Rate the last movie you saw - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Rate the last movie you saw

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Snakes Gould » Mon Dec 11, 2006 6:31 pm

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).
Image

SIGS!

Shane Victorino wrote:“We keep fighting,” Victorino said. “We keep plugging along.”
Snakes Gould
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
EditorCafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterGolden Eagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16051
Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Eternal Bliss

Postby bigh0rt » Mon Dec 11, 2006 6:41 pm

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

The Lakehouse: 3/10, bleh
Image
bigh0rt
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 24818
(Past Year: 322)
Joined: 3 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Crowding The Plate

Postby DevilDriver » Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:14 pm

Casino Royale - 7/10

An Inconvenient Truth - 3/10
Image
DevilDriver
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 3431
Joined: 4 Dec 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Beast mode

Postby domination » Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:30 pm

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.
Fear is the mind killer.
domination
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 314
Joined: 3 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: where arn't I?

Postby The Artful Dodger » Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:44 pm

ayebatter wrote:Casino Royale - 7/10 - the foot chase sceen in the begining is awesome.
We have a new edgier Bond. ;-D


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. ;-D
Image

It's kinda like the Old Cafe - http://fbc2.freeforums.net
The Artful Dodger
Chief Wikitect
Chief Wikitect

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 21947
(Past Year: 670)
Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Downloading rice

Postby acsguitar » Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:48 pm

The Artful Dodger wrote:
ayebatter wrote:Casino Royale - 7/10 - the foot chase sceen in the begining is awesome.
We have a new edgier Bond. ;-D


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. ;-D


I don't like Bond flicks but this one looks good...I hate Pierece Borsonsosn
I'm too lazy to make a sig at the moment
acsguitar
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Graphics Expert
Posts: 26722
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Back in General Talk WOOO!!!

Postby The Artful Dodger » Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:23 pm

acsguitar wrote:
The Artful Dodger wrote:
ayebatter wrote:Casino Royale - 7/10 - the foot chase sceen in the begining is awesome.
We have a new edgier Bond. ;-D


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. ;-D


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.
Image

It's kinda like the Old Cafe - http://fbc2.freeforums.net
The Artful Dodger
Chief Wikitect
Chief Wikitect

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 21947
(Past Year: 670)
Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Downloading rice

Postby ironman » Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:48 pm

The Artful Dodger wrote:
acsguitar wrote:
The Artful Dodger wrote:
ayebatter wrote:Casino Royale - 7/10 - the foot chase sceen in the begining is awesome.
We have a new edgier Bond. ;-D


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. ;-D


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.


Don't forget George Lazenby.
Image
Wendigo's Camaro
ironman
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerEagle EyeWeb Supporter
Posts: 4901
(Past Year: 94)
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Dubuque

Postby 1337_Dude » Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:32 pm

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. B-)

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. ;-D

Already announced actually. :-D
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.
Image
Image
1337_Dude
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1583
Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Ole Kentucky

Postby Madison » Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:10 am

1337_Dude wrote:
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. B-)

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. ;-D

Already announced actually. :-D
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 :-D . Thanks! ;-D
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.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: uphonnandam and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact