Silver Bullet

Silver Bullet is a werewolf movie, in case you didn't know. Years back, I had an interest in werewolves. I was never to the point where I'd do something stupid, like purchase Lengtham's Authorized: Werewolves and Were-Beings, but I liked them, and still do. They're horrible. Vampires? Vampires just kill you. Plus, in my understanding, vampires have control over what they do, in that they're always vampires. There is no human in them.



Despite the dark name, Silver Bullet is a bit toonish. It is about a wheelchair-bound boy (he has motorized wheelchairs, so it's not too dull), let's call him Floyd, his older sister, let's call her Clarice, and his uncle (Gary Busey), let's call him Tyrola. Clarice is a bit of a...well, foul-mouthed, mean jerk. How's that? Other times, she is very sweet. Like all women. You know what they say: "How can you tell if a woman is being emotional?"
"How?"
"If she exists in any form whatsoever."


Good things:

• One of the best things about Silver Bullet is that it doesn't have "adult scenes" in it. I can't remember the last, recent monster movie which did not have adult situations in it. They could have very easily added some drunken college kids (seriously, they rent those actors out by the dozen for $1,200 a day!), but they didn't.
• Gary Busey, who plays Floyd's uncle, we're calling him uncle Tyrola, is lovable, but at the same time a worthless, dirty, stupid drunk. I've never seen an actor pull off such a feat.
• Some of the werewolf slaughter scenes are hilarious (that's a good point?!).
• That the wheelchair-bound boy (we're calling him Floyd) has to deal with a werewolf.
• The werewolf looked very good, especially compared to movies like Dog Soldiers.

Bad things:

• The biggest problem with Silver Bullet is the lack of stalking. I really enjoy when werewolves stalk things. This was also one of the major problems with Bad Moon (that werewolf only had access to two people).
• The werewolf was too powerful/did impossible things, like hit a guy in the side of the head and decapitated him.
• The werewolf was stopped way too easily by the stars, yet mercilessly destroyed anyone else.
• The werewolf turned out to be a person it oughta-not been.
• Too many people are killed, too fast. I would like even more for a werewolf to stalk someone, then have that person to get in their car and drive away, not knowing the werewolf was there. Oh, Hollywood, why don't you ask my opinion on things?!
• There is language in the movie I find offensive, possibly not solely for the language itself (your run-of-the-mill curses), but the context and who is saying it, and who it is being said to.

Everyone in this movie, it seems, curses liberally. Also, everyone in this movie is Catholic. Not all, I am sure, but...you know what I mean. No one is portrayed as "not" a Catholic, to my remembrance. Meaning that these Catholics are cursing liberally. That's a real positive portrayal of Christians.


Come to think of it, (here I pretend I have just now noticed this trend! Watch me now!) it seems most movies centering around demonic monsters make fun of Christians. Just last night, I watched From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter. "Watched" is too strong a term- more like sat through. Heh hheheheh, I love the feeling I get when I make fun of a terrible movie. There's a priest or whatever, just got married. Now, of course he's a sham, going to cheat on his wife (whom he married only for her money) because she doesn't want to, ah, let's leave it at that.


All in all, I rate Silver Bullet a 7.7 generally, and 9.8 amongst werewolf movies. If they had omitted at least some of the cursing, decreased the amount of multiple-slaughters (in one scene, something like 5 people die), and increased the amount of stalking time, I would have rated it a 9.7 generally. And that ain't no bull. LOL I HAVE ALWAYS WANTD 2 SAY THT

I once knew someone who actually typed like that, missing e's, using 2's, yet I don't think he put "u" instead of "you." He was so, so, so stupid. And I mean it. He was probably the stupidest person I have ever known. Not only was he stupid, but he was lacking in instincts, chiefly, logic. Anyway.

GoldenEye and TWINE, Both Movie And Game

The World Is Not Enough- one of my favorite movies from when I was a kid. Does it stand the test of time? I can't wait to find out!!!

Well, sadly, no. I am going to discuss video games. Why? LOL! Why not?!

Goldeneye...the movie, it completely, totally, completely, sucked. If Adon were speaking, she would say "Ultra Sucked," and it would be cute, because she would have worded it badly, because that doesn't normally make sense. It would make her sound a bit ditsy, but cute.


Why did Goldeneye suck? Oh my, I do not know why. It did, though. It was terrible. It was disgusting, it was so pitiful. That may just be my opinion- despite the many differing locales, and environments, it was terrible. Maybe that was it- too many locales, too many terrible scenes. Like when they blew up that helicopter with its own missiles. What the hell kind of helicopter has the ability to target ITSELF? Why?

I also did not like Natalya. I don't know, some people have a thing for Russian chicks, but not me. I did like the Natalya in the video game though. Xenia Onatopp was ROLF DOLF LOL "Over the 'topp!'" LOL!!!!!1 I MADE THAT UP INSTANTLY!


It was pretty idiotic how they (007 and Xenia) met. It was the equivalent of China invading lower Switzerland (what?), and as a result, a Chinese man falls in love with a random chick in an African tribe of head hunters- however the hell he got all the way to Africa. And however he didn't get his head hunted.

I do not like James Bond's way of dealing with women. I never picked up on this when I was younger. He's a pig, and that's being nice. For some people, this must be seen as, "Wow, that's cool; he's so awesome!" I assume these people are idiots. Or they are just pigs themselves.


The game Goldeneye was so, so much better than the movie. And the game TWINE was much, much better than the movie. It's not that the games were the best ever or anything. No. Hollywood just sucks.

I give Goldeneye a 3 out of 10. I give The World Is Not Enough a 5.5 out of 10.

I give Goldeneye a 9 out of 10. I give The World Is Not Enough a 7.6 out of 10.

I'll leave it up to you to guess which ones are the games' scores, and which ones are the movie scores.


If you need a hint, let me leave the loser with these words:

Hollywood, you bunch of miserable, drossy, ineffectual washouts, you have failed. You make me sick.

Eragon

My oh my.

You know it isn't gonna be good when I begin with the words, "My oh my."


I watched Eragon on the 27th (to be fair, several times since). I really liked the movie, but there were some big problems. To begin with, the main protagonist, Eragon, reminds me too much of the main protagonist in A Knight's Tale, Sir Ulrich von Liechtenstein/William Thatcher. They both have the same hair, and they both sound almost -exactly- the same. They also both make the same expressions. They seem to dress alike. Why don't they just get a room already?


On the plus side, the dragon, Saphira (a chick dragon), looked awesome. I didn't know they were this advanced with their, CGI, or CJayC's, or what-not. The dragon's voice had a chance, as the voice actor seemed skilled enough, to be really awesome. However, only some of her lines sounded very good. I don't quite know why that is. It seems, as it's telepathic, that her voice needs to be a bit monotonic. Maybe the VA was sick a few days or something, thus the awesome lines?


There was a SEVERE, HORRIFYINGLY SORRY SENSE OF TIME PASSAGE. It's five days journey to this one place...and you just can't tell it's been five days. They did HORRIBLE in the sense of time passage. HORRIFYINGLY, the King's armies somehow amass outside the rebellions' fortress ABOUT TEN MINUTES AFTER THE ORDER IS RECEIVED TO GO.

It would be totally fine if the King's #2 man, a Shade, which they take the time to explain is a sorcerer, warped them there. If they can take the time to explain a Shade is a sorcerer, they could take the time to confirm that warping...or if it was 5 days walk, and like 10 minutes by horse.


There is a scene where Saphira says "there was never a horse born which could outrun a dragon" (obviously). However, she continually gets outran by horses- and not while she's freshly hatched (weak). I also feel Saphira has waaaay too much "personality."

There is a scene where these things, zombie-assassins (Ra-zac's's's'ssss), dripping with bugs (wow! Just like those things in the Lord of the Rings?!) almost catch Eragon. He ducks under something, and the zombie-assassin jumps on top of it. Eragon proceeds to have bugs dripped on him, much like, I don't know, the Lord of the Rings. Wowzers, Bowser. Go Go Gadget cut & paste.


Meanwhile, the female protagonist, Princess - yes, princess- is an elf named Arya. She was not presented as an Elf, just a wiggy human princess- I didn't know until I read, that she was an elf. As we all know, elf + princess = Zelda with absolutely no exceptions, so this movie copies Zelda completely and totally. Her ears were not pointed.


The final battle was AMAZINGLY LAME. I am totally, and completely, in awe at the scriptwriters, or directors, or whoever's moronic idea it was to put those lines in there. "Into the sky, to win... OR DIE !!!" Oh my gosh. I mean. Wow. There's being nitpicky, but then there's the pattern of ULTRA LAME lines during this final battle, which CANNOT be denied. WHO could these lines possibly appeal to?


The movie receives heavy criticism (rightly deserved) for being too much like Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings. Because it's set in LOTR's time, but has a very similar story to Star Wars. He is a farmboy (Luke was a farmboy). His uncle died, freeing him to follow his destiny (Luke). Then he met his mentor (Obi wan). Then he escaped the area before the troops could get him. And that's just the first five minutes.

Less people will pick up on this and it's less widely reported, but the author copies Anne McCaffrey's Pern novels (that's E as in "everyone," not O as in "that'd spell Porn lol"), as far as the dragons bonding with a certain person and talking telepathically. The first Pern novel was published in like, the 60's. I do not know how extensively he copies her; it probably goes on and on.


I like how the princess acts; however, I also dislike how the princess acts. I think I liked her more when she was dying, and disliked her more when she got healed. Her clothes seem to mysteriously change from some sort of REALLY uncomfortable looking thing, to a really comfortable looking fabric which I am sure didn't exist back then. She doesn't make extensive use of her elven magic.


I didn't like the fighting (you don't let a bigger army past your only choke-point!). I did like the fire-breathing. It seems that the only thing this movie didn't copy was the "jumping-into-levels, non-linear" style of Super Mario 64. Owww, BURN.

The movie does have some redeeming qualities, and I do like it, but it's too short. Another half hour even would have done wonders, though nothing can do away with the copying.


On a scale of 1 to 10, I give this a 7.3 if you like fantasy adventures, and a 5.3 if you won't forgive the plot holes, and label it worth watching. My only problem now is deciding if I want to play Super Mario 64 on the DS or N64. I am thinking N64...