13 Assassins
Available Netflix Streaming
There are worse ways to kill a couple hours or a couple hundred samurai.
[quote]Bujo wrote:
13 Assassins
Available Netflix Streaming
There are worse ways to kill a couple hours or a couple hundred samurai.[/quote]
There are MUCH worse ways; that is an awesome movie…
Along the same lines, but in an english medieval setiing: Ironclad. It’s also gorier. No release as far as I know, but I can’t fathom why. It’s badass as all fuck.
I just watched the RED BAND trailer for 21 Jump Street the MOVIE. I no longer need to watch the MOVIE. 3.5 minutes and it showed me everything. I will not post. Just warning you IF you want to pay to see it don’t watch the trailer on this one.
They are about 15 years too late on a 21 Jumpstreet movie. The only people who would really get it are in their 30’s now and could not relate to the premise…unless Johnny Depp as in the movie as a mentor to the team.
I used to watch the shit out of that show though. They always looked old as hell though to be in high school.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
They are about 15 years too late on a 21 Jumpstreet movie. The only people who would really get it are in their 30’s now and could not relate to the premise…unless Johnny Depp as in the movie as a mentor to the team.
I used to watch the shit out of that show though. They always looked old as hell though to be in high school.[/quote]
The only one that had the look to pass was holly Robinson (fine azz mofo that she was).
But trust me. They just took the name and decided to shyt on almost the whole concept of the series.
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
They are about 15 years too late on a 21 Jumpstreet movie. The only people who would really get it are in their 30’s now and could not relate to the premise…unless Johnny Depp as in the movie as a mentor to the team.
I used to watch the shit out of that show though. They always looked old as hell though to be in high school.[/quote]
The only one that had the look to pass was holly Robinson (fine azz mofo that she was).
But trust me. They just took the name and decided to shyt on almost the whole concept of the series.[/quote]
…which is just wrong in my opinion. They could have made a good movie that brought in the old fans of the tv show…especially since Depp is now a major actor in Hollywood.
I’m currently back in Canada for a vacation and was looking around my parents’ house at old books and stuff I still have there.
I just watched an old first season Star Trek: The Next Generation on tape that I’ve had recorded since it was first on (it was the 5th episode of the first season “Where No One Has Gone Before”) and it was clear the whole time! I guess the VCR/DVD player my nephew brought over has automatic tracking because it looked just fine…enough to cure me of the desire to buy all 7 seasons on DVD.
I even had an episode of the old “Win, Lose or Draw” game show with Burt Convey from May 24th 1988 and it was a Trek related one with James Doohan, Michale Dorn, Marina Sirtis and Nichelle Nichols…I’m just surprised how long that tape’s been sitting around my house, I could cry. I mean I watched the hell out of TNG when it was on, as in the show was on on Monday night and Tuesday at lunch I’d watch it again, and on weekends I’d throw in a tape. This was late 80s .
I didn’t even watch them in the 90s as I was busier with beer and broads…but it’s so nostalgic for me now to watch some of that tape after 24 years. Sigh.
pats Nards’ back its ok man… I had a similar experience yesterday.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
They are about 15 years too late on a 21 Jumpstreet movie. The only people who would really get it are in their 30’s now and could not relate to the premise…unless Johnny Depp as in the movie as a mentor to the team.
I used to watch the shit out of that show though. They always looked old as hell though to be in high school.[/quote]
The only one that had the look to pass was holly Robinson (fine azz mofo that she was).
But trust me. They just took the name and decided to shyt on almost the whole concept of the series.[/quote]
…which is just wrong in my opinion. They could have made a good movie that brought in the old fans of the tv show…especially since Depp is now a major actor in Hollywood.
[/quote]
Agreed.
I’m also against them turning almost ALL the old cop series into Comedy Movies.
[quote]solidkhalid wrote:
pats Nards’ back its ok man… I had a similar experience yesterday.
[/quote]
Thanks, what was yours?
I also found an old Savage Sword of Conan (the larger sized black and white comic) that my friend brought over one day in the Summer of 1989 and I remember later that day we went to see Lethal Weapon 2 in the theater.
I never actually read the comic; it’s been sitting in my parents’ basement for 22 years, but a few days ago I sat down and finally read it.
I also found a paperback that was due back to the library on Sep. 6 1988. I didn’t take it back yet. Maybe I’ll wait till next time I come back here to Canada.
Finally watched 50 Dead Men Walking. Very well done movie. It didn’t take a political stance one way or the other like I was sure it would, and for that I am greatful. It made clear to me parallels between the situation in Northern Ireland and what is still going on in Palestine today. I was raised Catholic but at this point in my life I tend to side with the point this film makes, naive though it may be: it would be better if we all just stopped killing eachother.
Kingsley does a fine job as always, and the young actor (from that horrible “21” movie) keeps up very well.
It was also enjoyable to watch this after I just saw Red State. In both films belief and ideas are the driving force behind the violence.
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
They are about 15 years too late on a 21 Jumpstreet movie. The only people who would really get it are in their 30’s now and could not relate to the premise…unless Johnny Depp as in the movie as a mentor to the team.
I used to watch the shit out of that show though. They always looked old as hell though to be in high school.[/quote]
The only one that had the look to pass was holly Robinson (fine azz mofo that she was).
But trust me. They just took the name and decided to shyt on almost the whole concept of the series.[/quote]
…which is just wrong in my opinion. They could have made a good movie that brought in the old fans of the tv show…especially since Depp is now a major actor in Hollywood.
[/quote]
Agreed.
I’m also against them turning almost ALL the old cop series into Comedy Movies.[/quote]
Especially if those remakes star Channing Tatum.
Limitless - A failing writer (Bradley Cooper) with a serious case of writer’s block is given an experimental super-nootropic which gives him enhanced powers of recall and an increased rate of learning. Soon the world is his oyster. But these new abilities have consequences…
I put off watching this until this week due to mixed reviews, and I’m sorry I left it so long. The movie is really excellent. High point? An interesting twist on the “I know kung-fu” scene in The Matrix.
Highly, highly recommended if you haven’t already seen it. Ignore the bad reviews - they are undeserved.
In Time - In the near future, the aging gene switches off at twenty-five and from then on each person has to work to survive. Money is no longer used and time is the new currency : time literally is money (a cup of coffee will shave eight minutes off your life) . Their remaining life span is shown on a digital display on their forearm. If the display hits zero, they die.
I was hoping for a new Gattaca (both were written and directed by Andrew Niccol), and the premise was interesting enough to convince me to watch a Justin Timberlake movie (yes, he’s the lead, and no, he’s not that bad. He doesn’t set the screen on fire, yet doesn’t make you feel like putting a match to the projection reel, either).
When Timberlake’s character comes into possession of a hundred years of life, he is pursued by the Timekeepers (sort of police who regulate the distribution of time) who believe he has killed a wealthy (that is, very old) businessman for the lifespan.
It started off well, but ends up as a kind of sci-fi Bonnie and Clyde. Olivia Wilde plays a remarkably well-preserved MILF; while Cillian Murphy is underused as the head timekeeper - his backstory hints at a more complex character than we end up with, and the movie suffers from repetitive running scenes (seems like the running time was padded out with literally lots of jogging and sprinting) as well as a surplus of cliches, usually in combination with the running.
Enjoyable, but didn’t live up to its potential and, although it’s not a must-see, you could do far worse.
Have to second/third/whatever the positives for “Super.”
I still don’t know how I feel after having seen it.
I enjoyed it thoroughly.
I do not want to be a super hero.
I do want to have a sit-down talk with Chris Hansen after watching Juno be a hero (she’s 22, and it still feels too dirty).
You know…Aeon Flux was not a bad movie.
I watched Dirty Dancing 2 : Havana Nights yesterday.
It was fun, but I don’t think it’s really enjoyable unless you’re a dancer.
Clash of the Titans
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
The Happening 2??? didn’t know there was one. 1st sucked, how was the 2nd?[/quote]
I meant Paranormal Activity. Saw the third as well.
[quote]roybot wrote:
In Time - In the near future, the aging gene switches off at twenty-five and from then on each person has to work to survive. Money is no longer used and time is the new currency : time literally is money (a cup of coffee will shave eight minutes off your life) . Their remaining life span is shown on a digital display on their forearm. If the display hits zero, they die.
I was hoping for a new Gattaca (both were written and directed by Andrew Niccol), and the premise was interesting enough to convince me to watch a Justin Timberlake movie (yes, he’s the lead, and no, he’s not that bad. He doesn’t set the screen on fire, yet doesn’t make you feel like putting a match to the projection reel, either).
When Timberlake’s character comes into possession of a hundred years of life, he is pursued by the Timekeepers (sort of police who regulate the distribution of time) who believe he has killed a wealthy (that is, very old) businessman for the lifespan.
It started off well, but ends up as a kind of sci-fi Bonnie and Clyde. Olivia Wilde plays a remarkably well-preserved MILF; while Cillian Murphy is underused as the head timekeeper - his backstory hints at a more complex character than we end up with, and the movie suffers from repetitive running scenes (seems like the running time was padded out with literally lots of jogging and sprinting) as well as a surplus of cliches, usually in combination with the running.
Enjoyable, but didn’t live up to its potential and, although it’s not a must-see, you could do far worse.[/quote]
Potential…? That movie looks endlessly stupid. ‘‘Could do far worse’’ is likely the best thing to be said about it.
Not to judge the book by the cover, but Christ I don’t think there’s any way they could improve on that garbage storyline
[quote]Jereth127 wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
In Time - In the near future, the aging gene switches off at twenty-five and from then on each person has to work to survive. Money is no longer used and time is the new currency : time literally is money (a cup of coffee will shave eight minutes off your life) . Their remaining life span is shown on a digital display on their forearm. If the display hits zero, they die.
I was hoping for a new Gattaca (both were written and directed by Andrew Niccol), and the premise was interesting enough to convince me to watch a Justin Timberlake movie (yes, he’s the lead, and no, he’s not that bad. He doesn’t set the screen on fire, yet doesn’t make you feel like putting a match to the projection reel, either).
When Timberlake’s character comes into possession of a hundred years of life, he is pursued by the Timekeepers (sort of police who regulate the distribution of time) who believe he has killed a wealthy (that is, very old) businessman for the lifespan.
It started off well, but ends up as a kind of sci-fi Bonnie and Clyde. Olivia Wilde plays a remarkably well-preserved MILF; while Cillian Murphy is underused as the head timekeeper - his backstory hints at a more complex character than we end up with, and the movie suffers from repetitive running scenes (seems like the running time was padded out with literally lots of jogging and sprinting) as well as a surplus of cliches, usually in combination with the running.
Enjoyable, but didn’t live up to its potential and, although it’s not a must-see, you could do far worse.[/quote]
Potential…? That movie looks endlessly stupid. ‘‘Could do far worse’’ is likely the best thing to be said about it.
Not to judge the book by the cover, but Christ I don’t think there’s any way they could improve on that garbage storyline[/quote]
You haven’t seen it, so clearly you are judging “the book by the cover”. I don’t get why you’re even posting about it now. This isn’t “trailers you’ve watched this week”.