bada wrote:Bigs and Migs,

I agree with you guys for the large part. Much of the magic and innocence is gone from family style live-action pictures. Bigs, you pointed out some great flicks from our lives as children. Although I am a HUGE fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy which probably is not for kids my son's age but yet he has seen each of them probably 20 times.

However I do think there are some wonderful animated films that my kids have been able to enjoy. Most recently "Up" which I think is a fantastic film. Some very adult themes at the top and very reflective but rolled into a fun and funny picture that children can enjoy. Pixar has done a few of these that I think are really enjoyable.

While I have a side of me that really enjoys films where I am intellectually stimulated, I have to say I am probably more so turned on by movies that are visual. At least when I go to a theatre. I save the intillectual movies for home.

For the first Transformers movie, I took my son to our local IMAX theatre and we both freaked out over the visuals. I thought it was a stunning movie visually. Of course the story was not complex and was predictable but did not stop me from enjoying it. But more importantly was my son' reaction leaving the theatre where his mind was so blown his words could not keep up with how fast his brain wanted to talk. It was so funny and took me back to being 7 years old walking out of the theatre after seeing Star Wars. I had the same reaction.

So while not as good and it is a different generation, the emotional response it provided him was the same.

I see what your saying man and as long as the kids are enjoying its all good.

But my point is, that they dont know any different do they?............I mean Lord of the Rings is a perfect example of how it SHOULD be done, which is a movie that kids will enjoy and be able to get into, and theres a hell of alot for adults as well.

Much like the films we loved as kids, adults loved them aswell...........whereas the market for big blockbusters is geared more for kids and younger people but the adults arent catered for in the intellectual or escapism sense.

I also blame CGI for the emotional dis-connection too, because when I watched E.T, I knew and could see that E.T WAS ACTUALLY THERE!!! and if I was there, I could hug him and whatever, whereas now, no matter how good the CGI is, its still CGI and hence...........not real (please GOD! if you ever let your kids watch E.T, promise!!! me that they will watch the original version and not the butchered CGI version, this includes Star Wars aswell )

Also, Im with TMC (of course, because we are so well matched )...........I cant enjoy a movie, no matter what it is, unless it stimulates my brain with more than with visuals.

I love visuals, Im all about spectacular scenes and shot making............but if its just that and no actual substance, and is just visuals for the sake of visuals, its not for me.

RobDIKUM wrote:11 huh? you've been on the journey to find a 3 breasted woman ever since huh?

by the way james, check movie2k if youwanna check out Che

Nah, that 3 tittied woman scared the crap out of me more than all the gore and sh*t!!!

Ohh and I got a perfect copy of Che from my usual download site, will watch over the weeked and tell you what I think............also got Valkyrie, The Reader and Revolutionary Road.

i've been meaning to get valkyrie too, and revolutionary road sounds interesting.

I heard the new Transformers is basically just Shia LeBouf and Megan Fox running away from explosions and all the Decepticons. I've read a few reviews... and they're all giving negative reviews.

xbay wrote:I heard the new Transformers is basically just Shia LeBouf and Megan Fox running away from explosions and all the Decepticons. I've read a few reviews... and they're all giving negative reviews.

Just got back from seeing it.

Typical sequel, less story and more action. I did not like it nearly as much as the first one but still had enough to keep me entertained.

And Megan Fox is smoking hot.

bada wrote:

xbay wrote:I heard the new Transformers is basically just Shia LeBouf and Megan Fox running away from explosions and all the Decepticons. I've read a few reviews... and they're all giving negative reviews.

Just got back from seeing it.

Typical sequel, less story and more action. I did not like it nearly as much as the first one but still had enough to keep me entertained.

And Megan Fox is smoking hot.

Yeah, I just got bad seeing it and I agree with you on what you said. It's just that, because I'm still a kid at heart, this movie was simply...

EPIC, LEGIT, FANTASTIC, CRAZY, SEXY, THE ULTIMATE WIN.

And regarding Megan Fox... she was gorgeous in every scene she was in. She definitely was a WIN.

Not sure how many Harry Potter fans are on here, but for those who are, I think you'll definitely like the 6th installment to the series. Yes, my guilty pleasure as a kid was reading the books 1-7. I don't like reading, but Harry Potter books always got me for some unknown reason.

The movie was great. Definitely the best movie of them all, so far. They didn't stress as much in the movie over who the Half-Blood Prince was like they did in the book, and there were a couple funny parts as well. The movie surely did live up to its hype of being "darker." Overall, great movie... well, at least for those who like HP.

I give it somewhere around A or A-.

Hmm... so I just recently found out Quentin Tarantino just made a movie called "Inglourious Basterds." If I'm not mistaken, it's already been released in the UK and Australia. So if anyone has seen it, how was it? Cause I've read reviews that it was great and the storyline sounds pretty hilarious.

GI Joes (blows),
If you have a twelve year old son or nephew, take them to see this, and they will never stop thanking you. YOU however, will be bored as shiit though. to put it simply: It is more silly than either of the Transformers movies. basically, its a live action cartoon. it is so cliche'd it's not even funny. the only part worth watching is a ten minute paris chase scene. but realize that it's only 10mins and that you're movie ticket (at least in big cities) now cost more than $10. wait till it comes out on DVD my friend.

denis quaid and marlon Wayans are in it, do I even need to comment on the acting? And if you're a Sienna Miller fan, don't bother, this movie is intended for pre-pubescent kids and the director do not try to extend their target audience by throwing in any kind of cheesecake.

Funny People

Depressing, but not good depressing cause it just drags, and drags, and drags. one of those movies that kinda doesn't know where to go after about the first 20mins. oh yeah, and it's not funny, unless you crack up at repetitive penis jokes. it's not like "oh first off just didn't get the jokes", the movie is pretty damn serious and literally does not try to be funny for 95% of its 2hr+ run time. I knew that going in, and I still was not really that into it. it feels a bit like the movie "Closer" - depressing, cheating, unresolved issues leaves you saying, "that was great that they tried to be different by not having a typical hollywood ending, but... I want a typical hollywood ending". Sandler and Cohen do a pretty good acting though, and there chemistry is pretty good.


In the Loop

The Office + West Wing + confusion = an above average comedy. not great, but slightly above OK. I did laugh out loud a few times. it's kinda on the opposite side of the spectrum from GI Joes. It's almost too pretentious and too smart to really engage the viewer sometimes, even though its supposed to show the ridiculous needlessly confusing side of gov't international relations (at least between the US and UK).

don't watch this movie if you get bored easily. you don't have to study every detail, however, it is a typical british comedy in that it uses very very dry wit. The whole movie is kind of one big situational joke, and if you can't pay pretty close attention for its sub-2hr run time you may leave the theater thinking it was a big waste of time

xbay wrote:

bada wrote:

xbay wrote:I heard the new Transformers is basically just Shia LeBouf and Megan Fox running away from explosions and all the Decepticons. I've read a few reviews... and they're all giving negative reviews.

Just got back from seeing it.

Typical sequel, less story and more action. I did not like it nearly as much as the first one but still had enough to keep me entertained.

And Megan Fox is smoking hot.

Yeah, I just got bad seeing it and I agree with you on what you said. It's just that, because I'm still a kid at heart, this movie was simply...

EPIC, LEGIT, FANTASTIC, CRAZY, SEXY, THE ULTIMATE WIN.

And regarding Megan Fox... she was gorgeous in every scene she was in. She definitely was a WIN.

Yeah, I thought it was better than the first one. Typically sequels are not, but this one was better with more action, better scenes, etc.

One thing we all agree on is Megan Fox: simply the epitome of gorgeousness, bar none.

CjR wrote:One thing we all agree on is Megan Fox: simply the epitome of gorgeousness, bar none.

No question about it. I don't question her beauty, but to be honest, it's truly amazing how great our technology has become to be able to make her look THAT gorgeous.

now see, I liked Funny People...
wasn't great, but it was pretty good...

Jackattack wrote:now see, I liked Funny People...
wasn't great, but it was pretty good...

I liked funny people a lot. who didn't like it?

RobDIKUM wrote:

Jackattack wrote:now see, I liked Funny People...
wasn't great, but it was pretty good...

I liked funny people a lot. who didn't like it?

yo,

different strokes for different folks. glad you guys enjoyed it.

I thought there was good acting, but it was way too long and it ran out of story after the first 20 minutes.

Megan Fox and Funny People star Seth Rogen in on funny youtube clip:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNO6OUd6iOc[/youtube]

first off wrote:

RobDIKUM wrote:

Jackattack wrote:now see, I liked Funny People...
wasn't great, but it was pretty good...

I liked funny people a lot. who didn't like it?

yo,

different strokes for different folks.

I thought there was good acting, but it was way too long and it ran out of story after the first 20 minutes.

Of course everybody has different tastes, but that sort of sounds like the movie review i read on it. I thought it was long, but it was fine. Some good funny parts. It wasn't incredibly hilarious but was a good movie, especially for Sandler. I think his recent movies haven't been as good.

RobDIKUM wrote:

first off wrote:

RobDIKUM wrote:

Jackattack wrote:now see, I liked Funny People...
wasn't great, but it was pretty good...

I liked funny people a lot. who didn't like it?

yo,

different strokes for different folks. glad you guys enjoyed it.

I thought there was good acting, but it was way too long and it ran out of story after the first 20 minutes.

Megan Fox and Funny People star Seth Rogen in on funny youtube clip:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNO6OUd6iOc[/youtube]

Of course everybody has different tastes, but that sort of sounds like the movie review i read on it. I thought it was long, but it was fine. Some good funny parts. It wasn't incredibly hilarious but was a good movie, especially for Sandler. I think his recent movies haven't been as good.

I will say it's the best adam sandler movie I've seen in a long time (that's not saying much though). actually scratch that, I thought "Click" was a little better and it came out like 2 years ago