f13.net

It's on limited release right now, and fortunately it's playing in a half dozen theaters around Dallas, so I went and saw it this weekend.
It's not as good as the first, but that's not surprising - it *was* pretty decent though, I was definitely entertained, and for a stage 6 production I was pretty fucking impressed.
The gunfights lacked a bit from the budget, and it was pretty apparent, but they brought back all of the original characters and gave some backstory on the father.
They even brought back the stuttering bartender with touretts who mixed up all of his slogans.
The woman playing the FBI agent is   :heart:

If you enjoyed the first one at all, go out of your way to see this, you won't feel cheated and you might even be entertained, but companies like stage 6 need some positive reinforcement for taking risks like this.

How could it possibly be worse?  Sorry, but I just saw the first movie yesterday over Netflix at the recommendation of a few people, and it fucking sucked.  Bad acting, horrible fake oirish accents, idiotic/thin plot, and a sad, transparent attempt to smear "cool" over everything.  This is what you get when an untalented fan of Guy Ritchie and Martin Scorsese makes a movie.  So, so, so fucking bad.

This movie doesn't even deserve the cult status it currently holds.  It's just crap.

ETA:  This movie is so bad it even makes Willem Dafoe look like a bad actor; something I thought was physically impossible.

Why do you hate fun?

Yeah I thought the first movie sucked too.  Most of the people that really like it are imbeciles.

uh huh. This from the guy that prank calls deaf people.

It's a fun movie.

Yeah, for retards.  By the way, that's not just coming from me.  That's coming from pretty much everyone on the planet.  Go check out some reviews on it.  It doesn't exactly have a "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes.  I mean look if the best thing you want to say about it is it's "fun" that's one thing.  But usually people think it's stupid or they gush about it.  If you're gushing about a slipshod Tarantino ripoff that's style over substance, then you're an idiot.  It's pretty simple.

I didn't acknowledge this previously b/c I didn't know wtf you were on about.  Then I remembered it was probably in reference to a post I made like 2 years ago about using MYIPRELAY to prank call my friends, by getting the operators to read stupid things like the lyrics to "In Da Club" by 50 Cent.  Which was quite novel and hilarious at the time since no one else was doing it.  Also, only slightly different than prank calling deaf people (which doesn't even make sense but sure sounds like a nice dig!).   I'm just glad my posts make such an impression on you that you hold them in your heart for years and years.  

1) I don't give a shit was critics say. Critics are frustrated directors/writers/producers who decide to talk about other people's work because they don't have any talent themselves.  Appeal to authority much?

2) It's a fucking fun movie. The director is a cunt but the movie itself is pretty damn entertaining. You don't like it. Big fucking deal.

I work for a rehabilitation department and so I tend to remember things like people taking advantage of people with disabilities and it gets under my skin. And who do you think uses a relay service? A deaf or hard of hearing person.


So, yeah, don't try to be all like "what? Prank call deaf people? That's not possible!"

Anyway, enough derailing, all my original comment was intended for was to say that you're not exactly the type of person whose negative view of a movie particularly impresses me.

It's not possible to prank call deaf people. You don't even know what the hell you're talking about.  You're a self-righteous douchenozzle who is citing posts from 2-3 years ago that have nothing to do with the topic at hand in a sad attempt to score points.  Not to mention the text you quoted was dripping with sarcasm.  So if you want to make the point that using MYIPRELAY to prank call some of your non-disabled friends in college is taking away from the limited resources that would otherwise go to the hearing-impaired, then you can make that argument.  But you'd be sitting on cocks the entire time.  And you are.  I bet you've never even used the service.  If you have, then you know you get a response  instantaneously, there's no scarcity problem.  But that's not the real issue.  The real issue is you're a delusional pipsqueak who uses subjective ethical judgments to make unrelated points in movie discussions in lieu of making real arguments.  

You've yet to state any reason on why you think the movie is redeemable in any way besides it being "fun."  Yet you've resorted to personal attacks and thereby lent credence to my thesis that only retards gush about Boondock Saints.  

Does it really need to be anything more?  If it entertains you, great.  If not, move on.  Anyone who has seen the first one knows what to expect from a sequel and whether they will like it or not based on Nerf's review.

This is a movie discussion sub-forum FYI.

What Selby said. It's fun. I'm not looking for artistic merit in my blood-soaked Tarantino homages. Shit, I don't look for artistic merit in any movie. If it's there I can appreciate it but I'm looking to have a fun time with my time and money not to sit there smoking cloves while wearing a beret and talking about how clearly the writer intended the entire movie to be an allegory about women's reproductive rights.

I can respect that.