e0y2e3 wrote:
Which is silly and being done just because of the effing Dark Knight.
That's pretty dead on.
Moderators: peeker643, swerb, mitch
by Cerebral_DownTime » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:42 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:
Which is silly and being done just because of the effing Dark Knight.
by motherscratcher » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:43 pm
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I said a ton of money makes it not "fucking aweful"...
Have you seen Transformers 1 and 2?
Listen, i'm not slamming people who liked Avatar. People like different things, and that's great. I just thought the movie was an overhyped POS.
by e0y2e3 » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:52 pm

by motherscratcher » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:57 pm
by Triple-S » Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:02 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:Biggest reason it seems watered down is the ten nominees.
Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

by waborat » Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:07 am
Motherscratcher wrote:Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I said a ton of money makes it not "fucking aweful"...
Have you seen Transformers 1 and 2?
Listen, i'm not slamming people who liked Avatar. People like different things, and that's great. I just thought the movie was an overhyped POS.
I was agreeing with the "ton of maney makes it not aweful" take.
But damn if it isn't hard to argue with that Transformers take CDT.
by waborat » Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:17 am
Triple-S wrote:was not a good year for movies. let's face it.
by mattvan1 » Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:21 am
Triple-S wrote: Probably it's just from my perspective, in middle-america you don't exactly get stuck with some of the good movies that you probably have more of an advantage in seeing.
by Triple-S » Tue Mar 09, 2010 2:22 am
mattvan1 wrote:Triple-S wrote: Probably it's just from my perspective, in middle-america you don't exactly get stuck with some of the good movies that you probably have more of an advantage in seeing.
Not sure I follow, SSS. It's two thousand and fucking ten. What film will e0y2e3 see in Boston that you can't eventually view in West Lafayette, Indiana? Unless it's the director's cut of Good Will Hunting?
Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

by mattvan1 » Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:11 am
Triple-S wrote:Easy example on that.
I don't recall "Big Fan" ever making it around here. I know thats just one movie, but I'm sure it's not the first movie like that has not shown up in theaters in small town usa.
Does the whole "I can rent or buy DVDs without getting my slack ass off my couch" thing escape you? Yes, dude. We understand that at it's "height" Big Fan never made it to theaters off either coast. It did get to DVD and your local video store/Netflix in January, however. 2010. Technology. New business models, etc.
by waborat » Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:32 am
mattvan1 wrote:Triple-S wrote:Easy example on that.
I don't recall "Big Fan" ever making it around here. I know thats just one movie, but I'm sure it's not the first movie like that has not shown up in theaters in small town usa.
Does the whole "I can rent or buy DVDs without getting my slack ass off my couch" thing escape you? Yes, dude. We understand that at it's "height" Big Fan never made it to theaters off either coast. It did get to DVD and your local video store/Netflix in January, however. 2010. Technology. New business models, etc.
by waborat » Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:25 am
Mitch wrote:olecowboy wrote:Don't know why anyone would consider Up In The Air; it was just Danny Ocean firing people, nothing else to see. . .
Sigh...there are just sometimes when poking the bear just for the amusement of poking the bear is boring as shit.
by mrburns » Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:22 am
waborat wrote:Brody's got some real nice copies

by jb » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:51 am
e0y2e3 wrote:People went apeshit about it not getting a nomination last year and that really pushed the expansion to ten nominees, IMO.
I mean people went APESHIT (meaning the general public, as it was the pop culture hit of the year last year and the movie all the idiots were talking about being the defining movie of our generation, much like Avatar this year).
I actually thought the Dark Knight was a decent movie. Not worthy of an Oscar by any means, but very solid. 100x more interesting than most crap that people go insane about.
by Guest » Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:13 pm
JB wrote:
nahh.
It was one-sided propaganda Dick Cheney would be proud of; a movie about public paranoia.
Plus Christain bale is aweful. Just wooden.
Up In The Air was the best picture of the year, but Clooney doesn't apparently rate as royalty yet. Little blue men and dncing CGI shit with a plot that is a mixture of DWW and Pocahontas was seriously consideered?Really Hollywood?
Hurt Locker was really good. But Up in the Air was better. YMMV.
by e0y2e3 » Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:19 pm

by jb » Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:53 pm
Mitch wrote:JB wrote:
nahh.
It was one-sided propaganda Dick Cheney would be proud of; a movie about public paranoia.
Plus Christain bale is aweful. Just wooden.
Up In The Air was the best picture of the year, but Clooney doesn't apparently rate as royalty yet. Little blue men and dncing CGI shit with a plot that is a mixture of DWW and Pocahontas was seriously consideered?Really Hollywood?
Hurt Locker was really good. But Up in the Air was better. YMMV.
Rewatched The Hurt Locker with Clarissa this weekend, and I'm not really sure what bug was up my ass when I gave it a 3 1/2.
By far the second best film of the year, just slightly below Up in the Air.
For Avatar...I'll still say that it was worthy of a nomination...nothing more. Same as Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars, and Jurassic Park should probably receive nominations based on how cutting edge they were and how entertaining they were...but they weren't Best Pictures of their year, or any year.
Don't get me wrong, I love being entertained, and Avatar blew me away in that regard. But Best Picture needs to be about much more than the Wow Factor. I want a great story, great characters, great chemistry, great cinematagraphy, and a great job of direction.
Up in the Air and Hurt Locker were the only two films that gave us that.
by Guest » Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:47 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:You just hurt The Basterds feelings Mitch.
by jb » Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:05 pm
Mitch wrote:e0y2e3 wrote:You just hurt The Basterds feelings Mitch.
Close third for Quentin and crew. When you list all of the "Great" items I had above, I don't think "great chemistry" was in this film, so that's why it only gets a "show", a couple of noses behind the other two.
Actually, Basterds is another movie that jumped a half-football after I watched it a second time, as it got a 3 1/2 in the original review.
Happens a lot. I fully expect Avatar to drop a notch on second viewing, same with Invictus. That's the problem with movie critics. Sometime's we're just in a shitty mood going in, and unless the film blows us away, it's going to pay hell for it (which might be relevant to my review yesterday of Alice in Wonderland...we shall see). Other times, a not-so good movie finds a little hook that suckers me in, and I rate it higher than I should. (WALL-E...for JB's sake. Watchmen is probably another). Plus if I've been gagging on shitty movies for a couple of months, I tend to overrate the first good film I see (which is why Invictus got 4 footballs).
by Ziner » Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:29 am
by Bill the Butcher » Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:43 pm
4thQtrGlory wrote:If we got all that, i would hang a browns flag from my boner for 2 weeks straight...
by motherscratcher » Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:48 pm
by swerb » Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:34 pm
by peeker643 » Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:41 pm
swerb wrote:Got Hurt Locker on top my DVD player waiting to be watched ... but the feedback I've heard mirrors what I've read in here. As I see all these films, its seeming like 2009 was a weak year for movies. Some good ones to be sure, but no elite ones, and a weak class of Best Pic nominees ... kinda like the year Crash won IMO.
Best 09 film I've seen, by far, has been Up in the Air.
by mitch » Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:10 am
by Erie Warrior » Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:06 am
mitch wrote:But the biggest travesty does remain Shakespeare In Love beating Saving Private Ryan.


by waborat » Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:51 pm
swerb wrote:Best 09 film I've seen, by far, has been Up in the Air.
by swerb » Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:01 am
by waborat » Fri Jul 16, 2010 7:40 am
swerb wrote:
Basterds was awesome. My movie of the year.

by jerryroche » Fri Jul 16, 2010 10:34 am
by waborat » Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:36 pm
Ol' No.11 wrote:Two very good adult movies out in 2010 so far:
by hebner20 » Sun Jul 18, 2010 11:47 pm
waborat wrote:swerb wrote:
Basterds was awesome. My movie of the year.
by mattvan1 » Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:34 pm
waborat wrote:Ol' No.11 wrote:Two very good adult movies out in 2010 so far:
Two better ones are:
Add Momma To The Train
&
Charlie's Anal
I'm terrified to google those titles to see if they actually exist.Return to Movies, Music, TV, Books, Pop Culture
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
