i thought this was an interesting read, cat. they call the shark in jaws "uncharacteristically long". to me, it's still a long drive from there to "no fucking way!" http://hubpages.com/hub/The--Biggest-Great-White-Shark-Ever-Found# also enjoyed these comments:
it was the way it looked lulz that seemed silly. when it pops out of the water to brody the first time, it looks massive. the head and mouth look really wide and fake. great article. i don't mess with anything in the water and don't go in the ocean. my fat ass is an appetizer to a shark. i have heard however surfers punching them on the nose and being let go out of their death grips and swimming to safety. could be lucky i guess and not a defense flaw in the shark. im sure there are over 20 feet living deep somewhere but the average size is under 18 feet, whereas Jaws was 25 feet. Lastly -- did you see the article about a whale sight seeing tour attack and kill a great white shark? the captain said to witness that firsthand above the waterline is one in a million you see it. and he had a boat of people who saw it too. wow. Orca 1 - Jaws 0.
nope, didn't see that. very cool, boat tour of a lifetime right there. will likely watch papillon tonight - no fake sharks in it, i'm guessing
saw Noah last night. not what i expected besides the ark that looked like a box. terrible. and saw the double with jesse eisenberg. read it was good. may go down as the worst movie i ever seen ! ever! and this tops the movie with same idea with jake gylenhaal i saw 2 weeks ago called Enemy!
watched the hobbit: an unexpected journey last night. the good: the production looks and feels great. and u gotta love a dwarf with a scottish accent and a bad guy with... well... that chin. the bad: the hobbit and LOTR are some of the most carefully crafted works of fiction i've ever read, if not at the top of that list. VERY unimpressed with peter jackson's decision to rewrite the story in several spots. since all three parts of this story are already done, i suppose it's too late, but i'll say it anyway - i hope jackson hasn't developed james cameron syndrome.
lulz-i never read the books, but my older brother raved about them. i watched the first 3 movies with the extended cut over a long weekend years ago and didn't like them. i thought the acting was terrible and the dialogue. I thought it was slow and boring in parts and I fast forward through the battle scenes in the second movie. And finally when he's at Mt. Doom and going to throw the ring in (finally) Gollum still tempts him not too. For Pete's sake, it's been 3 movies -just throw it in! 12 hrs of these extended cuts and I wanted to cut my head off. You may hate Star Wars, but I didn't like any of these movies.
u didn't need to tell me u hadn't read the books, this comment says it all. it wasn't because of gollum that he didn't just throw it in. it's a very basic part of the story - the possessor of the ring in turn becomes possessed by it, and cannot bear to part with it. this is one of my first rules of movies. extended cut, director's cut - this is code for "we know we got u to buy it once, so we're gonna try to get u to buy it again by adding in BS that the director (rightly, nearly every time) chose to NOT include in the original release." avoid that transparent ploy for more income. i don't hate star wars, cat, i just find it to be average grade space opera with, for the time, great CGI. space opera rarely appeals to me, and CGI is fine, but it doesn't carry a movie for me. far too often, CGI is used to cover a lack of other things which, to me, are more important parts of a movie. and since CGI has now evolved WAY past what was used there, going on 40 years ago, the CGI in those films holds no appeal for me whatsoever.
ps: let me put this in perspective. i don't hate star wars. i do hate the matrix, one of the worst movies i've ever seen. i consider them both overrated, but there's a world of difference in the level of contempt i feel for each.
good pts lulz. i recall lucas using a lot of scaled models as the ships to make them "fly." and i saw years ago speilberg and a tiny scale of the german camp with little men from raiders of the lost ark. now it's all done by computers. do you need to read the rings books to understand the movies better? and i didn't buy them, i rented them from netflix. i would never buy them.
i would think reading the books would help, yes. LOTR is an very complex story, and a ton of detail necessarily gets left out due to the time constraints of movies. to me, the fact that frodo has become addicted to the ring, far beyond his ability to walk away from it, is a keystone of the story. it reminds me of a detail that was left out of the exorcist (i had also read that book before i saw the movie). the movie was damn good, but the one critical point they skipped over, imo, was regan's deteriorating health, and the fact that if they didn't do something very soon, she was simply going to die from the strain on her body. glad to hear you're renting not buying
never saw that movie. once i saw the head turning and the puking, i was scared. and once i saw the omen, i was scarred for life. seen over 600+ movies, tv series, and documentaries on netflix since 2007.
i love a good horror movie, and the exorcist is very good. good story, good acting. whatever anyone thinks of linda blair, she did a remarkable job as a 13/14 year old in a not so normal role. and come on, cat - it's worth the price of admission for the "Your mother sucks cocks in hell" line alone i never cared for the omen. and we won't talk about any of the sequels of either of these films.
no talk of the omen or salem's lot. i will have nightmares again. i scare easily lulz, so im not prepared to be afraid of everything again like when i saw death wish on cable for the first time and jeff goldblum was raping bronson's wife and daughter!
