Professional Critics

Professional critics are for the most part, idiots who have no idea what their talking about. Take for instance, All Music Guide. And then take something which I've spoken of frequently before, say St.Anger. What a terrible album by a formerly great band (well, I guess not formally since the new album is actually good). AMG gave this 3 stars, which is the equivallent to a 6! Thats a hesitant thumbs up, that ridiculous. If you love low-tuned guitars, a drum with a terrible snare sound, a non-existant bass, no solos, and terrible compositions where the guitar is just an extention of the awful drums, this is it. I like the stuff Metallica did in the 80s, I have the first 5 albums (plus Death Magnetic) I don't have Load, Reload, and definatly not St.Anger. This is clearly nott the band that made Master of Puppets. But AMG doesnt think so, no, AMG does its typical idiocy. AMG uses alot of descriptions and nonsense to try to sound like they know what their talking about. So many descriptions. Useless. The fact they thought this was a decent album shows their idiocy in itself. To compare, listen Master of Puppets first, than listen to St.Anger. Compare the two songs, and I think you'll come to the same conclusion I did. But it's not just AMG, its the Rolling Stone. An organization run by very biased people who refuse to give anything not from their day (probably the 60s or 70s) a fair chance. It's not just music either, movie critics have no idea what ther talking about either. National Security, a hilarious movie i love, got a bad score. How can you not laugh at this scene? Movie citics don't know what good movies are. Professional critics don't know what their talking about. What the problem is?

Movie review: Four Christmases

So yesterday i saw Four Christmases, what did i think of it? I thought it was hilarious. Its about a happily unmarried couple who doesn't want kids or to be married, gets stranded at home and has to visit their parents who are all divorced and dysfunctional. I wont go into the details but it was a funny movie, a laugh out loud funny movie. Funny moments include two "semi professional" cage fighters who beat up their older brother, not realizing a $10 cap on presents so one kid gets an X-box and another gets a flashlight and destroying a house trying to install a satellite dish because of stubbornness. Its funny throughout and I enjoyed it. It wasn't perfect, no movie is, but it was quite funny. In album review terms, high 8 out of 10.

Movie commercials

Whats with advertisements for movies? They always have a similar sounding narrator every time, do they only have 3 guys they pay to do movie advertisements? Also, they claim every single movie advertised is number 1 or "the best of the year" or something like that, i bet if you played 2 in order, they would both say that. You cant both be the best! Choose 1 jerks! Another thing, they always claim its the film every ones talking about, but I've never heard of it, who's talking about? Stop making yourselves look stupid, seriously. Movie advertisements should be about enticing you to see the movie, not spouting a bunch of overused, cliche phrases that do nothing.

Theyre remaking Red Dawn

SO, MGM has decided to remake one of my favorite movies, Red Dawn. Sure the special effects wern't much, even in the 80s, the acting was wasn't great at times and it was somewhat campy, but the concept and story line is great. In case you've never seen it, its about Russia invading America. When they capture a small town, some high school kids flee and decide to fight back, they do, however eventually attrition takes its toll and the survivors have to flee to the free part of America. but in the end America wins. This movie launched the acting careers of Patrick Swayze, C. Thomas Howell, Lea Thompson, Charlie Sheen, Jennifer Grey, and Powers Boothe. Also it was the first PG-13 movie ever and for a short time was the most violent movie ever made, but its relatively tame by today's standards.

Ive always said they should remake this movie, but I'm somewhat scared as to what they'll do with it. I'm afraid they will butcher it like they did with that Tom Clancy adaptation by making the enemy some rich "right-wing" Nazis. I hope they don't. The screenwriter has said this however: "The tone is going to be very intense, very much keeping in mind the post-9/11 world that we're in. As Red Dawn scared the heck out of people in 1984, we feel that the world is kind of already filled with a lot of paranoia and unease, so why not scare the hell out of people again?" The problem is, if its not Nazi terrorists, and you put Muslim terrorists in there, you'll anger the Muslims, not that i mind that, but they, being the PC (politically correct) thugs they are cant have that. Even if they were terrorists, however, it wouldn't make much sense, terrorists do not try to hold ground and do not engage in conventional wars, so I'm not sure how that would work. Keeping the red in Red Dawn, they could have china as the enemy, or they can just have Russia in their again, they still hate us. Or they can just keep the original time period and retell the story with out changing much. I just don't want the enemy to be rich white Nazi billionaires. On a similar topic, id really like to see a film adaptation of the computer game World in Conflict. But anyway that's my biggest fear. But it was a movie with some memorable scenes such as these:

one of the most memorable scenes


another memorable scene


The trailer for the movie, however the McDonald's scene never made it in


You can really see the cheapness in the trailer, still a good movie.

That's all i have to say on this, also the movie is occasionally on TV, try and look for it.