I don't really understand how the can be arrested. Agree with it or not, hasn't the statute of limitations passed on statutory rape? I'm pretty sure, at least, in the US, the statute of limitations is 8 years.
This reminds me of the time my tacky stepmom (Ms Twee Cow Stencils and Gingham 1989) tried to sell the heirloom bedroom furniture that my Mother had. For exactly $500. So I gave her a cheque for $550, carted the stuff away, and put a stop payment on the cheque.
A teenage boy's 8 year old furniture? For $500? Big no thanks, Nancy. And after giving $10 million to that cult you would think she would have gotten a nice tax write-off and wouldn't have to resort to selling used furniture through mass e-mail.
Wow, sifting through Gawker tips must be a helluva job - on one hand you get fucking awsome drunk Katie Couric pictures on the other hand... i hope you guys didnt pay for these.
Nancy - give it to a needy family or to charity. I bet the cleaning woman who's dusted it the past few years would love it. LIke you need the @#$*@# money.
With what she gets per hour, just taking photos and writing it up was probably more than $500.
I'm not going to read all these comments but assume that some (at least ) are telling you, in hopefully strenuous fashion, that it's a stupid thing to [generously] say that only 5 of these movies are "not terrible."
You can't hate pop culture like you apparently do and write for this site. (Or any publication that people are going to actually want to read.)
[I haven't seen any Harry Potters but don't think they qualify as "terrible"]
-- Finding Nemo (definitely not "terrible") -- haven't seen Incredibles or other Pixar on list but also I'm sure not "terrible"
-- Hancock -- actually pretty damn good
-- Ratatouille (wtf are you thinking Ratatouille is GREAT)
-- Passion of the Christ -- made by a bad man but not a terrible movie (I'm just going down the list but this is getting stupid)
-- No Bond movie (2 on the list) is "terrible" / all are "watchable"
-- War of the Worlds -- actually quite good
-- I Am Legend -- totally watchable / I cried at the big parting scene
-- Iron Man -- I bet this is one you didn't think was "terrible" -- I probably liked it less than you, and thought except for RDJ that it kind of sucked -- but it wasn't "terrible"
-- Never saw Night at the Museum but I'm pretty sure OW and BS had some funny moments -- I'm going to say not "terrible"
-- King Kong -- a disappointment to be sure but not "terrible"
-- MI2 -- actually pretty fucking great -- Tom Cruise notwithstanding
-- Day After Tmw -- did not see -- bet I would enjoy -- i'm going to say not terrible
-- WALL-E -- not at all terrible wtf are you thinking
-- Meet the Fockers -- did not see but I bet it was actually terrible -- I'll give you this, Transformers franchise, Matrix 2 + 3, Pirates 2+3, Star wars 1-3 (truly "terrible").
Which makes by my count 20-25% (tops) of this list as "terrible."
Somewhere between 30-50% are "ok" to perfectly satisfying.
And a full 40% are pretty damn good (to great) Hollywood product.
There is exactly ONE stone-cold foxy classic on this list. Not part of a geeky franchise, not a cartoon, not a musical, not a rehash of a TV series or a remake of an older movie, not pegged on a comic book character. I love it and get sucked straight back into it every time they air it on cable teevee.
@snugbug: Well of the two that fit that bill the Day After Tomorrow was shite so I'm guessing you've got a hard on for Night at the Museum. Course I didn't count the book series since the books used above are arguably geeky franchises(minus the passion but honestly that movie sucked, no one could think that was a good movie) so maybe it's actually one of those.
@snugbug: Uh, you do know that James Bond is a geeky franchise, too, right? I'm pretty sure there's been comics, cartoons, and musicals. I guess the 'place your bets' thing was meant to be a clue.
@snugbug: Um, Casino Royale is both a remake of an older movie and arguably part of a geeky franchise. You disqualified it with your quantifiers. Though I do love both versions of it.
@snugbug: I haven't seen either the 1967 or the 2006 "Casino Royale," but I was under the impression that the new one is similar enough to qualify as a remake? They're both based on the novel of the same name. I do apologize if I'm getting that wrong. #boxoffice
@YardanCabaret: Boo, boo, booo! The 1967 Woody Allen-starring Casino Royale is a parody of the Ian Fleming novel by the same title. Hence it does not qualify as a proper adaptation. Also, James Bond is not geeky! Lame, occasionally, during its decades-long history, but NEVER geeky! #boxoffice
@romulus: Naah, the recent Casino Royale is a sexy thriller-drama that could not be more different from the 1967 Casino Royale comedy. It's somber and sexy and thrilling and tense--in my opinion, the best James Bond entry in decades. #boxoffice
To be perfectly honest, I thought that most of these movies were not, in fact, terrible and flat-out love all three LOTR movies, Dark Knight, Nemo, Prisoner of Azkaban, Matrix Reloaded (I'll admit that this is probably just me), Incredibles, Ratatouille, War of the Worlds, Iron Man, King Kong, Monsters, Inc., and Wall-E.
Why the hate? Some movies are good AND popular. No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood may appeal to you and me but there's a reason they're not on this list and it's not that people are stupid.
@Perhaps Not: "No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood may appeal to you and me but there's a reason they're not on this list and it's not that people are stupid"
@Poppymann: Opinions vary but I'd say it's because they both present an extremely grim and oblique perspective on human nature that most people find too oppressive to subject themselves to for two hours. The filmgoing public seems to want to see good triumph over wickedness, or to see moral behavior rewarded when they go to the movies, probably because they see both so seldom in their individual lives. You and I would probably argue that movies doing those things don't offer as realistic a perspective on the universe (though I certainly do enjoy them sometimes), but not everyone is interested in understanding why the world is so evil through art. Some people have evil presented to them hourly and don't see the need to dwell on it further. #boxoffice
@Perhaps Not: you bring up an interesting thought. not all movies need to be Oscar caliber. some could be just good escapist fun. and some could be in it only for the money. I think the key to defining something as 'good' would be to figure out which group a particular movie is trying to be and ask if it achieves its goal well. is a Transformers really that horrible if the money gives a studio the make a There Will Be Blood (which isn't going to make millions in the box office), is that such a terrible tradeoff #boxoffice
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
I wonder how much, exactly, he'd be willing to pay for us to drive him over the ridiculously porous border.
11/25/09
11/25/09
Notice, I didn't say what we'd do with him once we got paid and got him across the border.
11/25/09
11/25/09
Crafty.
11/25/09
Big enough.
11/24/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
PS Hi Loretta!
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
#celebrityspelling
11/23/09
With what she gets per hour, just taking photos and writing it up was probably more than $500.
11/23/09
11/18/09
You can't hate pop culture like you apparently do and write for this site. (Or any publication that people are going to actually want to read.)
To clarify, the following are not "terrible":
-- all LOTR (3 movies)
-- Pirates #1
-- Dark Night
[I haven't seen any Harry Potters but don't think they qualify as "terrible"]
-- Finding Nemo (definitely not "terrible") -- haven't seen Incredibles or other Pixar on list but also I'm sure not "terrible"
-- Hancock -- actually pretty damn good
-- Ratatouille (wtf are you thinking Ratatouille is GREAT)
-- Passion of the Christ -- made by a bad man but not a terrible movie (I'm just going down the list but this is getting stupid)
-- No Bond movie (2 on the list) is "terrible" / all are "watchable"
-- War of the Worlds -- actually quite good
-- I Am Legend -- totally watchable / I cried at the big parting scene
-- Iron Man -- I bet this is one you didn't think was "terrible" -- I probably liked it less than you, and thought except for RDJ that it kind of sucked -- but it wasn't "terrible"
-- Never saw Night at the Museum but I'm pretty sure OW and BS had some funny moments -- I'm going to say not "terrible"
-- King Kong -- a disappointment to be sure but not "terrible"
-- MI2 -- actually pretty fucking great -- Tom Cruise notwithstanding
-- Day After Tmw -- did not see -- bet I would enjoy -- i'm going to say not terrible
-- WALL-E -- not at all terrible wtf are you thinking
-- Meet the Fockers -- did not see but I bet it was actually terrible -- I'll give you this, Transformers franchise, Matrix 2 + 3, Pirates 2+3, Star wars 1-3 (truly "terrible").
Which makes by my count 20-25% (tops) of this list as "terrible."
Somewhere between 30-50% are "ok" to perfectly satisfying.
And a full 40% are pretty damn good (to great) Hollywood product.
What a stupid post. #boxoffice
11/17/09
Place your bets. #boxoffice
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
The book was still better. #boxoffice
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
Why the hate? Some movies are good AND popular. No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood may appeal to you and me but there's a reason they're not on this list and it's not that people are stupid.
11/17/09
and that reason is?..... #auteurs
11/17/09
11/18/09