ClumsyMonkey.net

The misses and i went to see Borat.......I've never laughed so freaking hard, ever. It was hysterical.

Cass; only slight male/male nudity. Not sure if you could handle it. Besides its in a completely funny manner, so maybe ya could.

Last nite we chilled at home and watched "Grandma's Boy", again. That movie will never get old to me. Probably because them bastards have my dream job.

That douche, JT, and his "hasta la vista turd nuggets"

laurel wrote:well...this is true.
but you're still making up for the protector.

I wanted to see something else that night! Hollywoodland!! And now I still haven't seen it! But everyone else wanted to see the protector... it was my birthday too dammit!

then we'll rent hollywoodland! we'll call it your birthday plus...uh...two months and..uh...whatever length of time thereafter.

...what's hollywoodland? that involves a man in a tight suit, yes?

It's about George Reeves who played superman in the old Adventures of Superman tv series that aired from 1952-1958. The movie is about the mystery surrounding his death. It's been recorded as a suicide, but a lot of people believe he was murdered because he was sleeping with one of the wives of a high up executive at Warner Bros.

But its mostly about the tights.

I don't think there will be a whole lot of Ben Affleck wearing the tights... Since he's going to be dead for half the movie anyway.

Lando wrote:It's about George Reeves who played superman in the old Adventures of Superman tv series that aired from 1952-1958. The movie is about the mystery surrounding his death. It's been recorded as a suicide, but a lot of people believe he was murdered because he was sleeping with one of the wives of a high up executive at Warner Bros.

i believe the husband also had some good ties to the mob

Yeah, but in Hollywood who doesn't.

I really want to go see The Prestige tonight.

I went to see Casino Royale tonight. I'm not entirely sure what to say.

There was an entire stretch of the movie where I sat there and said "something fucking blow up already!"

Casino Royale.

I can't say that it was the best Bond movie ever; I'm not ready to betray Connery yet. But holy fucking shit that was an amazing movie. EXTREMELY well done. It kept VERY true to the novel. Craig was SPECTACULAR as Bond. Very different from his predecessors, but again very true to Flemming's novels.

This was basically them saying "this is what a Bond movie can be when we actually try" which is something they haven't done in a very long time.

I'm actually having trouble placing this in my ranking of favourite Bond movies. I can't really put it over the first 3, because those are THE Bond movies. There's also a couple of others that I'm weary of, because I'm not really sure this could top them... It's definitely better than anything Moore ever did, because the series had become too silly at that time. It's definitely better than Brosnan's last 3, and I'm going to even say it was better than Goldeneye. I haven't seen Dalton's flicks in a while, but as I remember they were also very good, and they also took the series as seriously as Casino Royale.

Long story short: amazing movie.

Anne of Green Gables!

Axtech wrote: I haven't seen Dalton's flicks in a while, but as I remember they were also very good,

Long story short: amazing movie.

Actually the Dalton ones were crap and many obesessed Bond fans don't even consider them part of the series. They're considered 007 films as much as Never Say Never Again.

Also, you're right, Casino Royale was really great. I wouldn't go as far as saying the last Brosnan films were crap though. They were just extremely repetitive. The same old thing over and over for 20 movies gets old. Which is why they went back to the roots, scrapped the gadgets and made a grittier Bond with Casino Royale.

The worst Brosnan film is Tomorrow Never Dies in my opinion.

Also, did anyone catch billionaire Richard Branson's cameo in Casino Royale? It was a quick shot of him going through a metal detector in the airport. My bro missed it, but it was him, I'm sure of it.

Lando wrote:Actually the Dalton ones were crap and many obesessed Bond fans don't even consider them part of the series. They're considered 007 films as much as Never Say Never Again.

yeah, like I said, I haven't seen them in a very long time. my opinion would probably be different seeing them now (I saw them when I first started watching the series as a kid).

Also, you're right, Casino Royale was really great. I wouldn't go as far as saying the last Brosnan films were crap though. They were just extremely repetitive. The same old thing over and over for 20 movies gets old. Which is why they went back to the roots, scrapped the gadgets and made a grittier Bond with Casino Royale.

The worst Brosnan film is Tomorrow Never Dies in my opinion.

Unfortunately I think Brosnan really peaked at Goldeneye. Each movie afterwards seemed to be trying too hard to top the last. bigger special effects, bigger co-stars, bigger gadgets (an invisible car? really?). They weren't horrible movies, far from the worst of the series, but I think they started going down a pretty disappointing path. The script writing was all-around pretty lax, something that's been remedied in Casino Royale.

On the bright side, I think they've made a very smart move with Casino Royale. It's just an all-around great movie. I'm hoping they continue with what they've started here, because they've got a good chance of saving the series and bringing some credibility back to a franchise that had largely become worn out and repetitive.

Yeah but how does this new young punk rank against Lazenby? Or Peter Sellers in the 1967 version of Casino Royale?

Lazenby's a hard Bond to rank. He only had the one movie, after all. He didn't do an amazing job with it, but he was alright. I think that if he'd done more movies he would have had time to come into his own with the role.

Having said that, I think I'd rank Craig over him, simply for being so much closer to the original novels.

As far as Peter Sellers is concerned, I haven't seen the 67 version. But it doesn't really count anyways. It's a spoof, after all. Besides, as I understand it, David Niven played the "original" (Sir) James Bond in that.

I think Lazenby was actually a really good Bond. He was the first Bond to cry. To show that sort of emotion when his wife dies. They never really touched on that again. Which is good, but that was a totally new dimension to the character at the time. So he was good, but it's hard to give an accurate opinion from one film. Daniel Craig plays the role extremely well. I've liked him as an actor for a while, but I never ever thought he could be Bond. When I read that he would be, I thought it would be extremely lame. He just doesn't look the part, but after seeing the movie, I didn't think for a second that he wasn't Bond while watching it. He completely became the role.

As for Sellers... well... I think that version of Casino Royale is about as much of a Bond film as the others that I mentioned. Not that the movie isn't funny in it's own twisted oldie type of way.

haha, come on. even Never Say Never Again counts more than the 67 Casino Royale

Axtech wrote:As far as Peter Sellers is concerned, I haven't seen the 67 version. But it doesn't really count anyways. It's a spoof, after all. Besides, as I understand it, David Niven played the "original" (Sir) James Bond in that.

Oh yeah? I'm a little fuzzy on the details because it's been a while since I've seen it, but I remember there being several characters using the name James Bond in that movie... I'd forgotten that one of them was actually supposed to be the original. Actually the entire movie is kind of a blur to me.

i saw the prestige the other day. the only good thing about it was david bowie.