- Post
- #612337
- Topic
- Last movie seen
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/612337/action/topic#612337
- Time
Hee hee hee heeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ....
This user has been banned.
Hee hee hee heeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ....
I've never been a reader of the Hulk comics, and know him pretty much only for the guest appearances he made in other characters' comics. That being said, he looked far more interesting when he was gray.
^The trailer to that movie was so misleading.
xhonzi said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
TV's Frink said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
1990osu said:
Scream, Scream 2, Scream 3, Scream 4.
1st one was entertaining but the sequels just got worse and worse.
I'll never understand how that movie got three sequels. The original was fine for what it was, but it didn't warrant any sequels, especially sequels following the same damn character over-and-over again.
You just descibed most sequels.
Why make them? Money.
Most sequels at least try to change things up a bit by changing the leads, focusing on new characters, etc. The Scream franchise, as far as I know, does none of these things (haven't seen Scream 4, so I can't comment on that one).
Yeah... like Star Trek, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, James Bond, Pirates of the Caribbean, Toy Story, Transformers, Spider-Man, Batman, Superman...
Wait.... actually, what sequels are you watching? Manon de la Source?
My sister is a stupid drunk with an attitude problem and awful taste in EVERYTHING. Honestly, every time she opens her stupid mouth and makes one of her usual stupid, inane comments I feel like garrotting her.
I ate ants, a hairy caterpillar, and a small slug once (the ants are the only ones who went down easy, though).
Apparently maggots taste like whatever they've been fed. So cheese-eating maggots taste like cheese, salami-eating maggots like salami, decaying corpse-eating maggots like decaying corpses, etc, etc.
TV's Frink said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
1990osu said:
Scream, Scream 2, Scream 3, Scream 4.
1st one was entertaining but the sequels just got worse and worse.
I'll never understand how that movie got three sequels. The original was fine for what it was, but it didn't warrant any sequels, especially sequels following the same damn character over-and-over again.
You just descibed most sequels.
Why make them? Money.
Dünyayi kurtaran adam AKA The Man Who Saves the World AKA Turkish Star Wars (1982)
So bad its good.
3/10
Dünyayi Kurtaran Adam'in oglu AKA Son of the Man Who Saves the World AKA Turks in Space (2006)
So bad its awful.
2/10
Sissy-Boy Slap-Party (1995)
Bingo would like this one ;-)
6/10
1990osu said:
Scream, Scream 2, Scream 3, Scream 4.
1st one was entertaining but the sequels just got worse and worse.
Reading Timeline by Michael Crichton and Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer. I can't get into the former, so I'll probably just end up giving it up and giving my copy away. The latter, though, has got my interest and I'm getting through it bit by bit.
This is all well and good, but the Internet is too expensive for me to buy right now. Do you know where can I download it for free?
Without the Vader-Luke stuff, ROTJ hasn't a leg to stand on - and that stuff is still pretty iffy itself (Palpatine's method of converting Luke to his side is pure pants).
TV's Frink said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
Star Wars, Episode VII: Heir to the Farce
Star Wars, Episode VIII: Revenge of the Shit
Star Wars, Episode IX: So Very Tired
I read this post before seeing who posted it and assumed it was skyjedi.
bkev said:
Superman III?
DominicCobb said:
Serious question: do you, generally, like movies?
asterisk8 said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
I really don't think there are films that are almost perfect - great movies, yes, but almost perfect? I can't say that about any film I've seen, really, I just can't.
I never said anything about "almost perfect" so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
DuracellEnergizer said:
I evaluate a film based on how well it clicks for me, personally - aesthetically, emotionally, spiritually, how the performances work within the film, how it all comes together, etc.
Like I said, the film that does this the best, with the least amount of flaws, is a 10 for you.
Star Wars, Episode VII: Heir to the Farce
Star Wars, Episode VIII: Revenge of the Shit
Star Wars, Episode IX: So Very Tired
I saw the films out of order, and never in the theatres.
First Star Wars film I saw was TESB, back sometime in the winter of '96/97. It was on a poorly-made home recording the family borrowed from some friends - I remember the picture going a blank blue at several points throughout the film, so it was a pain in the ass to watch. I also remember not liking Yoda - I found him stupid-looking at the time.
I next saw ROTJ, in August of 1997 (the night Princess Diana died, actually). It was on a French-language channel, though, so I couldn't understand a word. Regardless of all that, though, I enjoyed the film immensely. Weird thing, though, is that I remember seeing Luke's lightsaber as blue, not green; the tint on the TV must have been off.
Saw SW for the first time, I believe, in the spring of '99. The VCR we had at the time was defective, though, and kept shutting the video off. I liked the movie, but was disappointed that "The Imperial March" wasn't in there and that Vader's armour wasn't as glossy as in the sequels.
asterisk8 said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
I have given 7-8 ratings before, but sparingly, and usually to films that I've grown up watching.
Such as?
DuracellEnergizer said:
And I have no list of movies rated 9-10. I've never seen a movie that qualifies for such high ratings and, IMHO, I doubt any exist.
How can that be? There are no perfect films, so it's pointless to reserve 10s for perfection. A 10 doesn't mean the film is flawless, it means that it is the best of what there is. It's a relative thing. Whether it's an attempt at an objective rating of all films, or a subjective rating of what films you've personally seen, it's relative. For instance, Seven Samurai, Lawrence of Arabia, Barry Lyndon, Sunset Blvd., Vertigo - these are the best films I've ever seen, films of incredible technical skill and beauty that I've become more emotionally and intellectually invested in than any other film. I'm passionately in love with each of them, I could watch them each 1,000 times, so they receive 10s. Maybe there's a better film out there that will lower the score of all of the above, but I haven't seen it yet.
To me, not giving any film a score above a 9 is like saying that there are no films that you are passionately in love with. You must have a favorite film or two that you think are almost perfect and you love and could watch again and again.
It also brings up the issue of whether we're trying to give objective or subjective ratings to films. Are you trying to be objective? Because I don't believe that individuals can give objective ratings, so that's why I tend to use the term "favorite films" instead of "best films". I think the closest we can get to an objective list of the best films is through consensus, by compiling A LOT of subjective lists.
zombie84 said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
Suspiria (1977) - 5/10
Wait, wait, wait...
WHAT!!?
asterisk8 said:
I'm not sure I've seen DuracellEnergizer give a film above a 6/10 rating in this thread.
I'd love to see a list of films Duracell would give a 9 or 10. :)
Easterhay said:
Of course it compares; it's practically the same line.
And I'll keep painting with the same brush as long as folk like you continue to carry on so.
The SE '97 would have existed, no doubt - it already did! However, the '04 and '11 versions probably wouldn't have been made, and the OOT would have been preserved.
Suspiria (1977) - 5/10
Body Bags (1993) - 6/10
House of the Long Shadows (1983) - 4.9/10
The Vault of Horror (1973) - 5.5/10
That's hard to do when you are a multidimensional entity with countless different aspects.
Needs more reptilians, Aleister Crowley, and Naga Sadow.
Easterhay said:
You know the fella who quoted Yoda's "judge me by my size do you?" - sorry, I didn't register who it was who said it - is that not simply a variant on "your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them"? And I think the person who said that used a ightsbare quite a bit.
If you deny the prequels (which is pretty outlandish, a bit like those three monkeys with their hands over their eyes, mouth and ears) then by extension you have to deny The Clone Wars - and, I imagine, anything else that doesn't meet your specific standards of what Star Wars is and should be (again, pretty outlandish).
Funny, though, how some will practically give themselves a hernia pointing out how "flawed" the more recent parts of the Star Wars story are while completely ignoring how your limb can be severed by a lightsabre and yet still bleed. "Sigh" indeed.