Ceetar

Edgy MD wrote: Review some films we have seen, folks. Saw Wreck-It Ralph the other day.

Aliens and Avatar are the same thing anyway. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/aliens_avatar

Hunger Games is completely different. Movie missed the mark though. Twilight's one of those 'good ideas' (not original, but the beauty and the beast type concept is not a bad one) that was executed in the most watered-down way possible. The movie's best moment is when the super strong vampires play baseball (which they have to do during a Thunderstorm or it confuses people). It's like that Digital Domain commercial with the robot players.

Twilight made a whole boatload of money. you should see that too.

Frayed Knot wrote: IOW, name those movies where you're convinced that you are one of the handful of people on the planet who hasn't seen it without necessarily going back to the ones released before you were born. That's what i was interpreting it as. I mean, Titanic is a "mega hit" but do you ever hear anyone say "I can't believe you haven't seen Titanic, man what a great movie!"?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: (And how did you fall asleep during Reservoir Dogs, Cee? Did you have a gas leak?) I recall putting the DVD in to watch in my room when I was still living with my parents after college (13in'er at the foot of the bed). I must've already been exhausted. I'm pretty sure the same thing happened with Pulp Fiction. Also Lock Stock and 2 Smoking Barrels, although that one was while in a Cornell dorm.

Avatar: - $77 million opening weekend and $2.8 billion gross - 3 Oscars plus 6 other nominations including Best Picture and Titanic: - $29 million opening weekend (15 years ago) and a $2.2 billion gross - 11 Oscars including Best Picture and 14 overall nominations are pretty much the definition of "Mega-Hits" oh, indeed. I guess I was sliding towards more the cultural hit bit. I feel like you hear people talking about, quoting, and referencing movies like The Big Lebowski and what not and rarely Titanic or Avatar. But yeah,

metsmarathon wrote: titanic, bladerunner, and the big lebowski come to mind. also, nearly anything in hte past three years. i hear there was this movie with blue aliens, but everybody who watched it had to wear funny glasses. wtf is that all about? Avatar. Wasn't quite a Mega-Hit. Had more to do with special effects and all that. The story line was really basic, not bad, just nothing special. the funny glasses were only if you saw it in 3D. nothing different. Does Titanic count as a mega-hit? screw Titanic. You really have to see the Big Lebowski just for the Lucas Duda jokes.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Vinny is standard, well-executed fish-out-of-water stuff. Pleasant, well-crafted... but, like, a LOT of jokes hinge on the fact that Joe Pesci's Brooklyn accent sounds funny. But you REALLY should see Pulp Fiction. Have you seen and enjoyed other Tarantino? Pursuing other Tarantino stuff without having seen this is like being a Woody Allen fan but never seeing Annie Hall. never seen Annie Hall or much Woody Allen, but anyway. I've seen Kill Bill and 2001 and Clockwork Orange. wait, those last two are Kubrick. oops. I fell asleep on the first 5 minutes of Reservoir dogs and haven't gotten back to it. I'm pretty much expecting to like Fiction, I Just haven't..done it yet. I know my wife probably WON'T like it, so that's a block. I probably should just download it now so I have it.

I've got a list a mile long. I was more a gamer than a tv and movie kid and didn't do much of either until I started dating my wife. Pulp Fiction. I want to see this one..I just..haven't. My Cousin Vinny. I'm worried this is going to be the crude/slapstick style humor along the lines of Wayne's World that I just don't really care for. (and I've never watched Wayne's World all the way through either, if that counts.)

I believe the next step is what we call the Jason Bay step. you have until 1/31 to cut the fat from the roster. drop anyone you want with no penalty.

metsmarathon wrote: the deathship needs to arbitrate arbitrarily. j1mbo15 too. I did send them both emails about it.

Is this a sequel or prequel to the Vampire Hunter one?

metirish wrote: metirish wrote: The early books were good, James Patterson long ago jumped the shark on the series I think. He was just pump9ing out drivel that his large fan base gobbled up. I can't remember the last Cross book I liked....perhaps it ws The Big Bad Wolf. Totally agree with Cooby on MamaNana and the kids.......good call. I have zero interest in seeing this movie. I clearly should've seen 6 assassins or whatever that movie was, but the selection of watchable flics wasn't high and they had power. LOL.....not giving you a hard time for going to see it........ no, but my wife is ;-)

metirish wrote: The early books were good, James Patterson long ago jumped the shark on the series I think. He was just pump9ing out drivel that his large fan base gobbled up. I can't remember the last Cross book I liked....perhaps it ws The Big Bad Wolf. Totally agree with Cooby on MamaNana and the kids.......good call. I have zero interest in seeing this movie. I clearly should've seen 6 assassins or whatever that movie was, but the selection of watchable flics wasn't high and they had power.

cooby wrote: I'd like to see this. Two questions first though: Is MamaNana in it? I hate her. ** Are his kids in it? Waaaaaaaay too unbelievably good natured. ** You already answered this. Drat, she is. she's only got a handful of scenes, about as much as the kids. Really it's only one kid that and i'm not really sure why they bother.

metsmarathon wrote: hey, all, get your arbitration dollars in asap! time's a-wasting! yeah! do that! (oh, i have power now. I better do that)

looking forward to it.

Alex Cross, based on the novels by James Patterson which he's been writing for years. (I never saw Kiss the Girls or Along Came a Spider) 'based on' very loosely of course. I enjoy these types of movies, but hell, I should stop seeing movies based on books I've read. I like the Bourne books/movies too, but they're completely unrelated. I'd give this movie 4/10 X's myself. It wasn't bad, entertaining enough I guess if simple, but it was a complete bastardization of all the characters. And I say this not having read a Cross novel in a couple of years. Patterson, even if he seems to churn out these types of novels, has a way of really describing the depravity that motivates serial killers, and there was almost none of this with Matthew Fox (and nothing like his character on Lost, who may be more like Cross) playing Picasso, who I think was a character in the books at least, though I don't remember. I don't typically like Tyler Perry in his comedy stuff, but I thought he did a good job with Cross, but I don't think the character itself was a good portrayal of how I remember him from the books. MINOR SPOILERS HERE IF YOU'VE NEVER READ THE BOOKS I think they played him more as a avenging angel type character and in the books he just seems more of a do-gooder that wants to do the right thing even though sometimes he doesn't. The anger and revenge bit is the exception to the rule, is the story that drives his character, versus in the movie him justifying that bit as the 'right thing to do'. Maybe I'm just reading into a bit. Making it take place in Detroit and being pre-FBI and pre-Washington seem to take out all the interesting backstory out of the character and his parents aren't even mentioned. Even Nana comes off more as a nagging old mother than the strong-willed 'conscience' that keeps Cross on the right path. bah, I was disappointed, but at least I got to watch a movie in relative warmth out of my cold apartment.

30 Dickey 29 Wright 28 Niese 27 Hairston 26 Davis 25 Parnell 24 Murphy 23 Rauch 22 Santana 21 Tejada 20 Cedeno 19 Turner 18 Gee 17 Nieuwenhuis 16 Duda 15 HEFNER 14 HARVEY 13 Young 12 Baxter 11 Torres 10 Valdespin 9 Rramirez 8 Byrdak 7 Thole 6 Edgin 5 Francisco 4 Batista 3 Quintanilla 2 Pelfrey 1 Hampson

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm also way high on Hairston and Rauch and low on Tejada. Hmmm that seems right to me.

Vic Sage wrote: you're harder on Santana than ANY of us so far. but that's ok, that's why we do this. To wash out the "outliers". I thought long and hard about Santana. I could've talked myself into ranking him anywhere from 24 to 15. Based on his final numbers, he should be toward the bottom of that range, maybe lower (as low as 10? maybe). But his numbers were skewed by some really bad starts toward the end, where he was clearly pitching through injury. And any guy who gives us the 1st no-hitter in our history gets the benefit of the doubt from me. it's certainly interesting. If it was just about this season, and there was no other Mets years involved, we'd still put Johan Santana pretty high on the "greatest Mets" list just off the no-hitter. The numbers look bad but the numbers were really good through June. But the bad numbers coincide with the Mets collapse too so they did have a pretty big contribution, regardless of the injury bit. (We don't give Reed Johnson enough hate btw) I need to get this bit done myself now that I'm at work and have power here and all that.

MFS62 wrote: Ceetar wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Jack Leathersich ‏@LeatherRocket Can't wait to get out of this #brutal art class so I can wash my car. Hope everyone has a great day! He's taking an art class in the offseason? That seems very unjocklike. Jim Bouton designed and made cosume jewelry. Ya never know what interests them. Later well apparently washing his car interests him more. I wonder if he's just trying to get a degree in the meantime?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Jack Leathersich ‏@LeatherRocket Can't wait to get out of this #brutal art class so I can wash my car. Hope everyone has a great day! He's taking an art class in the offseason? That seems very unjocklike.

seawolf17 wrote: So we're supposed to go in to each team and assign no more than $3 per team in salary increases, with a total $25 limit? Making sure I get this right. Think that's right, yeah.