question of the day: Should movies have a salary cap like some sports do?
Capping overall FX and marketing budgets might make a difference, but it’s hard to imagine the studios agreeing to that… and even if they did, who would enforce it?
Capping overall FX and marketing budgets might make a difference, but it’s hard to imagine the studios agreeing to that… and even if they did, who would enforce it?
What this dumb movie wants you to find absolutely hilarious is random 80s action heroes — this flick is lousy with ’em — now puffy with age and sporting embarrasingly bad dye jobs popping up in deus ex actioner situations…
Is it the use of CGI? Is it blockbusterness (or bucking blockbusterness in the age of blockbusters)? Is it just about being produced after a certain date, and if so, when did the “modern” era of film begin?
What’s a kiddie flick without a good animal-boner joke…
It’s astonishing how little crazy one needs to bring to a movie at the moment to make it leap out as fresh and distinctive.
This dreary Disneyfied inconsequence features all the bigotries of century-old pulp fiction and none of the romance, neither the sexual nor the adventurous kind…
There’s so much conflagration here that I’m pretty sure one of the CGI AV guys is Beavis…
Crams three times the hoo-hah of the first film into a 3D CGI theme-park ride, yet reduces itself to one-third the fun…
The fanboy-wank-material franchise continues! Kate Beckinsale runs around a dank, rainy, gothy, first-person-shooter generic urban landscape. And the blood and brainmatter splatters out at you in 3D! Please to have a cinemagasm!
Who does this? Who makes a black-and-white movie in the 21st century? Who makes a silent film in the 21st century? The Artist: Not in 3D, not in IMAX, not even in widescreen!