Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing in that looked remotely funny.
It's two hours you'll never get back.
Yep, that's probably why it only made 42 million on a budget of 40. I'm not defending the movie necessarily, but it seems like current entertainment culture has become so toxic that it's hopelessly skewed against movies, even those that aren't genuinely bad, succeeding.
At least it was somewhat new and not a sequel to a thirty year old film that also tanked in the box office (Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink. Know what I mean?)
Yep, that's probably why it only made 42 million on a budget of 40. I'm not defending the movie necessarily, but it seems like current entertainment culture has become so toxic that it's hopelessly skewed against movies, even those that aren't genuinely bad, succeeding.
At least it was somewhat new and not a sequel to a thirty year old film that also tanked in the box office (Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink. Know what I mean?)
It is rather contradictory isn't it? You read all of the complaints here about reboots, sequels, prequels, etc. then something that's none of that comes out it gets bashed. And people wonder why Hollywood makes so many reboots, sequels, and prequels.
No, it's skewed against horrible movies. I don't care if it's original if it's not good.
And honestly, Mila Kunis doesn't have the star power to draw me in to anything she's done as a headliner.
For me, she was the high point of the universally panned Ghostbusters reboot , but that's probably not saying much. She's best known as a current member of the SNL cast.
It wasn't the greatest film ever, but it wasn't horrible. Like I said, mindless action and violence with a side of comedy. I'm beginning to wonder if some have a hard time making a distinction between things that are bad and things they just don't like.
Apparently, based on box office performance, nobody liked it.