Oh My Lord...

[Riv]

I thought it was brilliant!

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Riv @ Dec 26 2008, 09:10 PM)

I thought it was brilliant!

 

it really was the best movie i've seen in a really long time. i'm glad i don't owe you $9.25.

[alphseeker]

Just got back - A really long chick flick - It was OK -

[Riv]

QUOTE (alphseeker @ Dec 27 2008, 02:22 AM)

Just got back - A really long chick flick - It was OK -

Yeah, I guess it was kinda like a chick flick.

 

Pretty amazing how they did all of that, though.

[rushgoober]

a chick flick? ya think?

 

 

it was light years from divine secrets of the ya ya sisterhood of the traveling pants...

[GeddyRulz]

"It's really lame." You'll be "bored to tears" by this "chick flick."

 

Maybe they should've added a couple of car crashes and explosions to the plot.

 

[Necromancer]

QUOTE (Riv @ Dec 27 2008, 02:31 AM)

QUOTE (alphseeker @ Dec 27 2008, 02:22 AM) Just got back - A really long chick flick - It was OK - Yeah, I guess it was kinda like a chick flick.   Pretty amazing how they did all of that, though. Okay, so it's good but kinda a chick flick. So is it good enough to go to the movies... or is it good enough to wait until DVD?   I sit through chick flicks all the time with CeeJ, so keep that in mind.   Just, with all the movies out right now, do you think this one is brilliant enough to be the one we go to see?

[Riv]

QUOTE (Necromancer @ Dec 27 2008, 12:18 PM)

QUOTE (Riv @ Dec 27 2008, 02:31 AM) QUOTE (alphseeker @ Dec 27 2008, 02:22 AM) Just got back - A really long chick flick - It was OK - Yeah, I guess it was kinda like a chick flick.   Pretty amazing how they did all of that, though. Okay, so it's good but kinda a chick flick. So is it good enough to go to the movies... or is it good enough to wait until DVD?   I sit through chick flicks all the time with CeeJ, so keep that in mind.   Just, with all the movies out right now, do you think this one is brilliant enough to be the one we go to see? I would see it in the movies. Usually I only go to the theater when it is something that has a lot of visual or sound effects, but this a really good movie. The only reason it got the "chick flick" label is that it has a sub-plot as a love story, but that's no big deal. It's also really long...something like 2 hours and 47 minutes, so be prepared to go to the bathroom at least once, unless you forgot to take your Cialis.

[Ancient Ways]

QUOTE (Riv @ Dec 27 2008, 01:21 PM)

QUOTE (Necromancer @ Dec 27 2008, 12:18 PM) QUOTE (Riv @ Dec 27 2008, 02:31 AM) QUOTE (alphseeker @ Dec 27 2008, 02:22 AM) Just got back - A really long chick flick - It was OK - Yeah, I guess it was kinda like a chick flick.   Pretty amazing how they did all of that, though. Okay, so it's good but kinda a chick flick. So is it good enough to go to the movies... or is it good enough to wait until DVD?   I sit through chick flicks all the time with CeeJ, so keep that in mind.   Just, with all the movies out right now, do you think this one is brilliant enough to be the one we go to see? I would see it in the movies. Usually I only go to the theater when it is something that has a lot of visual or sound effects, but this a really good movie. The only reason it got the "chick flick" label is that it has a sub-plot as a love story, but that's no big deal. It's also really long...something like 2 hours and 47 minutes, so be prepared to go to the bathroom at least once, unless you forgot to take your Cialis. Cialis?   What exactly are you doing in the bathroom?

[Riv]

QUOTE (Ancient Ways @ Dec 27 2008, 03:54 PM)

QUOTE (Riv @ Dec 27 2008, 01:21 PM) QUOTE (Necromancer @ Dec 27 2008, 12:18 PM) QUOTE (Riv @ Dec 27 2008, 02:31 AM) QUOTE (alphseeker @ Dec 27 2008, 02:22 AM) Just got back - A really long chick flick - It was OK - Yeah, I guess it was kinda like a chick flick.   Pretty amazing how they did all of that, though. Okay, so it's good but kinda a chick flick. So is it good enough to go to the movies... or is it good enough to wait until DVD?   I sit through chick flicks all the time with CeeJ, so keep that in mind.   Just, with all the movies out right now, do you think this one is brilliant enough to be the one we go to see? I would see it in the movies. Usually I only go to the theater when it is something that has a lot of visual or sound effects, but this a really good movie. The only reason it got the "chick flick" label is that it has a sub-plot as a love story, but that's no big deal. It's also really long...something like 2 hours and 47 minutes, so be prepared to go to the bathroom at least once, unless you forgot to take your Cialis. Cialis?   What exactly are you doing in the bathroom?   Whoops. What's that stuff that makes you pee? Flomax?

Edited December 27, 2008 by Riv

[Analog Kelly]

I saw it yesterday and liked it - definitely a chick flick and a tear jerker.

 

[Necromancer]

QUOTE (Riv @ Dec 27 2008, 01:21 PM)

QUOTE (Necromancer @ Dec 27 2008, 12:18 PM) QUOTE (Riv @ Dec 27 2008, 02:31 AM) QUOTE (alphseeker @ Dec 27 2008, 02:22 AM) Just got back - A really long chick flick - It was OK - Yeah, I guess it was kinda like a chick flick.   Pretty amazing how they did all of that, though. Okay, so it's good but kinda a chick flick. So is it good enough to go to the movies... or is it good enough to wait until DVD?   I sit through chick flicks all the time with CeeJ, so keep that in mind.   Just, with all the movies out right now, do you think this one is brilliant enough to be the one we go to see? I would see it in the movies. Usually I only go to the theater when it is something that has a lot of visual or sound effects, but this a really good movie. The only reason it got the "chick flick" label is that it has a sub-plot as a love story, but that's no big deal. It's also really long...something like 2 hours and 47 minutes, so be prepared to go to the bathroom at least once, unless you forgot to take your Cialis. I'm still not old enough for either of those drugs.   Thanks for the advice on the movie though. We'll probably see it before it's out of the theaters.

[Tick]

QUOTE (Ancient Ways @ Dec 27 2008, 03:54 PM)

QUOTE (Riv @ Dec 27 2008, 01:21 PM) QUOTE (Necromancer @ Dec 27 2008, 12:18 PM) QUOTE (Riv @ Dec 27 2008, 02:31 AM) QUOTE (alphseeker @ Dec 27 2008, 02:22 AM) Just got back - A really long chick flick - It was OK - Yeah, I guess it was kinda like a chick flick.   Pretty amazing how they did all of that, though. Okay, so it's good but kinda a chick flick. So is it good enough to go to the movies... or is it good enough to wait until DVD?   I sit through chick flicks all the time with CeeJ, so keep that in mind.   Just, with all the movies out right now, do you think this one is brilliant enough to be the one we go to see? I would see it in the movies. Usually I only go to the theater when it is something that has a lot of visual or sound effects, but this a really good movie. The only reason it got the "chick flick" label is that it has a sub-plot as a love story, but that's no big deal. It's also really long...something like 2 hours and 47 minutes, so be prepared to go to the bathroom at least once, unless you forgot to take your Cialis. Cialis?   What exactly are you doing in the bathroom? Something that could last 4 hours.

[GeddyRulz]

QUOTE (tick @ Dec 27 2008, 07:08 PM)

QUOTE (Ancient Ways @ Dec 27 2008, 03:54 PM) QUOTE (Riv @ Dec 27 2008, 01:21 PM) QUOTE (Necromancer @ Dec 27 2008, 12:18 PM) QUOTE (Riv @ Dec 27 2008, 02:31 AM) QUOTE (alphseeker @ Dec 27 2008, 02:22 AM) Just got back - A really long chick flick - It was OK - Yeah, I guess it was kinda like a chick flick.   Pretty amazing how they did all of that, though. Okay, so it's good but kinda a chick flick. So is it good enough to go to the movies... or is it good enough to wait until DVD?   I sit through chick flicks all the time with CeeJ, so keep that in mind.   Just, with all the movies out right now, do you think this one is brilliant enough to be the one we go to see? I would see it in the movies. Usually I only go to the theater when it is something that has a lot of visual or sound effects, but this a really good movie. The only reason it got the "chick flick" label is that it has a sub-plot as a love story, but that's no big deal. It's also really long...something like 2 hours and 47 minutes, so be prepared to go to the bathroom at least once, unless you forgot to take your Cialis. Cialis?   What exactly are you doing in the bathroom? Something that could last 4 hours. "That sounds nasty in there. How 'bout a courtesy flush?"

[1-0-0-1-0-0-1]

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Dec 28 2008, 04:48 AM)

QUOTE (tick @ Dec 27 2008, 07:08 PM) QUOTE (Ancient Ways @ Dec 27 2008, 03:54 PM) QUOTE (Riv @ Dec 27 2008, 01:21 PM) QUOTE (Necromancer @ Dec 27 2008, 12:18 PM) QUOTE (Riv @ Dec 27 2008, 02:31 AM) QUOTE (alphseeker @ Dec 27 2008, 02:22 AM) Just got back - A really long chick flick - It was OK - Yeah, I guess it was kinda like a chick flick.   Pretty amazing how they did all of that, though. Okay, so it's good but kinda a chick flick. So is it good enough to go to the movies... or is it good enough to wait until DVD?   I sit through chick flicks all the time with CeeJ, so keep that in mind.   Just, with all the movies out right now, do you think this one is brilliant enough to be the one we go to see? I would see it in the movies. Usually I only go to the theater when it is something that has a lot of visual or sound effects, but this a really good movie. The only reason it got the "chick flick" label is that it has a sub-plot as a love story, but that's no big deal. It's also really long...something like 2 hours and 47 minutes, so be prepared to go to the bathroom at least once, unless you forgot to take your Cialis. Cialis?   What exactly are you doing in the bathroom? Something that could last 4 hours. "That sounds nasty in there. How 'bout a courtesy flush?" Nice Tom Arnold/Austin Powers reference.

[GeddyRulz]

QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ Dec 28 2008, 09:36 AM)

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Dec 28 2008, 04:48 AM) QUOTE (tick @ Dec 27 2008, 07:08 PM) QUOTE (Ancient Ways @ Dec 27 2008, 03:54 PM) QUOTE (Riv @ Dec 27 2008, 01:21 PM) QUOTE (Necromancer @ Dec 27 2008, 12:18 PM) QUOTE (Riv @ Dec 27 2008, 02:31 AM) QUOTE (alphseeker @ Dec 27 2008, 02:22 AM) Just got back - A really long chick flick - It was OK - Yeah, I guess it was kinda like a chick flick.   Pretty amazing how they did all of that, though. Okay, so it's good but kinda a chick flick. So is it good enough to go to the movies... or is it good enough to wait until DVD?   I sit through chick flicks all the time with CeeJ, so keep that in mind.   Just, with all the movies out right now, do you think this one is brilliant enough to be the one we go to see? I would see it in the movies. Usually I only go to the theater when it is something that has a lot of visual or sound effects, but this a really good movie. The only reason it got the "chick flick" label is that it has a sub-plot as a love story, but that's no big deal. It's also really long...something like 2 hours and 47 minutes, so be prepared to go to the bathroom at least once, unless you forgot to take your Cialis. Cialis?   What exactly are you doing in the bathroom? Something that could last 4 hours. "That sounds nasty in there. How 'bout a courtesy flush?" Nice Tom Arnold/Austin Powers reference. Bingo!

[doublereeder]

I might actually go see it.

It looks interesting, and it's getting great reviews.

[Rushian King]

A pretty darn good movie. Maybe a little too long, not that I noticed. A small 'e' epic, I don't think it needs to be seen on the big screen, to fully appreciate it. Comparable in storytelling style to Forrest Gump, (I think, it's been years since I've seen FG) especially since both films were written by the same guy.

 

A note to remember since I believe film critic Ebert missed this aspect in his review: Pitt's character is 6 years older than Blanchett's throughout the ENTIRE movie. When they first meet early on he's a young kid in an old man's body and when they meet again closer to the end Pitt might physically look a lot more youthful, but mentally and emotionally he's still 6 years older.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Rushian King @ Dec 29 2008, 08:21 AM)

Comparable in storytelling style to Forrest Gump, (I think, it's been years since I've seen FG) especially since both films were written by the same guy.

Were they? I couldn't help but think of Forest Gump from time to time while watching this movie, and my wife told me later that she was thinking that too. When I scanned reviews of this movie on Rotten Tomatoes, I saw at least two references to Forest Gump.

 

Mind you, the movie is nothing like Forest Gump in terms of the story, but more in terms of the wider scope of the film, in the aspect of encompassing someone's entire life with a certain romanticism and intensity. There are definite similarities in tone, if not in content.

[GeddyRulz]

I'm confused. Are you saying it's even better than the fourth season of Mork & Mindy?

 

Hard to believe!

 

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/images/misc/morkandmindymessageboard.jpg

Edited December 29, 2008 by GeddyRulz

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Dec 29 2008, 02:21 PM)

I'm confused.  Are you saying it's even better than the fourth season of Mork & Mindy? Hard to believe!  http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/images/misc/morkandmindymessageboard.jpg

Sometime recently either the SciFi channel or G4 had a Mork & Mindy marathon. My wife and I were curious about it since we both hadn't seen Mork & Mindy since the 80's. We watched part of one episode and then had to turn it off. Man, what a godawful show that was! Maybe that dialogue flew in the 70's and 80's (I enjoyed it when I was a kid), but it was pretty horrendously stupid as an adult in 2008...

[treeduck]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 11:43 AM)

QUOTE (Rushian King @ Dec 29 2008, 08:21 AM) Comparable in storytelling style to Forrest Gump, (I think, it's been years since I've seen FG) especially since both films were written by the same guy. Were they? I couldn't help but think of Forest Gump from time to time while watching this movie, and my wife told me later that she was thinking that too. When I scanned reviews of this movie on Rotten Tomatoes, I saw at least two references to Forest Gump.   Mind you, the movie is nothing like Forest Gump in terms of the story, but more in terms of the wider scope of the film, in the aspect of encompassing someone's entire life with a certain romanticism and intensity. There are definite similarities in tone, if not in content. Well Forrest Gump was absolutely worthless and annoying as a film so if this one is anything like that I won't want to go near it, Pitt or no Pitt...

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 02:44 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 11:43 AM) QUOTE (Rushian King @ Dec 29 2008, 08:21 AM) Comparable in storytelling style to Forrest Gump, (I think, it's been years since I've seen FG) especially since both films were written by the same guy. Were they? I couldn't help but think of Forest Gump from time to time while watching this movie, and my wife told me later that she was thinking that too. When I scanned reviews of this movie on Rotten Tomatoes, I saw at least two references to Forest Gump.   Mind you, the movie is nothing like Forest Gump in terms of the story, but more in terms of the wider scope of the film, in the aspect of encompassing someone's entire life with a certain romanticism and intensity. There are definite similarities in tone, if not in content. Well Forrest Gump was absolutely worthless and annoying as a film so if this one is anything like that I won't want to go near it, Pitt or no Pitt... Like I said, the movie is probably nowhere near cynical enough for you anyway. I would have been shocked if you had liked Forest Gump even a tiny bit. Too life-affirming?

[theredtamasrule]

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Dec 29 2008, 04:21 PM)

I'm confused.  Are you saying it's even better than the fourth season of Mork & Mindy? Hard to believe!  http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/images/misc/morkandmindymessageboard.jpg

It's not possible to be better than the 4th season of Mork & Mindy. That was the crowning achievement of western civilization.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 04:46 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 02:44 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 11:43 AM) QUOTE (Rushian King @ Dec 29 2008, 08:21 AM) Comparable in storytelling style to Forrest Gump, (I think, it's been years since I've seen FG) especially since both films were written by the same guy. Were they? I couldn't help but think of Forest Gump from time to time while watching this movie, and my wife told me later that she was thinking that too. When I scanned reviews of this movie on Rotten Tomatoes, I saw at least two references to Forest Gump.   Mind you, the movie is nothing like Forest Gump in terms of the story, but more in terms of the wider scope of the film, in the aspect of encompassing someone's entire life with a certain romanticism and intensity. There are definite similarities in tone, if not in content. Well Forrest Gump was absolutely worthless and annoying as a film so if this one is anything like that I won't want to go near it, Pitt or no Pitt... Like I said, the movie is probably nowhere near cynical enough for you anyway. I would have been shocked if you had liked Forest Gump even a tiny bit. Too life-affirming? No, you mean it's too sentimental for me...   Forrest Gump wasn't sentimental though it was just f***ing stupid and not at all believable with a very annoying character. Nothing to do with cynical or sentimental.   Don't just make your mind about someone or something Goobs and try to sum them/it up in one word, it's very narrow-minded and not very progressive at all.   I mean would I do that to you, you old prog hippy fool??? See that's four words...