SamNMax Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 Another crappy movie getting rave reviews. Unbelievable. The best thing about this movie was the score at the beginning during the credits, and only because the composer, James Newton Howard, ripped off Shostakovich's Chamber Symphony Op. 110a (check it out, Shostakovich's work is much cooler and often plagiarized in Hollywood; for more on plagiarized sound tracks, see the score to "Psycho"). This movie wouldn't have been so bad if it actually went somewhere. One of those slow motion soft-core Showtime specials that start out as being mediocre detective melodrama, but you keep watching any way because it's starring Shannon Tweed and you know there's going to be a shower scene but you know it's going to suck because some dude inevitably comes in and starts man handling her and the camera man does nothing but zoom up on his ass. That's exactly what "Signs" is like: the camera man zooming up on some guy's ass for two hours. Don't see "Signs." people who saw "Signs" and loved it changed their minds after reading this review. Don't kill the messanger for this one. Blame Maddox@Xmission.com. I thought this was halarious, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al-back from the BigWhoop Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 lol, the best review of "signs" ive seen so far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murta Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Originally posted by SamNMax That's exactly what "Signs" is like: the camera man zooming up on some guy's ass for two hours. best...quote...ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 i thought sings was pretty good. but i'm not going to argue because i just know it's going to blow up in my face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feral Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Yeah, I thought Signs was a decent enough movie. But then, I'm biased, since I saw it on the first date Zoe and I had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamNMax Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 I agree with Mr. Maddox in every way. I remember one part went like, "Hi. I'm Mel Gibson, the really stupid and wussy farmer. Cut to my son killing a german sheperd with a fork... Yes, a fork." And the alieans get killed by water. Yes, water. Don't you think it's odd that they had no protection and yet they didn't die with all the corbon dioxide and water vaper in the air? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamNMax Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 Do not send Maddox an Email! He will post your mail on his web page (The Best Page In The Universe) and kill you with words. I'm not even going to give a link because his web page will offend anybody. He didn't offend me, but he made me mad with his Lord Of The Rings review and Xbox page. *****Lord Of The Rings Review***** 1. It didn't have Lo Pan in it. That's right. I'm talking about the perpetuator of ass kicking himself, Lo Pan from Big Trouble in Little China: one of the best movies ever made. Lo Pan, for those of you who are adept at depriving yourselves of things that rule, is an evil war lord cursed to roam the world in spirit form. Basically he runs around stomping people's holes who piss him off (which happens to be everyone). Lo Pan doesn't take **** from anyone; exactly the kind of character Lord of the Rings needed. If I directed the movie, I'd have casted Lo Pan as the lead, instead of that wussy Frodo. With Lo Pan in the movie, it would have been about 5 minutes long: first scene would have been Lo Pan ruining everyone's ****, killing all the babies and then spiking midgets off the ground. Oh man. 2. Not enough lesbians. In fact, there weren't any. So I paid $7 to see a movie with really high acclaim and great reviews; surely it was reasonable to assume that a movie of such supposedly high caliber must have lesbians in it. Expecting a solid two hours of lesbian mud wrestling, I was rendered impotent by chunky midgets with hairy feet instead. What the hell? I'm not the only one who feels the lack of lesbians hurt the movie overall. In fact, I overheard a lady behind me whispering to her boyfriend "no lesbians? this is bull****!" I want my 8 hours of my life back. Which leads me to my next point... 3. The movie was actually longer than the book (go figure). In the time it took to watch this movie, I could have read the book, filed my tax return, proved the Riemann Zeta hypothesis and still had time to write a page about how boring the movie was. This movie was so boring that I turned into a middle-aged black woman when I fell asleep. Damn. It seems like every time some long-ass boring movie comes out, everyone gives it rave reviews (except for that dog **** Water World, not that I've seen it *******). If this movie was any longer, it might have even been a contender for the longest movie ever made: Brave Heart. I have the attention span of a Fox News reporter when it comes to watching movies, and I was bored to tears near the end, and at the beginning... and during the middle part. 4. The king of Fairies was accidentally miscast as the king of men. King of men my ass. This chump change was pissing me off left and right during the movie. "I'm afraid of the temptation.. I'm afraid... boo hoo, I'm a sissy boy, don't give me the ring, I might start wetting the bed again." What a wussy. If there was an Ogre about to kick my ass, which is impossible to imagine because I'm so tough that I can rip a phone book in half with my eye lids, I wouldn't let this nancy defend me. "**** off Fairy King, I'd rather die." 5. It didn't have the Gandalf pimping scene in it. Am I the only one who noticed that the entire Gandalf pimping scene was missing from the movie? I'm talking about the scene in which Gandalf happens across a magic crate full of enchanted pimp armor. The armor renders the wearer into a super-suave womanizing sex machine. After Gandalf discovers the magic garments, he journeys to the land of the golden shower on a pilgrimage of self-discovery to unleash the true power of his staff. During his quest, he's accompanied by his friend from the east side, Cop Killa. Together they bring down the law and clean house on an illegal pimping monopoly which dominates the market of fine Hobbit bitches in Hobbitville. people died of boredom while watching Lord of the Rings. *****Xbox review***** Seven reasons why the Xbox can suck it. 1. ****-poor design. The system is the brain child of Seamus Blackley, a 32-year-old red-haired jazz pianist and nuclear physicist. To quote him: "I was flying back from visiting [my girlfriend] and I had just got a new laptop and I was trying it out on the plane and I was thinking about graphics cards and I realized that we could make a machine that had much higher performance than anything else in the industry." Yeah, it's called PC dumbass. Real revolutionary idea. Take existing hardware, throw it together in a big clunky box and call it a console. Everything about the system reeks of poor design. Rather than getting a hand full of the most talented game developers in the world (here's a hint: YOU WON'T FIND THEM MAKING PC TITLES IN THE US *******--GO TO JAPAN) and designing a system around the games from the ground up, Blackley comes along with an unlimited supply of stupid ideas about the gaming industry and designs a system that he himself admitted to being "little more than exposed cards with processors and graphics chips hooked to a monitor." No ****? I couldn't tell from how HUGE the case is. It's almost as if it was thrown together with pieces bought off of a store shelf--oh wait. What more, once he senses the impending fizzle of the launch, he bails from the company to work someplace else--where he'll inevitably spawn more stupid ideas. 2. The games suck. It's been almost one full year since the launch of the Xbox and so far the only game that doesn't suck as much as everything else on the system is Halo. Everything else is either out on another console, mediocre or a boring PC port. Even Halo doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned. The first person shooter (FPS) genre is best done on PC, period (just because some genres have been represented best on PC doesn't mean I'm biased towards PC, if anything I'm biased towards consoles so quit emailing me). As good as Halo is, it's not even the best in its genre (an honor reserved for Half Life as far as I'm concerned). The Xbox library of games is flooded with **** titles like "Azurik": games that seem more like projects for computer science majors in their senior year at college than professional products. I would rather be shot than have to play one more uninspired ho-hum platform title starring some stupid cat or some random guy that runs around bumping into other vague uninspired objects. Throw that ****away. Here are some examples of the bull**** games on the Xbox: Max Payne - Wait, so not only do I lose the ability to adjust my resolution and system specs to improve performance, but I get a game that's been out for months on PC already? Where do I sign? The game's not too bad, but why bother with it on Xbox when it's on PC already? Nightcaster - How original, a rushed third-person RPG title with four magic types: light, dark, fire and water. But wait, here's where the strategy comes in: use water against fire, light against dark enemies, etc. Brilliant. Blood Wake - I liked this game better when it was called Twisted Metal and you drove cars instead of boats. Unoriginal, uninspired. Azurik: Rise of Perathia - Would have been more aptly titled "Azurik: Onset of Paralysis." Bad gameplay, poor camera, muddy textures, lame characters. Does the fun ever start? Star Wars: Obi-Wan - More like "Star Wars: Obi-Wanna-Play-A-Different-Game." Poor AI, poor controls, boring environments. Any non-geeks care to play this? Doubtful. Bruce Lee: Quest of the Dragon - Broken gameplay, bad camera work, cheesy voice acting, and the game crashes. All this crap for just $50? It's a win/win situation for publishers: put a lackluster effort into development and make boat-loads of cash off of suck-er.. customers. Sure, every console has its share of ****ty games but the Xbox has a disproportionately higher percentage of them. In fact, I think only the N64 rivals the Xbox in the ****ty to good title ratio. When all is said and done, it doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks about the games, the fact is that the games just aren't selling. All you cry-baby, whining, sniveling bitches can stop emailing me with "HAY MADDOX YOU IDIOT YOU DIDN'T MENTION DEAD TO RIGHTS LOL!!!" Because here are some cold hard facts: For the entire month of July, only 2 games made it into the top 20 highest sellers (based on units sold), and only 1 in the top 10: Halo at #10 and NCAA Football 2003 at #11. For the month of June, only 3 games made it into the top 20, with only 2 in the top 10. Same for the month of May 2002, and only one in the top 10 in the month of April 2002. Even when the Xbox newly launched, their best month ever has only yielded 4 games in the top 20 with only 2 in the top 10, and don't even bother looking at Japan's stats where the Wonder Swan system is outselling most Xbox games (Source: NPD TRSTS Video Game Service). Compare this to Sony's healthy 15 titles and you can see the big picture. I don't favor Sony's platforms, but these are facts. Any other systems sell this poorly in recent memory? Oh yeah, the Dreamcast and where is the DC now? The DC was by far my favorite system in its prime, but the only difference between me and all you whining Xbox wussies is that I can see the same thing happening here. It doesn't matter how good anyone thinks the games are, because they're just not selling which should tell you dumbasses something. That's not to say that good games always sell, but there's no excuse for Microsoft to have this kind of piss-poor performance because they have all the marketing muscle in the world to make it happen and they're screwing it up. 3. The controller is almost as big as my nuts. This has to be by far the ****tiest controller packed with a home console ever. What were they thinking? Over 25% of the surface area on the controller is wasted by a giant green Xbox jewel--you know, in case you forget what system you're playing in between loading screens. You can seriously drop the controller onto a cat from 5 feet and break its back... so I've heard. What Microsoft should have done was team up with Sega to buy all their unsold Dreamcasts and just use them as controllers for the Xbox. It probably would have been smaller than the 8 lb atrocity that they have now. 4. People who own the Xbox don't play video games. The average Xbox owner attends Microsoft SQL Server release parties, reads books on database theory and hates games like Super Mario because they're too old for "kiddie" games since everyone knows that it's graphics, not game play that makes a great game. I mean, why play a game that's actually fun when you can waste hours watching rendered, uninteractive intros instead? Ask the typical Xbox owner what other video games or consoles he likes and you'll draw a blank stare. The reason they bought an Xbox was because it's by Microsoft and they're blindly devoted to the company, not because of the games (being as there aren't any). 5. No Soul. You'll never see games like Metal Slug, Radiant Silvergun or Castlevania come out for the Xbox because Microsoft hasn't made the system attractive to the Japanese market. Capcom, Konami, SNK and a slew of other big game developers have turned their backs towards the Xbox except for a cursory presence with a half-hearted title port. There is light at the end of the tunnel, however. Sega is working on a Panzer Dragoon title as well as Toe Jam & Earl III. Regardless, the Xbox is still a PC at heart, right down to the hard drive and buggy software. 6. Crappy philosophy. Blackley thought he had the formula for a great system because all the components were there for a great system (and they are): a powerful graphics chip, a beefy hard drive, a fast processor and DVD capabilities. What he failed to realize was that just because you have all the raw material to make a great system doesn't mean it's going to be great. Saying the Xbox is a good system because it's powerful is like saying you made a great painting because you used the best set of paints. The Xbox is designed by people who think they know a joystick from their *******s. The problem is that they're mostly fat white business men and not gamers. They're out to make a buck and it's painfully obvious in how poorly they're marketing the system (I think they've cornered the market on middle-aged men who buy one or two sports titles per year for their system). 7. Too expensive. The last figures I heard were that Microsoft was eating $150 on every Xbox sale because they had hoped to subsidize the hardware cost with software sales. Too bad that all their software is ****, otherwise their plan might have worked. Unfortunately, Microsoft has deep pockets so we'll probably have to endure a couple more years of mediocre Xbox titles until Microsoft's share holders decide they've had enough. Don't buy an Xbox. Or if you do, wait until something worth buying comes out for it first. For all you inevitably offended Xbox owners and developers, quit bitching. I'm not hell bent on the ruin of the Xbox, and I'll eventually buy one, but not until some 'decent' **** comes out for it (ie, more than one game worth purchasing). The point of this article is that there are a lot of dumb ***** out there who buy systems out of blind devotion to the company rather than the games. A lot of people email me asking which console I prefer. The console I prefer is the console with the most games that I want to play, and right now Gameboy Advance and PS2 have the most games that I want to play. biased *******s still love their Xbox despite the fact that everything out for the system is ****. He has quite a potty mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feral Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Please don't double-post, S'NM; you know the rules. And check out the "Alien Existence" topic if you want to talk about the theories of Signs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamNMax Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 I double posted? Woops, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamNMax Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 Originally posted by The Feral Chicken Please don't double-post, S'NM. Let's get one think strait... My name is Sam N. Max, not Sam 'n Max. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feral Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Err....you just did it again. And I added the apostrophe because it looked wrong without it. But, whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Originally posted by SamNMax Do not send Maddox an Email! He will post your mail on his web page (The Best Page In The Universe) and kill you with words. I'm not even going to give a link because his web page will offend anybody. He didn't offend me... umm, he's really offensive, i won't let you see it,. but he didn't offend me. don't you think that if he didn't offend you he may not offend other people who are used to this. or do you just think you're special or something. maybe you should let us be the judge of what we think is offencive or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunken_Sailor Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 LOL. I watched "Signs" for the second time and got more freaked cause I knew what was coming. Where he gets the idea of Shannon Tweed in a shower watching this flick is beyond me. He missed the whole point of this movie. It has not anything to do with Jet Propulsion Lab stuff. But a man of the cloth who lost his faith and got it back again big time. Originally posted by Maddox Dont see 'Signs'- Maddox. Well, I'm a sucker for liking a good movie and this was a good movie. In every category of film-making, this was an excellent flick. Story, acting, photography, editing, SOUNDTRACK (Shostakovich or Mozart - who cares? As long as it works), direction, special effects, you name it. There was even humor cause kids can say the darnest things. This was "Independence Day"-family style. What did you think of that, Sam? I suppose it wasn't techno enough? Are you an animal lover? I didn't like the dog getting killed either. But when a canine attacks your little sister due to a very serious malfunction, you act. Remember what the Mel Gibson character said to his brother Merrill? Leave it to chance and pray or take action no matter the risk? You missed the whole point of this movie. Entertainment value notwithstanding. LOL! You can shatter all our favourite sci-fi flicks with the techno. Why bother? Why not just enjoy? "Signs" was probably to deep for you. Bet you don't like Spielberg's stuff either. Interesting about your knowledge of serious music. Didn't catch the Shostakovich. They probably mentioned him in the credits that roll after the film is over. Who watches those? Unless its THE MISSION (one of the best soundtracks ever composed and by a Frenchman whose name I can't think of). Why all the other stuff? What the heck is he talking about? X-Box, Seamus Blackey? Clue us in, Sam. As for that family in PA, anyone who watches LIVE NEWS COVERAGE OF AN ALIEN INVASION OF EARTH in a closet (Merrill is cool, LOL) is OKAY by me. Reminds me of myself. But then he was just trying to keep the news away from his nephew and niece. And how about that nephew? "I think they're hostile." LOL. And anyone who grabs a flashlight and goes into a corn field in the middle of the night, would you do that, Sam? I will check out the "Alien Existence" topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 yeah, this movie isn't meant to be technically sound, it's meant to convey a message. maybe you do or don't believ that everything happnes for a reason, but it certainly opens that question up and makes you think about it. quite frankly, if you wanted to go spoiling great sci fi's with technical jargon about how things can't do stuff, then rat on star wars. the space craft at the end of AOTC had some sort of parachute prupulsion pulling it along space. it would have to be about a hundred times bigger to actually move the craft a klittle bit. and also, how do you explain sound in space, let alone the bombes that take sound away ni space. i talk about these kinds of things as if they are little jokes that the production tema knows about and laugh at. but your treating the whols sings thing as if it's the worst movie on earth because it couldn't happen. a little news for you, ahlf the movies you see today couldn't possibly happen, not even in the distant future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.