Amentep

And they still did a second movie and short lived TV show after that... But I imagine that they'd be happy with 4-5 seasons, to be honest.

Ah, somehow the Criterion Blu ray passed me by....

Curious as to which version you watched, Bartimaeus? There's a 142 minute, a 132 minute, and a 94 minute cut of the film. Notoriously meddled with back in the day by Embassy International and Universal (I think the 132 min version is the only one out on Blu).

I'll watch it eventually when I'm able. Its been on my "want to watch" list since it was announced (huge fan of the original movie).

There are 4 current zombie TV shows I can think of off the top of my head (and excluding Ash vs The Evil Dead since Deadites are really their own thing) - Walking Dead Fear the Walking Dead iZombie ZNation There were, I think, 14 zombie movies released last year; this year TRAIN TO BUSAN has almost made $100 million worldwide. Besides the last RE installment, there's still plans to do World War Z 2. Doesn't seem dead to me...

InXile (Hunted: The Demon Forge), Behaviour Interactive aka Artificial Mind & Movement (WET), Mad Doc Software (Star Trek, bought by Rockstar), Headfirst (Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth, went bankrupt)? InXile's already on the list after Obsid. Couldn't forget Brian, after all, especially in a thread started by his arch nemesis. If I only missed three I'm pretty pleased, though I should have had remembered Mad Doc since I knew a couple of people who worked there from Looking Glass/ Irrational. Can't see how I missed that you had InXile there since it was the first one I looked for.

InXile (Hunted: The Demon Forge), Behaviour Interactive aka Artificial Mind & Movement (WET), Mad Doc Software (Star Trek, bought by Rockstar), Headfirst (Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth, went bankrupt)?

In other news, Romero tell kids to "get off my lawn". I kid, I kid; Romero's entitled to his opinion, and its got to be a bitter pill to swallow to see the obvious descendants of your work transcend same. But if all the really lousy zombie pictures (and good ones) that plagued the drive-in and multiplex in the wake of NotLD didn't kill zombies, its highly doubtful any new iteration will. The sub-genre might take a sabbatical, but it won't be dead-dead.

Lets see... THE NIGHT STALKER (1972) - First TV film to feature Darren McGavin as Carl Kolchak, newspaper writer. In this one he's attempting to rehabilitate his career after being drummed out of the major newspaper cities in Las Vegas when he's assigned to cover a series of murders. The more facts he gets, the more convinced he is that a vampire is killing people - but no one will believe him. He's proven right but kicked out of town by the government who refuses to admit what happened. This is a fun 70s horror tv movie, with all the hallmarks of the classic Dan Curtis productions. Skorzeny's rampage escape through a hospital after he's caught stealing blood is an exciting highlight. THE NIGHT STRANGLER (1973) - Kolchak returns, this time in Seattle, trying to get a new job as a super strong murderer starts killing women. Kolchak manages to get a job (thanks to horror vet John Carridine in a small role) and once assigned to the case begins finding connections to other murders that happen every 21 years. Seatle is a big star (and its underground). Jo Ann Pflug is a good foil to McGavin's always working the angles Kolchak (better, IMO, than Carol Lynley in the first film). Richard Anderson, as the killer, gets more acting time than Barry Atwater did as Skorzeny. VOODOO MAN (1944) - Bela Lugosi is a doctor experimenting with black magic to bring his wife back from a "living dead" state. To do so he tries to transfer the life force of kidnapped young women to his wife, but each failure leaves both the wife and young women in zombified states. Wanda McKay and Tod Andrew's characters investigate when McKay's characters cousin goes missing. Typical programmer from Monogram it moves fast and the cast (McKay, Andrews, Lugosi, John Carridine and George Zucco) enliven the proceedings. THE LOST CONTINENT (1968) - Hammer went on a spree adapting Dennis Wheatley novels. This one, adapted from a 1934 novel, involves a ship that runs afoul of an area of monsters and entrapped ships ruled over by the descendants of the survivors of a ship from the Spanish Inquisition. It starts a bit like a disaster film, spending a lot of the time with the characters and their mini dramas, then everything goes to pot in a bit hurricane which acts like the climax of a disaster film. When the survivors end up stranded in their mysterious, monster filled Sargasso Sea-like area the film jumps into hyperdrive, making it feel like the move realized it had 20 minute to adapt the last half of a book. Its not bad, but the ending is abrupt and a lot of questions are left unanswered by the end,

Beerandbackagain.com VeniVidiBibi.com Beercanchangethenatureofman.com Beerchoiceandconsequences.com Goforthebeerboogoforthebeerraaaagh.com

The whole movie "Stalker" on youtube? While i certainly don't mind it, but how did that happen? Did the copyright end? Or does the distributor just don't care? As near as I can tell (not being Russian and having to rely on translators) that link is to Mosfilms' official youtube site. So it appears the production company/copyright owner posted it.

I forgot what the last thing I posted here was so a few recent ones - THE DAY THE EARTH CAUGHT FIRE (1961) - Nice doomsday scenario where the US and USSR manage to throw the earth out of orbit with simultaneous nuclear blasts. A paen to the old days of newspaper journalism as we see what happens through the prisim of a newsroom and one of its key reporters. QUATERMASS XPERIMENT (1955) - Professor Quatermass sends a rocket to space. Things do go well and the ship crashes. Then things go worse. The start of Hammer pursuing horror titles is still effective at being creepy (helped by the source material, I'm sure). THE EARTH DIES SCREAMING (1964) A handful of people meet at a small town. Everyone seems to have died mysteriously. Then strange creatures show up and the dead begin to walk. Better than its reputation (IMO), it has a small scope and tells its story well. The movie predicts, in a way as it most likely draws from the same sources, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD with their survivalist storytelling, walking dead, and arguments over what will keep them surviving - keeping running or taking up a defensible position.

The vehicles used in THE THING were two Bombardier Skidozers, a Catepillar D3 B, Thiokol IMP. a Thiokol Spryte and an LMC Imp. There's two likely scenarios for their use - they were either procured from a company that leases vehicles to films or from the company themselves. If from the company itself, it was done for consideration that the items would get screen time to show what they do (IIRC the Bombardier's would be the most likely in this case, I think they actually get much of the screen time, but I may be misremembering).

Strange Brew should be out - besides the movie its also the name of a home brew supply company. Beertopia is the name of a couple of local festivals and a store Hop Common is a beer made by Peekskill Brewery I'd go with Hop History as well. Maybe even brand it with a latin subtitle, Humulus Lupulus Historiarum or something to seem extra historic.

Nah, the computer was an Apple II computer, but it didn't have any apple branding as it was a fictional "Chess Wizard" with voice announcing. J&B Rare Blend scotch that MacReady pours into it was real, though.

Pretty sure that Carpenter's The Thing does have product placement; I seem to recall them showing the beer they're drinking fairly prominently and its a real brand. Possibly some other day-to-day items in the break room / kitchen. Been awhile since I saw it so my memory could be cheating, but atm I can't find conclusive evidence one way or the other. It'd have been rare for a relatively big budget film of the time done by a major studio (Universal) to not have some kind of product placement, no matter how minor. Not since the 2011 prequel film, The Thing.

The victim says that was not how she behaved. Hillary's affidavit is her swearing to the court she was told those things, so either she was told those things (whether the person telling lied or not) or she lied to the court under oath (cue discussions of later Hillary activities, I'm sure! ). Ultimately the motion never got reviewed in court (again as near as I can tell) so there doesn't appear to be any real determination in regards to veracity. Regardless a defense attorney is legally able to challenge witnesses testimony and to test evidence on behalf of their client, so again while I don't like a lot of what Hillary has done in government in modern days, I can't fault her in this case for...well...being a defense attorney.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-post-publishes-fact-check-on-rape-victims-story/article/2604360 As I understand it, Clinton gave this affidavit of information provided to her as part of a motion for the court to require a psychiatric evaluation be done for the girl. Which, obviously, would be something you'd want to have happen if you'd been told things that might put into question the truthfulness of the accuser's story. As to it not "being allowed" in court, as near as I can tell, the defendant took a plea deal with the prosecution before the request ever got considered by the judge (at least the documents that are being used pro- and con- this issue online don't seem to have a ruling from the judge one way or the other on the motion that I, non-lawyer, can tell). Again nothing I've seen here seems out of step with the idea of trying to give the client the best defense possible

volo are you going to constantly make this inaccurate and scurrilous accusation and never produce any links to support your view? Do you not ever feel you should try to support these types of comments? Dude, you were given the links to the whole story like two weeks ago. This is why Gary Johnson stopped smoking pot. To be fair, the links provided didn't say she laughed at the rape victim; she laughed when remembering a scenario where she lost faith in lie-detector tests (which, lets face it, are unreliable) as part of her job (which she didn't take on under her own judgement but as court appointed council for the defense) to provide the most complete defense to her client she could do within her power. I understand the appeal to emotion that "OMGZ, Hillz defended a rapist! And then laughed (years later)!" gives. I understand that Hillary may have even felt her client was guilty - but as a lawyer her client was entitled to the best defense she could offer. That's the way the US Judicial process is supposed to be. She's not obligated to character assassinate the child victim though. If you're referring to her presenting the defense that the alleged victim fancied older men and couldn't differentiate between fantasy and reality, then it still falls under the "best defense she could offer" if the claim was one that could be substantiated in the court (which apparently it could, since it was allowed in the trial) I'm no fan of Hillary, but I can't fault her for doing her job to the best of her ability as required by her status as an agent of the court. And criminal law isn't always pleasant.

volo are you going to constantly make this inaccurate and scurrilous accusation and never produce any links to support your view? Do you not ever feel you should try to support these types of comments? Dude, you were given the links to the whole story like two weeks ago. This is why Gary Johnson stopped smoking pot. To be fair, the links provided didn't say she laughed at the rape victim; she laughed when remembering a scenario where she lost faith in lie-detector tests (which, lets face it, are unreliable) as part of her job (which she didn't take on under her own judgement but as court appointed council for the defense) to provide the most complete defense to her client she could do within her power. I understand the appeal to emotion that "OMGZ, Hillz defended a rapist! And then laughed (years later)!" gives. I understand that Hillary may have even felt her client was guilty - but as a lawyer her client was entitled to the best defense she could offer. That's the way the US Judicial process is supposed to be.

That's actually one of my favorite scenes in games in general. I look the clip up on YouTube occasionally just to revisit the moment. Although they drive the scene better than I did. lol. There's a scene in SAINTS ROW 2 that really transcended for me, when The Boss is drugged and the Sons of Samedi kidnap them/attack the base. The character I was playing, plus the voice set I'd chosen made the scenario attack both gripping and daft at the same time. You weaving around on drugs shooting up badguys before finally tripping over a couch after the fight. It sealed me as a fan of the game. Truly hated they changed the voice sets in SRIV since the one I was using wasn't there anymore. On a totally different note, when I played Dragon's Dogma I spent a lot of time exploring. I loved going out at night with a lamp on and how it changed the ambience. But one thing is I saw walking around a waterfall - games had taught me that secret stuff can be hidden behind them, so I walked up and...there was a cave that led to a temple. Wandering around the temple I got into a fight with a cyclops. Couldn't get far because I hadn't even gotten the quest to go to the temple yet. But it really made the exploration work for me, finding that cave and that cyclops.

I'm playing Titan Quest Anniversary Edition. I had to start over because I realized I'd recreated my old character and was wanting to try something new.

At that link, the first picture related to Anita Hill is in association to a donated pin; the second appears to be related to a photograph (that I should mention isn't listed on the website holdings) and trying to contextualize the event within a historical context. So yes, they talk about people, but in a way that relates them to their history. Right now - yes - it seems that they think that the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings are best contextualized in context of bringing social issues to the forefront of the conversation rather than in the context of the second African-American Supreme Court Justice. But again I'd be interested in knowing - did they ask Thomas directly for a donation (and did he refuse) and, if not, why not and did anyone try to voluntarily donate anything related to him and was actually refused to have it accepted? Because at the end of the day if all you have are items that represent Anita Hill, and your museum is designed to use those items to explain history, then Anita Hill is going to dominate the conversation.

That would be pretty bizarre. Although he is still serving, so he might not fit the criteria for an exhibit. Is there an Obama exhibit? It would be interesting if they managed to get a reason out of the museum, instead of just relying on conjecture. There are also plenty of other conservatives in recent government posts, so if this really were a political issue, I'd imagine Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell would also be snubbed. They don't really have exhibits - as I understand it - on people. The items related to Obama (First Lady's Dress worn to the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, a "Librarians for Obama" pin, a portrait of Obama, etc) would be in the exhibition of post 1968 history, I believe. A search of their holdings show nothing connected to "Clarence Thomas", "Condoleezza Rice" or "Colin Powell". That said the only item associated with Anita Hill is a donated pin with "I belive Anita" on it. When they create the exhibits, they can only do so with what they actually have in their holdings, so the obvious question I'd have about this potential snub is did anyone try to donate items related to Justice Thomas and the museum refused the donation? Or is this a case of not spending time on someone that they have nothing in the collection to relate his story to? A lot of questions to ask on this one, I think, before leaping to "libruls".

Most stuff I watched on videotape until about 2007 or so because of work or school keeping me busy nights.