Forums

Movie reviews

Sort:
bigpoison

Make a deal.

What kind of a deal?

A deal deal. Maybe the guys a republican.

trysts
bigpoison wrote:

Make a deal.

What kind of a deal?

A deal deal. Maybe the guys a republican.

The Wolf of Wall Street?

littledragons

Has anyone seen Gravity?

bigpoison

Same movie as Ivan's quote.

trysts

@littledragons: I did.

Ubik42
trysts wrote:
ab121705 wrote:

Is there somethin' wrong?

With what?

With anything?

Is that what you're asking me? "Is there something wrong with anything?"
 

Okay, so we still don't know 4804, 4811, and now this one, correct?

No Goldendog got 4811, it was Mad Max. Actually it was the Road Warrior, so we should deduct a half point from him.

littledragons
trysts wrote:

@littledragons: I did.

What did you think?

trysts
bigpoison wrote:

Same movie as Ivan's quote.

Oh

trysts
Ubik42 wrote:
trysts wrote:
ab121705 wrote:

Is there somethin' wrong?

With what?

With anything?

Is that what you're asking me? "Is there something wrong with anything?"
 

Okay, so we still don't know 4804, 4811, and now this one, correct?

No Goldendog got 4811, it was Mad Max. Actually it was the Road Warrior, so we should deduct a half point from him.

So we still need someone to get #4804, and ab's quote above.

ivandh

Wish I'd thought of that line instead bp.

The movie is Kelly's Heroes.

trysts
littledragons wrote:
trysts wrote:

@littledragons: I did.

What did you think?

I thought it was a great visual experience, and pretty tense. Did you see it?

RonaldJosephCote

      ivandh post 4850;   "Kelly's Heroes"  Clint Eastwood   EXCELLENT

RonaldJosephCote

          Bigposon 4854;   That was Kelly's Heroes also with Don Rickels.     you hockey puck.

littledragons
trysts wrote:
littledragons wrote:
trysts wrote:

@littledragons: I did.

What did you think?

I thought it was a great visual experience, and pretty tense. Did you see it?

yeah. The visuals was good, but I kept waiting for the film to really start; you know what I mean?

trysts
littledragons wrote:
trysts wrote:
littledragons wrote:
trysts wrote:

@littledragons: I did.

What did you think?

I thought it was a great visual experience, and pretty tense. Did you see it?

yeah. The visuals was good, but I kept waiting for the film to really start; you know what I mean?

Kind of. It was really short, like just over 80 minutes long. And it was just really a visual experience. A survival film. No more to the story than that.

littledragons
trysts wrote:
littledragons wrote:
trysts wrote:
littledragons wrote:
trysts wrote:

@littledragons: I did.

What did you think?

I thought it was a great visual experience, and pretty tense. Did you see it?

yeah. The visuals was good, but I kept waiting for the film to really start; you know what I mean?

Kind of. It was really short, like just over 80 minutes long. And it was just really a visual experience. A survival film. No more to the story than that.

It felt like a prologue to something else, as if they were setting it up for something else. Yeah, maybe the length affected it. They should have taken lessons from the Tom Hanks film. I suppose it is hard to make survival films; you have to make it really long; to show the stages of denial, barganing, anger, and acceptance. I thought Riddick had a bit of the same problem.

goldendog

#4820 too:

You hit her?

He never.

No man here touched that crazy girl. I put the hurt on her me and my sisters

trysts

This is hilarious! I'm switching windows watching the Australian Open, listening to a song posted in my music thread, having a conversation about Gravity, and trying to figure out the quotes from movies, while spilling my wine all over the place! Laughing

trysts
littledragons wrote:
trysts wrote:
littledragons wrote:
trysts wrote:
littledragons wrote:
trysts wrote:

@littledragons: I did.

What did you think?

I thought it was a great visual experience, and pretty tense. Did you see it?

yeah. The visuals was good, but I kept waiting for the film to really start; you know what I mean?

Kind of. It was really short, like just over 80 minutes long. And it was just really a visual experience. A survival film. No more to the story than that.

It felt like a prologue to something else, as if they were setting it up for something else. Yeah, maybe the length affected it. They should have taken lessons from the Tom Hanks film. I suppose it is hard to make survival films; you have to make it really long; to show the stages of denial, barganing, anger, and acceptance. I thought Riddick had a bit of the same problem.

I see where you're coming from. It could have been a great film if it invested more time into the script, for sure:)

trysts
goldendog wrote:

#4820 too:

You hit her?

He never.

No man here touched that crazy girl. I put the hurt on her me and my sisters

Are you going to disclose the movie for #4804, goldendog?Laughing

This forum topic has been locked