Fast & Furious 6
The Hangover Part III
RT on DVD & Blu-Ray
Inside Llewyn Davis
Can you fly forward through the air while firing two heavy-duty handguns without your arms jerking back and smacking you in the chin? Would that violate one of Newton's laws? Just askin'.
Yes, one could do so. Newton's third would not magically incapacitate the shooter's triceps and pectorals--the primary muscle groups involved in recoil management.
Nov 17 - 06:07 PM
did u realize before going to watch the movie that its a fictional story? its a movie. you've reviewed movies like the punisher (2004) which i loved, and u loved. you really think frank castle could hold up through that slam through the brickwall during the russian fight? hmm. once again, did u know this is a fictional movie? just askin'.
Nov 20 - 06:49 PM
Now that you have proved your ignorance by criticizing something you know nothing about I will applaud your attempt and use a crayon to explain myself to a senile old man. Those types of handguns are manufactured and developed to have little to no kick involved in firing these handguns. These guns are a little more advanced than the old school .50 magnums of your day old timer. Also I will second both previous comments in the respect that evolving anatomy would easily enable a man of medium stature, muscle coordination exceeding a 12 year old, and of course muscle strength to successfully prohibit the gun from smacking them in the chin. Also in respect to the other comment, this movie is fiction, kind of like every other action film ever made that has impossible, non-feasible situations and actions in which the character is able to manipulate the impossible situation and actually remain alive.If you really want to question anything about that scene it would have to be the ability to jump off the platform with ropes tied to their bodies, and actually not break a bone with the force of gravity and their own body weight and velocity from the fall. You would have an argument then, but as of now you have successfully proved that you know barely anything about what you stated. Good job, do not forget to take your medications tonight old man.
Nov 26 - 11:23 PM
What the hell is an "old school .50 Magnum"? The only caliber I know considered to be a ".50 Magnum" is the .500 S&W Magnum, which is a fairly new round. If you're referring to the Desert Eagle, then that's not a .50 Magnum it's a .50 AE or Action Express. Even if you consider this round to be a .50 Magnum the pistol was introduced in 1996 so not really an "old school pistol" and if so the design between now and then hasn't changed in the least bit unless you consider some models using more titanium which would only increase recoil not lessen it. Furthermore, pistols designed to have little recoil are either extremely heavy or have lesser calibers. Anything chambered in a .50 does not have little recoil. You're pushing a heavy grain bullet at high velocity so of course you're going to have something pushing back at you. So please tell me what you mean by ".50 magnums of your day". What do you mean a hot loaded single shot black powder pistol chambered in .50? Last I checked, not too many of those.With that being said, yes its a movie, enjoy it. Nobody criticizes Transformers for having giant robots or Chuck Norris of being totally gay because its all make believe.
Nov 29 - 07:26 AM
@nghiusProbably just a slip up on Jeff's part, you clearly want to show us your knowledge on guns. But would you not agree with Jeff's statement? A .50 cal like they were using fitted with a stabilizer will not "smack you in the chin."Clearly Ebert is searching for complaints, and proves he knows little about guns. Regardless, he's right, this movie wasn't all that great.
Dec 4 - 10:50 PM
Probably should have put .44 magnum in respect to his age. However the guns used in the movie are the DE Mark XIX 50AE, also you've apparently not fired a low recoil version of a .50 magnum. They are considerably low in recoil compared to the Desert Eagles of 1996 which being almost 14 years ago, is now considered very technologically un-advanced. The shorter, 4in barrels, and recoil vents cut the recoil in half. My fault, should have used a .44 magnum but the design of these guns have changed very much.
Dec 5 - 09:39 AM
Me and Myself
nghisusFirst I would like to say that I am embarrassed that you come from my state take the flag down please. Second the .50 AE is a product of 1988 moron and the .500 Smith and Wesson is from 2003. I have fired many .50 in my life and maybe you just have weak little arms and that is why you think so much of the recoil. On the subject of old school when attention shifted to smaller rounds and smokeless powder was introduced it did not terminate all production of .50 they were just fewer to choose from and very uncommon. Feel free not to jump in and make stuff up in the future.
Mar 11 - 09:53 AM
I hope you didn't go through the movie and take it seriously? The movie itself doesn't take itslef seriously. For me it was a entertaining time at the movies that didn't dissapoint and also there was a ton of dark comide in it. Maybe you just didn't want to enjoy it?
Nov 29 - 05:17 PM
In case you guys did not know, there is an episode of South Park making fun of this "man". Its called "Roger Ebert Should Lay Off the Fatty Foods." Its Season 2, Episode 11. Personally, if you suck so much at life and you end up getting bashed on South Park, your word means nothing in this world.
Dec 6 - 08:08 PM
who cares geeks
Dec 10 - 11:27 PM
Yeah, attack Ebert. 80% of the critics who saw this movie thought it sucked. It was a boring, unoriginal piece of crap that was barely amateur-level work.
Dec 14 - 08:33 PM
Aside from the fact that you couldn't hit a man sized target 3 feet in front of you with so much as a bb gun while falling through the air, this was hardly his point. The point was the movie was predictably horrible. Was any fan of the original really looking forward to the sequal? I think any fan worth his or her salt knew that this over-the-top piece of junk would be the outcome. Unfortunate, but true, at least the way I saw it.
Jan 15 - 01:06 PM
this guy thinks he's so smart but he's just fat
Jan 26 - 07:59 AM
Jan 26 - 03:54 PM
you are all stupid ****s who lack any taste in cinema. thank you. **** off.
Feb 16 - 04:55 PM
Jan 9 - 12:00 AM
I really liked the first movie, but damn, this one was horrible. And now there's people talking about how Roger knows nothing about guns and then others saying it's not supposed to be realistic......to be honest, it doesn't matter what Roger or any NRA moron says about the movie, because it sucked no matter how people try to justify either side. You can't sound smart and try to defend this movie. Despite this, I still want to see the 3rd one, if it happens. Good? No. Entertaining? Maybe. Do I want to see the next one yes. Am I ashamed to say that? No, who cares what you guys think, you're obviously morons who get off to Steven Segal movies.
Mar 10 - 09:00 PM
Worst action movie ever since Ecks Vs Sever. Or the first Boondock Saints.
Apr 1 - 10:33 AM
I don't get it. Why do people like the original? It has no purpose. WTF!?!?!?!
I really hate Troy Duffy.
Jul 15 - 10:06 AM
Troy Duffy is a jackhole, but I loved Boondock Saints & Boondock Saints II All Saints Day. I've given almost all my collection of dvd's away except a few favorites & these 2 movies are keepers. All Saints Day will become a cult favorite too just like the first one.
Jul 30 - 07:51 PM
i have watched this recently, and while the lack of any real story, or a understandable plot. i still enjoyed the movie, i would re watch this a hundred times over before i got and finally rent Avatar for the first time, just my personal opinion
Oct 4 - 06:29 AM
It's action. Besides, if you went and seen the first Boondock Saints and maybe had a brain-cell or two flicker on, you'd know why you are an embarrassment to humanity.
Dec 31 - 08:25 PM
Dec 31 - 08:26 PM
Well after a thoughtful reflection of your article, I decided to write a review of your review, and personally challenge your problem solving and analysis capabilities. Your review states that the film is "idiotic ode to macho horseshite." Let's face it Roger, you're not going to score any brownie points with the ladies on this one. It's OK to admit that you have testosterone sometimes.Also, not every movie is a movie for the purpose of being a director's artistic masturbation full of hidden symbolism and underlying messages.You then go on to dig on Duffy for the documentary on his demeanor and directing throughout the filming."a possibly alcoholic egomaniac"Many great minds had addictions and/or ego problems. SIR Anthony Hopkins, Edgar Allen Poe, Beetoven, Robert Downy Jr, Judy Garland. Just to name a few. Oh, and I forgot to mention Roger Ebert. That's right! You sir, are a recovered alcoholic amiright?Some man you are to belittle a fellow human that may be in the stage of denial.To hell with his problems. He's a director. Let him focus on his job, making movies, and you on yours, bashing them to make yourself look smart.There are numerous flaws in your analysis of the movie which attest to the lack of credibility in your viewing skills. 1./ Newtons first law states that an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.Newtons second law states that force = mass* acceleration. This means that not only would they be able to fire the guns in the air, but with REDUCED recoil. That's right. If the guns were dropping at a rate of 9.81 m/s/s, the blow-back would have to first counter the forward and down motions of the pistol. Hence, reduced recoil.2./ The saints come back to Boston because of the priest being killed. Not because they are upset that someone is "imitating their style!"3./ "There's a lot of pious Roman Catholic iconography, though no one except the beloved executed priest ever goes into a church for purposes other than being murdered. "In the first movie, they are seen going to church multiple times, and you can't exactly walk around in and around high people traffic areas if you're a fugitive.4./ "A quasi religious ceremony...never, ever, stop smoking..."The dream sequence was statement about uncertainty of masculinity in modern times, oh he-who-is-so-against-macho.5./ "four or six handguns, I forget."Its four on the vest in flashbacks and six in modern times. Again, indicating change. Change probably due to trial and error, use, and experience.It seems as though you would have written a better review if this "possibly alcoholic egomaniac" director connected the dots for you.Good day sir.
Mar 10 - 04:40 PM
Have you ever actually FIRED a handgun?! There's not that much kick to them. Besides movies are for fun, there's a whole lot of crap in them, that just doesn't happen in the real world.
Oct 21 - 06:46 PM