WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
News/Headlines
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

Promotional Art for Marvel's "Guardians of the Galaxy"

Posted: January 19th, 2014 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
Promotional Art for MarvelSubmit Comment
Today we have a look at some promotional artwork that will appear on merchandise for Marvel's "Guardians of the Galaxy," starring Chris Pratt, Dave Bautista, John C Reilly, Zoe Saldana, Michael Rooker, Lee Pace, Glenn Close and Benicio Del Toro. Check everything out below.

"Guardians of the Galaxy" centers on Peter Quill/Star-Lord (Pratt), a US pilot who ends up in space in the middle of a universal conflict and goes on the run with futuristic ex-cons who have something everyone want.

The new movie is directed by James Gunn and is set to hit theaters on August 1st.

Images: (click to enlarge)


Source: CBM


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 95 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
Biz Malarkey writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:16:34 AM

Gay
Cannon writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:28:47 AM


Talking space raccoons with laser guns. This is where we are now.

vincere01 writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 12:18:21 PM

Voiced by bradley cooper no less!!

I still think this is more likely to bomb hard than make a profit
PORN-FLY writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 2:11:11 PM

i sip mah DRANK in mah coon cup
DRANK in mah coon cup
warriors187 writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 3:42:07 PM

"Talking space raccoons with laser guns. This is where we are now."

@Cannon

No, this is where we draw the line.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 4:46:30 PM

"Talking space raccoons with laser guns. This is where we are now."


How is that any worse than talking trash cans with three feet and grappling hooks? You know, Star Wars? Or big flying Jewish horseflies?

You people will accept the most ridiculous sh*t in movies, like a man turning into a giant green monster running around smashing stuff, screaming "Hulk smash", or a web-slinging teenager in ugly spandex walking walls and kissing chicks upside down in the rain, or a guy in plastic armor driving a monstrously heavy black tank atop an ancient wooden church, or a Brit bedecked in colorful Nylon raiment flying without any conceivable aeronautical aid while shooting laser beams from his f*cking eyes, but a talking raccoon with a phaser is just too damned implausible?

These are the same people who think the Planet of the Apes remake was scientifically credible. You know, the movie that made apes so damned smart they took down the entire world (with the assistance of a magical super-virus).

So you can accept simians with rocks and sticks over-running a world of tanks, bazookas and nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles, and you accept talking, hopping, flipping laser sword-wielding green "things" named Yoda, but an intellectually-enhanced procyonid mammal holding a "raygun" is just to much?

Did you know that raccoons have hands and feet somewhat similar to simians? Did you know they have rather superb base intellectual capabilities? And I quote:

Only a few studies have been undertaken to determine the mental abilities of raccoons, most of them based on the animal's sense of touch. In a study by the ethologist H. B. Davis in 1908, raccoons were able to open 11 of 13 complex locks in fewer than 10 tries and had no problems repeating the action when the locks were rearranged or turned upside down. Davis concluded they understood the abstract principles of the locking mechanisms and their learning speed was equivalent to that of rhesus macaques

For your information, abstract thinking was the singular gateway capability that made human civilization possible. Without it we would all be bashing each others' heads in with stone while bathing in our sh*t.


Now, if you wanted to genetically engineer an animal you could certainly do worse than a raccoon. A squirrel for example would be much worse because it has poor prehensile capabilities, scampers and possesses a rather limited intellect. But artificially enhance the raccoon's brain and make it walk up upright and it's ready for a laser gun. Far easier to do than creating some backwards-talking bullsh*t like Yoda or any of the other purely infantile nonsense from the fantasy-land known as Star Wars, aka where maturity goes to die and piss in a bed goes to dry.


Point is, a walking talking raccoon is actually possible, scientifically-speaking, although very, very difficult, which makes me wonder why people reflexively mock this film but accept without equivocation any and all other patent nonsense from a hundred other films. Is is it scientific illiteracy, or just abject stupidity? The thinking mind wonders.

Anyway, have a nice day ignoring this post and pretending no one said anything.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 4:49:10 PM

-is, *too, *stones.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 4:51:07 PM

Oh, and I like the artwork, although it could have been a little deeper even if it was intended for Big Gulps or whatever.

And you people are going to eat sh*t when this one comes out and all your mocking of it looks like the bitching of old hags on how love has departed them.
Tanman32123 writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 4:54:46 PM

Well said mink. I'd comment a well thought out response but I have a huge hangover and am too lazy to think.. Lol
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 4:58:44 PM

^^Did you even read it, or did you assume it was "well said' simply because it's long and contains red text?

Because you're the guy with the self-admitted attention span of a fruit fly who refused to watch The Running Man in between your marathons of Cars, Cars 2, Planes and Veggie Tales.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 5:24:25 PM

Well, I do apologize as I was merely trying to vivify this rather moribund and fossilized website by infusing it with a raucous effusion of rancorous dissent.


PLEASE FORGIVE ME TANMAN!

*sigh*
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 5:31:22 PM

Speak of the devil and he will appear, apparently.

J.J. Abrams Says 'Star Wars Episode VII' Script Done, Confirms Jesse Plemons Talks

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/j-j--abrams-says--star-wars-episode-vii--script-done--confirms-jesse-plemons-talks-212350048.html



Jesse Plemons is the guy who looks like the love-child of Matt Damon and Rupert Grint.




minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 5:51:36 PM

Bill Murray Signed up for Garfield by Mistake

http://nypost.com/2014/01/19/bill-murrays-epic-mistake-led-to-starring-role-in-garfield/


Apparently Bill Murray mistook Joel Cohen for Joel Coen, the latter of which is one of the Coen Brothers, of Fargo fame.


In other news, Dan Aykroyd has changed his name to Ethan Cohen.
warriors187 writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 6:31:38 PM

@Mink

I knew somebody was bound to bring up that argument, but didn't think it would be you.

Big green Jekylle and Hyde monsters-Gods from other worlds-Magic hammers that can somehow come back to you even if there sent into outer-space...
Ok. gotchya.

But, "Talking space raccoons with laser guns" is, like Cannon said, where we are now.
warriors187 writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 6:37:35 PM

@mink
Honestly I think your argument is sh!t.
I think if you take two steps back and look at it you'd agree.
I was waiting for somebody to say what you said, but again, thought you were smarter than that.
"Talking space raccoons with laser guns." voiced by Bradly Cooper.
I can suspend belief only so far...
BlackDynamite writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 6:43:08 PM

Considering Rocket Racoon isn't actually a raccoon, just an alient hat shares a remarkable set of similarities with one, it doesn't seem that far off in the Marvel Universe.

I agree, there have been far stupider things that have become mainstream belief. Yoda himself is essentially the same as Rocket, just instead of laser guns, he wields a lightsaber.
warriors187 writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 6:46:20 PM

@ Mink
I read that Bill Murray article as well. I re-watched Broken Flowers after that.
In the article he said that he thought BF was his best work.
Ive said before that Jarmusch is my favorite director,
And I loved Broken Flowers,
But Bill-Ground Hog day, Ghost Bustin' Ass-Murray" Was kinda a zombie in that flick...

"Mommy said no tobacco!"-Wrights daughter.
"No, this is only herbal." Wright.
Wright hand Murray the Jay and Murray takes a drag...
"Hes right. Cannabis. Sativa."-Murray.

minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 6:52:01 PM

@Warrior: you're a f*cking idiot (no surprise) if you think talking, intelligent racoons are any more ridiculous than men mutating into the Jolly Green Giant and nothing you said refuted what I said. You merely spewed ad hominems thrice simply because you have an argument.

Now go pick your nose and play in traffic and let the scientifically literate folks here have a germane discussion on why intelligent raccoons are no dumber than 99% of the garbage found in Star Wars. You know, like "midichlorians" serving as the source of the force.

lol
Tanman32123 writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 6:53:33 PM

Obviously I wouldn't say it was well said unless I read it. I'm not f*cking illiterate yea know lol

Let's also point out that I've never watched planes or Veggie tales. And the running man wasn't even worth the watch, very boring flick.

Also: I read that Garfield news years ago, So stupid..


You bastard. Lol
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 6:58:18 PM

@BlackDynamite: thank you for possessing an ounce in intelligence, which is virtually nonexistent here at http://www.retards-are-us.com.





"Considering Rocket Racoon isn't actually a raccoon, just an alient hat shares a remarkable set of similarities with one, it doesn't seem that far off in the Marvel Universe."


You bring up a very interesting point, BD.

What are humans but aliens (to extraterrestrials) that "share a remarkable set of similarities to monkeys"? Hmmmm?

Perhaps from whatever planet he hails, evolution saw fit to evolve the brain of the raccoon-like creature into the character from Guardians of the Galaxy.

I recall reading a science fiction story from way back that had mathematical raccoons. Some experiment or nuclear war made them highly intelligent. I recall the author writing them as performing calculus on rocks or something.





I swear, people are so unimaginative and small-minded and yet with their mindless ignorance they're also the loudest, most vocal people in the room.



Go read a book or something, Warriors, you boring, simpleminded sap.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 7:00:26 PM

"Obviously I wouldn't say it was well said unless I read it. I'm not f*cking illiterate yea know lol"



I never called you illiterate, Trannyman. I said you were lazy. You amazingly found Rome, The City of Light, boring and obviously didn't pay enough attention to The Running Man to see why it was worth watching. THAT is why I asked if you even paid any attention whatsoever to what I wrote.



Don't blame me, then, as you reputation proceeds you.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 7:01:47 PM

*simply because you DON'T have an argument.



Worthless website.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 7:03:02 PM

*your.

I so despise not being able to edit and my lack of willpower to check what I've written before hitting "submit comment".
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 7:05:28 PM

"I can suspend belief only so far..."


Actually, it's "suspend DISbelief", not just "belief".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief


Damned children and their unrestricted access to keyboards and the internet.


:D
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 7:17:52 PM

"Talking space raccoons with laser guns." voiced by Bradly Cooper."




Yeah, how stupid of me. Talking green pointy-eared space aliens with laser swords voiced and puppeteered by Frank Oz (who?) are so much more believable, because Bradley Cooper, being that award-winning actor all women want to screw, is just so f*cking lame to play the voice of a character in a comic book movie, right?

Christ almighty. Do you even hear yourself when you say what you say? If you did you'd probably cringe in self-recrimination.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 7:22:52 PM

"But, "Talking space raccoons with laser guns" is, like Cannon said, where we are now."



And if "Cannon" thinks GoG is somehow the high-tide of cinematic silliness, perhaps he needs to go far back in time and look at the Wizard of Oz from 1939, which had, IIRC, water-dissolved witches, talking two-legged lions, tin men and scarecrows, flying evil monkeys and houses that could travel to Narnia, I mean Oz, thanks to magical tornadoes. I won't even get into Dorothy and her pup being able to teleport with the help of glittering ruby slippers.





I recall now why most of the smart, thinking people long-ago left this website...
Tanman32123 writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 7:23:11 PM

I told you guys, Rome is only exciting if you like architecture and art.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 7:25:33 PM

Yeah, and life is interesting only if you like breathing and f*cking.
Tanman32123 writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 7:31:13 PM

Indeed.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 7:31:14 PM

Speak of the devil and he will appear (redux)

NBC Orders Wizard of Oz Television Series

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/nbc-orders-wizard-oz-series-672299
Cannon writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 8:52:18 PM


@Mink

Calm down. Jesus.

Mine wasn't even particularly a criticism. I just thought it amusing that, in the history of crazy content from sci-fi/fantasy/comic book films...this is where we are now.

Cannon writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 8:55:53 PM


And I, too, am digging the artwork, which I hope amounts to something more impressive than the post-credit clip we got from Thor 2. I'm sure it will.

My only real objection is the voice casting of Cooper. Seems like they could have chosen a dozen or more actors with more memorable voice performances than that guy. But he might surprise me.

warriors187 writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 8:57:59 PM

Calm down Minky boy! Got damn!-

"Yeah, how stupid of me. Talking green pointy-eared space aliens with laser swords voiced and puppeteered by Frank Oz (who?) are so much more believable, because Bradley Cooper, being that award-winning actor all women want to screw, is just so f*cking lame to play the voice of a character in a comic book movie, right?"-

You are missing the point INTIRELLLY.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 9:03:51 PM

And? What does that even mean? "This is where we are now?". Does that even have any meaning? I don't think so.

This is where we are now. Compared to what? Dark Crystal? Willow? The inanity of The Lord of the Rings? The Neverending Story?

You choose a comic book movie with a talking pseudo-raccoon to make a terse hyperbolic and histrionic declarative when the last seventy years of film is littered with movies that make Rocket Raccoon look like Spielberg's Lincoln, and the thinking man is supposed to do what? Say "aye" like all the other non-thinking yes-men on this website?


As for calming down...YOU need to clam down. You and the others are the posters with an apparently wildly-exaggeratedly emotional attitude to a film that's clearly fantasy upon fantasy.


But I'll see where you are and what you say when Star Wars 7 comes out. I'll wager though you won't be nearly as critical of that childish claptrap as you are of GoG.







As someone once said: people decide what they want to believe first and make up reasons for those beliefs later.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 9:06:51 PM

" You are missing the point INTIRELLLY."


Well of course I'm missing the point since you never had one to begin with.

And no, calling names and telling people they're stupid, while perhaps superficially entertaining, isn't a "point" much less a rebuttal, Virtual Retard™.

So...when you have an actual factual nullification of what I originally stated, I'll listen. Until then, shut the f*ck up.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 9:12:44 PM

"My only real objection is the voice casting of Cooper. Seems like they could have chosen a dozen or more actors with more memorable voice performances than that guy. But he might surprise me."

It's a f*cking VOICE. Who the f*ck cares who voice acts Rocket Raccoon? Hire me or hire you, for god's sake. Not like they're not going to muddle it all up in audio post anyway like they did on Transformers: The Movie and every other non-live-action film ever made.

Besides, Cooper's name attached is only for the posters and other promotional material, to put asses in seats by name recognition, and not for the artistic integrity of the film which will be nearly nil since it's a loud, obnoxious comic book movie like all the rest we've seen.


Really, Cooper's name attached to the voice casting should be the least of your worries. Instead you could concern yourself with the over-commercialization of films to the point of dire inanity, the death of the smart summer tentpole flick and the dominance of film by the literary equivalent of Bazooka Joe bubblegum wrappers.
Cannon writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 9:16:34 PM


Mink + cocaine = see above

"You choose a comic book movie with a talking pseudo-raccoon to make a terse hyperbolic and histrionic declarative..."

Uh, no. I simply think a space raccoon is amusing, not because it's so radically different from cinema's history of outlandish fantasy material, but precisely because it's the next new gag in the tradition of.

Now, I'm sure you'll retort with yet another trigger-happy rant about how I actually meant this or that. That's life, I guess: there's what you think I think ...and then there's just what I think.

Oh and: "YOU need to calm down."

Classic.


minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 9:27:34 PM

@Cannon: You and others have been going on about the damned raccoon for months, talking about how insipid it is that Marvel is choosing to make GoG a film given the alleged silliness of the subject material.

That's what you and others have said, and now you're saying you're not saying that when clearly your original remark is some kind of cynically snide retort on the laser-gun-wielding raccoon.

What do you mean now? This is where we are? Again I ask what the f*ck does that statement mean? If it's not an indictment of the supposed low-water mark of fantasy film, what else could it mean? That Marvel's scraping the barrel for film material? And if so, how is GoG less worthy of an adaptation than Spiderman or The Hulk, both of which are ridiculous to the point of insanity? You're not going to suggest a man mutating into a giant walking talking green bean is somehow more intelligent and serious than a talking raccoon, are you? Less intelligent than Roger Rabbit, even?

Seems to me you're beating up certain comic book movies for their inanity, like they haven't always been stupid and outlandish, like you suddenly expect them to complement Citizen Kane or something.

You also have a beef with Cooper for some reason. Is it because women dig him? Because he's not respectable as an actor? And yet folks hated Matthew Mccoughney back when he was just a pretty surfer boy, Now that he's earning his chops you can't get off his d*ck. Why not give Cooper enough time and room to prove himself before you start tearing him down?


Christ.
Deaft0ne writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 9:31:11 PM

As mink said, an intelligent talking racoon is not that absurd of a stretch.

They are widely known to be one of the most notorious pests of all time because they seem to be able to figure out workarounds to get back inside a house or property or other sh*t.

I need to see a longer trailer for GotG to be totally sold on seeing the film. I liked Slither but Super was a very peculiar and ugly take on Kick-Ass and I would never watch it a second time.

Basically films have been full of absurd and unrealistic characters and Rocket Racoon is not as silly as a lot of other ones.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 9:33:17 PM

"Oh and: "YOU need to calm down."

Classic."



Yeah, and it was even more classic when you said it first in response to me criticizing your empty and apparently highly-ambiguous original remark.

Clarification. It's no good after the fact.


But then nothing is more classic than everyone, including you, making boring and perfunctory cynical remarks to films you haven't seen but will LOVE once you have, just like how you and your ilk will be riding the I ❤ Cooper bandwagon in five years after hating him for no good apparent reason for ten.


I mean, f*ck, I'm not yet much impressed with Cooper either, but I'm not going to punch a kitten just because he's starring in a film I've already stated will probably suck anyway, unlike some other people.
Cannon writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 9:46:16 PM


"You and others have been going on about the damned raccoon for months..."

I have? Huh. Perhaps you could direct me to these alleged negative comments. Any of them. Just one. For the record, I like Guardians of the Galaxy, and am reading the current series featuring the lady warrior Angela.

"What do you mean now? This is where we are? Again I ask what the f*ck does that statement mean?"

I've already explained what it means, or what I meant by it. Yes, I was being droll, but not necessarily negative. I'm not sure how much further I can break it down at this point. Sounds like you're just being intentionally obtuse in order to keep your rant going.

"You also have a beef with Cooper for some reason. Is it because women dig him? Because he's not respectable as an actor?"

Uh, no. It's because I don't think he's an interesting actor; particularly, I don't think he has any memorable screen presence. And I can think of countless other voice talents more uniquely suitable to play Rocket Raccoon. But, I reiterate: I'm not dismissive of the possibility that Cooper might make something of it.


Sleuth1989 writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 9:55:11 PM

Guys come on! It's a film about a team of space warriors for crying out loud! Look we have had stranger things. Is Cooper going to add weight to the character? Probably not, especially if it's anything like that f*cking stupid accent he had in "American Hustle". But the cast is very diverse, concieved of mostly actors who have experience with science fiction and again I emphasize fiction. If you take it too seriously then it ruins the fun. What matters is the elements within the fictional world make sense...but ONLY in the confines of that fictional world. A raccoon is no doubt for comedic relief but dead again Yoda is a 3 foot tall goblin and he can fight like a damn trapeze artist. Don't think too much on it when it comes to science fiction or you're like Neill Tyson or whoever that astrophysicist is, raping the concepts of imagination to be a know-it-all prick who needs to be technically correct. God forbid if he was around when the original Star Wars was made! We'd have sh*tty, "realistic" science fiction films and nothing else.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 9:56:16 PM

"Yes, I was being droll, but not necessarily negative."


Droll means dryly amusing. Not really sure why you'd think "Talking space raccoons with laser guns. This is where we are now." is dryly amusing, nor why you'd make such a statement without clarification, nor why you'd balk so loudly when people question your insufficient words.

Anyway, whatever. You meant what you said then and now you mean something else, which you haven't clearly explained in any detail whatsoever.

Really, I don't think there's anything to be said, dryly amusing or not, about a talking raccoon since film is ridiculously replete with similar crap, and one film (GoG) a new gag or trend or whatever does not make.

I won't get into the fact other people seemed to import your original remark with the same cynicism I detected. People like Rambo for instance who too seems to think GoG is somehow a historically ridiculous conception.



Perhaps next time instead of doing the verbal equivalent of a drive-by spitting you should explain yourself a bit more carefully so that Rambo, Warriors and myself would "import" meaning into your words you say doesn't exist.



As for evidence you said what in the past...I'm not about to attempt a task you damned well know is Herculean if not nigh impossible. You know this place isn't searchable and you know Google doesn't faithfully index the comments.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 9:57:25 PM

-would +won't.
Cannon writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 9:58:41 PM

"Yeah, and it was even more classic when you said it first..."

No, it was sincere, because when you respond to a single, quaint remark about a space raccoon with a radically long rant-post, followed by umpteen more, I mean just that: calm down, take it easy, smoke somethin'.

A sensible person might have at least asked what I mean by my original comment and waited for an answer before blowing up like you did.

minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:01:54 PM

"Uh, no. It's because I don't think he's an interesting actor; particularly, I don't think he has any memorable screen presence. And I can think of countless other voice talents more uniquely suitable to play Rocket Raccoon. But, I reiterate: I'm not dismissive of the possibility that Cooper might make something of it."


Two things, both of which I've already said.

A. Cooper's career is still young. Everyone starts somewhere. Give the dude time before you start saying he's not good for this role or that role.

B. Most importantly...it's a voice acting role for a f*cking talking raccoon in a comic book movie based on a property hardly anyone knows.

It's not that important to give a sh*t who provides the ten lines of dialogue that are going to get mulched in post anyway. It's not like they chose Chris Rock to do Obama's voice in a nationally-broadcasted CGI rendition of that man's inauguration. No one cares. It's just a f*cking voice. Hire Cooper or resurrect Don Knotts. It's not like we need Orson Wells or Cary Grant to come back from the dead to do it.
Deaft0ne writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:07:02 PM

Cooper is not **that** horrible of an actor. I have mostly enjoyed the films I have seen him in. The A-Team is a standout to me.

If you do not think he should do RR, what is a suggested replacement? Seth Mcfarlane or Dan Castalennata? I assume he was casted based on nailing an audition or whatever.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:09:18 PM

"No, it was sincere, because when you respond to a single, quaint remark about a space raccoon with a radically long rant-post, followed by umpteen more, I mean just that: calm down, take it easy, smoke somethin'."

And it was just as sincere when I said it back because I find grown men (you, Rambo, Warriors and anyone else) bitching about who voice acts a f*cking CGI raccoon, and whether or not such a thing is credible or representative of the death of cinema, to be heartily amusing (not but droll).


But hey, if you want to interpret it as a "I know you are but what am I?" moment, so be it.


"A sensible person might have at least asked what I mean by my original comment and waited for an answer before blowing up like you did."


A sensible person doesn't drive by Worstpreviews with off-the-cuff empty and ambivalent remarks because sensible people are superficially intelligent people who express their thoughts with clarity and precision, but this being WorstPreviews and widely-known for it's "moronic chatter", what the hell else can you expect?

Besides, I created a conversation/discussion/argument where there was none, which was my intent, so you're welcome.
Cannon writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:14:15 PM

"Droll means dryly amusing. Not really sure why you'd think "Talking space raccoons with laser guns. This is where we are now." is dryly amusing"

I'm not objecting to you not thinking it was amusing, I'm objecting you accusing me of criticizing the material.

"nor why you'd make such a statement without clarification"

Didn't realize I was obligated.

"nor why you'd balk so loudly..."

Probably not a good idea for you to be accusing anyone of "balking loudly", judging by this thread.

"Anyway, whatever. You meant what you said then and now you mean something else,"

whatever, precisely.

"which you haven't clearly explained in any detail whatsoever."

You mean, like: "I simply think a space raccoon is amusing, not because it's so radically different from cinema's history of outlandish fantasy material, but precisely because it's the next new gag in the tradition of."

Seems coherent enough to me. You cannot grasp this, uh, I don't know what else to say. You can lead a horse to water...


"As for evidence you said what in the past...I'm not about to attempt a task you damned well know is Herculean if not nigh impossible. You know this place isn't searchable and you know Google doesn't faithfully index the comments."

Well, then it's probably not a good idea to accuse people of making previous comments without being able to back it up.







Cannon writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:16:04 PM


edit: "wasn't amusing"
warriors187 writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:20:58 PM

It was never even about that, Minky Boy!
Just saying,
A talking raccoon is 2 much..
fQcK ya if you cant see that...I have been a WP member longer than you
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:23:39 PM

"I'm not objecting to you not thinking it was amusing, I'm objecting you accusing me of criticizing the material."


You're right. You were actually praising GoG when you said "
Talking space raccoons with laser guns. This is where we are now.", right?

How silly of me to misinterpret your praise for cynicism!



"Didn't realize I was obligated."

And I'm not obligated to ask you for clarification when you make short, cynical and stupid remarks that have no basis in reality, either.





"Probably not a good idea for you to be accusing anyone of "balking loudly", judging by this thread."


Balking loudly in context of the aforementioned movie, in the form of your original comment, which is the original and only issue, bub.

Seems to me you're not that bright. You can talk a good game, but there's not much behind it.




"Seems coherent enough to me. You cannot grasp this, uh, I don't know what else to say. You can lead a horse to water..."

You can lead a horse to a bucket of bullsh*t, but you can't make him eat it, and that's what your "explanation" is. Bullsh*t. Doesn't make any sense in the two or three ways it could be interpreted, including the interpretation you now say is the correct one. But I've already covered this fact if you would take the time to go back and read and comprehend what I've written.







"Well, then it's probably not a good idea to accuse people of making previous comments without being able to back it up."

Even better to not make snide remarks about movies to which you haven't even seen a trailer since you can't back up your cynicism with any evidence.

But no, I alone am obligated to prove everything I say, though, right?



Cannon writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:24:33 PM

"And it was just as sincere when I said it back because I find grown men (you, Rambo, Warriors and anyone else) bitching about who voice acts a f*cking CGI raccoon, and whether or not such a thing is credible or representative of the death of cinema, to be heartily amusing (not but droll)."

Expressing a difference of opinion of voice casting automatically equates bitching? And who said anything about the "death of cinema"?

"A sensible person doesn't drive by Worstpreviews with off-the-cuff empty and ambivalent remarks because sensible people are superficially intelligent people who express their thoughts with clarity and precision..."

Or maybe sensible people aren't so oversensitive and over-reactive to a mere rhetorical comment.

"Besides, I created a conversation/discussion/argument where there was none, which was my intent, so you're welcome."

You created somethin' alright


warriors187 writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:25:36 PM

@ Minky Boy,
Ya must be havin a terrible night. I feel bad for ya. Watch "Aint them bodies saints" and jerk off to rooney mara-Couldnt blame if ya already did-that bit-3 is perfect-Like a reincarnated Audrey Hepburn...
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:25:51 PM

"I have been a WP member longer than you"



And? That makes you right in any and all arguments? You can't back yup what you say, but you sure as f*ck can pull seniority, seniority you don't have since I was here back when this heap of sh*t went online?
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:27:11 PM

"A talking raccoon is 2 much."

Pure proof everyone else read what Cannon wrote exactly the way I read it. But he's not obligated to explain himself because he's just that special, I guess.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:32:33 PM

" Or maybe sensible people aren't so oversensitive and over-reactive to a mere rhetorical comment."

A rhetorical question is a question with an answer known in advance. It's not meant to be directly answered because the answer is implied.

Now, I'm sure you didn't ask a question, originally, and I'm sure there was no "answer".



As for everything else....I've been having a blast. Just like old times and the best time I've had in months on this garbage heap.

So when I said I created something, I meant I created something primarily for my own enjoyment, although I hope someone else gets a kick out of the discussion, too.






Anyway...next time, explain yourself, retard, or else someone might question what you meant, although you being royalty and all means you're not obligated to elucidate your position and enlighten the rest of us.
















Cannon writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:33:10 PM

"You're right. You were actually praising GoG when you said "
Talking space raccoons with laser guns. This is where we are now.", right?

How silly of me to misinterpret your praise for cynicism!"

False dichotomy.

"And I'm not obligated to ask you for clarification when you make short, cynical and stupid remarks that have no basis in reality, either."

No, you're not. But it would have saved you a heap-load of text.

"Balking loudly in context of the aforementioned movie, in the form of your original comment, which is the original and only issue, bub."

"Talking space raccoons with laser guns. This is where we are now." = quip.

"How is that any worse than talking trash cans with three feet and grappling hooks? You know, Star Wars? Or big flying Jewish horseflies?

You people will accept the most ridiculous sh*t in movies, like a man turning into a giant green monster running around smashing stuff, screaming "Hulk smash", or a web-slinging teenager in ugly spandex walking walls and kissing chicks upside down in the rain, or a guy in plastic armor driving a monstrously heavy black tank atop an ancient wooden church, or a Brit bedecked in colorful Nylon raiment flying without any conceivable aeronautical aid while shooting laser beams from his f*cking eyes, but a talking raccoon with a phaser is just too damned implausible?

These are the same people who think the Planet of the Apes remake was scientifically credible. You know, the movie that made apes so damned smart they took down the entire world (with the assistance of a magical super-virus).

So you can accept simians with rocks and sticks over-running a world of tanks, bazookas and nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles, and you accept talking, hopping, flipping laser sword-wielding green "things" named Yoda, but an intellectually-enhanced procyonid mammal holding a "raygun" is just to much?

Did you know that raccoons have hands and feet somewhat similar to simians? Did you know they have rather superb base intellectual capabilities? And I quote:

Only a few studies have been undertaken to determine the mental abilities of raccoons, most of them based on the animal's sense of touch. In a study by the ethologist H. B. Davis in 1908, raccoons were able to open 11 of 13 complex locks in fewer than 10 tries and had no problems repeating the action when the locks were rearranged or turned upside down. Davis concluded they understood the abstract principles of the locking mechanisms and their learning speed was equivalent to that of rhesus macaques

For your information, abstract thinking was the singular gateway capability that made human civilization possible. Without it we would all be bashing each others' heads in with stone while bathing in our sh*t.


Now, if you wanted to genetically engineer an animal you could certainly do worse than a raccoon. A squirrel for example would be much worse because it has poor prehensile capabilities, scampers and possesses a rather limited intellect. But artificially enhance the raccoon's brain and make it walk up upright and it's ready for a laser gun. Far easier to do than creating some backwards-talking bullsh*t like Yoda or any of the other purely infantile nonsense from the fantasy-land known as Star Wars, aka where maturity goes to die and piss in a bed goes to dry.


Point is, a walking talking raccoon is actually possible, scientifically-speaking, although very, very difficult, which makes me wonder why people reflexively mock this film but accept without equivocation any and all other patent nonsense from a hundred other films. Is is it scientific illiteracy, or just abject stupidity? The thinking mind wonders.

Anyway, have a nice day ignoring this post and pretending no one said anything." = loud, batsh*t insane, balk.






minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:37:59 PM

" Expressing a difference of opinion of voice casting automatically equates bitching? And who said anything about the "death of cinema"?"


Your original comment said nothing about voice casting, and when you said "this is where we are", you implied a low-water mark for some form of cinema, if not cinema as a whole.



Really, I think you originally just threw something up here without even thinking about what you were saying and now you're trying to ret-con some kind of meaning, the meaning you want us to believe you meant, into that original comment.
warriors187 writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:38:07 PM

@minky Boy

You are a f*cking fool. Just because you comment all over WP doesn't mean you own this noise...You keep talking sh*t about WP and how people keep leaving...But you keep clinging on like a tick on a zombie...LEAVE IF YOU HATE HERE SO MUCH! Stop sticking around like a tapeworm...
Cannon writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:39:01 PM

"A rhetorical question is a question with an answer known in advance. It's not meant to be directly answered because the answer is implied.

Now, I'm sure you didn't ask a question, originally, and I'm sure there was no "answer"."

Right. So why are you even talking about rhetorical questions?

"Anyway...next time, explain yourself, retard, or else someone might question what you meant..."

Except, you didn't simply question my original comment, did you?


minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:42:06 PM

"loud, batsh*t insane, balk"


lol. If you think my pointed, informative and intelligent rebuttal of your original inane, cynical and disposable comment is "loud and batsh*t insane", well...I guess that's pretty much what I should expect from someone with a buttload of empty, pretentious drivel and nothing to back it up, right, Mr. Dramaturgy?


lol.
Cannon writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:43:19 PM

"Really, I think you originally just threw something up here without even thinking about what you were saying and now you're trying to ret-con some kind of meaning, the meaning you want us to believe you meant, into that original comment."

Despite the fact that I've explained what I meant. Twice. I know, I know...you think such an explanation was nonsense. *shrugs*

In any event, probably not a good idea to be accusing others of going off half-c*cked; you've since made such the theme of this thread.

minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:45:45 PM

"Right. So why are you even talking about rhetorical questions?"


You mentioned rhetorical, genius, not me. If it's not a question, then perhaps you were speaking of rhetoric, although I cannot see how the art of speaking could have anything to do with your original statement.

And that's the only two ways I could interpret your use of the word "rhetorical".




"Except, you didn't simply question my original comment, did you?"


No, I surmised its intent from its words and the reaction two other people had from it, and then thus rebutted it.
Cannon writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:47:06 PM

"lol. If you think my pointed, informative and intelligent rebuttal of your original inane, cynical and disposable comment is "loud and batsh*t insane", well...I guess that's pretty much what I should expect from someone with a buttload of empty, pretentious drivel and nothing to back it up, right, Mr. Dramaturgy?"

You do realize the "buttload" is in your corner, right? That, and the fact that this thread was drama free until you showed up.

minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:51:34 PM

"You are a f*cking fool."

That would have been cool if you had added "Starscream" at the end.



"Just because you comment all over WP doesn't mean you own this noise..."


I guess I forget when I said I "own this noise", whatever that means....






"You keep talking sh*t about WP and how people keep leaving..."



Actually I really don't care. I just use it as a bludgeon to mock Alex's profound ineptitude.






"But you keep clinging on like a tick on a zombie..."


Ticks need fresh blood. Zombies are dead so they wouldn't have any. Your remark makes no sense.



"LEAVE IF YOU HATE HERE SO MUCH! Stop sticking around like a tapeworm..."
"

Who said I hated it here? Not I said the king.

No, I think I'll "stick around like a tapeworm" for my amusement at your expense.
Cannon writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:53:35 PM

"You mentioned rhetorical, genius, not me."

Yes, I said it was a rhetorical comment, not a rhetorical question. A comment and a question, are two different things. That's why, we have two different words for them. If you think it failed as a rhetorical comment, fine, but the whole "rhetorical question" thing was a non-sequitur.

"No, I surmised..."

More like, assumed.


minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 10:55:56 PM

"That, and the fact that this thread was drama free until you showed up."



Pffft. This thread, like all the threads you imaginative, dull, uninteresting bores make and maintain was free of everything until I showed up, or do you really think your empty, uninformed and idiotic single-sentence remarks do much for anyone anywhere? Huh?

Come on. You need me or else you mindless monkey drones would be talking about throwing sh*t and whatever else passes for conversation at your dinner table at McDonalds.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:02:15 PM

"More like, assumed"

An assumption is, for the average mind at least, an informed "surmisal".

I surmised what you meant from your very own words and the two direct reactions other people offered which clearly dovetail with my own "assumption"

You can only blame yourself, genius.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:02:53 PM

for at least the average mind.


God damned contextual grammar.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:07:43 PM

"A comment and a question, are two different things. That's why, we have two different words for them. If you think it failed as a rhetorical comment, fine, but the whole "rhetorical question" thing was a non-sequitur."


There's no such thing as a "rhetorical comment", not among the educated people at least, Cannon, and I actually looked it up.

Rhetorical can either refer to "the art of rhetoric (speaking)" or a "rhetorical question".

Like I said, I consulted a dictionary before I commented, which is something you might try. In the future, I mean. Or not.
Cannon writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:09:23 PM

"An assumption is, for the average mind at least, an informed "surmisal"."

Uh, you might wanna check your definitions on that.

"I surmised what you meant from your very own words..."

Surmised, assumed, whatever helps you sleep better, you did a sh*t job.


minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:11:59 PM

Anywho, this truly was a great deal of fun. Between Cannon desperately trying to explain what he says he didn't say, and that illiterate and inbred "warriors" retard-o-bot saying absolutely nothing at all, it just reaffirms what I already knew: most people are morons who act for the sake of ego like they're smart, and the rest are just f*cking morons with no self-esteem.
Cannon writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:12:19 PM

"There's no such thing as a "rhetorical comment", not among the educated people at least, Cannon, and I actually looked it up.

Rhetorical can either refer to "the art of rhetoric (speaking)"

Sooo...a comment is not a product of speaking?


warriors187 writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:13:40 PM

"SHUT UP, Crime!"
Cannon writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:14:20 PM

"Anywho, this truly was a great deal of fun. Between Cannon desperately trying to explain what he says he didn't say, and that illiterate and inbred "warriors" retard-o-bot saying absolutely nothing at all, it just reaffirms what I already knew: most people are morons who act for the sake of ego like they're smart, and the rest are just f*cking morons with no self-esteem."

Everyone, just nod your head: Yes, Mink.

minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:16:01 PM

"Uh, you might wanna check your definitions on that."

I don't need to a dictionary to know the smarter the man the smarter the assumption, and before you say I must be stupid for assuming wrong on what you wrote recall *you* wrote what you wrote, not me, and two people besides myself responded similarly. I merely *reacted* oppositely.


"Surmised, assumed, whatever helps you sleep better, you did a sh*t job."

Well, buddy, blame yourself because you gave me sh*t with which to work.



P.S. I sleep like a f*cking rock, Cannon, but thanks for inquiring (or was that yet another "rhetorical comment"?).
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:18:33 PM

*consult.


"Sooo...a comment is not a product of speaking?"

You're starting to look pathetic, canno

minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:18:34 PM

*consult.


"Sooo...a comment is not a product of speaking?"

You're starting to look pathetic, canno

minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:18:34 PM

*consult.


"Sooo...a comment is not a product of speaking?"

You're starting to look pathetic, canno

warriors187 writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:18:36 PM

, it just reaffirms what I already knew: most people are morons who act for the sake of ego like they're smart, and the rest are just f*cking morons with no self-esteem."

You dont butt in line! You dont molest little children! You dont profit off of the misery of others...these rules were written a long time ago. THEY DONT CHANGE!"-
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:20:02 PM

Ugh. No idea what happened there.


Cannon writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:21:22 PM

"I don't need to a dictionary to know the smarter the man the smarter the assumption..."

You also don't understand the meaning of the word, hence the above dip-sh*t pass for wisdom.

"Well, buddy, blame yourself..."

Blame? I'm not blaming you; I'm observing you, like a specimen.

Cannon writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:23:37 PM

"Sooo...a comment is not a product of speaking?"

You're starting to look pathetic, canno"

So I take it you're not going to answer that question. Cool.



minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:24:47 PM

@Cannon: if you want to use "rhetoric" as a synonym for speaking, fine, but generally it's not used that way and just makes you look pretentious and uninformed.

Basically, when someone says they're making a "rhetorical" statement or "comment", it's similar to asking "Are you f*cking stupid?", for a common example.

But hey, whatever works for you, Cannon, not that the word has any real bearing on the conversation, outside your attempts to explain away your original comment under the rubric of "rhetorical commenting".

Whatever that means.


Have a nice night, ladies.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:35:31 PM

" So I take it you're not going to answer that question. Cool."


Oh, I get it. By "rhetorical" you mean an empty, pointless, inane and highly ambiguous comment intended to fill a website's comment section under the pretense of saying something intelligent and cynically informed, right?

Could you be any more pretentious?
Cannon writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:37:42 PM

"But hey, whatever works for you, Cannon, not that the word has any real bearing on the conversation, outside your attempts to explain away your original comment under the rubric of "rhetorical commenting"."

A rhetorical comment is precisely what it was, which is not synonymous with asking a rhetorical question, not even generally. Whether or not you think my attempted rhetoric was lazy or inept, the point is, you assumed it was negative about the film by default, even after I clarified that it wasn't ...which doesn't matter because, "I changed my tune" according to you.

Again, there's what you think I think. And then there's just what I think.

Clearly, you want the last word on this thread. Guess what, buddy? It's all yours. Tell us more about how we need you or whatever.

minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:39:31 PM

@warriors: Are you Walter Humple?

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtBBPG3HxPcECVYiVICiceg

Has to be. The spelling is equally atrocious and the grammar makes my nose bleed.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:41:00 PM

Talking space raccoons with laser guns.


^Yep. Nothing cynical about that comment at all.

But hey, tell us about what you really meant, okay?
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:43:54 PM

"A rhetorical comment is precisely what it was, which is not synonymous with asking a rhetorical question, not even generally."


Actually, a "rhetorical comment", even as you mean it, would be redundant, since "rhetoric" can mean "verbal discourse" in the lowest sense.

So a "verbal discourse comment" is the height of redundant stupidity, and clearly you still don't know what you're saying because as usual you're throwing around words and concepts without either verifying them or knowing beforehand what they mean.

Really.
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:45:14 PM

"Talking space raccoons with laser guns. This is where we are now."

^Full comment.

Like I've said three or four times now...nothing cynical about that at all, right?

Gosh, we should all use such blazing positivity when referring to movies, right? Right?
minkowski writes:
on January 19th, 2014 at 11:46:45 PM

" Again, there's what you think I think. And then there's just what I think."


Buddy, that's part of the problem. You don't seem to think at all, which is why you throw out ambiguous comments and then get upset when we (supposedly) read them wrong.
Dirt writes:
on January 20th, 2014 at 3:28:08 AM

I reckon this might be a suprise hit, and set up what Green Lantern wished it did by using the Universe as it's playground.
Džeko writes:
on January 20th, 2014 at 6:04:18 AM

@minkowski
"Jesse Plemons is the guy who looks like the love-child of Matt Damon and Rupert Grint."
Actually he looks like the love-child of Matt Damon and Sloth.
TRUEMAN writes:
on January 20th, 2014 at 8:25:50 AM

@minkowski WHAT about those longs coments, no one reads them man, you only make my fingers get tired scrolling all the way down come on!

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

Marvel Has Contingency Plans In Case It Regains Rights to Superheroes
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved