Pageviews past week

Wednesday, November 16, 2016


This movie was funny. This movie was visually breathtaking. This movie was not nearly as entertaining as the first. The first thing you notice is the lack of Linda Fiorentino. She was Jay’s partner at the end of the first one and the character you just naturally assumed would be in the impending sequel.  Instead you get a mere reference as to what happened to her. A quick line you may miss if not really paying attention.

Dozing off and missing lines is a habit that comes easy in this less than spectacular film. The first movie worked so well because of the element of surprise and the relationship between Smith and Jones. That relation ship is lost when it is Smith who is the pro and Jones is now the rookie. The hard-nosed superiority of Jones and immature arrogance of Smith is lost when you reverse the situations.  The best part of this movie ends with the opening credits.
 The short animated feature before the film is much funnier and far more entertaining than the feature film. Even the pre credit sequence with Peter Graves introducing a cheesy documentary (one that is supposed to explain the plot in a nut shell) is more interesting and comical than the rest of the movie itself. When this “documentary” appears in the movie itself it ruins the ironic comic aspect it had at the beginning of the movie. Thus taking away from the best part of the movie itself. While this movie is funnier and perhaps more visually intriguing than the first.  This flick  simply isn’t a sequel that’s equal. Much like Diet Dr. Pepper it leaves a funny taste in your mouth.             
                                                                                                                              GRADE   C+

No comments:

A note from an editor!

Hi Matthew,

Thank you for the time and effort you put into this piece, especially on a Saturday morning. I can tell you definitely took good notes of everything that was going on during the event!

We still have some work to do before this piece is ready to print. Your piece has a lot of information, but it doesn’t sound like a news article. What was the point of his speech/presentation? Why was he addressing this audience? What is Vanguard? What does the company do – who does it serve? You spend a lot of time narrating (for example, how he was injured), but did not report on the purpose of the event. You can maybe mention his appearance/joking about it in a sentence or two, but do not take several paragraphs to do so. Also, I like how you mentioned where the name “Vanguard” comes from.

There are a lot of spelling errors in this piece – make sure you proof read each sentence carefully.

I know I am getting back to you a little later I hoped, and I’m sorry about that! But if you have time tonight, please go through my suggestions and try to rework your piece. You can send me what you have tonight/tomorrow morning. Please bring a copy of it to the meeting tomorrow and we will discuss it further from there.

Once again, thanks for your hard work and promptness! Remember this is a learning process, and we are all part of the Waltonian team!

Talk to you soon!

Ten Most pathetic movie stars that still have careers.

(In A - B -C Order)

1. Hayden Christensen

2. Tom Crusie

3. Kevin Costner

4. Keeanu Reeves

5. Denise Richards

6. Adam Sandler

7. Arnold Schwarzenegger

8. William Shatner

9. Sylvester Stalloan

10. John Claude Van dahm