If he was that much better (and he was supposed to be), he could have
disarmed her. Or did the sword-breaking sword belong to somebody else? Must watch movie again to confirm.
Now I am off to bed with a frozen kirsch. It had damned well better not be this hot tomorrow.
The sword
breaking sword belonged to Nameless. Disarming her, and then what? She was fighting to the death, probably as many times as it took.
I think I should rent Predator. That movie has two governors in it.
The Daily Show
had a riff on this. The punch line was something like, "so now we'd like to introduce Senator Predator."
I know the president has to be born in the US, but I suppose there's nothing in the law that prohibits an alien being a senator. Although I suppose Senator Predator would have a hard time getting his legislation passed to set up preserves where humans would be hunted.
I'd just like to reiterate that
Jason X
is really really bad and makes no sense. Stay away. Watch
Freddy vs. Jason
instead, if you must.
Or Nightmare on Elm Street or Nightmare on Elm Street 2 or Friday the Thirteenth or Friday the Thirteenth 2. One of the GOOD movies from those franchises.
You know?
Jason X takes place on a space station or something, but it still has stupid teenagers for Jason fodder, right?
Jason X takes place on a space station or something, but it still has stupid teenagers for Jason fodder, right?
Stupid, sex-crazed teenagers, yes. They're on a space ship, and the teens are students...of something. Jason is woken up by, I kid you not, rampant teenage hormones. The sex reaches climax and Jason gets up and is all, "Teenagers are having sex! I MUST KILL THEM!"
Or Nightmare on Elm Street or Nightmare on Elm Street 2 or Friday the Thirteenth or Friday the Thirteenth 2. One of the GOOD movies from those franchises.
The only Jason movie I've seen is Friday the Thrirteenth Part III in 3-D. I only remember two scenes: One in which an eyeball pops out straight towards the audience (enhanced by the 3-D effect) and the other in which a joint is passed straight to the audience (people reached for it).
I've never seen any of the Nightmare movies, despite having the same last name as the killer.
Also, the writer can't do math.
The movie is set in 2455.
Characters specifically mention years
beyond
2000 as the setting of the prologue. 2010, in fact.
2455 is described as "455 years in the future, to be exact."
ETA: Okay, this "review" is awesome:
So far, the Voorhees Hypothesis has not ventured into wholly unexplainable territory, even for Hollywood. Yet, its sixth installment offers interchangeable teenage variables digging up Voorhees (a completely irrational act, even by the standards of the Craven Theorems). The seventh involves underwater telekinetic powers, which defies the superiority of the rational mind in the real, physical world. And in the eighth, it is proffered that Voorhees can somehow "take" Manhattan, though this seems somewhat plausible, considering that in the ninth, Voorhees supersedes Einstein's fourth dimensional conjecture, thus, he "Goes to Hell."