im also going to admit that mean girls was all right too...i thought it was going to be silly young teenage girl flick, which it was, but there were a few clever parts and yes the girls were hot, even though a few of them were pushing 30, playing a 17 year old. and yes, lohan from africa is the least plausible concept ever, but she was still sweeeet in it..what a shame was has happened to her (and her rack).
I thought Mean Girls was pretty solid. I laughed for the vast majority of the flick, and there was some serious eye candy in it to boot.
Just to touch upon some of the other movies mentioned in the first 3 pages...
Pirates II: loved it, 9/10 - can't wait for the third
Borat: 10/10 - one of the funniest movies I've ever seen; albeit, one of the dumbest and most pointless - but I haven't laughed that hard in quite the while
The Breakup: 6/10, eh; had a few funny parts/lines
no ones said this yet so, Deja vu, 7.5/10 - 8/10 it was pretty good, i enjoied watching it but it wasn't amazing, then a few days later i found myself thinking about it and how i liked the film.
another one was casino royale 8/10 the begining chase was sick, all around good bond film.
ayebatter wrote:Casino Royale - 7/10 - the foot chase sceen in the begining is awesome. We have a new edgier Bond.
I would've rated Casino Royale an 8/10, but after seeing it a couple more times, I'd rate it a 10/10. I thought it was quite lofty when a few critics lauded it as the best Bond flick since Goldfinger, but I'm convinced it is. The action sequences were first-rate and thankfully, a lot more believable and visceral than Die Another Day. The acting was great too and with a few more outings, Daniel Craig might supplant Connery as the best Bond in my book; Craig is more in line with Connery and the character from the Ian Fleming books. What makes this Bond movie stick out in quite a long time is that the plot is more involving, namely because the Bond character really develops into the persona Bond is known for.
The only gripes I had about it was the lag time up until the climax, but it served its purpose. Originally, I thought Thunderball was the best Bond since Goldfinger, but even that movie's scenes really lagged where it felt like watching a 3 hour flick. Casino Royale was about 14 minutes longer than Thunderball, but the suspense relative to TB is palpable enough to not even notice the lengthy running time. The plot needs some smoothing out, as it left a few questions unanswered, but Bond 22 is meant to be a true sequel of Casino Royale as opposed to other past Bond flicks. I can't wait for Bond 22 in 2008.
ayebatter wrote:Casino Royale - 7/10 - the foot chase sceen in the begining is awesome. We have a new edgier Bond.
I would've rated Casino Royale an 8/10, but after seeing it a couple more times, I'd rate it a 10/10. I thought it was quite lofty when a few critics lauded it as the best Bond flick since Goldfinger, but I'm convinced it is. The action sequences were first-rate and thankfully, a lot more believable and visceral than Die Another Day. The acting was great too and with a few more outings, Daniel Craig might supplant Connery as the best Bond in my book; Craig is more in line with Connery and the character from the Ian Fleming books. What makes this Bond movie stick out in quite a long time is that the plot is more involving, namely because the Bond character really develops into the persona Bond is known for.
The only gripes I had about it was the lag time up until the climax, but it served its purpose. Originally, I thought Thunderball was the best Bond since Goldfinger, but even that movie's scenes really lagged where it felt like watching a 3 hour flick. Casino Royale was about 14 minutes longer than Thunderball, but the suspense relative to TB is palpable enough to not even notice the lengthy running time. The plot needs some smoothing out, as it left a few questions unanswered, but Bond 22 is meant to be a true sequel of Casino Royale as opposed to other past Bond flicks. I can't wait for Bond 22 in 2008.
I don't like Bond flicks but this one looks good...I hate Pierece Borsonsosn
ayebatter wrote:Casino Royale - 7/10 - the foot chase sceen in the begining is awesome. We have a new edgier Bond.
I would've rated Casino Royale an 8/10, but after seeing it a couple more times, I'd rate it a 10/10. I thought it was quite lofty when a few critics lauded it as the best Bond flick since Goldfinger, but I'm convinced it is. The action sequences were first-rate and thankfully, a lot more believable and visceral than Die Another Day. The acting was great too and with a few more outings, Daniel Craig might supplant Connery as the best Bond in my book; Craig is more in line with Connery and the character from the Ian Fleming books. What makes this Bond movie stick out in quite a long time is that the plot is more involving, namely because the Bond character really develops into the persona Bond is known for.
The only gripes I had about it was the lag time up until the climax, but it served its purpose. Originally, I thought Thunderball was the best Bond since Goldfinger, but even that movie's scenes really lagged where it felt like watching a 3 hour flick. Casino Royale was about 14 minutes longer than Thunderball, but the suspense relative to TB is palpable enough to not even notice the lengthy running time. The plot needs some smoothing out, as it left a few questions unanswered, but Bond 22 is meant to be a true sequel of Casino Royale as opposed to other past Bond flicks. I can't wait for Bond 22 in 2008.
I don't like Bond flicks but this one looks good...I hate Pierece Borsonsosn
As you could probably surmise, I'm an avid Bond fan.
I thought Brosnan was a fairly good Bond as he has the balance between Sean Connery and Roger Moore, but leans more with Connery, and he wasn't as over-the-top brash as Timothy Dalton. The scripts he received weren't much good to begin with, except for Goldeneye, which was his finest hour as Bond.
ayebatter wrote:Casino Royale - 7/10 - the foot chase sceen in the begining is awesome. We have a new edgier Bond.
I would've rated Casino Royale an 8/10, but after seeing it a couple more times, I'd rate it a 10/10. I thought it was quite lofty when a few critics lauded it as the best Bond flick since Goldfinger, but I'm convinced it is. The action sequences were first-rate and thankfully, a lot more believable and visceral than Die Another Day. The acting was great too and with a few more outings, Daniel Craig might supplant Connery as the best Bond in my book; Craig is more in line with Connery and the character from the Ian Fleming books. What makes this Bond movie stick out in quite a long time is that the plot is more involving, namely because the Bond character really develops into the persona Bond is known for.
The only gripes I had about it was the lag time up until the climax, but it served its purpose. Originally, I thought Thunderball was the best Bond since Goldfinger, but even that movie's scenes really lagged where it felt like watching a 3 hour flick. Casino Royale was about 14 minutes longer than Thunderball, but the suspense relative to TB is palpable enough to not even notice the lengthy running time. The plot needs some smoothing out, as it left a few questions unanswered, but Bond 22 is meant to be a true sequel of Casino Royale as opposed to other past Bond flicks. I can't wait for Bond 22 in 2008.
I don't like Bond flicks but this one looks good...I hate Pierece Borsonsosn
As you could probably surmise, I'm an avid Bond fan.
I thought Brosnan was a fairly good Bond as he has the balance between Sean Connery and Roger Moore, but leans more with Connery, and he wasn't as over-the-top brash as Timothy Dalton. The scripts he received weren't much good to begin with, except for Goldeneye, which was his finest hour as Bond.
Madison wrote:I'm going to go back and watch all 3 in a row and then rank them, but currently I've got part 3 as the best, the original in second, and part two as third on the list. Very well could change since it's been awhile since I watched parts one and two, but we'll see.
I rank them the same way. 2 didn't do too much for me and I just loved 1 and 3.
Madison wrote:Oh, and yes, I'm definitely rooting for a part IV.
Already announced actually.
Comingsoon.net wrote: Lionsgate Planning Saw IV for Halloween '07 Source: The Associated Press October 30, 2006
With Saw III making $34.3 million in its first three days, a record for Lionsgate, the studio is already planning a fourth installment for the same time next year. The Associated Press reports:
Since the low-budget "Saw" debuted with $18.3 million over the same weekend two years ago, Lionsgate has turned the franchise into an annual ritual with quickly produced sequels each Halloween.
Madison wrote:I'm going to go back and watch all 3 in a row and then rank them, but currently I've got part 3 as the best, the original in second, and part two as third on the list. Very well could change since it's been awhile since I watched parts one and two, but we'll see.
I rank them the same way. 2 didn't do too much for me and I just loved 1 and 3.
Madison wrote:Oh, and yes, I'm definitely rooting for a part IV.
Already announced actually.
Comingsoon.net wrote: Lionsgate Planning Saw IV for Halloween '07 Source: The Associated Press October 30, 2006
With Saw III making $34.3 million in its first three days, a record for Lionsgate, the studio is already planning a fourth installment for the same time next year. The Associated Press reports:
Since the low-budget "Saw" debuted with $18.3 million over the same weekend two years ago, Lionsgate has turned the franchise into an annual ritual with quickly produced sequels each Halloween.
Whoo Hoo! An early Christmas present . Thanks!
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by 
