Tosh has never fucked Matt Damon.Luke wrote:In what sense? Their comedy is very much in the same brand.dsheinem wrote: Silverman>>>>>>>>Tosh
What was the last movie you've seen?
Re: What was the last movie you've seen?
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
Re: What was the last movie you've seen?
He hasn't !?!MrPopo wrote: Tosh has never fucked Matt Damon.
Tosh may have given Affleck a reach around, which is equally impressive.
Re: What was the last movie you've seen?
So I haven't posted a set of movie reviews since February, and I think I want to jump back into the habit. Here's some grades on what I can remember watching in the past couple of months (I haven't really been watching very much), some of which will come as no surprise if you've followed the discussion in the thread.
In the near future i hope to also (finally) put up my reviews of the films I crammed before the Oscars this year and to update the links in my master list for the first time in more than a year. Anyway, here goes:
Iron Man 3 – Iron Man 3 is even further removed than Iron Man 2 from what made the first film interesting and fun. The pacing and storytelling is a mess (there were so many plot holes in this film that I lost count). The actors were all going through the motions at best, and the only part with any substantive visual style was the end of film title sequence. Yes, the effects work is nice and the plane sequence is well made, but even the much maligned Mandarin plot was far more interesting and better handled than that of “molten man” (or whatever his name is) and the battle over syringes. Aside from a few cool looking action scenes and one or two clever jokes, the film felt like a giant waste of time.
Grade: 2.5/5
Monsters University – This follow up to the least compelling Pixar film was, unsurprisingly, less compelling. The jokes fell flat, my theater was silent, and even my three year old was more interested in his candy than the “hijinks” of Sully and Mike. It coheres as a story and it features top notch animation, but these characters and their jokes are so one dimensional and obvious that it is hard to feel like you are doing much more than watching a series of made-for-children’s-tv episodes strung together into one film. This had “straight to home video” written all over it, and is a sad reminder that Pixar is in a nasty slump.
Grade: 1.5/5
This is the End – Self-parody is a tough thing to do well in film, but Rogen and company succeed in playing off their public personas for a lot of (mostly gross-out) laughs in this oddball comedy. The writing is sharp, the actors are clearly enjoying themselves, and despite some pacing issues and some throw away gags, this is one of the better mainstream comedies to hit theaters in some time. It has more in common with something like Shaun of the Dead than it does with most of Rogen’s work with Apatow, and that’s a good thing in 2013.
Grade: 3.5/5
Hitler’s Children – This was an interesting look at the children and grandchildren of notorious Nazi war criminals. It is probably more notable for what it accomplishes in putting these people on the screen to tell their individual stories than what it does to present a collective statement about their lives or about the legacy of the third Reich. Some of the stories are haunting, the directing and editing is very competent and non-distracting, and the film should leave anyone pondering the present day impact of their own family’s past. Worth a watch for World War 2/history buffs in particular.
Grade: 3/5
The 39 Steps (1935) – This early Hitchock film is not amongst my favorite of his oeuvre, but it’s still an excellent way to kill 80 minutes. The film is well acted and shot, the landscapes in particular are nicely filmed, and the secondary characters – while a bit caricatured – are memorable enough without overstaying their welcome to make the film a nice ensemble piece. I found the plot to be a bit lacking and cliché (which is likely a fault of seeing so many like it made after it), and the palpable intrigue and suspense that would mark Hitch’s career is really just percolating here. That said, for 1935 it is an excellent genre film made by a supremely competent director and as good an example of an “innocent-man-on-the-run” film as you’ll find in early British cinema.
Grade: 3.5/5
Gasland Part II – The first Gasland largely avoided the heavy-handed persuasion and took more of a “show, don’t tell” approach until its last few minutes. By contrast, this film feels less like a documentary of an emerging crisis and more like a confrontational rebuttal to anyone who would continue to doubt the veracity of the author’s earlier film or the sincerity of the anti-fracking movement as a whole. The environmentally-conscious director recycles both motifs and talking points from the earlier film, and does little more here than to offer an update of sorts as to what’s happened to the places featured in that film in the time since. More polemic than pensive, it is mostly red meat for the faithful instead of an invitation for the uninitiated. A shame.
Grade: 2/5
In the near future i hope to also (finally) put up my reviews of the films I crammed before the Oscars this year and to update the links in my master list for the first time in more than a year. Anyway, here goes:
Iron Man 3 – Iron Man 3 is even further removed than Iron Man 2 from what made the first film interesting and fun. The pacing and storytelling is a mess (there were so many plot holes in this film that I lost count). The actors were all going through the motions at best, and the only part with any substantive visual style was the end of film title sequence. Yes, the effects work is nice and the plane sequence is well made, but even the much maligned Mandarin plot was far more interesting and better handled than that of “molten man” (or whatever his name is) and the battle over syringes. Aside from a few cool looking action scenes and one or two clever jokes, the film felt like a giant waste of time.
Grade: 2.5/5
Monsters University – This follow up to the least compelling Pixar film was, unsurprisingly, less compelling. The jokes fell flat, my theater was silent, and even my three year old was more interested in his candy than the “hijinks” of Sully and Mike. It coheres as a story and it features top notch animation, but these characters and their jokes are so one dimensional and obvious that it is hard to feel like you are doing much more than watching a series of made-for-children’s-tv episodes strung together into one film. This had “straight to home video” written all over it, and is a sad reminder that Pixar is in a nasty slump.
Grade: 1.5/5
This is the End – Self-parody is a tough thing to do well in film, but Rogen and company succeed in playing off their public personas for a lot of (mostly gross-out) laughs in this oddball comedy. The writing is sharp, the actors are clearly enjoying themselves, and despite some pacing issues and some throw away gags, this is one of the better mainstream comedies to hit theaters in some time. It has more in common with something like Shaun of the Dead than it does with most of Rogen’s work with Apatow, and that’s a good thing in 2013.
Grade: 3.5/5
Hitler’s Children – This was an interesting look at the children and grandchildren of notorious Nazi war criminals. It is probably more notable for what it accomplishes in putting these people on the screen to tell their individual stories than what it does to present a collective statement about their lives or about the legacy of the third Reich. Some of the stories are haunting, the directing and editing is very competent and non-distracting, and the film should leave anyone pondering the present day impact of their own family’s past. Worth a watch for World War 2/history buffs in particular.
Grade: 3/5
The 39 Steps (1935) – This early Hitchock film is not amongst my favorite of his oeuvre, but it’s still an excellent way to kill 80 minutes. The film is well acted and shot, the landscapes in particular are nicely filmed, and the secondary characters – while a bit caricatured – are memorable enough without overstaying their welcome to make the film a nice ensemble piece. I found the plot to be a bit lacking and cliché (which is likely a fault of seeing so many like it made after it), and the palpable intrigue and suspense that would mark Hitch’s career is really just percolating here. That said, for 1935 it is an excellent genre film made by a supremely competent director and as good an example of an “innocent-man-on-the-run” film as you’ll find in early British cinema.
Grade: 3.5/5
Gasland Part II – The first Gasland largely avoided the heavy-handed persuasion and took more of a “show, don’t tell” approach until its last few minutes. By contrast, this film feels less like a documentary of an emerging crisis and more like a confrontational rebuttal to anyone who would continue to doubt the veracity of the author’s earlier film or the sincerity of the anti-fracking movement as a whole. The environmentally-conscious director recycles both motifs and talking points from the earlier film, and does little more here than to offer an update of sorts as to what’s happened to the places featured in that film in the time since. More polemic than pensive, it is mostly red meat for the faithful instead of an invitation for the uninitiated. A shame.
Grade: 2/5
-
prfsnl_gmr
- Next-Gen
- Posts: 12410
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:26 pm
- Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
Re: What was the last movie you've seen?
I thought just the opposite when I watched it some years ago. In fact, I thought it was one of Hitchcock's most daring films. As he did in Psycho (1960), Hitchcock really toys with audiences expectations here. He introduces seemingly important characters - and potential love interests - who are killed or abandoned. There are sub-plots that unresolved or revealed to be completely irrelevant. While these features might normally be faults, Hitchcock uses them to masterful effect. As someone who has seen a lot of films, I can say that this is one of the few where I could not predict with any degree of accuracy what was going to happen at any point during the narrative. It is probably my favorite of his British films...although The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) and The Lady Vanishes (1938) are also serious contenders.dsheinem wrote:The 39 Steps (1935) – I found the plot to be a bit lacking and cliché (which is likely a fault of seeing so many like it made after it), and the palpable intrigue and suspense that would mark Hitch’s career is really just percolating here.
Also...my wife and I decided we need to develop our cultural literacy, and we have been watching - almost - nothing but recent, "mainstream", blockbuster films for the past few weeks. I will post some thoughts on them later.
Re: What was the last movie you've seen?
Really? I was certain, for example, that the woman he kissed on the train would turn up in an important role later, that the police that took him away would be imposters, etc. i also thought that the ending was a bit of a mess of storytelling and tied up everything too quickly and unsatisfactorily. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the ride - but it felt familiar. Again, this is probably a result of seeing almost all of Hitch's subsequent films.prfsnl_gmr wrote:I thought just the opposite when I watched it some years ago. In fact, I thought it was one of Hitchcock's most daring films. As he did in Psycho (1960), Hitchcock really toys with audiences expectations here. He introduces seemingly important characters - and potential love interests - who are killed or abandoned. There are sub-plots that unresolved or revealed to be completely irrelevant. While these features might normally be faults, Hitchcock uses them to masterful effect. As someone who has seen a lot of films, I can say that this is one of the few where I could not predict with any degree of accuracy what was going to happen at any point during the narrative. It is probably my favorite of his British films...although The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) and The Lady Vanishes (1938) are also serious contenders.dsheinem wrote:The 39 Steps (1935) – I found the plot to be a bit lacking and cliché (which is likely a fault of seeing so many like it made after it), and the palpable intrigue and suspense that would mark Hitch’s career is really just percolating here.
Also...my wife and I decided we need to develop our cultural literacy, and we have been watching - almost - nothing but recent, "mainstream", blockbuster films for the past few weeks. I will post some thoughts on them later.
Re: What was the last movie you've seen?
The Sadist
And TCM saddens me by continuing to show repeats. I think there’s only one thing on I haven’t seen this month. So I’ve decided to go through what little is left of my backlog by starting with The Sadist, another Arch Hall Jr. movie that fares a bit better than his last couple of offerings.
The Sadist is the story of three high school teachers, Ed, Doris, and Carl who are on their way to a baseball game. On the way to the game, they run into a little car trouble and pull over at a gas station/junkyard. After a quick inspection, Ed determines that they will need a new fuel pump, so while he tries to do that, Doris and Carl search the property looking for the owner, but cannot find one. Though, during his search, Carl does find a house with four plates laid out upon the breakfast table: two empty, two untouched.
Realizing this is hella suspicious Carl runs back to the others, but it’s too late. The three of them are quickly confronted by a gun wielding Charley Tibbs and his girlfriend Judy.
I cant tell if she’s really short or if Hall is just really tall…
Charley inform them that he and Judy are going to let the three of them fix their car, because they need a getaway vehicle and their car will do nicely. Of course, the three of them do what they’re told, but little do they know just how much trouble they’re really in.
Needing new prescription glasses is the least of his worries.
Like many films that would come later (Badlands, Natural Born Killers, Murder In The Heartland, Starkweather, etc.) The Sadist is loosely based on the story of teenage murder Charles Starkweather, who from January 25-29 1958 went on a murder spree accompanied by his girlfriend, Caril Anne Fugate. The films hold many similar attributes to one another, (comparable basic plots, that element of “true psycho romance”) the main difference being that The Sadist did it all first and years before.
The film contains a very primitive, unrepentant tone that one doesn’t usually associate with movies from the 60’s. The atmosphere is seedy and there’s an air of unease that permeates every scene. The setting is barren, remote and unpopulated, not unlike Hopper’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, informing both the viewer and the protagonists that help is extremely unlikely. Still, that doesn’t remove the slight ray of hope that the teachers may have to escape their predicament, which is just enough to keep the viewer interested.
The film greatly benefits from wonderful cinematography, done by non other than Vilmos Zsigmond, who won an Oscar for his work on Close encounters of the Third Kind. Of course, this being filmed in 1963 and one of his earlier credited films no one would have known the difference. But that early talent shines through loud and clear here, giving this little low-budget film an edge over it’s companions who were blessed with deeper pockets.
Another aspect of this film that makes it stand out is two of its actors, the first, notably, Mr. Arch Hall Jr. himself. Hall starred in a series of films in the 60’s geared toward the teenage drive-in crowd, most of which seemed to be nothing more than glorified ads for his early music career funded by his father (Arch Hall Sr., who produced every one of his films and even starred in a couple.) A track record like that doesn’t really indicate that there’s a good actor to be found there, but apparently when properly motivated, perhaps as a chance to be taken seriously (There’s no singing to be found anywhere in the film. Hurray!), he does an admirable job.
In Charlie, Hall creates a character that everyone hopes for in a serial killer film. Charlie is unpredictable, unhinged and menacing. Hall brings an eeriness to the role. Just watching scenes of him sitting and giggling, while holding three people at gunpoint and chugging a soda are enough to make you uneasy. Even when he takes things a little over the top, any laughs they create come less from the campyness, and more from the sensation that you’re watching someone who is genuinely unstable. Perhaps if he’d been given the chance to do more serious films his film career would have fared better.
My one complaint about him is that he often stood around like he was in an old western: wide stance and knees bent as if he’d just gotten off a horse. He also had a tendency to make an awkard looking snarl (take another gander at the second screenshot), although that’s more related to the look of his face in general. Overall though, those are minor complaints.
The second person I was impressed with was Helen Hovey as Doris. The Sadist marks her only film role – ever. Hovey’s Doris is at once naïve, terrified, hopeful, and then later, ultimately, determined. She really everything you’d expect from a heroines in a slasher film. She gives you the impression that, deep down, she believes that everyone is good at heart and wants to do the right thing. So when Charlie and his girlfriend arrive on the scene and shatter that image it’s a bit heart wrenching to watch that hope flicker. If she was only going to pick one film to star in, she made a good call.
Though her character sadly suffers from the teenage slasher “can’t shut the hell up while I’m trying to hide” affliction.
Being slightly familiar with Arch Hall Jr.’s film record, I wasn’t expecting to be as impressed as I was. The Sadist has no business being as decent as it is. The film has a simplistic story, no budget, and it features unknown actors or actors with a questionable track record. And yet, somehow, the movie gods must have been smiling down upon its production. Though filled with unknowns, the acting is believable (if not occasionally over the top), the atmosphere is unsettling, the cinematography is impressive and the narrative moves along at a nice clip.
Don’t misunderstand, this is still a B-movie, but it’s a good B-movie and most deserving of it’s cult movie status. I have little doubt that if they had been granted a bigger budget that it would have had a good chance to be bumped up from a B to an A film. If you enjoy B-movies and thrillers then The Sadist is something you may want to look further into.
As far as I can tell it is not currently streaming on Netflix, but it will air again on TCM on the night of July 27.
And TCM saddens me by continuing to show repeats. I think there’s only one thing on I haven’t seen this month. So I’ve decided to go through what little is left of my backlog by starting with The Sadist, another Arch Hall Jr. movie that fares a bit better than his last couple of offerings.
The Sadist is the story of three high school teachers, Ed, Doris, and Carl who are on their way to a baseball game. On the way to the game, they run into a little car trouble and pull over at a gas station/junkyard. After a quick inspection, Ed determines that they will need a new fuel pump, so while he tries to do that, Doris and Carl search the property looking for the owner, but cannot find one. Though, during his search, Carl does find a house with four plates laid out upon the breakfast table: two empty, two untouched.
Realizing this is hella suspicious Carl runs back to the others, but it’s too late. The three of them are quickly confronted by a gun wielding Charley Tibbs and his girlfriend Judy.
I cant tell if she’s really short or if Hall is just really tall…
Charley inform them that he and Judy are going to let the three of them fix their car, because they need a getaway vehicle and their car will do nicely. Of course, the three of them do what they’re told, but little do they know just how much trouble they’re really in.
Needing new prescription glasses is the least of his worries.
Like many films that would come later (Badlands, Natural Born Killers, Murder In The Heartland, Starkweather, etc.) The Sadist is loosely based on the story of teenage murder Charles Starkweather, who from January 25-29 1958 went on a murder spree accompanied by his girlfriend, Caril Anne Fugate. The films hold many similar attributes to one another, (comparable basic plots, that element of “true psycho romance”) the main difference being that The Sadist did it all first and years before.
The film contains a very primitive, unrepentant tone that one doesn’t usually associate with movies from the 60’s. The atmosphere is seedy and there’s an air of unease that permeates every scene. The setting is barren, remote and unpopulated, not unlike Hopper’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, informing both the viewer and the protagonists that help is extremely unlikely. Still, that doesn’t remove the slight ray of hope that the teachers may have to escape their predicament, which is just enough to keep the viewer interested.
The film greatly benefits from wonderful cinematography, done by non other than Vilmos Zsigmond, who won an Oscar for his work on Close encounters of the Third Kind. Of course, this being filmed in 1963 and one of his earlier credited films no one would have known the difference. But that early talent shines through loud and clear here, giving this little low-budget film an edge over it’s companions who were blessed with deeper pockets.
Another aspect of this film that makes it stand out is two of its actors, the first, notably, Mr. Arch Hall Jr. himself. Hall starred in a series of films in the 60’s geared toward the teenage drive-in crowd, most of which seemed to be nothing more than glorified ads for his early music career funded by his father (Arch Hall Sr., who produced every one of his films and even starred in a couple.) A track record like that doesn’t really indicate that there’s a good actor to be found there, but apparently when properly motivated, perhaps as a chance to be taken seriously (There’s no singing to be found anywhere in the film. Hurray!), he does an admirable job.
In Charlie, Hall creates a character that everyone hopes for in a serial killer film. Charlie is unpredictable, unhinged and menacing. Hall brings an eeriness to the role. Just watching scenes of him sitting and giggling, while holding three people at gunpoint and chugging a soda are enough to make you uneasy. Even when he takes things a little over the top, any laughs they create come less from the campyness, and more from the sensation that you’re watching someone who is genuinely unstable. Perhaps if he’d been given the chance to do more serious films his film career would have fared better.
My one complaint about him is that he often stood around like he was in an old western: wide stance and knees bent as if he’d just gotten off a horse. He also had a tendency to make an awkard looking snarl (take another gander at the second screenshot), although that’s more related to the look of his face in general. Overall though, those are minor complaints.
The second person I was impressed with was Helen Hovey as Doris. The Sadist marks her only film role – ever. Hovey’s Doris is at once naïve, terrified, hopeful, and then later, ultimately, determined. She really everything you’d expect from a heroines in a slasher film. She gives you the impression that, deep down, she believes that everyone is good at heart and wants to do the right thing. So when Charlie and his girlfriend arrive on the scene and shatter that image it’s a bit heart wrenching to watch that hope flicker. If she was only going to pick one film to star in, she made a good call.
Though her character sadly suffers from the teenage slasher “can’t shut the hell up while I’m trying to hide” affliction.
Being slightly familiar with Arch Hall Jr.’s film record, I wasn’t expecting to be as impressed as I was. The Sadist has no business being as decent as it is. The film has a simplistic story, no budget, and it features unknown actors or actors with a questionable track record. And yet, somehow, the movie gods must have been smiling down upon its production. Though filled with unknowns, the acting is believable (if not occasionally over the top), the atmosphere is unsettling, the cinematography is impressive and the narrative moves along at a nice clip.
Don’t misunderstand, this is still a B-movie, but it’s a good B-movie and most deserving of it’s cult movie status. I have little doubt that if they had been granted a bigger budget that it would have had a good chance to be bumped up from a B to an A film. If you enjoy B-movies and thrillers then The Sadist is something you may want to look further into.
As far as I can tell it is not currently streaming on Netflix, but it will air again on TCM on the night of July 27.
Last edited by Michi on Sat Jul 13, 2013 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: What was the last movie you've seen?
Refreshing to see Michi.
DESPICABLE ME 2
Second viewing, still confusingly fun. Theater was packed to the gills, and not just the theater rooms, the parking lot, the connected restaurants, the snack aisle, and teens just slackin' around in front smoking butts. Even the arcade cabs had a waiting line.
Not complaining. That's what I want for the theaters.
To the movie, I'd say 90, maybe 94% capacity for a 7:15pm showing on a Friday night for the 2D show. Next 2D showing was at 7:50pm, and people were already purchasing that time. 10% Seniors, 30% Teens, 30% Adults, 30% Kids, 10% Imaginary people.
THE HEAT, as I already mentioned was sub-par, got sub-par attendance, as did MAN OF STEEL. But the manager said about 50% steady for END and "those kids buy a lot of candy".
I'm skipping my review of the film as I had a possibly once in a lifetime experience. LOUD kid right behind me. I enjoyed his (thought he was a girl) attachment to the characters and his outbursts. It's not like he's checking his smartphone.
And then the kicking of the seat begins. As always it starts off with a random *nudge*. Nothing enough to make a deal of as people getting up to pee is also distracting; it's part of the theater experience.
But this kid.
Kid started going Johnny Lawrence on my seat and his Mother did something amazing. She picked her son up, moved him to the aisle, and mouthed to me "I'm so sorry" while giving the "I've had it up to here" gesticulation. In return I mouthed "No problem!" with a wave that looked like I was clearing a fart. Not what I was going for.
This Mom rocks. She told the kid why he had to move, moved the kid, and said "You can watch the movie from here or you can leave". I also found it cute when I told her "He can talk all he wants, it doesn't bother me" and her response was "...bothers me".
DESPICABLE ME 2
Second viewing, still confusingly fun. Theater was packed to the gills, and not just the theater rooms, the parking lot, the connected restaurants, the snack aisle, and teens just slackin' around in front smoking butts. Even the arcade cabs had a waiting line.
Not complaining. That's what I want for the theaters.
To the movie, I'd say 90, maybe 94% capacity for a 7:15pm showing on a Friday night for the 2D show. Next 2D showing was at 7:50pm, and people were already purchasing that time. 10% Seniors, 30% Teens, 30% Adults, 30% Kids, 10% Imaginary people.
THE HEAT, as I already mentioned was sub-par, got sub-par attendance, as did MAN OF STEEL. But the manager said about 50% steady for END and "those kids buy a lot of candy".
I'm skipping my review of the film as I had a possibly once in a lifetime experience. LOUD kid right behind me. I enjoyed his (thought he was a girl) attachment to the characters and his outbursts. It's not like he's checking his smartphone.
And then the kicking of the seat begins. As always it starts off with a random *nudge*. Nothing enough to make a deal of as people getting up to pee is also distracting; it's part of the theater experience.
But this kid.
Kid started going Johnny Lawrence on my seat and his Mother did something amazing. She picked her son up, moved him to the aisle, and mouthed to me "I'm so sorry" while giving the "I've had it up to here" gesticulation. In return I mouthed "No problem!" with a wave that looked like I was clearing a fart. Not what I was going for.
This Mom rocks. She told the kid why he had to move, moved the kid, and said "You can watch the movie from here or you can leave". I also found it cute when I told her "He can talk all he wants, it doesn't bother me" and her response was "...bothers me".
-
Jmustang1968
- Next-Gen
- Posts: 6530
- Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:51 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
Re: What was the last movie you've seen?
I only go to Alamo Drafthouse to see movies these days. No kids, seating with tables, and they serve micro-brews. I am spoiled.
My Sales Thread
My Gameroom and Collection pics
Game Room Video Tour
RPGamer Previewer
Current Feedback: +266 Racketboy, +172 NintendoAge
My Gameroom and Collection pics
Game Room Video Tour
RPGamer Previewer
Current Feedback: +266 Racketboy, +172 NintendoAge
Re: What was the last movie you've seen?
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
While I enjoyed this film the first time I saw it (at the theater), I was a little underwhelmed. However, I thought it was much, MUCH better on a second viewing. I think when it first came out, most people were comparing it to Lord Of The Rings (including me), but you can't really do that because it's a fundamentally different kind of story. LOTR is an epic in all senses of the word while The Hobbit is a much more straightforward adventure/fairy tale. As such, I think they've done an excellent job and I can't wait to see the other two parts. One thing to note:
While I enjoyed this film the first time I saw it (at the theater), I was a little underwhelmed. However, I thought it was much, MUCH better on a second viewing. I think when it first came out, most people were comparing it to Lord Of The Rings (including me), but you can't really do that because it's a fundamentally different kind of story. LOTR is an epic in all senses of the word while The Hobbit is a much more straightforward adventure/fairy tale. As such, I think they've done an excellent job and I can't wait to see the other two parts. One thing to note:
I'm not a glitch, I just have pixlexia.
Raiiban wrote:That's a moral dilemma. Capitalism has no morals.
Re: What was the last movie you've seen?
When I hear about Arch Hall I think of Eegah right away, and Vilmos Zsigmond also worked on The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies . That's the MST3K fan in me. WATCH OUT FOR SNAKES
Anyways, I'll be seeing Pacific Rim today. Seems to be just a heck of a time wasting summer movie. I'll be back here later on.
Anyways, I'll be seeing Pacific Rim today. Seems to be just a heck of a time wasting summer movie. I'll be back here later on.
Xeogred wrote:The obvious answer is that it's time for the Dreamcast 2.