Summary of the literature: To find out what it is about you first have to read this entry then this one. Thanks. Now, the mess. Friend James Wallenstein, thank you very much to descend from the heights of the intelligentsia and socialize with the ignorant rabble.
To begin, I wanted to point out one fact: the entry on "Avatar" I have written it just me, and it is a display of ego (something that you know a lot) but rather an act exculpatory, because my colleague Jack and my nephew Marox are not guilty of anything, the impoverishment.
And entering in flour, I'm still waiting for his argument on why the script for "Avatar" is good. As indicated by my colleague Altaic, the mere fact of collecting millions of dollars are due to the quality of the film or the script, but to other factors, like being who knows how many years promoting the film and telling the staff that the special effects are the ultimate in technology and in rice milk.
I think we're a little older ones to have to explain that sometimes the success of a film is not due to its quality and sometimes great movies have been box office flops. You know and I know, so do not put me demagogic with the million, not even you believe it.
His criticism of "Avatar" is an exercise justification of poor pathetic screenplay by Mr. Cameron. For a moment I'll pretend I'm you (god, I'm suddenly swollen) and I have to write a critique of Avatar but the script is flojísimo and special effects are not so bad but, ho, is that I think James Cameron a genius and I will not write a negative review of it. That's it! I work to justify the poverty of the script with arguments like: "once said Guillermo del Toro actually there are 10 great stories to tell and the rest are variations of these stories" or "everything is now counted as the only thing we can hope is to repeat these stories so compelling ... "Does this is an argument or an excuse? If you recognize yourself up "Avatar" left him VERY COOL! Have you committed heresy with James Cameron, for a film that leaves the viewer cold can not raise so many millions!
well enough I argued my negative criticism about "Avatar" in the entry that precedes these comments and I will not repeat. Releasing a big topic tell him that "there is so blind as those who will not see" and you, Mr. Wallenstein, perhaps moved by arrogance, not to do anything to escape from its narrow conception of things. And if you have the guts to say what one thinks, one must also have the guts to admit when you're wrong and you have me totally wrong and the critics of "Avatar." I agree with you that the views is to argue, and that's exactly what we've done, I want to acknowledge you or not.
And that brings you the theme of your blog, I will say that there is something called "layout" which is basically to organize some photos and images for all are not above the entrance, huddled haphazardly, giving the impression they do not deserve despicable his more than two million hits. We also say that the combination of light pink color with black is a blend aesthetically innovative but remains the ass. Another important fact is paradox posed by the fact that his blog has more than two million hits but tickets are very few comments (his last 10 innings have an average of 1.1 comments per entry). And can you believe me when I say I think it's great all visits and all the favorable reviews from critics, publications, etc. (What do you have smoked?). What makes me laugh is his total lack of humility, his arrogance and inflated ego SU. As they say in my village, "you do not have Grandma."
As for the content of your blog ... how podría definirlo...es una mezcla de soberbia mal disimulada, insultos gratuitos a los que no piensan lo mismo que usted, opiniones parciales y subjetivas, fotogramas con tías en pelotas y porno blando-duro a raudales (lo cual es gracioso porque en su crítica de Watchmen puso el grito en el cielo porque al Dr. Manhattan...¡se le veía el pene! ¡por dios santo, qué inmoralidad!) (que, por cierto, en el cómic también se le ve ¿o es que usted leyó una versión para todos los públicos?), por no mencionar esa entrada dedicada a "Avatar X" donde publica fotos porno o ese pedazo de libro que ha escrito you (also published?) with that cover so discretita . I must also say that you're a little obsessed with balls, because they continually appear on your blog, which probably indicates the lack of them. And, of course, you feel an inordinate passion for metaphors and similes: "see Avatar is like going to eat at a buffet" and "Dagon is like a dog shit not to be confused with a pile of earth" or " this is like one who gets to run, never made up in your life and ask him to take a boat and go on a bar situated eight feet ... "or my favorite," It was worse than get laid and you do not run at the end you have to go to the bathroom to finish the job or the eggs will explode in pain "(in his critique of " 2013, Rescue in Los Angeles " ) God like prose has me goosebumps! What a wealth of stylistic! you have every reason in the world to say that my profile and my analytical skills and understanding film is shit compared to yours in life have occurred to me to compare a movie with ejaculation problems! "still in" Directed by "no knees have asked that they write articles for your magazine? (the Maverik I OK, sorry ...) (of course you still published?)
short, Mr. Wallenstein: the only thing that bothered me was his criticism of free and unjustified insult that made the critics of "Avatar." You and your blog I care very little, really.
0 comments:
Post a Comment