DEFINITELY. Or one of my all-time faves (British edition): http://img2.timeinc.net/instyle/images/2014/TRANSFORMATIONS/1969-helen-mirren-567.jpg Damn, one of these days I'm learn how to post a picture..
use the img tags, not the url tags then it just becomes a question of whether the site involved blocks hotlinking (in this case, the answer is no. wow, i don't think i've ever seen helen that young.)
i don't need to warn those who have seen the movie - the following video is NSFW http://www.veoh.com/watch/v212317809Y5a2mKs?h1=Willow's+Song
Me neither. I've always liked her, didn't know she was such a hottie when she was younger. I mean, she's still really attractive, but damn!
watched about two thirds of the hobbit: the desolation of smaug yesterday. jackson's bad habit of rewriting the hobbit gets even worse in this one than in the first installment. not impressed.
title be damned. tolkien put a lot of time and effort into crafting this story. jackson is an ass for presuming to rewrite it.
Couple more older ones over the weekend: A League of Their Own No Country for Old Men And yes, Cat - I know you had some serious issues with NCfOM.
so much for saying anything about any movies. everyone is up my ass about anything i say lately. it won a ton of oscars, so who am i to judge?
Not up your azz, Cat - I know you had issues with the movie so I said that to circumvent any big discussion/debate. Mellow out.
it's a good movie and a great villain. like all movies 1 or 2 tweaks and it's better but as is, a damn good movie. saw trance last night and sacrament. ugh. trance was good until the end and sacrament was not what i thought at all. double C's! sorry axe - but if you go to the hockey thread and read what happened to me on vacation i am walking on egg shells now everytime i say something! i can't win or be labeled a complainer.
i regularly raise people's hackles by talking about films i feel are overrated. so, i'll throw a changeup today, and talk about one that i think is badly underrated. Heaven's Gate (1980) to me, this is a very good western. it often finds itself at or near the top of lists of bombs and bad films, and imo, it has no business being there. my only complaint with it is its length - and yet, i still understand cimino's desire to make it the length it was. but i also think it could easily be shortened by a half hour with no loss to the film. the opening sequence, for example - it shouldn't have taken 15+ minutes to establish the fact that some of the characters in the film went to school with each other. now, for what i like about it: it's a great story which encompasses classic themes: conflict between ranchers and farmers, hatred of immigrants, haves vs. have nots, people who go too far (on both sides) to try to fix problems. the scenery is magnificent, and the cinematography does justice to it. i've been to both johnson county, wyoming - where it supposedly takes place - and glacier national park, where it was mostly filmed, many times. and cimino did a fine job of capturing the beauty of the northern rockies. the ensemble cast is damn good. kris kristofferson, christopher walken, isabelle huppert, sam waterston, john hurt, brad dourif, jeff bridges, richard masur... it's a brutal story, not for the faint of heart or the impatient. if u don't fit into either of those categories, i highly recommend this one.
my only gripe with No Country for Old Men is the weapon he uses. it strikes me as a case of "hey, how cool would THIS be?" cool, sure - but i don't see a psycopath/sociopath like Chigur using it just because it's cool - it's ridiculously impractical, and he doesn't strike me as the impractical type.
thanks lulz-i will check it out. maybe the author of the book for no country used that gun bc it's quick and easy, not messy and untraceable? i dunno. it was damn cool though.
lulz-i checked out that movie on netflix and added it to my queue. it has a long waiting list for it. so either it's popular or they don't have a lot of copies of it since it's from 1980.
