avclub-1f5b519cde67ac0d0fcab419aa3048a4--disqus
vandermonde
avclub-1f5b519cde67ac0d0fcab419aa3048a4--disqus

What was that, God Bless America or something?

Whereas kids now are trying to get people into Avicii. Music has really gone to hell since the 90s.

In strange a year or two, even death may die.

And Rosewood, a show which is Bones!

Fans of the original might think it kept limping along way after it stopped being good, but Showtime's remake would trounce it in that regard.

I'd feel very differently about this thing's prospects if FX was developing it.

Mine said no pick-axe, no sale.

There are a lot of adaptations of the plots of video games*, but i think the only thing i'd call an adaptation of the actual experience and appeal of playing through a single-player game campaign is ironically based on a novel: Edge of Tomorrow.

Yes, Supernatural for instance.

Right, where movies just de-prioritize writing by valuing the people who do it less and giving several layers of interpretation and editing that happen later more control, games apparently straight up work backwards a lot of the time ala Patton Oswalt yelling things from offscreen.

I was hoping this would somehow be good, since i'm probably going to watch it for the unique stunts and effects regardless, but was dreading the possibility that some of the other tropes mentioned in the review would mess things up. I mean, the trailer definitely made it look like the mute protagonist thing wasn't

So if they're handing out points to most of the stars of each sketch in a 77 minute movie, could the producers have even made money if this had somehow been a hit?

I'm gonna say under for only scripted stuff.

In looking up what cows go for (in the 500-1000 dollar range for mature ones in good condition it seems?) to estimate how many cows it would take to bribe me to marry someone i didn't want to (quite a lot) i learned that the top designation for cow quality, above 'choice' is 'fancy.' So now i'm picturing a lot of cows

I'm usually not comfortable playing the game of hoping a worse, less-electable candidate gets the opposing nomination. For one thing i'm just not sure it's worth the outside risk that the dem implodes somehow and we get said worse/weaker candidate after all, but that's not really a problem here since the more

I haven't had red velvet donuts. Are they just toroidal cake like some brands and styles of 'donuts' are? If so, you'd probably like them just fine!

If you ignore the name issue, "they're killing us environmentally" still seems like a really weird thing to say about an environmental regulating agency.

In the extreme short-term maybe. It's pretty easy to find a lot of ways setting that precedent makes all of us lose out going forward.

Rubio or Kasich would have had fair shots but still been underdogs i think. Without Trump around, they still might have nominated Cruz though, or if we assume the whole race is totally different without Trump there, they could have picked JEB, who's also not a great matchup when so much of what you can hit Hillary on

Probably. I think i would fall for that, at least for a while, because it makes more sense to me than what they actually did. There are plenty of people going to jail for the first time for stuff that wouldn't alienate viewers* they could have picked to follow around. Why put innocent people in jail when your show