Still, Eastwood plays the guy the same, if it's the same character or not.
The little cigars. The squinting eyes. The attitude.
However you want to put it together; Joe and Blondie and MWNN may be the same guy in different times of his life, or may be totally different stories. Eastwood inhabits the same persona for each.

Whatever. All men wanted to say "go ahead make my day" sometime.

Gulliver's Travels. It was kinda cute.

ukimalefu wrote:

Whatever. All men wanted to say "go ahead make my day" sometime.

I think what you should be asking yourself is, "do I feel lucky?"

Well? Do ya, punk?

Watched Apollo 18 last night.

If no one has been back to the moon since, how did they get all that film? Why are they walking normally on the moon's surface? Why is there sound?

Other than that, it's kind of neat looking and not a bad little horror story.

That wasn't the issue I thought. They had already announced prior to Apollo 17 that it was to be the last mission. In fact, I'm sure they had decided that as early as during the Apollo 14 preparations. Apollo 13 and a shrinking budget are what caused them to call it quits early (Apollo 20 was the last mission originally planned).They had already started a Saturn V build for Apollo 18 but when the cancellation was announced the repurposed it to serve as the SL-1 (Skylab Launch) delivery vehicle and they used the remaining Apollo CSMs as crew delivery pods for SL-2, SL-3, & SL-4 (the manned Skylab Missions).

DukeofNuke wrote:

Still, Eastwood plays the guy the same, if it's the same character or not.
The little cigars. The squinting eyes. The attitude.
However you want to put it together; Joe and Blondie and MWNN may be the same guy in different times of his life, or may be totally different stories. Eastwood inhabits the same persona for each.

Maybe that's more the case that Eastwood always plays the same character even outside of the Man With No Name series. He's always the man with no name.

I happen to like Eastwood and a lot of his movies, but he's not the most versatile of actors.

I havent seen it, but I thought that the 18 mission (in the movie) was a secret mission to find out about the alien human waste brought back by the others that turns into a monster movie.

I got all that from half watching one trailer one time

Tangled, which I caught while it is making the circuit on the Starz cable channels.

As has happened with lot of classic tales, this Disney retelling makes considerable modifications on the orginal story making Rapunzel a missing princess rather than being discovered by a prince. According to the trivia notes at IMDB.com this movie was originally conceived as something of a follow-up to the partially animated Enchanted and was to be similarly partially animated, but instead became the 50th full-length animated release from Disney and one of the first which has Pixar's John Lasseter as one of its executive producers (as opposed to the co-releases from Disney and Pixar like the Toy Stories). Altogether a pleasant 100 minutes--anyone who liked the other recent "Disney Princess" movies (the Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, etc.) should enjoy this. I especially liked the one scene where Rapunzel is asked to sing so that her "mother" can top off her youth, but Rapunzel does it so perfunctorily that her mother hardly has a chance to enjoy the sensation--teenagers, hrumph. I also missed hearing the line, "Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your hair / so I may climb the golden stair" although this might have been a "Fractured Flickers" addition from old "Rocky and Bullwinkle Show".

The boy & I just watched The Right Stuff.

Did you have to explain the "Wild Blue Yonder" scene in the men's room?

user wrote:

Did you have to explain the "Wild Blue Yonder" scene in the men's room?

I read about it before hand and ff'd through it. He's not sheltered or anything I just didn't feel like pausing the movie for another one of those conversations.

Margin Call.

Low key take on one aspect of the recent financial meltdown.

Sometimes obtuse dialogue, sometimes simplistic dialogue. Seems more suitable as a made for TV movie

Nice to see no cartoonish bad guy characters. That would have been easy road to take, especially given the way Spacey, Irons, Demi Moore and Stanley Tucci have played these sorts of types in the past. But not in this film. They keep it reigned in and this makes for believable and sympathetic characters.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt 2.

My wife was a fan of the books, so I'd watched the movies with her.

I think the last movie was one of the better ones in the series. Things got resolved without too much undue sappiness that was all over the first couple movies.

Scott Pilgrim vs The World


Definitely better than TRON Legacy

The Adventures of Robin Hood--the 1938 one.

I had my kids watch it. They (5 and 7)were a bit skeptical at first, but got totally into it.

I enjoy it every time I see it. I don't know of an adventure movie that's more fun.

I remember when the Kostner one came out many of the people involved would razz the '38 version whenever they were doin a press junket.
The '38 version is a bazillion times better than the '91 version, which is only redeemable because of Alan Rickman, who is always good.

Something vexes you?

Breakfast Club. Still a great flick.

justine wrote:

Breakfast Club. Still a great flick.

4EVA!

Séamas wrote:

The Adventures of Robin Hood--the 1938 one.

I had my kids watch it. They (5 and 7)were a bit skeptical at first, but got totally into it.

I enjoy it every time I see it. I don't know of an adventure movie that's more fun.

I remember when the Kostner one came out many of the people involved would razz the '38 version whenever they were doin a press junket.
The '38 version is a bazillion times better than the '91 version, which is only redeemable because of Alan Rickman, who is always good.

The only redeeming feature of the Kostner version is that it makes Robin Hood: Men in Tights totally worthwhile.

Metacell wrote:

Séamas wrote:

The Adventures of Robin Hood--the 1938 one.

I had my kids watch it. They (5 and 7)were a bit skeptical at first, but got totally into it.

I enjoy it every time I see it. I don't know of an adventure movie that's more fun.

I remember when the Kostner one came out many of the people involved would razz the '38 version whenever they were doin a press junket.
The '38 version is a bazillion times better than the '91 version, which is only redeemable because of Alan Rickman, who is always good.

The only redeeming feature of the Kostner version is that it makes Robin Hood: Men in Tights totally worthwhile.

Perhaps.

Still Mel Brook's most awful movie.

No way, it's better than Spaceballs and History of the World Part 1.

Metacell wrote:

No way, it's better than Spaceballs and History of the World Part 1.

Definitely!

Spaceballs is genius!

Satan Met A Lady

Hammet's Maltese Falcon story, pre-Bogart. Done as a comedy with Warren William and Bette Davis. Not good.

Bolt. Love the cat.

user wrote:

Spaceballs is genius!

What are these things coming out of her nose?

Metacell wrote:

No way, it's better than Spaceballs and History of the World Part 1.

Metacell wrote:

No way, it's better than Spaceballs and History of the World Part 1.

History of the World Part 1 is the best of the three.

I'd say Spaceballs and Men in Tights are a virtual tie for worst.

The thing with Brooks is all his scripts from the get-go are filled with bad jokes--so the greatness of his movies relies on the cast.
Without Gene Wilder, Madeline Kahn, or Cloris Leachman and a couple others, his movies fall flat.

Last 2 nights the wife and I watched Fever Pitch (I'm a baseball geek, loved it) & The Five People you Meet in Heaven (great story poorly told)

LOTR Trilogy last night.

The whole thing? Damn, that's impressive. I'm still working on the first one (I've seen the entire series in the theater, so it's mostly a matter of sticking with watching the DVD set that I've got).

user wrote:

The whole thing? Damn, that's impressive. I'm still working on the first one (I've seen the entire series in the theater, so it's mostly a matter of sticking with watching the DVD set that I've got).

Are you watching the extended version?

That's a REAL marathon if you have it.

One of the Encore Movie channels are showing the LOTR series in repetition over the weekend. The showing of the in sequence extended uninterrupted version is up for Sunday.

TechnoBill wrote:

user wrote:

The whole thing? Damn, that's impressive. I'm still working on the first one (I've seen the entire series in the theater, so it's mostly a matter of sticking with watching the DVD set that I've got).

Are you watching the extended version?

That's a REAL marathon if you have it.

Yes. I've got the 2-disc limited editions - the ones with the window on the front. They have the extended and standard versions on the same double-sided disk.

The five disc sets were more than I felt like dealing with. I don't like the series THAT much.

(OTOH, I have the three disc Criterion version of Brazil).

I own the 3 extended versions and have done a marathon with them a few times, but i just watched the trilogy on tv. It was nice to see it on tv w/o commercials. We have free channels this weekend.

Attack the block. Aliens versus British young brat hooligans, by some of the same people that made Sean of the dead.

Surprisingly good. Funny and relatively gory. The ending is a bit of a letdown, but up till then a solid A-.

Shaun of the dead

agedgruel wrote:

One of the Encore Movie channels are showing the LOTR series in repetition over the weekend. The showing of the in sequence extended uninterrupted version is up for Sunday.

Damn, I didn't know. I spent Sunday watching the entire Star Wars mess.

I watched I Am Number 4 last night. It was ok.