Game ini merupakan simulasi dalam memperbaiki mobil dimana di dalamnya kita bisa mengganti maupun memperbaiki banyak komponen pada mobil. Komponen - komponen di dalam game ini terlihat sangat detail. Tested di Redmi note, cekidot
Ghosts terrify me. Both the idea of them and the real thing. I firmly believe ("know," really) that I've encountered what I'd have to call ghosts twice in my life. The second encounter was physical (I'm quite certain that it touched me) and was sufficient to send me running into the night like a scared little toddler. This is different, btw, from me saying that I have some solid theory as to exactly "WHAT" a ghost is in a spiritual sense or otherwise; there's simply no other term to describe the phenomena I encountered on these occasions - and no other term to describe my reaction other than abject mortal terror. I am scared of ghosts like I'm scared of no other 'unreal' thing.
As such, bad ghost movies are my LEAST favorite type of bad movie, because they force me into a critical paradox: When it comes to horror movies, the question of whether or not it's "scary" is generally supposed to be an all-powerful measure which can render all other issues moot - if it "works" at scaring you, then clearly the bad acting, directing, etc. didn't "matter," right? Problem is, I'm going to be "scared" by ANY ghost movie, even a bad one, which puts me in the unpleasant position of explaining how a horror film that terrified me was still crappy regardless. So, basically, if you want a four-word review of this film: Scared me, still sucked.
We're in familiar "Amityville" territory, story-wise: A troubled family moves into an old dark house that does EVERYTHING it can to advertise itself as haunted even BEFORE they find out it's an abandoned funeral home (complete with untouched, fully-stocked morgue!) and things start going bump (preceded, of course, by an on-cue drop in the ambient noise) in the night. They need the house because it's close to the hospital where the eldest son is undergoing experimental Cancer treatments, a plot-device which does double-duty at keeping them from moving out AND explaining why people don't believe the kid's visions. Said kid, by the way, is REALLY asking for it: Following a nightmare in which he encounters a specter in the basement, he immediately decides thats where he'll keep his bed. Not the smartest move he'll make.
The "what's going on" is predictable as hell, a half-hearted grab-bag of every haunted house cliche in the book including but not limited to grave-robbing, necromancy, wronged kids, seances, ectoplasm and excuses for the employment of the old spooky-old-timey-photograph routine. For what it's worth, I can safely say the film also employs just about the stupidest excuse for getting the lights all turned out in recent memory. Virginia Madsen plays the mom, while Elias Koteas does what he can in a simply AWFUL role as a fellow cancer patient who AMAZINGLY turns out to be a ghost-busting priest. What're the odds?
Here's one of those movies who's screenplay seems to have come from a writer thumbing through "Us," "People" or some other worthless checkout-counter pablum, reading about pop-culture non-words like "man-date" or "man-cave" and going "A-HA!" I'm not sure if that's where "I Love You Man" came from, but that's what it plays-out like. Is it funny? Sure. But much like the non-words forming it's high-concept, nobody will remember it in a year or less.
Paul Rudd is playing a realtor named Peter who's impending marriage has inadvertently sent him into a mini-crisis - amid his consideration of a "best man," his family and friends point out that he doesn't have (has never had, really) any close male friends; certainly not a "best" one. The reasons for this are easily divined: Peter is the Perfect Boyfriend, a one-man girl-drink-mixin', chick-flick-toleratin', problem-listenin' machine who's dedication to pleasing his ladyfriends has left him without a discernable male social life. Now, the poor guy is seeing pairs of Good Buddies everywhere he looks; so he embarks on a quest to "pick up" some Y-chromosomed compatriots.
So, it's the "formula" of a romantic comedy applied to a story of platonic male friendship. There've been worse ideas. The film is at it's weakest (though still amusing) early on as it name-checks the tropes of "man-dates" and expected gags - with the hysterical exception of Thomas Lennon (your go-to-guy for ambiguous homosexuality) as an "ideal" suitor who's notion of "man-date" is significantly more literal than Peter's. The film get's to it's "point" when Peter meets slovenly uber-masculine slacker Sidney (Jason Segel) and they hit it off... to the point that it starts to cause some friction with Peter's regular fiancee-centric life.
Yes, it's another scion of "Clerks" in which a guy's rocky road to adulthood is impeded, commented-on and (maybe) helped by his wackier best bud. But it's reasonably funny, even if it won't likely be remembered as a high point in anyone's career.
Most "twist" movies are thrillers, aiming to end on a "WHOA!" "Duplicity" is definately a twist-movie, but it's content to end on an modestly-upbeat "Heh." In exchange for the lack of thrills, we get a lot of very talented actors (AND Julia Roberts... ahem...) exchanging witty espionage banter that the film hopes we'll find exponentially funnier through the magic of ironic juxtaposition, i.e. all the skullduggery is between rival cosmetics tycoons.
Roberts and Clive Owen (THE go-to-guy actor when the breakdown calls for "James Bond only not") are a pair of rival spies (formerly CIA and MI6, respectively) who meet-cute again (or do they?) on opposite sides (or are they?) of the hired counter-intel teams for two New York cosmetics barons. One of the CEOs (Tom Wilkinson) is sitting on a secret miracle product (or is he?) sought by his rival (Paul Giamatti.) The pair of spies, who had a prior romantic encounter years ago (or is it ongoing?) hatch a plan to double-cross both sides and make off with the Big Money themselves. The timeline cuts back and forth between the present-plan and the past of the two leads, aiming to keep the audience guessing as to who's been on who's side and for how long.
It's all suitably breezy and well paced, and it's doing it's damndest to recreate the "sophisticated" (read: "detached") couples-sparring that informed oldschool caper/romance flicks like "The Thomas Crowne Affair" or "Charade;" but in the end it's a house of cards stacked entirely too high for the flimsy material said cards are made of... though, it must be said, it MIGHT have helped to not hinge so much of the film on the concept of Julia Roberts as a source of potent sexual power. Nice effort, though.
If you're considering seeing "Knowing," (the new Nicholas Cage movie) I reccomend that you do so AND that you do so immediately without reading any reviews whatsoever. It's a solid, wholly watchable and entertaining thriller; but it's REAL pleasures are in the fact that well more than HALF of it remains magnificiently unspoiled by the trailers - meaning that you here have the rare opportunity to be genuinely gobsmacked by WHERE a major studio movie actually "goes" and "ends up." How often does that happen.
If you've seen the trailers, you know that Cage is playing a college professor who discovers a child's "drawing" of seemingly random numbers inside a 50 year-old Time Capsule recently unearthed; and shortly thereafter discovers that the numbers work out to a pattern that seems to predict the dates of the last 50 years of major disasters... and a few more to come. That's ALL anyone should know going in, if anything. If this does any kind of business this weekend, people are going to be "WTF??"ing about it at every available water cooler all week starting monday, so you might as well get in on it NOW.
Because YOU demanded it, because YOU wanted it, because... eh... THEY were willing to put it up, here's my full video review of the movie everyone will be lying about having seen in theatres and knowing was a classic "the whole time" about a year from now, once again courtesy of the fine folks over at The Escapist:
Once again, PLEASE visit The Escapist's actual site after watching the video. These guys are fighting the good fight, bringing REAL intellectual debate to the geek universe, and they deserve your support: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-presents/622-MovieBob-Reviews-Watchmen
"Watchmen" co-screenwriter (from a draft or two back) and sometime video game voice actor David Hayter had an "open letter" to film fans that's been making the rounds, you can read a good full copy over on AICN: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40409
Basically, he's asking not only Watchmen fans but also detractors, mixed-feelers and even not-carers to go see it (again) this weekend. His reasoning is sound: Hollywood math is all about how hard you drop in the 2nd weekend, and if "Watchmen" takes a Jonas Bros. level tumble in IT'S 2nd weekend the verdict will be in: Only "fanboys" care, you can't make money JUST off them, next time cut it to a PG13, get Beyonce' working on a theme song and hire Bret Ratner. I'm with Hayter on this one - a movie this uncompromising NEEDS to be seen as a success, to encourage more like it to be made.
If you have ANY inclination to see this again, do it today or saturday. Take friends. Spend 7 to 10 bucks, and help make the movie world a better place.
