radically different to the middle seasons (largely characterised) which in turn are radically different in style to the later series (politicalised).
dinky wrote:saw new ROBIN HOOD movie. not sure if I already reviewed here. thought I did. it was decent. not really what I would call robin hood. but a decent movie in itself. enjoyed iron man 2 more. wish IM2 was as long as RH.
dinky wrote:ROBIN HOOD (2010)
2 things: 1) I wouldn't call this "Robin Hood" anymore than I'd call O, BROTHER WHERE ART THOU? the ODYSSEY. but it is a nice action epic without completely retarded logic in the political intrigues and motivations dept. 2) I'm pretty sure they're planning a sequel (this is more of a BATMAN BEGINS type of reinvention), and as I said in 1) he's not actually "Robin Hood" (insofar as I recognize him) at any point throughout the movie save...well...the denouement.
bottom line: decent movie. good action. reasonable intrigues for a mostly action movie. not robin hood.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests