HoonDing Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Three Musketeers 1973 - just plain awesome. Three Musketeers 1993 - meh. But Gabrielle Anwar was very pretty as the Queen. Tim Curry as Richelieu was quite entertainingly scene-chewy, along with Rebecca De Mornay's Countess for pretty background.. He played the type of villain he always plays, along with the over-acting. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
LadyCrimson Posted February 6, 2014 Author Posted February 6, 2014 30 Days of Night (2007) - vampire movie. Not Twilight vampires. Was it good? Had a decent concept but no, not really. But, but ... not Twilight vampires! So I still liked it. Plus it has a few people in that was sorta funny to see in a horror movie. Josh Hartnett, Ben Foster ... Danny Huston as the lead vampire was a hoot. “Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts
Hurlshort Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 30 Days of Night (2007) - vampire movie. Not Twilight vampires. Was it good? Had a decent concept but no, not really. But, but ... not Twilight vampires! So I still liked it. Plus it has a few people in that was sorta funny to see in a horror movie. Josh Hartnett, Ben Foster ... Danny Huston as the lead vampire was a hoot. I liked that one, but it was mostly because Josh Hartnett was very fun to watch.
Amentep Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Yeah I thought it was okay. I saw in the theaters. Wasn't a "buy on DVD" but I enjoyed it. I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
sorophx Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 So, I decided to watch The Green Zone again. I find it strange that I seem to be the only one to like it, most of my friends who are into war movies find it boring. In my opinion it's one of the best war thrillers out there, on par with Zero Dark Thirty. Anyway, when I happen to disagree with a group of people on qualities of a certain movie I always look at what Roger Ebert had to say about it. And it turns out he loved it. 4 stars is Ebert's way of saying this movie does something so good it's right up there with the greatest movies. The movie is very entertaining, it grips me and doesn't let go 'til the end credits roll. The plot is built on happy coincidences. An Iraqi civilian who just happens to speak fluent English also happens to bump into one of Saddam's generals on his way to work and 5 minutes later the first American military patrol he sees is the main character's position in Baghdad. What are the chances of that happening? Although, life can be so ironic sometimes, that I can't help but believe in the possibility of something like this happening. Then things unravel so fast you barely get to take a breath. Action scenes are solid, but they're not the center of the movie. It's not like other war movies about Americans. And it's Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass, for god's sake! Think Bourne in Baghdad. Walsingham said: I was struggling to understand ths until I noticed you are from Finland. And having been educated solely by mkreku in this respect I am convinced that Finland essentially IS the wh40k universe.
Volourn Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 Bourne is a boring movie. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
HoonDing Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 What Keira Knightley is doing in this vehicle? Also, Kevin Costner resurfacing again. Ha ha. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
Volourn Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 All of them. I couldn't watch more than a few minutes of the ones I tried to watch. the commericals are boring enough let alone the actual movies. A wannabe Bond that isn't half as good when Bond while alright isn't nowhere as good as people pretend it is. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Walsingham Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 Just watched Iron Man 2. Could have had more shots of Ms Johansson walking away. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.
sorophx Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 oooh, I'm so tempted to post those pics of her where she's walking away from her bathroom mirror Walsingham said: I was struggling to understand ths until I noticed you are from Finland. And having been educated solely by mkreku in this respect I am convinced that Finland essentially IS the wh40k universe.
JFSOCC Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 So, I decided to watch The Green Zone again. I find it strange that I seem to be the only one to like it, most of my friends who are into war movies find it boring. In my opinion it's one of the best war thrillers out there, on par with Zero Dark Thirty. Anyway, when I happen to disagree with a group of people on qualities of a certain movie I always look at what Roger Ebert had to say about it. And it turns out he loved it. 4 stars is Ebert's way of saying this movie does something so good it's right up there with the greatest movies. The movie is very entertaining, it grips me and doesn't let go 'til the end credits roll. The plot is built on happy coincidences. An Iraqi civilian who just happens to speak fluent English also happens to bump into one of Saddam's generals on his way to work and 5 minutes later the first American military patrol he sees is the main character's position in Baghdad. What are the chances of that happening? Although, life can be so ironic sometimes, that I can't help but believe in the possibility of something like this happening. Then things unravel so fast you barely get to take a breath. Action scenes are solid, but they're not the center of the movie. It's not like other war movies about Americans. And it's Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass, for god's sake! Think Bourne in Baghdad. I thought the plot was bad, but the pacing was excellent. It was a bad movie well made, I would say, and as such I enjoyed it. The action was pretty cool, and I liked the alley shots. Remember: Argue the point, not the person. Remain polite and constructive. Friendly forums have friendly debate. There's no shame in being wrong. If you don't have something to add, don't post for the sake of it. And don't be afraid to post thoughts you are uncertain about, that's what discussion is for.---Pet threads, everyone has them. I love imagining Gods, Monsters, Factions and Weapons.
Monte Carlo Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 I watched White House Down simply because I'd seen Olympus Has Fallen late last year. I liked the Independence Day easter egg (Roland Emmerich directs) and the early part of the movie, as well as the villains. Channing Tatum is an engaging action hero and I like the nod to Die Hard with the John McClane vest. James Woods is coolio as usual, I could watch him read a telephone directory. But Jamie Foxx (why the two X's, Jamie, whyyyyy?) puts in a predictably aint-I-cool turn as a wish-fulfilment Obama (how Hollywood loves Obama, it's hilarious fanboi-ism on an epic, slightly gut-churning scale especially seeing as he makes Jimmy Carter look like JFK) and about 2/3 of the way in the whole thing collapses like a poorly-timed souffle. It smears a thick wodge of schmaltz over what should have been an agreeably brain-dead popcorn movie. Some of the action sequences are meh, too. Jamie Foxx should know better. Dammit he was in Django so he can walk-the-walk. So, strangely, Olympus has fallen wins by a whisper despite White House having a better director and actors. 1
LadyCrimson Posted February 9, 2014 Author Posted February 9, 2014 Post limit. Time for a new one. “Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts
Recommended Posts