Ceetar

Benjamin Grimm wrote: There were billboards for this movie all over Lisbon this past summer. I heard it was a fun movie. I might watch it when it hits cable, if it hasn't already done so. Watched it on DVD, so it can't be far from cable if it's not there already.

Salt With Angelina Jolie and Liev Schreiber. Has nothing to do with Strategetic Arms Limitiation Treaties. Didn't care for it much. It was decently entertaining as far as action movies go, but the twists were very transparent and it plays on what seems like a very overplayed USA-Russia relationship whenever you're talking about spies. I equated it to the Bourne Identity a little, although nowhere near as good. Fair amount of crazy car chases and some niftiness getting out of tight jams with explosive creativity, but nothing special.

Land Before Time is a Classic. I dunno, maybe you had to be there.

My problem is always that 'best picture' is very very subjective. And they don't have a set of rules to vote by. What they vote for as 'best' is not the reason I go to the movies, which is why I often don't see those movies. I loved Inception, but I have no interest in seeing Black Swan for instance. (though I will, since the wife wants to) I happened upon a review (actually I think Keith Law linked it) of No Strings Attached that Ebert wrote, and when I actually watched the movie I was laughing at him. The movie wasn't amazing or anything, but the review read like "They do _this_ in the movie, when they really should've done this. Why don't movies ever do _this_?" He wrote a review for the movie as if he wrote the script and they bastardized it and made an adaptation. It was a sappy romantic comedy, it wasn't ever intended to be an exploration or documentary on the concept of friends with benefits and I think it's unfair to review it as if it was.

Was probably more entertaining than the football game. but wow, 1994?

Valadius wrote: Eh, due to the fact that they split the book in two, it doesn't have any kind of satisfying ending. I'm glad they split it, because it would be impossible to cram all the important plot points into two and a half hours, but they could have chosen a better spot to make the split. I actually thought it was a fairly decent place to make the split. But I haven't read the book in a while either, so maybe I'm forgetting how much still has to be done. It's certainly a stereotypical place to split a movie.

I actually enjoyed this one, surprisingly. I thought most of the others were pretty much clip-show format, where they basically animate the scenes everyone wants to see, but did a poor job with continuity and plot. But maybe this book just has more of that, there's a lot less non-plot stuff in the book for sure. I saw it in IMAX at 9:30 AM on a Saturday. cheaper, and less squeeling teenagers.

dgwphotography wrote: My oldest saw HP at last night's midnight show, and said it was the best movie of the series. I bought my tickets yesterday after work. People waiting online already (despite there being a midnight showing in every single theatre, therefore not sold out in the least bit. There was also a 3:30am showing and a 6am showing. yikes) lots of Hermoines in short skirts and wizarding robes. among other crazies. I hope it's better than the others. I always felt like they were basically clip shows masquerading as movies.

I think the books go quickly from really young adult, to much older young adult as they move along. Books 5 and 6 for example, with all the kissing and crushing and girls and snogging and whatever.

seawolf17 wrote: They told me most of the Friday night showings -- and both of the midnights tonight -- were already sold out. Glad I ran down there today. They already have big signs and arrows and barriers up to control the crowd tonight. That doesn't surprise me. Glad i'm going in the morning, usually weeds out some of the crazies.

I'm going 9:30 in IMAX Saturday morning. going to go buy the tix tonight after work. I assume it'll suck, like all the others. but maybe not.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: It's rated L for LESBIANS of course. Ratings? Do people pay attention to those? Only when Lesbians are involved.. for instance D.E.B.S. had lesbians, but it was a little more G rated. still entertained me though, as silly as it was.

what's it rated?

I'm not sure I've watched them enough to critique them, but I've always felt art/movies/tv are too subjective for ranking one as 'better'. In the quick scanning of things going by my brain while on vacation I saw someone mention a sequel trilogy? Someone with more info on that want to fill me in/start a thread?

seawolf17 wrote: No, no, no. Not here; a league with friends from college. Just put it in this forum so all the non-players don't get their collective panties in a bunch. oh, congrats then. :-D

dominating me at scrabble, beating me at Fantasy.. If i happen across you I'm gonna have to give you the finger or a wedgie or something.

Vince Vaughn/Ronny finds out best bud and co-partner in an automotive design company Kevin James'/Nick's wife is cheating on him. The Dilemma is whether or not Ronny should tell Nick or if it would distract from completing the project that could get their company on the map so to speak. Various hijinks ensue, etc. Also with Jennifer connelly, Winona Ryder, Channing Tatum and Queen Latifah. It's pretty much your typically Vaughn/James dramedy (for lack of a better word). which means it was certainly funny and entertaining, but wasn't exactly pushing the boundaries of new ground. Directed by Ron Howard. I didn't make this a poll, since the movie is not out until January. I got a random email/invite to a prescreening on Tuesday so we went out and saw it. We saw Taking Woodstock this way as well. Filled out a survey afterwards, so who knows, maybe they'll change things based on our input. The movie was mostly done, we did notice a couple of places where you could tell the audio/coloring wasn't quite up to snuff. And this is the first time i've ever seen a watermark (gettyimages) on a movie background scene. (they were on a train in Chicago)

I agree, I don't think I ever really recovered from missing the draft and having to fill my roster with "I hope someone gets hurt and this guy gets more playing time" guys. I made a lot of trades but I hovered a couple places from the bottom most of the season. Next year if/when we do NL only I think we might benefit from 1-2 less teams, or maybe no util guy or something.

I enjoyed the movie. Probably my favorite of the last couple of months. But it's right along lines of what I find most entertaining in movies, twisting plot that keeps you thinking, but does sorta make sense when you think it out. Some graphics, some Escher staircases..what's not to love?

Phillies drafted him two years ago. So he's already got a + in my book for snubbing them.

MFS62 wrote: I linked this in my thread called "The Orphanage" in this forum: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/mets/2009/10/instructional-league-rosters.html#ixzz0VExw90e5 Oh, Vaughn would be a good pick. Later I almost adopted Vaughn myself last night, but was too lazy. (He declined to sign with the Phillies btw)

MFS62 wrote: I linked this in my thread called "The Orphanage" in this forum: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/mets/2009/10/instructional-league-rosters.html#ixzz0VExw90e5 Oh, Vaughn would be a good pick. Later I almost adopted Vaughn myself last night, but was too lazy. (He declined to sign with the Phillies btw)

metirish wrote: I'm bored and wouldn't mind trying this adoption carry-on once more , any likely lads there for the taking? I've been thinking the same. There's that new overslot guy they just signed. I imagine many of the newbies haven't been swiped. Cory Vaughn maybe? Any particular style this stuff goes by? Just sorta keep tabs on the young fella?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Really, I don't care so much about the story. As long as Homes takes his shirt off a bunch, I'm good. There was plenty of that. also, apparently they're pulling the trailer for Paranormal Activity 2 during Twilight, cause too many people were scared. (it's not scary)

The movie was exactly what was expected. Followed the book pretty closely. So mostly, it sucked. They glossed over the wolves history too much in my opinion, but some of the Cullen's history stuff was pretty good. They played up the Voltari's involvement, which was good in my book, because I like the story as a "modern" vampire clan rising up against the established trend and carving out their own territory and following. If the story wasn't really a love story, there would've been a fifth book featuring a war with the Italians that would've resulted in America becoming a 'vegetarian' Vampire country with the Cullen's in charge. I was part of a general audience survey at the theater. I was harsh. btw, here's my man card.