MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
If not, why not?
I mean, can just ANYONE be 'the one', since it doesn't seem to require anything special?
If some dull-faced, insignifigant 'hacker nerd' can become super powerful, if the Morpheus crew already all know how to 'bend the rules' to jump super high and far without injury, why couldn't they just learn a little bit more and become 'the ones'?
What was special about that 'mystery man', what is so special about 'Neo', why can only those two become 'the ones'? If it's teachable, why did neither of them bother teaching that ability to everyone, how to become 'the one'?
If it's not teachable, then there must be some kind of 'special power' that somehow correlates with this COMPLETELY ARTIFICIAL COMPUTER PROGRAM RAN BY SOULLESS MACHINES to make it possible to become 'The One', and no one is researching this at all?
I wish this movie had explained these things a bit more.. now we just have to accept that Oracle doesn't tell them the important stuff she ABSOLUTELY should, someone can just magically be 'The One' and the reasons don't seem to enter the discussion, no one else can level up to 100 because.. err..
I mean, I could understand if it was a 'Zen'-type thing, where you have to be enlightened (or experience Zatori) to even understand what Zen means. But this is a COMPUTER PROGRAM, so it should not require anything more special than TEACHABLE SKILLS.
No matter how much I think about this, I can't understand why Neo can do that but others can't, when it has nothing to do with anything spiritual or enlightenment-type stuff, but it's just 'how to defeat a computer program'. Does Neo somehow SYNCHRONIZE himself with how the machines think, and that makes him able to see the 'code'?
Does Neo always see The Matrix 'in code' now, or is it like 'super vision' of some kind? (Not to be confused with 'supervision')
I have so many questions about the movie's flimsy explanations, this one mystery is not particularly important compared to all the rest..
Nope, not 'the second movie'. There is no 'second movie'.
First, this board exists for discussing 'The Matrix'. Please do so.
Second, the so-called 'sequels' are universally considered to be the worst kind of trash sequels that ever existed, that retcon, cheat, lie and make so little sense when compared to this movie, no rational adult would EVER take those movies seriously, but more importantly, consider them as canon in any way, shape or form.
Just because a movie has a similar name, same actors and similarly-named characters, and is fabricated by the same people, doesn't mean it explains ANYTHING about some other movie.
As far as the 'man born inside' - it's just another 'convenient mystery' that makes no sense. They could have delved deeper into that, they could have SHOWN it instead or at least with telling about him, they could have explained how the mechanics of 'someone being born inside' work (do people that are 'grown' (not born, mind you, so he must've been a special case) get to be 'born' at the same, exact time in 'The Matrix' as they change from 'fetus' to 'baby' in the physical world? And HOW is this orchestrated? You'd think it would be almost impossible to synchronize and coordinate all the people having sex with the 'growing of bodies', and needlessly convoluted as well, considering they are just BATTERIES!)..
This movie doesn't really explain anything that the viewer might want to know about, so this 'mystery man that was born inside' is just ONE of the about 9 zillion points I have already posted about that make no sense and are not explained at all.
I would have preferred to have actually SEEN this explanation instead of just looking at a boring dark room, two of the main actors just not doing anything but talking on a flat angle. I would have wanted to see SOME kind of visual about it..
What _I_ would rather ask about this whole thing is.. WHY was that man 'born inside'? Why did he have that power? If he could have it, can anyone?
It also doesn't 'predate' anything - online games have existed as long a LAN networks have, which is a pretty darn long time.
FPS games have also existed WAY longer than you give them credit for. WoW is also NOT an FPS, it's a MMORPG that uses a third-person perspective, so nothing you say in your stupidly short post makes any sense.
Did you realize the game 'Doom', which is one of the first 'First-Person Shooters' (did you even know the acronym you used means this?) you could play in a LAN network, modem-to-modem, and so on, was created in 1993 and was wildly popular exactly in 'online FPS shooting'?
So Doom actually 'predates' (to use your ridiculous term) this movie by about six years - people WERE playing computer and video games long before this movie came along, and you can BET your buttockses there were a big bunch of addicts even in mid-eighties, let alone early nineties, LET ALONE 1999.
Did you EVER heard of things like 'Unreal', 'Unreal Tournament', 'Quake', 'Quake II', 'Quake III'? WILDLY popular 'online FPS' games, that all 'predate' (I am so tired of this term) this movie.
Could you please crawl back under the rock you obviously came from for some reason to post absolute nonsense..? Thank you.
WoW did not create a 'level of addiction'. Computers and games have been 'addictive' since seventies, so please think again.
There goes THAT theory is right, when it comes to YOUR nonsensical comment, but you could at least have added SOME kind of punctuation...
BTW - YES, it (NOT 'HIM') _IS_ a dang ROBOT, not a cyborg, Kyle Reese doesn't know what he's talking about!
Where did he learn to read, by the way? Do they have schools in that crappy future, even though there's no TV or food or basically any necessities (although the dogs still look very well fed for some reason..)?
As I mentioned in my other post.. yes, Fight Club clearly has a very similar theme, it's all rooted in the same basic age-old story trope or staple.
Let's list a few where this kind of story can easily be seen:
- Star Trek TOS (I am sure TNG also, but can't name an episodes besides DataLore right now)
- Twilight Zone / Outer Limits (not sure which it was, but Bruce Willis was in the episode)
- Fight Club
- Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
- The Nutty Professor (and its remake)
- Some Hitchcock adaptation of the story
- The original novel or whatever it was (Case of Mr. Pelham, I think?)
In my opinion, as interesting as this movie is, the ending is too ambiguous and the whole movie suffers from it, becoming quite sloppy.
In all honesty, Star Trek did it better, because it made it clear Kirk needed both halves to function as a captain - or you could say, both Kirks needed each other, as neither was full without the other half.
So if you want to see this story done in a way that actually makes sense, doesn't drag as much, is more clear and has more satisfying an ending, watch the Star Trek-version.
I love the 1970s style, Roger Moore's performance and many other things about this movie, but let's face it, Star Trek did it best.
Fight Club isn't QUITE the same thing, as it is questionable how much of it happens in his mind, and how much in reality, and the events ABSOLUTELY can't happen the way we are shown them happening, because the movie lies and cheats so much - at least if we are to believe what the movie eventually tells us... (the 'alternate' versions of events are also pretty much BS, they could not have happened that way, either - also, there are NUMEROUS scenes, where Tyler and Narrator HAD to be in two completely separate locations or very far from each other doing things SIMULTANEOUSLY, or things could not have happened at all the way shown, and so on)..
In this movie, the dobbelganger is an actual PHYSICAL replica, not only in his mind.
So although this movie itself, if you look at just what the movie actually is, is nothing to type home about, nothing to praise too much, doesn't give or deliver the viewer much of anything new or anything they have not seen before, it has SOME kind of charm (apparently), and Kevin is a 'cute character' with 'funnily childish worldview' that may make people nostalgic for their own childhood or something.
The 'wet bandits' are not more believable than the similar crooks in '101 Dalmatians', the stuff that doesn't make sense is just too much, the story really goes nowhere besides one tiny location (I want to explore galaxies, dangit!), so for an adult human being, there's nothing much here.
It gained popularity partially also because masses are incredibly stupid, and they will gobble anything that's more intelligent than them, which means even this movie seems brilliant to them. People also have a very formulaic, very predictable, very pattern-based way of living, so they HAVE to watch 'christmas movies' at christmas, so of course if there's a 'popular christmas movie', 'our family must also watch that', which just makes the popularity of a movie skyrocket exponentially.
(It's a bit like 'preselection' - if one woman loves a man, then the man must be worth something, so other women will love him, too - if other women love a man, then I must love him, too, etc..)
It's a slightly below mediocre movie that has basically been lifted to huge success by external hubris that makes it look better than it actually is.
This movie is a crossroad middle point of many paths to success - christmas theme, cute (and competent) child actor, goofy stuff for the kids, family cozyness and tearjerking soap for the women, and so on. The movie itself doesn't have to be brilliant when all these themes combine to do the heavy lifting for it.
THAT is why it's popular.
This is one of those movies, where circumstances conspired to make it popular without it having to be anything remarkable.
The other thing is, it isn't a particularly bad movie, it's well made, professionally slick, visually interesting sometimes, but maybe the icing on the cake that really sealed the deal is how good Macalay Culkin is as a child actor - he actually delivers. His performance is actually really star level, that's very rare for child actors as far as I know.
So him being 'adorable', but delivering his lines professionally basically makes the movie.
This movie is a mess when you watch it as an adult human being, but it has all these trappings for women that they can't resist (family theme, holiday stuff, tearjerking and heartstring-tugging bruteforce stuff, decorations, cuteness (or what passes as such), and so on). The only thing missing is 'injected romance', which I hate with a burning passion.
Of course the whole 'mom-son' stuff always appeals to women's nurturing instincts. Hey, don't kill the messenger..
As a movie, as a story, as a 'something to watch', this is 'passable' at best, but all these sort of superficial or superfluous elements combined easily make it very popular indeed. I never saw the point of watching this movie, but youtubers always react to it, so I have stomached it a few times, and the only things worth something about it in my opinion are the aforementioned child actor performance, some of the humor, the relatable old man stuff, the surreal basement monster-stuff (I wanted more of surreal stuff like this) and John Candy.
That's about it.. can't really think of anything else that appeals to me in this movie.
In my opinion this movie is factually below mediocre and not really worth watching, because we've seen it all before and it doesn't bring anything truly interesting or new. No exploration of new and amazing worlds/territories, no good spiritual message, no gorgeous nature scenes, no inspiring music, etc.
In my opinion, this is not a particularly good movie, and it has very long stretches of 'boredom' and many scenes are too long anyway - the whole beginning with the family drama and the tickets and the attic and pizza and all that is just too long to wade through more than once.
It also doesn't make almost any sense at all, it stretches the suspension of disbelief thinner than most saturday morning cartoons with falling anvils and such.
I don't think all movies become popular because they're somehow amazing or good movies, or even have any kind of 'magic' to them. Some do, but this is not one of them.
There's nothing all that good or interesting about this movie, but as it has been 'professionally made', it has a 'sappy melancholy' about it, it's a 'christmas theme' movie, and it's 'safe viewing' for a family, it has been selected and picked a lot for watching with a family (you can't always watch all good movies with your family, because they are either too dark, have too much sexual content, too much cursing or violence.. err, forget the last part).
Then families watched it, and it was 'an OK experience' that panders to what women love (though, don't almost all movies..), so moms loved this movie due to all the 'cuteness', kids love it due to the cartoony violence and stupidity of the thugs, men tolerate it because everyone else in the family loves it and so on.
One good thing about this movie - it does NOT have 'injected romance'! So far, my list of such movies is rather small, maybe 7 movies altogether. I can only remember a few off the top of my head:
- Bad Taste
- Stand By Me
- Misery
There are more, thankfully, but can't remember them right now. Even 'Memento' is not fully free of this.. well, maybe 'Shutter Island'?
I mean, why does 'diversity' always HAVE to mean 'blackwashing'?
I would LOVE to see an Asian or Caucasian 'Black Panther'! Why not? I mean, we have had black Nick Fury, female 'Ancient One' and so on. Why can't we do anything to any character, why would there have to be some artificial limitation?
I say go ALL-OUT on this stuff, stop saying 'diversity' means 'black people' - let it truly mean ALL people! Let ANY actor/actress of any age/shape/etc. play _ANY_ character they damn well please! Wouldn't that be freedom? Wouldn't that be true equality? Denying someone a role because of their physical body is just... wrong, isn't it?
Instead of race being important and 'a problem', why not toss it aside and raise important things like your personality, your soul, your character, your humor and so on above this temporary physical stuff?
I say LET white people wear blackface without consequences - why not? Can't we just finally take back the freedoms we let historical monsters take away from us? Modern white people have not enslaved black people or mocked them in blackface like the historical monsters did, so why would they have to suffer?
I also say let black, asian, eskimoan, mongolian, aboriginian, indian, etc.-bodied (remember, it's JUST A BODY, not YOU!) wear ANYface!
Indian wearing 'yellowface' would be something no one would probably even care about, let alone mind. But draw a Manji somewhere and people lose their minds and call you a naazee.
Why is this? Manji isn't even the same as the dreaded swastika. But even swastika only has power, because people GIVE it power. Why can't we take it back, take it AWAY from the naazees and use it for good?
Freedom of speech is something we ALL have, but for some reason, only black people can say the N-word. What the hell is that? There are also many other 'forbidden' words, like 'Porch simian', etc. Why should this be? Can't we have humor about words and call each other whatever? It ain't right..
Why don't YOU discuss?
I am tired of people throwing a topic they DO NOT OFFER their own opinion/viewpoint on, and then telling _OTHERS_ to discuss.
It's like saying 'my lawn is full of overgrown grass, mow..'
Who the heck is gonna be motivated to do anything that you do not do yourself? We can't expect others to do what we are not willing to do ourselves, now can we?
However, because the topic itself is semi-interesting, I will ignore your ALL-CAPS topic and your ONE-WORD post where you demand others discuss something you yourself WON'T.
An 'Asian Superman' - well, Superman is KRYPTONIAN, so there goes that point.
Asian actor to PLAY that Superman? Now, that's a different story.
I have always thought everyone should have the same opportunities in life, regardless of things they can't change, like physical stuff.
Obviously, movies are a visual medium, so sometimes this might be a bit challenging; to combine 'full equality' with 'satisfying audiences visually' is a tough job. A midget playing a giant might be slightly difficult to pull off.
However, kids do not have strict limitations the same way, so when they play, they can easily 'be anything', regardless of their or anyone else's physical body features or bugs.
This means, an asian or black kid can easily play a superman role with other kids, and no one sees anything weird about it. Why can't adults do the same? Why can't we all have the freedom to do, play and be whatever we want? I mean, if an asian man wants to play a historical black woman, why should their physical limitations be some kind of good way to deny them? Is it right to judge the man because they happen to reside in a specific physical body?! Isn't that the VERY DEFINITION OF RACISM?!?!
In any case, at this point, when we have had so many weird things, like female Thor but no Male Black Widow or Male Wonder Woman (well, we did have all kinds of things in comics, of course)... why not an asian Superman?
You see how idiotic this statement is? Brighter tomorrow? You've GOT to be kidding me!
There are MANY things that are TOO BRIGHT that should be dimmed down! Most people's browser backgrounds, sunlight in your eyes when you are driving, a lamp without a shade that makes it hard to read, the flashes from a fire/smoke alarm that also intrude on your ability to just sit and stare or read a book, and SO ON.
Why is 'brighter' equaled to be better? Also, if 'tomorrow' is brighter (than WHAT? Today??), then it means, the day after THAT is going to be EVEN brighter. It will basically mean a neverending, escalating brightness that will eventually BLIND THE WHOLE WORLD!
Is this the agenda Superman wants to stand behind?!
It's so damn weak... it's like saying 'I wish things could be a bit better in the future, so I stand for that. Yay.'
HOW WEAK IS THAT?!
That is NOT heroic! You should take a STAND, and not be wishy-washy, like Charlie Brown! Heck, that line would even be too weak for him...
Take a stand, you POWERFUL, SUPER MAN ... stand for SOMETHING SUBSTANCIAL and not the vaguest, weakest thing you can find!
I can't get over how stupid that is.. brighter tomorrow. Brighter tomorrow! SOMEONE ACTUALLY THOUGHT THIS IS A GOOD IDEA. Let THAT sink in... just like my hopes of ever seeing a good movie.
Now, despite the 'american way' being ridiculously stupid, questionable propaganda, brainwashing doctrine, hypnosis to keep people nationalistic and fascist (without using those words), this 'brighter tomorrow' seems...
..I can't believe I am saying this..
..EVEN stupider.
Yes, they actually found a replacement that tops the earlier one in stupidity. I did NOT think that was possible.
How did anyone think THAT would be a good thing to say? Truth is important, Justice might be even more so. A third similarly powerful and virtuous word to stand behind might be freedom (maybe the most important thing for an individual - many only realize this when they lose it), altruism, compassion, love, understanding (a little weaker now)..
There must be dozens of words or concepts that are better than 'american way', hit an emotional cord in a similar way, fit in with the other words and so on that they could have chosen.
'Brighter tomorrow'? What?
This isn't even a thing! It's a weak wish at best, it does nothing for anyone in practical terms, like freedom, truth and justice would. What the heck? American way is similarly VAGUE, but what the heck? Brighter than what? Only tomorrow, not the day after tomorrow?
You also CAN'T stand for 'tomorrow', because you are not there yet, because future does not exist yet, except as a condept in your mind. So you are standing for a concept in your mind (or at least something that CAN only exist as such, without a time machine, of course, but Superman can't turn time forward, can he?)..??
Why is 'brighter' better? How can a 'tomorrow', which is already an abstract concept, be 'brighter' (which, I think, they mean FIGURATIVELY, which makes it even more of an abstract concept) than.. what, yesterday? Today? What if today is an especially bright day, then aren't you greedy instead of humble, when nothing is good enough for you, since you STILL want it to be brighter?!
Also, what if something is too bright, so it will blind you or...
I have always questioned the nationalistic jingoism in those movies. It was NOT originally 'and the american way' (whatever THAT means, since there are MULTIPLE Americas, multiple states within one of them and so on).
In my opinion, someone coming from another planet (a lot like me) would have an 'outsider's view' on things, and would NOT become part of pretty much ANY cult, whether it's the cult of nationalism, genderism, religions, et cetera. This is also why The Christ was not a 'jew' - the sperm was not even from an Earthian's body (normal body could not handle the high frequencies of the soul of a level three entity), and the insemination was artificial (hence, virgin Mary).
So Superman should ABSOLUTELY not stand for any 'American way', or at the very least, this 'American way' should be defined. When you are born and lived your life in another country, then watch this bit, it REALLY seems alien (especially to an alien) and jarring!
It's like 'WHAT did he say? Why American way?' - it ABSOLUTELY makes no sense, and I have always wondered and questioned that. It's very frustrating to have this 'admirable entity' that does good deeds, then suddenly he's Ronald Reagan? What the heck..
I think the original phrase WAS more universal, but for some reason, The United and sometimes not-so-United States And Other Territories That Will Never Be Accepted As States For Some Reasons of The Middle Part of Northern America And Some Polynesian Islands Among Other Things That Are Not In The Americas (the more accurate name..) is so nationalistic, it's downright fascist.
They are always told they are number one and the best country in the world that enjoy freedoms that do not exist elsewhere. But when one of them visits Europe, they will be shocked that the law is actually universal, thus human rights are location-independent, and freedom exists even more in Europe than in any of the 'Americas'.
It's like the people of that country are being systematically brainwashed..
One more thing - Superman can TURN BACK TIME, so on one hand, that would explain why he is not in a rush.. but on the other hand, also describes just how FAST he is, so there's no way he would take that kind of time with his boots/socks, plus, he'd ALREADY have done it, so this big sky beam CAN'T EVEN HAPPEN, because Superman has already turned back time and prevented it from happening.
(This is why people should be Super careful when introducing time travel and other OP stuff - if you give Dr. Strange a Super powerful Sling Ring, then he should use it so solve pretty much EVERY problem that easily CAN be solved by it... and yet, he doesn't, for REASONS? I still can't get over that.. Luke should use The Force 900 times more, Yoda should blow up Death Star while meditating, Superman should just turn back time so Zod is never released from the phantom zone prison AND SO ON!)
What are you talking about?
CHEESE is delicious! Everyone wants cheese!
Think about Batman 1966 - absolutely wonderful show, EVERYONE loved it! Maybe you are really thinking of 'bodies', not souls, but I say you are completely wrong.
When Batman went all 'gloomy and dark', I groaned. People of the nineties clapped like idiot seals, but I prefer my entertainment to be ESCAPISM FROM THE DARKNESS, not plunging into more darkness. If I want gloomy, dark, depressing aesthetics and a story that brings anxiety, I have my life.
The Batman 1966 show and movie were campy on purpose, and everyone went nuts for it. I bet many people are Super tired of all the 'can't see a darn thing because it's so dark and colorless'-crap in movies, and would like to go back to the 1980s, where you can actually see (and hear actual human voices instead of demonlike grumbling and growling) what's going on.
There's a reason why 1980s movies are so cherished by most youtube 'reactors', and why they always fall in love with every 1980s movie they 'react to'. It's hard to imagine anyone TRULY loving any 'modern Batman' stuff as genuinely as everyone seems to love the 1966 campy cheese.
Cheese is GOOD. Remember that.
Which would you really, truly, honestly watch?
1) Good cheese with cheesy music and colorful fun that pokes fun at itself and makes you laugh
2) Super-gloomy, dark, depressing anxiety without any colors, combined with pompous 'seriousness' that does nothing but make you cringe and feel like you are suffocating
I don't know about you, but I would go for number one every time (please don't read this wrong) and anyone with any sense of what's good will do the same.
BRING ON THE CHEESE, PLEASE!!
In short, I would much rather watch 1966 Batman than the super depressing, dark, colorless, pompous, pretentious, 'dark Batmans', no matter how much people clapped like dumb seals back in the day. Bring on the lights and color!
I won't wine(sic) if they bring me some camembert..
That fight scene is only mastery of goofiness, nothing else.
You want a 'cinematic masterful' fights, watch Hong Kong movies - I would start with Jackie Chan's best work, then move on to Cynthia Khan and Moon Lee's amazing rooftop fights and such, then maybe dabble a bit in Michelle Yeoh's movies and dash a hint of Rothrock on the top - not because she's anything interesting (she doesn't even do her own stunts, which she honestly could with that fat buttocks that would shield her from fall damage), but because in her movies, there are actually good martial artists and good fights as well (Richard Norton for one, if I remember the name correctly).
If you can watch all I recommended, then re-watch this movie's childish, rubbery, ridiculous three stooges-type cartoon comedy 'fight' starring Mary Sue vs. ineffective (possibly even empty) rubber suits, and STILL stand by what you said, there's something seriously malfunctioning in your brain and you should see a doctor IMMEDIATELY.
Holy cow, the things people let out of their keyboards... have to shake my head just to shake this vile imagery of some absolute !@%*(and one more asterisk)head abusing their keyboard out of my head.
Please read what you obviously typed when drunk and realize that when you are sober, you can't POSSIBLY think that for real..
It's almost disappointing how well you wrote your post.
Now there's nothing for me to criticize or correct... I guess congratulations are in order, I really liked reading your well thought-out criticism!
I always try to explain but seem to fail.. you actually hit the nail in the head, well done.
I feel like I am watching 'Best of the Worst', when they watch those 'magic trick' tapes, where pretty much EVERY single tape has the 'rubbery pen' trick, where you simply move a pen inbetween your fingers, so it looks like it 'bends'.. GROAN! How young do you have to BE to find that entertaining?
This movie is childish in a very similar way - it shows these things we're supposed to just 'believe' and not question at all, although a toddler could already tell why that would not work, or why that's a stupid and crazy thing to do, and so on.
This takes you off the viewing experience, because the immersion gets broken constantly by something so stupid and childish, you have hard time taking it seriously. That general, by the way, should not be alive near the end of the movie, after Corben callously kills him in the freezer.
Worst part? Pleebploob is IN THE ROOM when Corben absolutely MURDERS multiple men by freezing them to death, but because she is a selfish bstard, she doesn't care about such murder whatsoever, she only cares about 'war'.
I mean, think about it - 'war', as terrible as it is when it happens, is basically just a reference word to 'something far away', and you can perfectly discuss it in a calm and rational way without emotions, if you are so inclined.
But if you watch someone MURDER three men in COLD BLOOD (pun intended), that should at least shake you a little bit, right? One is basically an 'abstract concept' you can philosophize about while sipping your Mocca Latte in some palm tree shade cafeteria, the other is something that actually HAPPENS and should basically affect you very powerfully!
Our 'perfect being' is a friggin' PSYCHOPATH, because the murder right under her feet (quite literally) does not bother her THE LEAST, but reading about this abstract concept makes her tear up.
Sheesh..
I am tired of trying to explain it, I guess I will never truly know, but for some reason, I just somehow don't like this movie.
She's not there to be your fap material, she's a VERY IMPORTANT 'element' (no pun intended) in defeating a super terrible monster villain thing! (Can't take anything seriously in this movie, so I will also explain things the way this movie would)
But sure, gawk at her like you have never seen an old pr0n-magazine and have nothing important to say or do beyond that.. professional lab workers? These guys should've been fired immediately.
- So many stupid explosions just for the sake of explosions. I once tried to inquire someone about why the lowest common denominator not only likes, but loves these huge, planet-polluting gas cloud explosions, but I never got a good answer beyond 'durr..duhh..cool.. it's s0 k3w1 when BADABOOM', a bit like how this movie keeps repeating that toddler lingo crap, sigh.
Why is no one ever talking how much these things pollute when they make movies or how much nature is destroyed by elon's space crapx, but sure, let's ban ALL PLASTIC STRAWS so now nature will be saved. I can't even shake my head enough..
I have never liked an explosion, I have never understood why mindless destruction and pollution is supposedly 'cool', I never get why there are so many explosions in almost every movie, or why they would EVER be required for any movie, but I guess in the CGI-era, at least nature won't be gassed as much.
Oh yeah, the word 'explosion' is also there, and Heehaw doesn't even flinch.
To mention a few more, 'execution', 'electric chair', 'fatal injections', 'death penalty' and so on.. how about 'Vlad the Impaler'? That's gross stuff if you ever read about it.
- The main point might be that this movie is just so very childish. It's like hiding a coin in your left hand, then showing your right hand. A toddler will know it's in your left hand, an adult would not even bother rolling their eyes. That's how this movie feels, some idiot doing these really banal toddler-'tricks', but for an adult audience.