- Joined
- Apr 8, 2018
Bob continues to bellyache about a show I have never heard one good word about.

tweeted pics


If you've never seen Cry Macho, don't worry because it sucks. A far too old Eastwood finds companionship with a runaway Mexican kid who cannot act no matter how hard Eastwood glowers at him. There's also a rooster named Macho, it's more dumb than complicated. Even though the movie sucked ass it was still directed by Eastwood. Eastwood, love him or loathe him, has a pedigree with Hollywood that goes back to the 50's and has over 35 directing credits to his name. The directors for Batgirl do not have that. Let's compare, shall we?
Clint's directed movies according to Wikipedia

Clint's top awards according to Wikipedia

And now for the Belgian would be directors of Batgirl, Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah's entire wiki page

They left Beverly Hills Cop 4 which was already going straight to Netflix, to focus on directing Batgirl. LOL. LMAO

Their smile, optimism, gone
Maybe it's because I'm racist and I hate the people to weak to live in France so they became Belgian but I think I see a difference between the two. A studio plays ball with Eastwood because he's Eastwood and they've made a lot money off of him and his work. Curly and Larry make a movie that allegedly test audiences hated so much that it was called "irredeemable". One of these things is not like the other. There's another thing to consider. Cry Macho does suck, I don't recommend anyone watch it unless you got friends to throw popcorn at the screen with, but it only cost a reported $33 million. Batgirl wasn't fully finished, costs somewhere between $70 and $100 million, and was probably, somehow, worse than Morbius, a movie with a reported budget of $75-$83 million and got successfully bullied into a failed second release. One of these things is not like the other.

tweeted pics


If you've never seen Cry Macho, don't worry because it sucks. A far too old Eastwood finds companionship with a runaway Mexican kid who cannot act no matter how hard Eastwood glowers at him. There's also a rooster named Macho, it's more dumb than complicated. Even though the movie sucked ass it was still directed by Eastwood. Eastwood, love him or loathe him, has a pedigree with Hollywood that goes back to the 50's and has over 35 directing credits to his name. The directors for Batgirl do not have that. Let's compare, shall we?
Clint's directed movies according to Wikipedia

Clint's top awards according to Wikipedia

And now for the Belgian would be directors of Batgirl, Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah's entire wiki page

They left Beverly Hills Cop 4 which was already going straight to Netflix, to focus on directing Batgirl. LOL. LMAO

Their smile, optimism, gone
Maybe it's because I'm racist and I hate the people to weak to live in France so they became Belgian but I think I see a difference between the two. A studio plays ball with Eastwood because he's Eastwood and they've made a lot money off of him and his work. Curly and Larry make a movie that allegedly test audiences hated so much that it was called "irredeemable". One of these things is not like the other. There's another thing to consider. Cry Macho does suck, I don't recommend anyone watch it unless you got friends to throw popcorn at the screen with, but it only cost a reported $33 million. Batgirl wasn't fully finished, costs somewhere between $70 and $100 million, and was probably, somehow, worse than Morbius, a movie with a reported budget of $75-$83 million and got successfully bullied into a failed second release. One of these things is not like the other.