User Post (4 total)
John Orquiola Scrapple Since: 28.2.02 From: Boston Since last post: 675 days Last activity: 675 days # 1 Posted on 25.5.13 1451.41 | Instant Rating: 6.46 I mean, I guess it's better than Part II because they broke the formula and did something different, but as good as Part I? Not even close. Review with SPOILERS. (backofthehead.com) Also... (edited by John Orquiola on 25.5.13 1300) "Cody, I mustache you a question." - The Miz Promote this thread!
dwaters Lap cheong Since: 16.10.02 From: Connecticut Since last post: 9 days Last activity: 6 hours # 2 Posted on 26.5.13 1801.02 | Instant Rating: 4.33 I went into it with no expectations and came away entertained. This was a very Chow heavy film. It was more action than comedy, but Alan had some really funny moments. 21% on Rotten Tomatoes seems pretty low. It's not that bad. (edited by dwaters on 26.5.13 1602)
Above Average 1 Salami Since: 27.4.03 From: Nova Scotia Canada Since last post: 757 days Last activity: 335 days # 3 Posted on 29.5.13 1146.53 Originally posted by dwaters I went into it with no expectations and came away entertained. This was a very Chow heavy film. It was more action than comedy, but Alan had some really funny moments. (edited by dwaters on 26.5.13 1602) I agree with this. I went into the second one very excited, and left very disappointed. This time expectations were much lower, and I left smiling and still chuckling with friends over a few of the jokes, so for me it's a win.
dwaters Lap cheong Since: 16.10.02 From: Connecticut Since last post: 9 days Last activity: 6 hours # 4 Posted on 29.5.13 1640.16 | Instant Rating: 4.33
I thought the Caesar's Palace sequence was very well done. I liked the disclaimer in the credits that said something like, "Caesar's does not condone any illegal or criminal activity as depicted here....".
Vintage Michael Scott! All this while I've wondered if Dwight's blind loyalty to Michael was actually to the individual or to the boss position.
The W message board ZimBoard ©2001-2016 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.6 seconds.