|
|
| Page 2 of 4 |
werdercanuck
Posts: 1562
Location: Pot Capital of Canada (BC)
|
 Posted: Sat, 16th Sep 2006 20:14 Post subject: |
|
 |
best football movie ever was the waterboy 
1F U C4N R34D 7H1S, U R34LLY N33D 70 G37 L41D
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nouseforaname
Über-VIP Member
Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
werdercanuck
Posts: 1562
Location: Pot Capital of Canada (BC)
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Sep 2006 20:23 Post subject: |
|
|
i think remember the titans was a tad better than friday night lights, but enough off topic though 
1F U C4N R34D 7H1S, U R34LLY N33D 70 G37 L41D
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Sep 2006 21:35 Post subject: |
|
|
| Code: | See. People go into a movie expecting violence... gore... bone crunching lines and shit and when they're disappointed... the movie sux :lol:
Ravenous was poorly received at the theaters. Was it a bad movie? NO! :P
Hulk had a great story, fantastic visuals, superb character development... stayed pretty much true to the comics and yet... people were disappointed because Hulk didn't smash enough :roll: or some gay reason like that. |
1.hulk's visual were about average for a comic movie with some of the worst CGI I've seen in years.
2.the story was just BAD! I'm a fan of smart movies and good scripts (i.e. lock, stock and 2 smocking barrels, momento etc.) and I'm sorry to say but the hulk just didn;t have neither.
3.character development was almost non existent in this movie and most of the characters were very 2d.
| Code: | | X-men movies were utter shit. 1 and 2. Third one was pretty much the best of the three. Even though ratner is a fag, the movie had more pizzazz then the other two put together. It just was weeeeeckid! |
IMHO its exactly the opposite - the first two movies were GREAT and while not by far both were still better than the third.
| Code: | | Superman returns.... people loved it.. what did it prove? That Brian singer or synger should never ever direct a movie ever again. It was just what the fuck? Romance… hahahahhahahaha what romance? Sappyneesssss! |
take any old love story movie, give superpowers to the main character, add some CGI and you got yourself superman returns!!
| Code: | | People loved batman begins and they should :D Only flaw were the fight scenes, but everything else? Fantastic. Well, Burton fans hated batman begins... not gay enough for them :lol: |
i totally agree with you here.
| Code: | | All in all! Ang Lee pwnd hulk. People just did not like it because it made them think. They went in, just like they went into ravenous, expecting a different movie. They were disappointed. I loled at them :lol: |
people didn't like the hulk because it was the most kids oriented comics movie in the last few years.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 02:30 Post subject: |
|
|
| liansk wrote: | | 1.hulk's visual were about average for a comic movie with some of the worst CGI I've seen in years. |
 yeah. Just like superman and his plastic cape
| liansk wrote: | | 2.the story was just BAD! I'm a fan of smart movies and good scripts (i.e. lock, stock and 2 smocking barrels |
that's how much I had to read to know how full of shit you are. Guy Ritchie is a fucking fag! All his movies aren't smart/wity or anything. They're poorly written. Poorly executed. Guy ritchie film = smart film !
| liansk wrote: | | 3.character development was almost non existent in this movie and most of the characters were very 2d. |
I agree. Jason Statham needed a better character role.
| liansk wrote: | | IMHO its exactly the opposite - the first two movies were GREAT and while not by far both were still better than the third. |
Brian Singer cannot direct to save his life. he's like ron howard. Get's the job done. Ratner at least made the movies enjoyable and not full of sap.
| liansk wrote: | | take any old love story movie, give superpowers to the main character, add some CGI and you got yourself superman returns!! |
Old love story movies were actually decent. Don't compare them to brian singers shitpiece.
| liansk wrote: | | people didn't like the hulk because it was the most kids oriented comics movie in the last few years. |
99% of the kids who went and seen the hulk wouldn't be able to understand half the shit going on. Hulk was smart. The story was smart. It was well written. Well executed. A great cast. And a fantastic director. People wanted singer and they got shakespeare.
Sorry for the lousy grammar / spelling. You get the gist (at least I got it). Guy Ritchie.
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 04:21 Post subject: |
|
|
Well, fuck me. Just when I thought people couldn't get any more ignorant or blind you go and post something like this:
| Code: | | yeah. Just like superman and his plastic cape |
Well, that simply shows how mature you are. Really nice to reply with some shit when you can't produce a valid argument.
| Code: | | that's how much I had to read to know how full of shit you are. Guy Ritchie is a fucking fag! All his movies aren't smart/wity or anything. They're poorly written. Poorly executed. Guy ritchie film = smart film ! |
I didn't have to read much of this either to asume that you must be a complete imbecile. Guy Ritchie's movies are very well written and there is extreme depth and sophistication to the dialogue. Maybe you're just not getting it? Watch it again, and go slow this time.
| Code: | | Brian Singer cannot direct to save his life. he's like ron howard. Get's the job done. Ratner at least made the movies enjoyable and not full of sap. |
I think that he did a decent job on both Superman and the X movies. But Ron Howard, dude what the fuck are you on? The Da Vince Code, Ransom, Apollo 13? Did they suck? A picture of your mind is beginning to take shape. BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!!! That's it.
| Quote: | | 99% of the kids who went and seen the hulk wouldn't be able to understand half the shit going on. Hulk was smart. The story was smart. It was well written. Well executed. A great cast. And a fantastic director. People wanted singer and they got shakespeare. |
And of course you were among the 1% that saw a light in that movie. To even name Shakespeare and Singer in the same sentence. Hell, the only thing those two have in common is the first initial in their last names.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 04:58 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Well, that simply shows how mature you are. Really nice to reply with some shit when you can't produce a valid argument. |
The argument was that hulks cgi was utter garbage. Superman, though fairly recent, did not have superb cgi (neither did king kong but I won’t go into that). Arguing about CGI is just like my comment and the way it was phrased. Utter nonsense. If you're a fucktard looking for flaws in cgi, you will find them. That is all.
| Quote: | | I didn't have to read much of this either to asume that you must be a complete imbecile. Guy Ritchie's movies are very well written and there is extreme depth and sophistication to the dialogue. Maybe you're just not getting it? Watch it again, and go slow this time. |
Maybe you're not understanding the emotional and psychological depth in hulk? Come on. Guy Ritchie just writes lines and shoots scenes. There's no depth. His only thought provoking movie was revolver. And that turned out to be nonsense when thoroughly analyzed. Snatch is shit. Lock stock is amateurish tripe. His movies are merely entertaining. That is all. They aren’t meant to be chewed over. If you chew them over you're going to end up with matrix reloaded / revolutions. They appear to be well written. With all those fancy words pulled out of every single thesaurus page, but do they add anything to the story? Do they add any content? No. Do they make you think? Only if you have no fucking clue what ergo means. 
| Quote: | | I think that he did a decent job on both Superman and the X movies. But Ron Howard, dude what the fuck are you on? The Da Vince Code, Ransom, Apollo 13? Did they suck? A picture of your mind is beginning to take shape. BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!!! That's it. |
Ron Howard is a shit director. He gets a script. A list of actors suited for the script. He shoots it. That is all. Nothing is creative. It’s all page by page. Scene by Scene. He's worthless. His movies, just like Guy Ritchie’s, are merely entertaining. They're not at all good.
| Quote: | | And of course you were among the 1% that saw a light in that movie. To even name Shakespeare and Singer in the same sentence. Hell, the only thing those two have in common is the first initial in their last names. |
BS? I'm not saying I understood hulk fully. But I'm just saying, people went in there expecting an entertaining movie about a green giant smashing a city to bits and tearing people apart. Not a character driven drama.
Still, you make me laugh. Guy Ritchie, competent? Ron Howard good? Next you're going to tell me you're absolutely right about Ron Howard because he won an oscar.
Grow up.
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 14:38 Post subject: |
|
|
I think you're wasting your breath. I don't think there's any getting through.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 14:46 Post subject: |
|
|
| liansk wrote: | | are you implying that superman returns had bad visuals? |
Yes. As did king kong. Well, kong had better visuals than superman.
| liansk wrote: | | i just love it when dumb people treat their own opinions as facts and then rub that shit all over the place.rewatch the movie, go to imdb,check some reviews and if you still don't get it, jump off a cliff. |
User made reviews mean something?
Here, let me give you a run down what IMDB is good for.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith : 8.0/10
Top 250: #245
| Code: | . 9.1 The Godfather (1972) 176,476
2. 9.0 The Shawshank Redemption (1994) 212,568
3. 8.9 The Godfather: Part II (1974) 100,336
4. 8.8 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) 160,244
5. 8.8 Casablanca (1942) 86,590
6. 8.8 Schindler's List (1993) 128,747
7. 8.8 Shichinin no samurai (1954) 46,447
8. 8.8 Buono, il brutto, il cattivo, Il (1966) 48,061
9. 8.7 Pulp Fiction (1994) 182,958
10. 8.7 Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) 138,516
11. 8.7 Star Wars (1977) 174,852
12. 8.7 One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) 93,010
13. 8.7 Rear Window (1954) 54,922
14. 8.7 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) 204,286 |
That order of movies. Godfather. number1? You know why it's number1? Not because it's a superb, amazing, fantastic movie. It's because 14 year old 'gangstas' see that movie as the holy bible. Its not a bad movie, but not a top 10 worthy. Shawshank, isn’t bad. But it's not as good as... fuck me... I only see three great movies on that list and they should be in the mid 20’s . Pulp, Good bad ugly, cuckos. that just says how competent imdb really is. It's all fanboy controlled, kid. If imdb had ps3/wii/360 game reviews and such, I’m 100% that all ps3 fanboys will vote 10 on any ps3 game and 1 on any 360 game. Can that be taken seriously? Also Some people vote out of spite.
And no. You see my points as my opinions.
| Quote: | | AGAIN - it's just YOUR opinion and a lousy based one at that! |
No, my opinion is that Brian Singer is shit. It's a fact he cannot direct. I like his movies. They're entertaining. They're not well made, you have to understand that. I know won't convince you like this so I’ll throw an iceberg at your titanic. Singer cannot direct actors. There. Chew it over.
| Quote: | | i don't know what crazy storyline you imagined in this movie but i assure you that its not really there. i watched the movie with my 9 years old cousin and he managed to retell the whole damn story in about 2 minutes to his friends. |
Retelling does not mean understanding. I can tell you cache is about a family in France that is being terrorized by a series of videotapes. That's a fucking synopsis. That's what happens in the movie. Are you telling me that movies are just so plain that what you see is what you understand? Go see Cache. Chances are you won’t understand the first 20 minutes.
| Quote: | | p.s. I've just read your last post and I'm starting to see a pretty sad pattern - superman returns and KING FUCKING KONG had bad CGI, guy richie is an amateur fag with shit movies and THE HULK is an misunderstood, emotional, psychological drama of epic proportions? thats fucking sad dude. |
Yes. That's my pattern. I like to insult movies I did not like. Just forget this nonsense. You go see a movie, and if you're entertained, you'll be super happy and call it a fantastic movie. That’s why I noticed in your pattern.
What did superman have? I mean honestly? It had lousy, over the top acting. Just like van helsing it was meant to be that way (it’s not funny in helsing, it’s not funny in superman). Average Visuals, you still see plastic neo flying around. Below average script. An average director. Emotionless romantic scenes. Pathetic hero moments (music is what made them so intense .) Come on! The only good thing in superman in Brando.
flappy. I like you too. You guys should watch a good movie once in a while. i heard covenant was amazing. It's number 1 at the box office for a reason
Let’s get back on topic. I think with CT (chaos theory) there was a teaser trailer for Splinter Cell. It was fan made I think, it looked like it. I’d watch a SC movie. Doesn’t matter if uwe boll was in the directing chair. Sam Fisher is just that frickin’ cool
Anyway. R6 sounds like it would be great as a tv series.  Maybe they’ll make a spin off when the movie’s successful.
There was a rumour back when SC was announced that tommy jane would take the acting chair. But that died down when Punisher 2 was announced.
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 15:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| WaldoJ wrote: | | liansk wrote: | | are you implying that superman returns had bad visuals? |
Yes. As did king kong. Well, kong had better visuals than superman.
| liansk wrote: | | i just love it when dumb people treat their own opinions as facts and then rub that shit all over the place.rewatch the movie, go to imdb,check some reviews and if you still don't get it, jump off a cliff. |
User made reviews mean something?
Here, let me give you a run down what IMDB is good for.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith : 8.0/10
Top 250: #245
| Code: | . 9.1 The Godfather (1972) 176,476
2. 9.0 The Shawshank Redemption (1994) 212,568
3. 8.9 The Godfather: Part II (1974) 100,336
4. 8.8 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) 160,244
5. 8.8 Casablanca (1942) 86,590
6. 8.8 Schindler's List (1993) 128,747
7. 8.8 Shichinin no samurai (1954) 46,447
8. 8.8 Buono, il brutto, il cattivo, Il (1966) 48,061
9. 8.7 Pulp Fiction (1994) 182,958
10. 8.7 Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) 138,516
11. 8.7 Star Wars (1977) 174,852
12. 8.7 One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) 93,010
13. 8.7 Rear Window (1954) 54,922
14. 8.7 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) 204,286 |
That order of movies. Godfather. number1? You know why it's number1? Not because it's a superb, amazing, fantastic movie. It's because 14 year old 'gangstas' see that movie as the holy bible. Its not a bad movie, but not a top 10 worthy. Shawshank, isn’t bad. But it's not as good as... fuck me... I only see three great movies on that list and they should be in the mid 20’s . Pulp, Good bad ugly, cuckos. that just says how competent imdb really is. It's all fanboy controlled, kid. If imdb had ps3/wii/360 game reviews and such, I’m 100% that all ps3 fanboys will vote 10 on any ps3 game and 1 on any 360 game. Can that be taken seriously? Also Some people vote out of spite.
|
You're wrong about the Godfather. It's a fucking classic film... not because of 13 year old wannabe gangsters (most young people fucking hate this film) but because of the acting and the story. If you don't like it; you suck. TY VERY MUCH ^.^
Shawshank Redemption is also great ^_^ deserves number 2 spot.
-.-
<3 Pacino <3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 15:07 Post subject: |
|
|
Yep, Godfather and Shawshank deserves to be on Top10.
However, if you look at the list, it is obvious that Star Wars and LOTR fanboys have been at work.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 15:11 Post subject: |
|
|
| Dazz99 wrote: | You're wrong about the Godfather. It's a fucking classic film... not because of 13 year old wannabe gangsters (most young people fucking hate this film) but because of the acting and the story. If you don't like it; you suck. TY VERY MUCH ^.^
Shawshank Redemption is also great ^_^ deserves number 2 spot.
|
Godfather is nice and all, but not for a number 1 spot. Come on! I can go and find more people who liked scarface than godfather. Shame they don't vote on imdb Shawshank is great, but I can name a few movies that should be in front of it or at its place. Y'know IMDB top 250 lists can’t be taken seriously. Fans of a movie just vote ten willy-nilly and then brainwashed people read it and head to blockbuster to rent the greatest movie ever! !
Let's get back on topic! I want to see a great ensemble cast in R6.
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 15:14 Post subject: |
|
|
This topic has gone too far to hell with all the comic-book shit to bring it back on-topic!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 15:15 Post subject: |
|
|
WaldoJ, after reading the godfather part of your post (not that the rest of it was any better) I'm going to stop arguing with you since i now see how hopeless your case is. for now il just give you a friendly advice - DO NOT under any circumstances discuss cinematography in the company of intelligent people unless you want to be classified as an idiot.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 15:16 Post subject: |
|
|
Parallax, you think Tommy Jane would make a good Sam Fisher?
He did a fine job with punisher. Y'know? He could pull of a fisher. Clooney is cool and all and a decent actor, but I don't want to see a Danny Ocean trying to take down Alaskan terrorist forces.
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 15:17 Post subject: |
|
|
| liansk wrote: | | WaldoJ, after reading the godfather part of your post (not that the rest of it was any better) I'm going to stop arguing with you since i now see how hopeless your case is. for now il just give you a friendly advice - DO NOT under any circumstances discuss cinematography in the company of intelligent people unless you want to be classified as an idiot. |
Seconded.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 15:19 Post subject: |
|
|
you're such a hypocrite.
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 15:21 Post subject: |
|
|
Who and for what?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 15:27 Post subject: |
|
|
You. And you know for what.
Just drop it. They let their emotions do the talking. They find a movie entertaining and they think it's a masterpiece. Just drop the movie discussion bit.
Let's stay on topic. R6 / SC. I'm more interested in http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499097/
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 15:28 Post subject: |
|
|
No, I'm not, and I wouldn't know for what. You are just being a bitch because you got owned by liansk
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 15:34 Post subject: |
|
|
You tell us to go back on topic. Then you go off topic.
Yes. I got owned. He's right. I'm wrong. Lets get back on topic.
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 15:35 Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think you can even put movies on a list like that. Sure, you can say what is good and what is bad, but to give it an exact number on a list is just not possible in my opinion.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 15:36 Post subject: |
|
|
Uh, that is no hypocritical. Back on page one I was telling people to go back on topic because there was still hope for this topic. But now, after another page of idiots quarelling about opinions (omg Hulk is shit, omg Hulk is not shit, etc), it has gone straight to hell.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 15:37 Post subject: |
|
|
Let's go to the bitchin' section then
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 15:38 Post subject: |
|
|
I was hoping a moderator would clean it out
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 15:40 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 15:43 Post subject: |
|
|
Yes. And then you added to the argument. You also went off topic.
You guys think we're going to hear that ding when Fisher changes his view to like heat sensor or night vision? Or will be him being an army of one and using the environment to his advantage w/o the need of fancy gadgets? It would be cool, I think. A knife, a gun and a ship full of badguys. I wonder how they’re going to shoot him sneaking about.
I wonder where it’s going to be set.
Where would you guys want to see fisher? I’d love to see it set in the jungle.
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Sep 2006 15:53 Post subject: |
|
|
Can't we dream and hope about what he might see in the movie? Jesus. Nothing is said or announced about SC to my knowledge. I thought i'd be cool just saying what'd be cool to see.
Acrobatics. Are they important? Like, in the games you use them to hide and attack, but are they really important in the movie? Wouldn't it just be enough for him to run around in the shadows and offing people one by one?
Come on! Forget the bull shit arguments and talk about what you might like to see in SC. I haven’t play R6 since RS so I don’t know what would be cool. I’d love to see an airport shootout.
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 2 of 4 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
