Watching Ebert and Roeper over the weekend, it was funny when Ebert gave it two thumbs up and Roeper laughed his ass off all through Ebert’s review.
Didn’t see it, but I had to snort at the “cool kids” who insisted on peeling out of the parking lot afterwards, only to stop at a red light behind a mini-van mom. Then they felt the need to tear around the lot, narrowly missing telephone poles. :rolleyes:
If you want to make your car fast, that’s fine by me. Just don’t act like an idiot. And what’s the point of having glowy lights under your car? Is that so if you hit someone their teeth will glow?
Re: your choice of website. I prefer Laugh@Rice, personally. I feel it’s more effective if there’s someone in the photo actually laughing at the goofy mod.
It’s quite possible to distinguish Japanese from Koreans from Chinese. There are certain archetypical characteristics that, while not universal, are quite common.
One thumb. It’s only "two thumbs up"™ if both recommend the movie.
As I mentioned the dialogue is embarrassingly bad, especially in the first fifteen minutes. (“How about…me? Winner gets me?”) OMFG. My eyes rolled so hard they fell into my popcorn.
Go for the cars, stay for the girls, but don’t listen to the dialogue. Maybe when it comes out on DVD I’ll watch it with the sound turned to Spanish or something. I’m not surprised Roeper was laughing.
As far as neon underbody lighting, it’s there to make a car look distinctive. It’s all part of a certain aesthetic. I don’t subscribe to this particular aesthetic, but it’s no different than lowrider culture or that of big trucks with giant wheels or old muscle cars with fuzzy dice.
I watch them for the bad dialogue. I hope there’s just as much of it in this one as in the other two.
“I live my life a quater mile at a time”? Funkin’ GOLD.
Did you see the ending credits for Pixar’s Cars? The ricers get pwned. 
</hijack>