i liked the chick he banged in the early part enough to find her name Diora Baird.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy
http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2006...inning_010.jpg
Printable View
i liked the chick he banged in the early part enough to find her name Diora Baird.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy
http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2006...inning_010.jpg
Borat was funny, a little graphic in some areas, but I thought it was funny.
http://images.rottentomatoes.com/ima...28/1159328.jpg
i saw Casino Royale on Thanksgiving w/ the family (kind of a tradition). i'm not a big Bond fan and i've never really gone out of my way to watch the series. but, this was a real pleasant surprise for me. great action and a really neat look at "early" James Bond. he was really raw, with small glimpses of the smooth/polished Bond to come. i'm not sure how die hard Bond fans will accept the new guy, but as a stand alone flick, i highly recommend it.
The wife is trying to get me to see the Bond flick this afternoon, but it's just not my bag.
I'm leaning more towards the new Christopher Guest film.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0470765/
Glenn you may lose that battle. :sas:
you may have seen the Spiderman 3 trailer, but this one is a little bit different with a shot of Topher Grace turning into venom at the end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn
Anyone see that? The femalien n I are thinking about that, looks funny.
So true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutz Gatsu
Saw the Bond flick and it was "ehh" IMO.
When I get bored watching a movie I look for things to entertain myself.
The biggest thing here was the absurd amount of product placements.
Every gadget had the word "SONY" plastered all over it. It seemed like they went out of their way to work some of them in to the story.
The Ford logo was also very prominent on his car(s).
It was so bad that when he flipped his car, I knew he wouldn't be injured because the manufacturer probably wouldn't stand for it.
I also found it odd that this was a "prequel" but it was taking place in modern times. They probably can never do another Bond movie based in the 60's or 70's because a big part of the "mystique" of Bond (apparently, I'm not a fan) are the gadgets and the technology. If they were true to the era, the stuff wouldn't have any "wow" factor to it, it would just be laughable. In fact, that right there might be the main reason why the prequel doesn't take place in the past.
Also, his love interest was much better looking without makeup, bitch just slathered that stuff on.
The ending was completely predictable, but I won't spoil it here.
Ford's been trying to remind people that they own Aston-Martin and Ja-gu-ar (the Brits say it with three syllables), if those are the cars in question.
The wife rented Sliding Doors off Netflix and I found myself board to death and not wanting to study last night so I put it in.
It stars the ever unimpressive mother of Apple Paltrow doing a british accent in a movie staring her and a bunch of brits in England (oh, and Tom Cruise's wife in the movie The Firm is also in there).
The movie shows how Paltrow's character's life is different based on whether she catches her subway train or not (hence the title "sliding doors" in reference to the doors on the subway train). The movie shows both timelines (Paltrow's life had she caught the train and Paltrow's life had she missed it) concurrently, switching back and forth between the two.
The writer will tell you that the main plot of the movie is that Paltrow's boyfriend is cheating on her (the mistress is Tom Cruise's wife from the firm, who btw hasn't aged well IMO) and Paltrow, by making the train, comes home in time to catch them together and then start a life without him. In the timeline where she misses the train, she misses the encounter and remains oblivious to the affair for most of the movie.
The real tale however is that Paltrow's character is the victim of a horrible disease in which she must suffer the terrible fate of living with a large zit above her left eye for what appears to be a full year of her life. In one of the timelines Paltrow is fortunate enough to decide that bangs are the right choice for her and she hides this elephantiasis-like disfigurement from her limey compatriots. Her parallel counterpart however, chooses to cut her hair off and dye it blonde which, like milk on a hot day, is a bad choice. The director clearly made the right choice focusing on the disease rather than the boring, predictable, and almost stationary slow, parallel life story.
In the end, the Paltrow who made the train and found out about the affair, goes on to meet a new "bloke", who doesn't mind her disease, and they have a rather happy life that lasts only a year before Paltrow is hit by a van and dies (no joke). While the Paltrow who missed the train and doesn't find out about the affair until the end of the movie actually meets the same "wanker" her counterpart met and isn't killed by a delivery truck. Clearly the message of the film is the classic Aesop fable moral that cheating is just as good for the one who's cheated on as it is for the one who cheats.