Then you're right. This movie was bullshit. Easy to predict. Full of patterns. We thought this would be a bad movie, and so we bought it and watched it so that we could laugh at it. Pathetic. As Nietzsche once said, "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." And if you think about it, he's right.
So you thought that we thought this was a bad movie? Well, you're wrong. We knew that you'd think we thought it was bad, so we deliberately wrote the above review to lure you into a false sense of security. Do you know how to pick a lock? Kevin Kangas doesn't.
Naw, we're just joking. This movie sucked. We thought that it would be funny if you thought that we thought that it was funny that we wrote a good review and tried to obfuscate it under a good one. And that's funny. Actually, we have no idea what that means.
-But seriously, though.... Hunting Humans is a perfect storm of badness. Is it the poor script or the poor delivery of lines that makes them so hilarious? Is it the art school reject camera shots or the Nine Inch Nails ripoff soundtrack that makes the scene so corny? Did Kevin Kangas deliberately produce a movie that's so bad it's good, or did he really just produce a bad movie that ended up being good? Or does he already know that we think he's produced a deliberately bad movie so really he actually just produced a bad one? It's hard to isolate exactly what it is, but apparently if you do enough things wrong in producing a film, it is possible to come out on the other side of pure genius.
Yeah, so, it was bad, but bad in that "so bad it's good kind of way." I mean, we liked it. Anyone could like this movie. Accountants. People who like pickles. Private investigators. You never know who might like a movie. I mean, for that matter, you never know who might write a positive review about a movie. It could be anyone. I mean, ANYONE could write a review. Anyone could type in www.IMDb.com, sign up using a bunk e-mail address, verify the IMDb link at that bunk e-mail address, click on "post a comment", and write a comment- -positive or negative. ANYONE could write a positive review. But.... you wouldn't know what we're talking about.
And if you think about it, there are a lot more people out there like that than you think. P. T. Barnum once said, "There's a sucker born every minute." And if you think about it, he's right.
No, really, This is an awesome movie. We're just employing a method of postmodern criticism, tied in some manner to the aesthetic-narrative decisions inherent in the film's script, to write a review that is, hopefully, appropriate to Kangas's vision. Rick Ganz may have two less vowels in his name than his character does, but man can he simmer like a spring teapot.
So now do you think that we think that you think that we think this is a bad movie? Good. I've hidden 18 guns behind every bush in this small forested area. Arrivederci, you proletarians.
So you thought that we thought this was a bad movie? Well, you're wrong. We knew that you'd think we thought it was bad, so we deliberately wrote the above review to lure you into a false sense of security. Do you know how to pick a lock? Kevin Kangas doesn't.
Naw, we're just joking. This movie sucked. We thought that it would be funny if you thought that we thought that it was funny that we wrote a good review and tried to obfuscate it under a good one. And that's funny. Actually, we have no idea what that means.
-But seriously, though.... Hunting Humans is a perfect storm of badness. Is it the poor script or the poor delivery of lines that makes them so hilarious? Is it the art school reject camera shots or the Nine Inch Nails ripoff soundtrack that makes the scene so corny? Did Kevin Kangas deliberately produce a movie that's so bad it's good, or did he really just produce a bad movie that ended up being good? Or does he already know that we think he's produced a deliberately bad movie so really he actually just produced a bad one? It's hard to isolate exactly what it is, but apparently if you do enough things wrong in producing a film, it is possible to come out on the other side of pure genius.
Yeah, so, it was bad, but bad in that "so bad it's good kind of way." I mean, we liked it. Anyone could like this movie. Accountants. People who like pickles. Private investigators. You never know who might like a movie. I mean, for that matter, you never know who might write a positive review about a movie. It could be anyone. I mean, ANYONE could write a review. Anyone could type in www.IMDb.com, sign up using a bunk e-mail address, verify the IMDb link at that bunk e-mail address, click on "post a comment", and write a comment- -positive or negative. ANYONE could write a positive review. But.... you wouldn't know what we're talking about.
And if you think about it, there are a lot more people out there like that than you think. P. T. Barnum once said, "There's a sucker born every minute." And if you think about it, he's right.
No, really, This is an awesome movie. We're just employing a method of postmodern criticism, tied in some manner to the aesthetic-narrative decisions inherent in the film's script, to write a review that is, hopefully, appropriate to Kangas's vision. Rick Ganz may have two less vowels in his name than his character does, but man can he simmer like a spring teapot.
So now do you think that we think that you think that we think this is a bad movie? Good. I've hidden 18 guns behind every bush in this small forested area. Arrivederci, you proletarians.
Tell Your Friends