In one scene, Peter gets into a losing battle with a disabled vet which brings more
shocks than laughs.
Not exact matches
Ficino, with his «natural magic Paracelsus for all his bombast, Giordano Bruno in spite of his «Egyptian» fantasies, did more to advance the concept of the investigation of a regular «Nature»
than many a rational, sensible, Aristotelian scholar who
laughed at their absurdities or shrank from their
shocking conclusions.
Blame The Ring (but not too much; it works for what it is) for the way components from the genre have seeped into the modern horror arena, giving us a bunch of watered - down entries that might be less likely to offend
than their bloody, nihilistic counterparts but usually earn more
laughs than shocks.
It's never
shocking, never anything more
than a chuckle's worth of funny as it struggles to mine some
laughs out of how obnoxious the French are (and isn't the mocker unable to let a mediocre joke die the more obnoxious?)
It's this
shock combo which presumably earned her a Golden Globe nomination alongside Streep, rather
than the much - fancied Anna Kendrick, who makes less of an impression as indecisive Cinders — a part played for tears not
laughs.
If you are not utterly *
shocked * by the shoddy science involved and you attack rather
than inform, with the same old alarmist talking points about peer review (as if Climategate never revealed corruption of peer review), then I
laugh at you since you are quickening your own demise as a person on record forever as being a dupe who couldn't see through what is rapidly becoming a
laughing stock.