Quake3World

Doombrain wrote:http://www.collider.com/2009/05/29/exclusive-tony-scott-confirms-carl-rinsch-is-directing-alien-and-its-a-prequel/

wow, hope they don't fuck this up.

Silicone_Milk wrote:Last Action Hero - 7.5 / 10

Classic cheesy over-the-top action. I hadn't seen this movie since the mid 90s and forgot how funny it was.

charles dance owned that movie.

MKJ wrote:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

I'm no Harry Potter buff in the least and I normally wouldnt go to the cinema to see part 6 (or whatever) in a series, but the inlaws wanted to see it so.
Why the fuck was this called 'the Half-Blood Prince'? The name is introduced in the first 20 mins or so, all ominous like. 1.5 hours later someone mentions the name again and how noone ever heard of him. And another hour later someone reveals that *he* is the HalfBlood Prince, like Darth Vader just reveals his relation to Luke. plottwist failed.
They shouldve called it Harry Potter and the Quest for Forbidden Artifacts since that is what it's really about. But no they couldnt cos at the end of the movie it is shown that the artifacts were fake, making the entire past 3 hours worth of movietime meaningless.

2 out of 10 "wake up!"-nudges.

Went to that with the wife - she has read all the books (like most people in the world but me, apparently). I left about 1 hour into it and wandered around in the mall until it was over. The mindless wandering was more entertaining to me.

tnf wrote: Went to that with the wife - she has read all the books (like most people in the world but me, apparently). I left about 1 hour into it and wandered around in the mall until it was over. The mindless wandering was more entertaining to me.

you should put that in a review on imdb.

watchmen - 5/10 - real problem was the pace. 45 minutes of exposition? really? it's a basically good story and the acting and effects were decent. i wouldn't really recommend it unless you're into that sort of noir, post-hero vibe (a la Dark Knight Returns).

tnf wrote:

MKJ wrote:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

I'm no Harry Potter buff in the least and I normally wouldnt go to the cinema to see part 6 (or whatever) in a series, but the inlaws wanted to see it so.
Why the fuck was this called 'the Half-Blood Prince'? The name is introduced in the first 20 mins or so, all ominous like. 1.5 hours later someone mentions the name again and how noone ever heard of him. And another hour later someone reveals that *he* is the HalfBlood Prince, like Darth Vader just reveals his relation to Luke. plottwist failed.
They shouldve called it Harry Potter and the Quest for Forbidden Artifacts since that is what it's really about. But no they couldnt cos at the end of the movie it is shown that the artifacts were fake, making the entire past 3 hours worth of movietime meaningless.

2 out of 10 "wake up!"-nudges.

Went to that with the wife - she has read all the books (like most people in the world but me, apparently). I left about 1 hour into it and wandered around in the mall until it was over. The mindless wandering was more entertaining to me.

I feel the same way. Never read the books, then went to see the movie and didn't really give a shit.

it's part 6 of 7. did you honestly expect to like it?

menkent wrote:watchmen - 5/10 - real problem was the pace. 45 minutes of exposition? really? it's a basically good story and the acting and effects were decent. i wouldn't really recommend it unless you're into that sort of noir, post-hero vibe (a la Dark Knight Returns).

Good, you are the second person I know who didn't think this thing was amazing. I also thought that the writers felt they had exposed some deep, profound human truth at the end - when it was really a shallow and not too unique lesson on the fact that a common enemy will routinely bring rivals together.

Gran Torino - 10/10 (made me lol. shit was SO pabst)

tnf wrote:Good, you are the second person I know who didn't think this thing was amazing. I also thought that the writers felt they had exposed some deep, profound human truth at the end - when it was really a shallow and not too unique lesson on the fact that a common enemy will routinely bring rivals together.

The movie was not perfect. I had zero background in the Watchmen before I saw the movie. After I watched it once, it was good but fell a little flat. Too much unknown shit to keep track of and some of the narrative jumps felt a little strained. My opinion of the film changed quite dramatically after I viewed it a 2nd (and 3rd) time. I *highly* recommend a 2nd viewing...this is one of those flicks that almost requires it (esp. if this universe of characters is new to you).

I actually went out and bought the graphic novel a few days after seeing it and it is a fantastic read. I think the reason I like the film so much, and thus can forgive many of its imperfections, is because it is one the few 'superhero' movies that present sophisticated characters within the context of a fairly literate, adult story. Of course that's Alan Moore's contribution and not the director's, but Snyder did a decent enough job of translating it to film. Give it another go if you can...your opinion might not change, but I'm betting it will.

Funny People - 7/10

Good movie, with a lot of funny and emotional scenes. However, it does lose points for kind of losing focus half way into the movie.

Bruno :: 6/10
Everything that could be expected. Ali-G characters are starting to wear a bit thin on me though. Time for Sascha Baron Cohen to move on.

Funny People :: 8/10
Not what I expected from an Apatow flick; actually a pretty good movie. Gave me "Punchline" Flashbacks in a good way.

Nightshade wrote:Superman Returns 7/10
Very good film, for a comic book. Yes, a bit too much romantic BS, but awesome special effects and a decent storyline.

Superman Returns

Beenn around some years

......but I finally got to see this last night and have to agree a pretty good flick

Impressed 8/10

THX 1138

What a snooze. I don't give a shit if it's visionary for its time. George Lucas can suck my fat one.


In the loop

Pretty good political satire.
Some may remember creator Armando Iannucci from Friday Night Armistice.


The killing room

Imagine Saw, only a lot more boring, and Jigsaw is some shady us government counter terrorist thing.
Timothy Hutton and Peter Stormare have pretty strong screen presence, but couldn't save this yawn fest.
I literally fell asleep in the middle. Doesn't happen much.

Sling Blade - 8/10

Took me about 20 minutes to get used to the speach but this was a damn good movie. I've always heard people make references to it but never gave the movie a chance until last night.

Minus a point for the last 5 minutes of the movie. I wanted to see some reaction shots from the town.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince - 5/10
I kept hearing that this was finally a decent harry potter movie. watching it once was tolerable but i don't see myself willingly viewing it again. there's simply far too much detail in the book that could never make it into a movie unless they made it 8 hours long; it's those details which make the books so good.

Bruno - 5/10
I laughed. I giggled. I doubt i'll ever see it again. the shock humor wears off pretty fast in this one.

The Hangover: 8/10

Best bachelor party movie ever.

Grandpa Stu wrote:
Bruno - 5/10
I laughed. I giggled. I doubt i'll ever see it again. the shock humor wears off pretty fast in this one.

How many more of these characters do you think SBC has left in him?

The Hurt Locker = 6/10 - I kept watching because I enjoy war movies with some intensity - which this movie has in abundance - but when this was over I felt it was a pointless film. Good performances but the cinematography and editing felt exactly like any Ridley/Tony Scott film and seemed forced...like they were trying to make a Ridley/Tony Scott clone. TBH I can't say if I recommend it unless you're a pro-America fascist who loves watching brown people die.

tnf wrote:How many more of these characters do you think SBC has left in him?

I don't think he's got any left. Ali G, Borat and Bruno all had extensive histories in his old school TV shows. Unless he's got hidden personalities up his sleeve that he hasn't exposed on his TV shows, he may have exhausted this shtick.

While that may be true he made $100 million exhausting it.

He can now retire to the beach and chase old, hairy fat guys around hotel hallways until the day he dies without ever having to work again.

No doubt, but I'm curious what he'll do next.

Bunch of LOLPSYCH101BS coming up.

I don't think we'll see SBC himself appear as an actor in mainstream movies. I think he uses the personalities he plays not only as the vector for his sometimes controversial social commentary, but also as a shell to protect himself from attention and scrutiny. All the Bruno related interviews of his I've seen have been in character. Most of the Borat ones were as well. I've only ever seen him out of character in one Borat-era Letterman interview. Maybe (probably?) I was reading him wrong, but he came across sort of like "I still can't believe I've become this big". Possibly, he's just *that* committed to his roles and I'm completely wrong?

It's been a while since I saw that interview, I'll see if I can't find a youtube link.
edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrBfaUDUlt4 [here's the one I was thinking of]
edit2: Seems to predate the Borat movie.

My guess is, he's gonna lay low for a bit. Do some more voice acting. Couple years down the line, surprise us all with another persona out of the blue.

Night at the Museum

Never got to see it but made up for it last night.

Never fancied Ben Still but this might just change my mind.

Not bad entertainment, a nice all rounder.

7.5/10