TransMonk

What the heck, I'll give it a go. Worst that can happen is that I come in last, right? I'll get myself registered over the weekend.

I enjoyed Romeo + Juliet, but I haven't seen it in about a decade. Moulin Rouge!...not so much. I've never seen Strictly Ballroom or Austrailia.

Edgy DC wrote: Well, they made a big blockbuster budgeted movie that could've been good and wasn't. Now they've got to deal with it. You'll get through it. But it'll take more imagination on your part than the six or seven credited screenwriters brought to it. This sums it up perfectly. Tough to pull off the sci-fi/western double fantasy...but this one didn't even come close in my mind.

Upon seeing that pic, I immediately thought Romeo + Juliet. I've enjoyed the book each time I've read it and will see this movie.

Nice to see (read) you, SS!

I didn't find a poll on this one...and was suprised. If I missed it, I apologize. I thought this movie was pretty entertaining. Typically, I'm underwhelmed by the big CGI blockbusters, but the graphics in this one were some of the best I've seen. The main monkey, Cesar, was played via performance capture effect by the same guy who does Golum in the LOTR/Hobbit movies and I thought he did an excellent job portraing both the human and animal characteristics. I wasn't even aware that John Lithhow was in this film until I began watching it, but he was excellent as always. The story was predicable, but the pace was great and there were just enough dark features to make it enjoyable for adults in addition to older kids. Of course, I'm guessing there will be sequels, but I'm not sure yet that they will be necessary. I've only seen the original PotA movie from the 60's and not the whole series...and the Wahlberg movie from the 2000's was pretty horrible, IMO. But, I was pleasantly suprised with this one after going in with low expectations.

Great work FK!

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Huey Lewis' finest performance on film since his Back to the Future cameo, no doubt. No love for Short Cuts?

I've been avoiding this one. I'm expecting a Phantom Menace letdown.

It confused us too, and seemed to bounce back and forth. But the trooper was definitely Sconnie. All of the opening city scenes are Milwaukee, too. The wedding and party's and junk were set mostly in Chitown, though. I think the "new" best friend lived in Chicago but the rest of the peeps lived in Milwaukee. Also, I found it strange that Andy Buckley who played David Wallace on The Office played the groom's boss, but didn't have any lines in the movie.

Three stars. The assessments given above are all accurate. Borrowed a lot from The Hangover and Superbad. They did make Milwaukee look much prettier than it actually is. Wifey spent much of the movie critiquing the filmmakers' ability to re-create her hometown...and they did remarkably well. The state troopers car was remarkably accurate except for the license plates (which were Wisconsin plates, but the numbers would never be formatted that way and the staties have different plates than regular folks). There was also an instance where a street corner address was given, but we're not sure those streets actually exist in Milwaukee proper. It was an enjoyable way to pass a Saturday night. Wifey still has the Wilson Phillips song stuck in her head this morning.

30 - Jose Reyes 29 - R.A. Dickey 28 - Carlos Beltran 27 - Daniel Murphy 26 - David Wright 25 - Chris Capuano 24 - Dillon Gee 23 - Mike Pelfrey 22 - Ruben Tejada 21 - Jason Bay 20 - Lucas Duda 19 - Jonathon Niese 18 - Angel Pagan 17 - Josh Thole 16 - Justin Turner 15 - Francisco Rodriguez 14 - Manny Acosta 13 - Tim Byrdak 12 - Bobby Parnell 11 - Pedro Beato 10 - Jason Isringhausen 09 - Jason Pridie 08 - Nick Evans 07 - Scott Hairston 06 - Ronny Paulino 05 - Ike Davis 04 - Chris Young 03 - Miguel Batista 02 - DJ Carrasco 01 - Willie Harris

Edgy DC wrote: Could just be the quality of the projection I got, but there was some strange doings in her makeup: a mustardy yellow in her foundation that was offputting. This. Due to all the hype here, I was expecting more than I got out of Haley. As for the movie...meh. It kept me from falling asleep, but I wouldn't watch it again. I think I may like CA better in the upcoming Avengers flick as the fish out of water who is the fish out of water.

Masters of the Universe (1987) From wiki: Cannon Films intended to create a sequel, which is indicated after the end credits when it is revealed that Skeletor in fact survives his fall. The low budget ($4.5 million) project that was to be directed (back to back with their aborted "Spider-Man" movie) by Albert Pyun was abandoned when Cannon wouldn't pay for Mattel's fees and the production used the already-made costumes and sets for the low budget sci-fi movie Cyborg.

Vic Sage wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Two forumites gave it a 10? Really? I mean, Citizen Kane, The Battleship Potemkin, Ran, and Moneyball? I liked it plenty, but I'm not about to go knocking on my neighbor's doors to tell them they've got to go see it. this. i remember a typically vitriolic exchange with willets about grading movies, especially recent movies, with such unequivocally high ratings. Ah, WP. a nemesis to remember. Yeah! I'm not sure why the author of this poll even included it as an option when it is so unequivocally wrong. I still haven't seen it. It will come to cable in about six months...just in time for baseball season, prolly.

I would recommend it. Everything is tongue in cheek...it's actually quite funny, IMO.

I've seen this about 3 times now (I'm watching it this afternoon) and I enjoy it more each time. I like the video game imagery and I even think that Sex Bob Bomb's music kick's ass. Fun shit.

Edgy DC wrote: Didn't make much sense to me. I don't know what happens to me, but a lot of times in sci-fi/fantasy, we get to the climax, and I have no idea what's going on. I mean I know who the good guy and the bad guy are but I don't understand what they're doing and why. I'm gonig to make a great old man. This.

Per Metsblog's coverage of the introductory conference call: He grew up close to Turner Field � his favorite player was Chipper Jones growing up. Hmmm...

I would've adopted him had he been a little less chilled.

This guy's gonna be a beast.

Vic Sage wrote: But transmonk doesn't like anything with unicorns, so everybody's got their own tolerance for stuff. This is true. CA is in my queue to see. Maybe this weekend. There aren't any unicorns in this one, right?

I went to see this one on Saturday. I typically enjoy the X Men movies, although each one that they make seems to get worse and worse. I admired the first couple of films for their ability to combine a good action movie with a good deal of the social metaphors contained in the comic books. I thought this movie was better than the Wolverine prequel, but was still not on par with the original trilogy. Set in 1962, this movie did a great job with costumes and sets that made it a very believable period piece. The special effects were good and the action kept the excitement going through the whole film. The acting was hit and miss. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender as Charles Xavier and Magneto were awesome in my opinion. They did a great job of playing younger versions of the characters already established in the original films. Kevin Bacon also did a fine job as the main antagonist in the film. I thought all of the female actors in this movie fell flat. January Jones was pretty awful (but if you�ve read any review of this film, you already know that). Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique was passable considering that her character seemed poorly written in the screenplay. Rose Byrne bordered on annoying in her role as a human CIA agent. The other young mutants were OK�it will be interesting to see how they develop in sequels. I guess my biggest problem with this movie was the plot. Prequels are hard to do�the writers have to go backward from something that is already established. I thought they did fine with Professor X and Magneto. But it�s hard for me to swallow that Mystique was so close to Xavier for so long when there is no indication of that in the original trilogy. Many of the X Men from the original trilogy are either referenced or have cameos in First Class, so it is not as if the writers were ignoring other relationships. I�ll put some spoilers below where this movie either confused me or insulted my intelligence. Even with the plot holes, I enjoyed this one. The X Men always provide an exciting 2 hours of fun. This was the first time in about a year that I have visited a movie theater. I don�t read the comics, so I�m sure some will enjoy this one more or less depending on their opinion of the comics. But I give it 3.5 out of 5 stars. SPOILERS/HEAD SCRATCHERS: Why doesn�t boy-aged Erik kill Shaw when he freaks out after his mother is shot? He obviously has the ability because he killed everyone else in the room. Why was Havoc in jail when we first meet him? Why isn�t there any reference to him being related to Scott? I suppose these could be cleared up in sequels. How does Hank know how to fly a plane? Why can�t Magneto find the submarine near the end of the film? Can�t he detect metal? Instead Banshee has to be converted into human sonar. I thought Hank designed the X Men suits to be bulletproof�how does Xavier get shot? What happened to Xavier�s parents? Again, I suppose the sequels may clear that up. If the CIA knows about Xavier�s powers, and they want to find him, why wouldn�t they just go to where he lives (where they academy is)? Xavier wipes agent MacTaggert�s memory, but that shouldn�t stop them from knowing about where he is. The Hugh Jackman cameo was the best part of the movie, IMO.