Go see this. Now. That is all.
Go see this. Now. That is all.
i agree - great movie
"...And my quarter is ruined. My business lost about 200K in revenue.
On a positive note, I did save some money on car insurance by staying with GEICO..."
Agreed.
Excellent!
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow, what a Ride!"
Just saw it. Worth the Money. Go see it.
i was disapointed, for some reason.
maybe lack of familiarity with frank miller's work, but i felt the non chronological timeline was so sporatic that it diddn't work.
very styalistic though, good boobs and blood. mickey rourke stole the show.
edit: i also thought she was going to be in more scenes:
![]()
Last edited by basom; 04-05-2005 at 07:34 AM.
Maybe it was just me, but I felt like everyone in the movie theater was waiting for Jessica Alba to get naked. Big let down in that department.
I agree that Mickey Rourke did a great job. His finest performance since Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man.
Is that a compliment?Originally Posted by jimmy page
Charlie, here comes the deuce. And when you speak of me, speak well.
Every review I read (even well before the movie opened) highlighted that Jessica Alba DOES NOT get naked and her reasons why (basically that her father would have a heart attack). So everyone could have easily known that in advance.Originally Posted by jimmy page
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow, what a Ride!"
i knew she wasn't going to be naked, i just wanted more of her.
If Jessica Alba doesn't get naked, I'm not going.
Who does get naked?
It's idomatic, beatch.
pretty much everyone else.
womens wise.
goldie=nakid
gail=nailkid
britney= not neitneked ()
so we are hitting .500 for nakedness. to be truthfull, lots of the nakedness is more like partial nakedness.
Last edited by basom; 04-05-2005 at 01:33 PM.
you got owned by the greek lion.
so. so owned.
damn nerdy lion.
Goldie = Jamie King = Smoking
Edit: see? Hot!
![]()
Last edited by Cornholio; 04-05-2005 at 02:00 PM.
It's idomatic, beatch.
as well....
gail = rosario dawson = hot
=
= hot
Rosario Dawson (but then she got nekkid in alexander too). some other girls. nudity is only hinted at, which makes it much better IMHO. there's a great scene snapshot with Rourke staring at Carla Gugino's behind...Originally Posted by Cornholio
on the other hand guys don't get so much nekkid in the movie, since they have a tendency to expose the insides of their bodies more.
great movie. could've had only rourke's story in it, didn't care much for the other two.
I can just see a whole theater of hard up horny resort town boys with their peckers in their hand........Originally Posted by jimmy page
I think there were a couple of girls there.......with their boyfriends of course.Originally Posted by Woodsy
Agreed, best movie I've seen in a while.
Live To Ski!
maybe I'm just a pussy but that movie fucked up my night...all the violence and just plain f'ed up shit.....good thing I have girl problems to take my mind off of it![]()
ok so 3 doods had a (prolly sausage fingered) woman's hand on their cockk.Originally Posted by jimmy page
the rest of ya, still gulty
I give it![]()
![]()
Saw it last night- one of the most visually stunning movies I've seen in a long time. But if ultraviolence is not your thing- don't see it. But I still though it was excellent- probably Rodriguez's best film yet.
"There is a hell of a huge difference between skiing as a sport- or even as a lifestyle- and skiing as an industry"
Hunter S. Thompson, 1970 (RIP)
I thought this movie was pretty cool, but I need an explanation of something.
What was the deal with Josh HArtnett's character? Who was the chick he killed in the first scene? What was the point of that?
Looking California, feeling Minnesota.
continuation setup for the sequelOriginally Posted by bigsugar
![]()
no, in reality i think it's just a little trick to put the three stories in the much bigger perspective of the whole "sin" city, i.e. they are irrelevant in the big picture of things in much the same way that superman or batman aren't...
i've given myself some time before i see it again, but i'm sure a second viewing will clear up things much more.
Bookmarks