QUOTE(Pavement Ist Rad @ Jun 3 2007, 04:22 AM) [snapback]386156[/snapback]
... until that voiceover finally sealed the deal. WTF, Spielberg?
Straight from the book.
Full Version: Now Playing
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206
Straight from the book.
That's what I figured. But still, it seemed really out of place.
Okay, he throws the grenade into one of the aliens and people are saved and the alien dies. That's fine. But then suddenly all the other ones start dying off and it's like, "Oh, yeah, these aren't a problem anymore, whee." Was that how it was in the book? Earlier in the film, they said that they already killed several in Osaka, so wouldn't it make sense that if you kill one, it doesn't necessarily mean all the others are weakened? Because that's not what happened with Osaka? See???? So then suddenly Cruise is in Boston! And he shows up at his ex-wife's house and she's completely okay! And his son is there! What happened to him going off to kill the aliens??? Why is everything just suddenly okay now? And then that voiceover comes on and cuts everything off... I respect that it's from the book, but put into the film, it makes the whole thing seem like a big fucking joke, and I doubt that that's what was intended.
Tim Robbins, though... he brought the lolz.
"Do you miss your mommy???"
Okay, he throws the grenade into one of the aliens and people are saved and the alien dies. That's fine. But then suddenly all the other ones start dying off and it's like, "Oh, yeah, these aren't a problem anymore, whee." Was that how it was in the book? Earlier in the film, they said that they already killed several in Osaka, so wouldn't it make sense that if you kill one, it doesn't necessarily mean all the others are weakened? Because that's not what happened with Osaka? See???? So then suddenly Cruise is in Boston! And he shows up at his ex-wife's house and she's completely okay! And his son is there! What happened to him going off to kill the aliens??? Why is everything just suddenly okay now? And then that voiceover comes on and cuts everything off... I respect that it's from the book, but put into the film, it makes the whole thing seem like a big fucking joke, and I doubt that that's what was intended.
Tim Robbins, though... he brought the lolz.
"Do you miss your mommy???"
Ikiru by Akira Kurosawa
very good
interesting devision of the plot, i though. and the whole bureaucracy issue tied in pretty well with the film's main theme.
Your training begins tomorrow, at the crack of noon.
Dio coming out of the poster was the best thing ever.
I know at least somebody who looks like pretty much everyone in this movie.
^ Still a great flick. Can't wait for the sequel, Porno.
Today, I saw Shrek the Third. Dunno why, really. I just wanted to get outta the house. And, yeah, it was pretty weak. At least the background animations were fantastic to watch - I intentionally spaced out on 99% of the, um, plot?
Also, had to kill time to stay awake. Don't ask. But I finally watched:
American Psycho
I remember reading this book ages ago, and found it annoying to get thru the extended lists of then-popular fashion items in search of a story. Wasn't a huge fan, but it certainly left an impression. So, years later, I finally get to see the film. Huh. Not bad, actually. Moves better than the book in spots, some really cool scenes near the end, but I was really hoping to see the "This is not an exit" from the original text.
Lil Pimp
Well, what can I say? William Shatner as a corrupt mayor. Still, I think I stopped watching about 10 minutes in. Shoulda stuck with Get Smart for my late-night brainless viewing.
Today, I saw Shrek the Third. Dunno why, really. I just wanted to get outta the house. And, yeah, it was pretty weak. At least the background animations were fantastic to watch - I intentionally spaced out on 99% of the, um, plot?
Also, had to kill time to stay awake. Don't ask. But I finally watched:
American Psycho
I remember reading this book ages ago, and found it annoying to get thru the extended lists of then-popular fashion items in search of a story. Wasn't a huge fan, but it certainly left an impression. So, years later, I finally get to see the film. Huh. Not bad, actually. Moves better than the book in spots, some really cool scenes near the end, but I was really hoping to see the "This is not an exit" from the original text.
Lil Pimp
Well, what can I say? William Shatner as a corrupt mayor. Still, I think I stopped watching about 10 minutes in. Shoulda stuck with Get Smart for my late-night brainless viewing.
Shrek the Third
more like Shrek the Turd (no such thing as a good pun)
This used to be an amusing franchise, not any more. My daughter laughed a few times at the fart jokes, but good god it was awful.
The good news is 4 is coming out in '10
and the Puss movie in 2009.
Autumn Sonata by Ingmar Bergman
not bad
unusual ending in that film for bergman's style.
da vinci code
I don't really want to talk about it but I feel I must for some reason. The book is pretty much fluff which seemed to grow with more and more hype to the point where the author who made this up has gone the route via 'L Ron' and started to believe it's real. (or so I've heard) while Opie has done more than proved his capacity for directing. the book pretty much lends itself to being converted to the screen pretty easily and running at two and half hours I'm already scratching my head about whether it was worth loosing sleep over, to stay up and watch a flick that is about as mindless as watching re-runs.
I'd just as well be with the highway patrol at an accident site... move along-there's nothing to see here...
QUOTE(held @ Jun 4 2007, 10:15 AM) [snapback]386652[/snapback]
da vinci code
I don't really want to talk about it but I feel I must for some reason. The book is pretty much fluff which seemed to grow with more and more hype to the point where the author who made this up has gone the route via 'L Ron' and started to believe it's real. (or so I've heard) while Opie has done more than proved his capacity for directing. the book pretty much lends itself to being converted to the screen pretty easily and running at two and half hours I'm already scratching my head about whether it was worth loosing sleep over, to stay up and watch a flick that is about as mindless as watching re-runs.
I'd just as well be with the highway patrol at an accident site... move along-there's nothing to see here...
You should have watched this
da vinci load
The plot makes about as much sense, but who cares? they're making the sexy-time!
QUOTE(AFTERSHOCK @ Jun 1 2007, 05:36 PM) [snapback]385821[/snapback]
QUOTE(Biggie McSmalls @ Jun 1 2007, 03:31 PM) [snapback]385702[/snapback]
QUOTE(AFTERSHOCK @ May 30 2007, 03:52 PM) [snapback]383932[/snapback]
Life On Mars
We started watching this on BBC America and really loved it, but for some reason only caught the first two episodes.
Good to see it's out on DVD.
Unfortunately, it's only available in region 2 format. Due to music licensing, I doubt it'll survive the transition to region 1 without sacrificing the killer soundtrack (hints of WKRP on DVD, anyone?).
Finally saw this. Not as blown away as I had hoped, but still pretty great.
yeah i wasnt really blown away by Children of Men either.
i also got from Netflix recently
Fast Food Nation....... alright
Hostel.... very impressed. Great movie for its genre
Alpha Dog ..... liked it. good casting
i also got from Netflix recently
Fast Food Nation....... alright
Hostel.... very impressed. Great movie for its genre
Alpha Dog ..... liked it. good casting
QUOTE(TJENZ @ Jun 4 2007, 07:24 AM) [snapback]386570[/snapback]
Shrek the Third
more like Shrek the Turd (no such thing as a good pun)
This used to be an amusing franchise, not any more. My daughter laughed a few times at the fart jokes, but good god it was awful.
The good news is 4 is coming out in '10
I had to take my nieces to see this on Saturday. The highlight for me was when I had to take a shit about midway through the flick, which killed about 10 minutes.
The one thing that truly stunned me is that Donkey was barely in the film. He's always been the funniest part of the series, and here he was barely even a supporting character and had no vested interest in the plot. I gotta wonder whether: Meyer's ego got in the way, Eddie Murphy was phoning it in; or it was just crappy writing.
QUOTE(nobodies @ Jun 4 2007, 05:37 PM) [snapback]387074[/snapback]
The one thing that truly stunned me is that Donkey was barely in the film. He's always been the funniest part of the series, and here he was barely even a supporting character and had no vested interest in the plot. I gotta wonder whether: Meyer's ego got in the way, Eddie Murphy was phoning it in; or it was just crappy writing.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.
QUOTE(Slackmo @ Jun 4 2007, 05:38 PM) [snapback]387075[/snapback]
QUOTE(nobodies @ Jun 4 2007, 05:37 PM) [snapback]387074[/snapback]
it was just crappy writing.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.
Agreed.
Sorry but the 'Shrek' movies have always sucked. Soulless turds that epitomize the worst aspects of 'hip' childrens films:
1. Celebrity voices in lieu of actual characterization? Check.
2. Cheap nudges masquerading as satire? Check.
3. Hoary 'Be Yourself' message borrowed from 1 * 10 to the 25th power other movies?
And Check.
1. Celebrity voices in lieu of actual characterization? Check.
2. Cheap nudges masquerading as satire? Check.
3. Hoary 'Be Yourself' message borrowed from 1 * 10 to the 25th power other movies?
And Check.
Excellent film.
QUOTE(Tony @ Jun 4 2007, 11:53 PM) [snapback]387282[/snapback]
Sorry but the 'Shrek' movies have always sucked. Soulless turds that epitomize the worst aspects of 'hip' childrens films:
1. Celebrity voices in lieu of actual characterization? Check.
2. Cheap nudges masquerading as satire? Check.
3. Hoary 'Be Yourself' message borrowed from 1 * 10 to the 25th power other movies?
And Check.
1. Celebrity voices in lieu of actual characterization? Check.
2. Cheap nudges masquerading as satire? Check.
3. Hoary 'Be Yourself' message borrowed from 1 * 10 to the 25th power other movies?
And Check.
Lighten up, Francis. Stop treating everything like your community college Film 101 midterm.
QUOTE(Slackmo @ Jun 5 2007, 04:10 AM) [snapback]387396[/snapback]
QUOTE(Tony @ Jun 4 2007, 11:53 PM) [snapback]387282[/snapback]
Sorry but the 'Shrek' movies have always sucked. Soulless turds that epitomize the worst aspects of 'hip' childrens films:
1. Celebrity voices in lieu of actual characterization? Check.
2. Cheap nudges masquerading as satire? Check.
3. Hoary 'Be Yourself' message borrowed from 1 * 10 to the 25th power other movies?
And Check.
1. Celebrity voices in lieu of actual characterization? Check.
2. Cheap nudges masquerading as satire? Check.
3. Hoary 'Be Yourself' message borrowed from 1 * 10 to the 25th power other movies?
And Check.
Lighten up, Francis. Stop treating everything like your community college Film 101 midterm.
the best thing about Tony is he acts like he is THE expert on film, but can't be bothered to rank his fav movies in our polls.
QUOTE(TJENZ @ Jun 5 2007, 07:31 AM) [snapback]387419[/snapback]
QUOTE(Slackmo @ Jun 5 2007, 04:10 AM) [snapback]387396[/snapback]
QUOTE(Tony @ Jun 4 2007, 11:53 PM) [snapback]387282[/snapback]
Sorry but the 'Shrek' movies have always sucked. Soulless turds that epitomize the worst aspects of 'hip' childrens films:
1. Celebrity voices in lieu of actual characterization? Check.
2. Cheap nudges masquerading as satire? Check.
3. Hoary 'Be Yourself' message borrowed from 1 * 10 to the 25th power other movies?
And Check.
1. Celebrity voices in lieu of actual characterization? Check.
2. Cheap nudges masquerading as satire? Check.
3. Hoary 'Be Yourself' message borrowed from 1 * 10 to the 25th power other movies?
And Check.
Lighten up, Francis. Stop treating everything like your community college Film 101 midterm.
the best thing about Tony is he acts like he is THE expert on film, but can't be bothered to rank his fav movies in our polls.
Thanks! That's what I also feel is my best trait.
QUOTE(Tony @ Jun 4 2007, 11:53 PM) [snapback]387282[/snapback]
Sorry but the 'Shrek' movies have always sucked. Soulless turds that epitomize the worst aspects of 'hip' childrens films:
1. Celebrity voices in lieu of actual characterization? Check.
2. Cheap nudges masquerading as satire? Check.
3. Hoary 'Be Yourself' message borrowed from 1 * 10 to the 25th power other movies?
And Check.
1. Celebrity voices in lieu of actual characterization? Check.
2. Cheap nudges masquerading as satire? Check.
3. Hoary 'Be Yourself' message borrowed from 1 * 10 to the 25th power other movies?
And Check.
You shouldn't knock Shrek 1 for doing everything you listed well. But you can knock it for inspiring all the other lesser movies that have followed in its stead.
Fitzcarraldo by Werner Herzog
impressive but kind of boring.
QUOTE(agrimorfee @ Jun 5 2007, 10:26 AM) [snapback]387532[/snapback]
QUOTE(Tony @ Jun 4 2007, 11:53 PM) [snapback]387282[/snapback]
Sorry but the 'Shrek' movies have always sucked. Soulless turds that epitomize the worst aspects of 'hip' childrens films:
1. Celebrity voices in lieu of actual characterization? Check.
2. Cheap nudges masquerading as satire? Check.
3. Hoary 'Be Yourself' message borrowed from 1 * 10 to the 25th power other movies?
And Check.
1. Celebrity voices in lieu of actual characterization? Check.
2. Cheap nudges masquerading as satire? Check.
3. Hoary 'Be Yourself' message borrowed from 1 * 10 to the 25th power other movies?
And Check.
You shouldn't knock Shrek 1 for doing everything you listed well. But you can knock it for inspiring all the other lesser movies that have followed in its stead.
I know it has a lot of fans but I thought it was third rate from the start.
QUOTE(TJENZ @ Jun 5 2007, 07:31 AM) [snapback]387419[/snapback]
QUOTE(Slackmo @ Jun 5 2007, 04:10 AM) [snapback]387396[/snapback]
QUOTE(Tony @ Jun 4 2007, 11:53 PM) [snapback]387282[/snapback]
Sorry but the 'Shrek' movies have always sucked. Soulless turds that epitomize the worst aspects of 'hip' childrens films:
1. Celebrity voices in lieu of actual characterization? Check.
2. Cheap nudges masquerading as satire? Check.
3. Hoary 'Be Yourself' message borrowed from 1 * 10 to the 25th power other movies?
And Check.
1. Celebrity voices in lieu of actual characterization? Check.
2. Cheap nudges masquerading as satire? Check.
3. Hoary 'Be Yourself' message borrowed from 1 * 10 to the 25th power other movies?
And Check.
Lighten up, Francis. Stop treating everything like your community college Film 101 midterm.
the best thing about Tony is he acts like he is THE expert on film, but like a pig rolling in shit is absolutely stunned by Titanic.
fixed because i actually respect tony a bit for not making lists as they really exist to suck the life out of art if you take them too seriously. titanic-love on the other hand is worthy of some sort of honor killing.
the movie may suck (will never know), but i love how they are selling shrek as "the best shrek yet!". this really works for everything. i used it at the bank the other day "sir, that's a 20 dollar overdraft fee"..."best shrek yet!".
QUOTE(bleach @ Jun 5 2007, 11:11 AM) [snapback]387572[/snapback]
QUOTE(TJENZ @ Jun 5 2007, 07:31 AM) [snapback]387419[/snapback]
QUOTE(Slackmo @ Jun 5 2007, 04:10 AM) [snapback]387396[/snapback]
QUOTE(Tony @ Jun 4 2007, 11:53 PM) [snapback]387282[/snapback]
Sorry but the 'Shrek' movies have always sucked. Soulless turds that epitomize the worst aspects of 'hip' childrens films:
1. Celebrity voices in lieu of actual characterization? Check.
2. Cheap nudges masquerading as satire? Check.
3. Hoary 'Be Yourself' message borrowed from 1 * 10 to the 25th power other movies?
And Check.
1. Celebrity voices in lieu of actual characterization? Check.
2. Cheap nudges masquerading as satire? Check.
3. Hoary 'Be Yourself' message borrowed from 1 * 10 to the 25th power other movies?
And Check.
Lighten up, Francis. Stop treating everything like your community college Film 101 midterm.
the best thing about Tony is he acts like he is THE expert on film, but like a pig rolling in shit is absolutely stunned by Titanic.
fixed because i actually respect tony a bit for not making lists as they really exist to suck the life out of art if you take them too seriously. titanic-love on the other hand is worthy of some sort of honor killing.
the movie may suck (will never know), but i love how they are selling shrek as "the best shrek yet!". this really works for everything. i used it at the bank the other day "sir, that's a 20 dollar overdraft fee"..."best shrek yet!".
I have good company in my Titanic love. Ebert, Rosenbaum, Kehr...
QUOTE(Tony @ Jun 5 2007, 11:47 AM) [snapback]387633[/snapback]
I have good company in my Titanic love. Ebert, Rosenbaum, Kehr...
Shrek
Release Date: 2001
Ebert Rating: ****
By Roger Ebert May 18, 2001
QUOTE(Slackmo @ Jun 5 2007, 11:49 AM) [snapback]387638[/snapback]
QUOTE(Tony @ Jun 5 2007, 11:47 AM) [snapback]387633[/snapback]
I have good company in my Titanic love. Ebert, Rosenbaum, Kehr...
Shrek
Release Date: 2001
Ebert Rating: ****
By Roger Ebert May 18, 2001
Touche. Ebert declined rapidly after say....1997.
EDIT: Slack you seem to get even more irritated by my posts than I do.
QUOTE(Tony @ Jun 5 2007, 11:51 AM) [snapback]387640[/snapback]
Slack you seem to get even more irritated by my posts than I do.
no-no.. you irritate yourself real good there slappy.
is it time for us to hold hands and sing lullabyes so you can take a nap?
you hockey puck.. why don't you go make a call to James Cameron's house and ask him when he's starting work on the sequel?
finally caught Hot Fuzz yesterday. first off, why didn't anyone tell me the theater up by logan square was only $3?
second, that movie is hysterical. i need to watch it again when i'm not fucking hungover and deprived of basic nutrition so i can understand what those limeys are saying. the priest shouting "jesus christ!" after he got shot was hysterical.
second, that movie is hysterical. i need to watch it again when i'm not fucking hungover and deprived of basic nutrition so i can understand what those limeys are saying. the priest shouting "jesus christ!" after he got shot was hysterical.
One that somehow I had never got around to.
Intimate Strangers.
Nicely shot, nicely acted.
Leconte is a maestro, whose work should be seen on a big screen. A mistake I will not make again.
Intimate Strangers.
Nicely shot, nicely acted.
Leconte is a maestro, whose work should be seen on a big screen. A mistake I will not make again.
Meh. It was alright. But 1000X better than the director's newest movie.
Won an award at SXSW. A total piece of shit. Not a laugh in the whole movie. More poorly acted, crappy exposition of "big" philosophies than the entire work of Kevin Smith.
edit: If you're making a movie about Riot Girls, don't just put them rocking out to Rebel Girl. Make them actual Rebel Girls.
QUOTE(kmac @ Jun 5 2007, 10:32 PM) [snapback]388146[/snapback]
first off, why didn't anyone tell me the theater up by logan square was only $3?
On Western? That used to only be on Tuesday nights. Is that still the case?
QUOTE(Biggie McSmalls @ Jun 6 2007, 09:11 AM) [snapback]388351[/snapback]
QUOTE(kmac @ Jun 5 2007, 10:32 PM) [snapback]388146[/snapback]
first off, why didn't anyone tell me the theater up by logan square was only $3?
On Western? That used to only be on Tuesday nights. Is that still the case?
it's up at 2624 N. Milwaukee. $3 was the afternoon price on monday, but it seemed like all the signs said $3.00
or maybe i was just confusing the matinee price with the signs for 300. either way, deal for the daytime
QUOTE(kmac @ Jun 6 2007, 09:17 AM) [snapback]388358[/snapback]
QUOTE(Biggie McSmalls @ Jun 6 2007, 09:11 AM) [snapback]388351[/snapback]
QUOTE(kmac @ Jun 5 2007, 10:32 PM) [snapback]388146[/snapback]
first off, why didn't anyone tell me the theater up by logan square was only $3?
On Western? That used to only be on Tuesday nights. Is that still the case?
it's up at 2624 N. Milwaukee. $3 was the afternoon price on monday, but it seemed like all the signs said $3.00
or maybe i was just confusing the matinee price with the signs for 300. either way, deal for the daytime
Oh yeah, that one. I totally forgot about that theater. I used to stop in there after work sometimes. No, it's always cheap.
I love how in one of the theaters the seats are not parallel to the screen so you are sitting at an angle to the screen and you get a stiff neck after an hour or so.
QUOTE(Biggie McSmalls @ Jun 6 2007, 09:11 AM) [snapback]388351[/snapback]
QUOTE(kmac @ Jun 5 2007, 10:32 PM) [snapback]388146[/snapback]
first off, why didn't anyone tell me the theater up by logan square was only $3?
On Western? That used to only be on Tuesday nights. Is that still the case?
the AMC on western still does 5 dollar Tuesdays
From Nathan Rabin in The Onion AV Club when Dreamgirls came out:
what he said.
QUOTE
Bill Condon's elephantine adaptation of the hit Broadway musical Dreamgirls reduces a riveting, important period in black musical history to a glittering Las Vegas revue more concerned with what characters are wearing than what they're feeling. Dreamgirls aims to tell an archetypal story of triumph and tragedy, success and failure. But Condon paints with such broad, familiar strokes that the film feels generic; in setting out to tell everyone's story, Condon ends up telling no one's. He aims for the iconic and larger-than-life with his fuzzy pastiches of real-life soul superstars, but dead ends at sketch, derivative conceptions.
In a scenario that borrows from a century of show-business clichés, the gorgeously lifeless Beyoncé Knowles stars as a Diana Ross-like singer who rockets to the top with the help of her Berry Gordy-like lover/Svengali (Jamie Foxx). Knowles' success comes at the expense of her group's original lead singer Jennifer Hudson, an uncompromising wild child whose prickly attitude squanders the professional opportunities her big voice affords her. Just about the only thing keeping Dreamgirls from lapsing into a sugary coma is the energy Eddie Murphy brings to the scene-stealing role of a self-destructive showman who's Little Richard-by-way-of-James Brown, with a little Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye thrown in for good measure.
Dreamgirls paints Knowles' character as a beautiful blank upon which audiences can project their fantasies. Knowles' divalicious role calls for a small voice and big personality, but Knowles instead offers a big voice and non-existent personality. Condon seems reluctant to cut a single moment from the venerable musical-theater warhorse, and the endless deluge of big, melodramatic scenes and show-stopping production numbers quickly proves exhausting. It's the ultimate pop-culture sacrilege: a movie about soul music that has no soul.
In a scenario that borrows from a century of show-business clichés, the gorgeously lifeless Beyoncé Knowles stars as a Diana Ross-like singer who rockets to the top with the help of her Berry Gordy-like lover/Svengali (Jamie Foxx). Knowles' success comes at the expense of her group's original lead singer Jennifer Hudson, an uncompromising wild child whose prickly attitude squanders the professional opportunities her big voice affords her. Just about the only thing keeping Dreamgirls from lapsing into a sugary coma is the energy Eddie Murphy brings to the scene-stealing role of a self-destructive showman who's Little Richard-by-way-of-James Brown, with a little Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye thrown in for good measure.
Dreamgirls paints Knowles' character as a beautiful blank upon which audiences can project their fantasies. Knowles' divalicious role calls for a small voice and big personality, but Knowles instead offers a big voice and non-existent personality. Condon seems reluctant to cut a single moment from the venerable musical-theater warhorse, and the endless deluge of big, melodramatic scenes and show-stopping production numbers quickly proves exhausting. It's the ultimate pop-culture sacrilege: a movie about soul music that has no soul.
what he said.
QUOTE(worrywort @ Jun 6 2007, 11:16 AM) [snapback]388461[/snapback]
QUOTE(Biggie McSmalls @ Jun 6 2007, 09:11 AM) [snapback]388351[/snapback]
QUOTE(kmac @ Jun 5 2007, 10:32 PM) [snapback]388146[/snapback]
first off, why didn't anyone tell me the theater up by logan square was only $3?
On Western? That used to only be on Tuesday nights. Is that still the case?
the AMC on western still does 5 dollar Tuesdays
Good to know.
Contempt by Jean-Luc Godar
unfortunately, the movie didn't have english subtitles and my knowledge of french allowed me to understand only bedroom scenes, so i didn't get all that much from the film. but it was cool to see an actual fritz lang playing himself. cool dude.
This was on IFC a few nights ago. I hadn't seen it for a while, so I recorded it on the TiVo.
Quality entertainment.
Boobie-doobie-dooooooo....
QUOTE(Biggie McSmalls @ Jun 6 2007, 04:29 PM) [snapback]388810[/snapback]
This was on IFC a few nights ago. I hadn't seen it for a while, so I recorded it on the TiVo.
Quality entertainment.
Boobie-doobie-dooooooo....
the best reason to respect Roger Ebert
Smokin Aces
I'm diggin' it. Lotsa interestingly fucked-up characters running around several cool plot devices we've all seen before. Great editing, great scenes, amusing dialog, fast pacing. Good stuff.
QUOTE(AFTERSHOCK @ Jun 6 2007, 08:27 PM) [snapback]388975[/snapback]
Smokin Aces
I'm diggin' it. Lotsa interestingly fucked-up characters running around several cool plot devices we've all seen before. Great editing, great scenes, amusing dialog, fast pacing. Good stuff.
yeah i just got this from Netflix
i liked it too.
didn't know it was directed by Joe Carnahan who also did Narc.
which is one of my fav movies of the past few years.
Great casting in the movie (Matthew Fox even squeezed in)
the score for the film was great. It comes out in July too by Clint Mansell
The ending song was phenomenal. It's on Clint's myspace page if you wanna take a listen to it
the white guy is the weak link as he just can't act. romantic dramedy good for an evening in with a box of wine and a 7th date. 2.25 stars. edit: 2 stars - it's hot out i don't feel like being nice.
As detailed as this is I still can't comprehend how it only took several years for them to go from this
To this
The last several years have gone by in a flash without much of a change in the general culture. Things sure changed quickly back then.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.