Kung Fu Panda 2

I love Jack Black.

Larry Crowne. Pretty lightweight stuff. Not awful.

I preferred the similar themed "Everything Must Go".

my roommate had never watched, nor heard of the crow. we watched the crow.

mmaverick wrote:

my roommate had never watched, nor heard of the crow. we watched the crow.

I know of the movie but I have never watched it either.

Ender wrote:

user wrote:

Just watched the entire Bourne series today. Quite trimmed down from the actual novels and they made Jason out to be a nice guy when he was actually a heartless uncouth individual.

I liked both the movies and the books (at least the originals ones).

"both"?

There have been 3 Bourne movies (with another one currently in the works). They correspond (in title, at least) with the 3 Bourne novels written by Ludlum: the Bourne Identity, the Bourne Supremacy and the Bourne Ultimatum.

The new movie will be based on takes its title from the first of the Bourne sequels written by Eric Van Lustbader.

I should add that I haven't read any of the novels. I did catch the first movie on cable and liked it a lot, enough so that I subsequently got the entire set on DVD. Good popcorn movies.

EDIT: tipping my cap to Ribby. I've been given the impression that Identity was closest to its novel but the incongruencies between the novels and the movies grew with each subsequent movie.

Last edited by DEyncourt on Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:57 pm.

I read the new Bourne film was going to be built on Ludlum's "Parsifal Mosaic" plot. An outstanding thriller.

I got excited for a moment....but Matt Damon isn't in it. Love the Borne movies! When I waited tables at the Alamo Drafthouse here in Austin, I made a moderate quantity of money any time I had the opportunity to work the Borne Ultimatum. Brought in a lot of good tippers.

I just saw Star Wars: Episode II for the first time. Meh. Starting today or tomorrow though, I'll be watching the first six Star Trek movies for the first time.

bratboy wrote:

I got excited for a moment....but Matt Damon isn't in it. Love the Borne movies! When I waited tables at the Alamo Drafthouse here in Austin, I made a moderate quantity of money any time I had the opportunity to work the Borne Ultimatum. Brought in a lot of good tippers.

Have you went to any of the Red vs Blue nights there?

Macskeeball wrote:

I just saw Star Wars: Episode II for the first time. Meh. Starting today or tomorrow though, I'll be watching the first six Star Trek movies for the first time.

Save yourself some time, and just watch the even-numbered ones. (S.Trek, that is)
and, the last one is the best one. (it should hold-up to your specialFX expectations)

Sherlock Holmes 2

Lots of homosexual innuendo, laid on a bit think. The "bullet time" sequence went a little long.
BUt, very enjoyable just the same.

Looking forward to Tintin.

Monster-In-Law

An older film but still humorous.

DukeofNuke wrote:

Macskeeball wrote:

I just saw Star Wars: Episode II for the first time. Meh. Starting today or tomorrow though, I'll be watching the first six Star Trek movies for the first time.

Save yourself some time, and just watch the even-numbered ones. (S.Trek, that is)

No, I'm watching all the movies to help make up for not watching all the TV episodes.

Quote:

and, the last one is the best one. (it should hold-up to your specialFX expectations)

By "last one," do you mean the 2009 reboot? I've said twice here that that was the first Star Trek I saw. Yes I liked it a lot, but if that's the level of expectation you thought I had you misunderstood me. It would be absolutely insane to expect that much from a 1960s TV show. Let me put it this way: I thought the original theatrical releases of Star Wars IV, V, and VI looked fantastic. I'm watching the first Star Trek film now, and it looks pretty good too. Not 100% perfect, but certainly enough for me to be pretty damn impressed. I also like the look of the TNG TV episodes. Perhaps "special effects" isn't really the word. It's more the quality of the overall look.

Seriously, you really should skip the first Star Trek movie which is often nicknamed "Star Trek: the Motionless Picture". While the other odd-numbered Trek movies have been bad to mediocre, the first one is practically unwatchable. About the only thing you may want to see is a sequence where the camera rather lovingly pans over the exterior of the newly refurbished Enterprise but even that lasts for a bit too long.

I love the first Star Trek movie. It's the only one that really feels like the original show.

I love the first one for the costumes.

Shnicky-Poo wrote:

I love the first one for the costumes.

And the disco warp!

Re-watched the Bourne films.

They're fine but the hand held camera work went overboard. Even in static pick up shots the camera kept waving about like the cameraman was trying to balance himself on a giant ball while he shot. I hope that gets toned down for the new film.

Shnicky-Poo wrote:

I love the first one for the costumes.

Footie pajamas with built-in beepers!

The adventures of Tintin. It's a wonderful movie. I am sure Hergé would be proud. Will see it again in 3D.

Metacell wrote:

I love the first Star Trek movie. It's the only one that really feels like the original show.

If the real show put you to sleep.

Morning Glory & The Lincoln Lawyer. Both were about what you'd expect from them. LL was pretty far-fetched.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

I love these movies!

I just finished watching the first six Star Trek movies. I liked them and was very impressed, but they were all quite different from the TV shows.

Edit: The first one looked nice, but yes it was boring. Other than that I liked them.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Macskeeball wrote:

I just finished watching the first six Star Trek movies. I liked them and was very impressed, but they were all quite different from the TV shows.

Edit: The first one looked nice, but yes it was boring. Other than that I liked them.

There is a lot better budgeting for thing like effects in movies and the was 10 years between the last episode and the first movies to improve things.

ScifiterX wrote:

Macskeeball wrote:

I just finished watching the first six Star Trek movies. I liked them and was very impressed, but they were all quite different from the TV shows.

Edit: The first one looked nice, but yes it was boring. Other than that I liked them.

There is a lot better budgeting for thing like effects in movies and the was 10 there were 20 years between the last episode and the first movies to improve things.

FTFY (assuming you are referring to TOS and are ignoring the animated series--most people do).

December 7, 1979 (ST:TMP) - June 3, 1969 (ST:TOS "Turnabout Intruder") ≈ 10 years (10 years 6 months 4 days to be precise)

Of course, the movies with the crew from the original series spanned about 12 years (December 7, 1979 - December 6, 1991) and the effects continued to improve.

ST:TNG came out about 18 years after ST:TOS ended (September 28, 1987)

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

I got sort of bored with this one toward the middle. Seemed to be a bit drawn out which is not how I remembered it. Stranger Tides is up on deck next. I have never seen it before. I had previously seen the first three movies.

Unknown

Liam Neeson and some other people. Lightweight conspiracy/memory loss stuff, pretty standard fare. Kind of fun

ScifiterX wrote:

December 7, 1979 (ST:TMP) - June 3, 1969 (ST:TOS "Turnabout Intruder") ≈ 10 years (10 years 6 months 4 days to be precise)

Of course, the movies with the crew from the original series spanned about 12 years (December 7, 1979 - December 6, 1991) and the effects continued to improve.

ST:TNG came out about 18 years after ST:TOS ended (September 28, 1987)

For some reason I couldn't recall where this thread was after I read the above ("Was it that Star Trek thread--nope...").

Forgive me--complete failure on my part.

Recently watch "The Debt" and "Midnight in Paris"; both were excellent in my opinion.

-mark

Watched both parts of The Deathly Hallows, I waited till they were both out before seeing it.

Just saw the remake of Straw dogs. The first movie was interesting though not one of my favorites. But this new version added nothing to the mix that wasn't better done in the original. And other than change the location to he deep south, it was very simolar. They even kiilled the bad guys the same way in both.

Why did they remake this again?

It's a Wonderful Life. I cried... again.

jr565 wrote:

Just saw the remake of Straw dogs. The first movie was interesting though not one of my favorites. But this new version added nothing to the mix that wasn't better done in the original. And other than change the location to he deep south, it was very simolar. They even kiilled the bad guys the same way in both.

Why did they remake this again?

Were there bewbs?

Backfire (1950)
Lady in the Lake (1947)
Murder, My Sweet (1944)
Miracle on 34th Street (1947)

Shnicky-Poo wrote:

jr565 wrote:

Just saw the remake of Straw dogs. The first movie was interesting though not one of my favorites. But this new version added nothing to the mix that wasn't better done in the original. And other than change the location to he deep south, it was very simolar. They even kiilled the bad guys the same way in both.

Why did they remake this again?

Were there bewbs?

I don't remember any. Maybe James Marsden's?

We went to Adventures of Tintin.

Overall it was great, lives up to the adventure movie part.

I feared my kids (5 and 7) might just be a slight bit too young for it, but they both opened up to it some hours after seeing it.


I had some trepidation prior as I usually don't care for animated movies that try so hard for optical realism, but the storytelling, pacing and nuances made that not to be an issue.

Watched The Iron Giant last night.

I didn't cry this time.