'Men in Black II' - HIgh-Def Digest Review

[Josh Z]

I am most certainly not a troll

Disagree.

...I have just as much right to strongly disagree with his opinion as he does to have that opinion in the first place.

Yes, you have the right to disagree with the review. But if you're going to be obnoxious about it and start calling people "twat" because they like different movies than you do, we have the right to call you out on your behavior.

"Freedom of speech" is not the same thing as "Freedom from all repercussions for being a jerk."

Yes, it wasn't as good as the first movie, but bad? No way...

Men in Black II is widely regarded as being a bad movie. It currently sits at a pathetic 39% score on Rotten Tomatoes and a not-particularly-great 5.8 out of 10 (58%) among IMDb users. Why would it surprise you to see a negative review of the movie 10 years later? If anything, your positive opinion of the movie is the outlier here, not Luke's negative opinion of it.

[cheez avenger]

Yes, I have no doubt at all that Reel Steel does 'suck balls' (is that a technical term widely used in the colonies...?) but Real Steel most certainly doesn't....

Carry on indeed....

Ouch, I like that re-frame about "the colonies." Still bitter, I see.

[Gloobey]

Ouch, I like that re-frame about "the colonies." Still bitter, I see.

No, just having a bit of fun. Some of my best friends are colonials....

[upatoi15]

...I have just as much right to strongly disagree with his opinion as he does to have that opinion in the first place. His past reviews - his hatchet job on Real Steel was a cracker! - have earmarked him as a bit of a liability to me and have caused me to question the need for a review of a catalogue item in the first place. Surely we've all seen this movie and already made our minds up about it, we just need the tech info, don't we?

Impolite? Back of the line? Are we children here...?

Completely agree Gloobey.. we need the technical review sections to be stronger, I don't need these paragraphs and paragraphs on opinions on how it doesn't live up to the sequel, nothing does.

[damonous]

Thanks for sticking up for me folks! Don't worry - I've got tough skin and this isn't the first time I've been called a "twat." It is, however, the first time that I've been called a twat by someone who doesn't know me in the slightest. But who cares? It's no sweat off my back. Some guy sitting behind a computer hates me because I don't think EXACTLY like him. This doesn't bother me because Julian and I agree on almost every movie and his compliments can make up for any unknown person's trolling.

It's no wonder that I visit HDD less and less anymore. This is a good one: someone disagrees with your one-note review, and suddenly they are considered a "troll". He may have not needed to resort to the name-calling, but you're supposed to be the 'professional', right? --I mean, you actually get paid to write informative stuff like:

"The story is so skimpy that a huge amount of non-related padding is installed."
"The movie itself wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't chock full of filler."
"This plot is full of time-wasting."
"'MIB II' wouldn't be so bad if it held the same elements that made the first one so good, but it's hollow."
"...obviously only there to set up something pointless to be used again later in the movie."

Gee: I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying... do you think this movie is shallow?


BTW, the premise that you start with does not match the content of your review. If you liked the first one because it's a sci-fi comedy, you should like the 2nd one because it's also a sci-fi comedy...pretty much the same one, as a matter of fact.

MIB II suffers in originality of plot, sure. But I wouldn't call it "hollow". It's been a long while since I've seen I or II, but each had their share of interesting elements. MIB is all about the atmosphere and situation: it's the ride, not the details.

And, really, "How's it hangin'?" --that's not funny?
...ok then, Mr FunnyMan who just enjoys "fun science fiction comedies".