But doesn't the inclusion of Jennifer Love Hewitt make it worthwhile?Originally Posted by Giggles
But doesn't the inclusion of Jennifer Love Hewitt make it worthwhile?
Bravo. Let's have another.
and another...
Last one.
She is (was?) absolutely superb.
Probably more 'was', but i certainly agree with that.
Her appearance in Heartbreakers broke my mind.
She can indeed improve anything. I'd forgot how hot she was.
If that last .gif from Quincy is from it then I need to see it.
It is and you do.
Just rented it
Make sure the wife is out.Just rented it
Concussion is quite good. Smith should have got an Oscar nomination.
So I'm watching The Big Short on account of its Oscars win. Not very impressed at all. All the bankers are either super smug or super-villainous. I know bankers are generally tossers but this is complete overkill. There's also no redeeming qualities about anyone in the whole film. It's just all a bit boring. The documentaries that came out about are much better.
Was it someone here who recommended Enemy to me? It's not up to much.
Spectre
Shite. The blonde lass in that dress though
As abysmal as I expected it to be.
Mexicans/Asians getting stiffed again.
Thought it was a good point made that this 'movie of female empowerment' has a black character who's only skill in the group is "She knows the streets"
Why are they women? Women are hardly ever funny. It won't work but hey, at least feminism strikes again.
Of all the possible motivations for making that movie, I can assure you, feminism wasn't one of them.
Watching this and it must be the worst year he's done so far. There are about 6 joint awards given.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSObRwF_YKQ
The twat.
Is it our generation that is the first to suffer the on going re-makes of classics but in a shitter format. That includes crappy sequels.
They normally put some of the best bits in trailers, so if that holds true here, that will be one of the worst films ever made.
I watched The Wicker Man for the first time today. What an absolutely wonderful film. I didn't know what to expect beforehand, I just knew it was somewhat of a "cult classic". But it exceeded every expectation I could've had. It's up there with The Shining as far as I'm concerned.
The music was brilliant too. I've been humming the maypole song all day.
I then watched Harry Brown, which was pretty good. Caine was great, of course, but I thought the entire thing was a bit implausible at moments. Still a good watch, though.
So I decided to familiarize myself with the Oscar nominees from this year, and started with Bridge of Spies since it has been getting good reviews and was also well received here.
And, well... that was a bit of a letdown. The first half of the film was good, there's an interesting moral dilemma, you can definitely see that the Coens co-wrote it with some of the deadpan humor, and there's tension as to what's going to happen. But in the second half the film kind of manages to lose all of it. The characters aren't particularly interesting, the attempted humor comes more in weird tonal shifts, and plot-wiseToggle SpoilerAlso there's the obvious scenes where you're spoonfed emotions with kitschy music, which is just Spielberg, I guess, but I thought he does it better in his other films.
It was gorgeous to look at, I'll give it that.
All in all, not terrible, but I'm probably not going to watch it again. Might also have been many spy movie references flying over my head, though.
Zero Dark Thirty took a long while to get going but wasn't too bad.
How can you assure me of that? Having all women, who aren't funny because women aren't funny, instead of men, was clearly a statement.
No it wasn't, you paranoid twat. It's all about the monies, which the film will clearly make.
It would make a lot more with men as the lead roles. This is definitely a statement, trying too hard to be different.
It would still be crap with men.
I agree, it probably would. It wouln't be a gimmick, at least.
Just a straight rehash of a film that isn't even that old, which is worse really. They're doing something different because otherwise what's the point?
Fine, I wonder what the reaction would be to a male Sex And The City?
This will bomb because fans of the original are largely male and don't want to see unfunny women ruin a classic.
"Making a statement". Seriously, have a day off.
A male Sex in the City wouldn't have much of a market. I'm sure it's been done as an occasional sketch but nobody is going to give a shit beyond the initial laugh. I assume you're suggesting there would be an upset, which is a bit lol.
Feminists, themselves, seem to think so, too.
Upset about men going out and fucking random girls then meeting up for a coffee to brag about it and discuss who had the tightest pussy or the biggest tits, or who the most submissive slut was? Who could possibly be upset about that?
Isn't that basically Entourage?
Fucking hell, could we not do this in here as well? JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.
We're definitely not doing this in here. Put a lid on it.
I assume from his latest edit that he's watched a lot more about Sex in the City than I have, so I'll cede to his superior knowledge on it.
Seriously, that's enough of that, from everyone. Let's just breeze on past it.
Never watched a full episode but you would have to be pretty disingenuous to claim you don't know what I'm talking about.
Warning points from now on.
He has a point here in fairness.
Get this.... it's 32 years old. I guessed it was early 90's, turns out it was 1984.
Mind blown.
It wasn't even that good in the first place.
Dan Akroyd gets head off a ghost in the original. And Bill Murray fiddles a woman in her sleep. Maybe we owe them this one.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote