Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

E-MAIL   PASS  

Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
Forum Thread A note about the site and any replies from other users.
Porn Users Forum » Upcoming Movie Thread
1-50 of 1198 Posts Page 1 2 7 12 17 23 24 Next Page >
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home

12-21-09  01:06pm - 1683 days Original Post - #1
Wittyguy (95)
Active User



Posts: 1,055
Registered: Feb 04, '08
Location: Left Coast, USA
Upcoming Movie Thread

Since I started the earlier "2009 Upcoming Movie Thread" and we're pretty much done with the year, I guess it's time to kill that one and start a more generically titled thread of the same ilk.

I did "Avatar" this weekend (in the full 3D version) and have to say I was damn impressed. You can see why the thing cost $300 million and took years to make. It is by far the best cgi movie and it warrants seeing it on the big screen if for nothing but the effects. They are not over the top in your face, but, then again, they didn't need to be. The storyline is a bit predictable and the flick produces no memorable dialogue but it was still very enjoyable and well worth the price of a matinee ticket. The effect of this film is going to make any other director who tries to go light on the cgi budget look like a total second rate hack.

12-21-09  01:10pm - 1683 days #2
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,936
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Sounds sort of like his last film "Titanic"--lots of awe-inspiring effects and sets but a really flat and forgettable story. At least there's no Celine Dion soundtrack. Cameron is a talented director and has done a lot for Hollywood special effects in the last twenty-five years, so it's no surprise he should be the one to add a whole new dimension to the mix with extensive motion capture technology. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

12-21-09  01:28pm - 1683 days #3
Capn (28)
Active User



Posts: 1,693
Registered: Sep 05, '09
Location: Near the Beer!
The loss of the Titanic a forgettable story???

I don't think so....

but then again all the movie remakes since A Night To Remember have been!

Cap'n. :0) Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU Award
Hilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award
( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/
Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder!

12-22-09  12:34am - 1682 days #4
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,936
Registered: Apr 01, '08
In the context of Cameron's syrupy film it is. He somehow turned a real life disaster into the annoying obstacle in a transatlantic love triangle that plodded on for some three plus hours. The Titanic and its sinking may have been the setting but I wouldn't say they were the main focus of the story.

Imagine if in the future a filmmaker depicts the 9/11 attacks as the backdrop for some dumb love story and in the process makes hundreds of millions of dollars. But then again people are always hijacking tragedy for profit, so I won't be surprised when it happens. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove Edited on Dec 22, 2009, 11:13am

01-03-10  03:12pm - 1670 days #5
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Major upcoming films for the first half of 2010:
(I don't really see much that appeals to me, and what I do see as possibly appealing, I will probably wait to view as a DVD.)



From Yahoo:

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.reut...8KHp5FvaGQE8Vj5fVXcA


January: The four-day Martin Luther King holiday weekend (January 15-18) is the New Year's first shot at beefy box office business. Warner Bros. hopes to score with "The Book of Eli." Directed by Albert and Allen Hughes ("Menace II Society"), it's a post-apocalyptic action-adventure starring Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman. However: Will audiences want another post-apocalyptic vision?

WB's thriller "Edge of Darkness" (January 29) could end January with a blast as Mel Gibson returns to action with Martin Campbell ("Casino Royale") directing. Gibson's a Boston homicide detective whose daughter's been murdered. However: How bright is Gibson's post-DUI star power?

February: Fox's fantasy adventure "Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief" arrives February 12. Directed by Chris Columbus ("Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"), its ensemble cast is led by Pierce Brosnan and Uma Thurman. Percy (Logan Lerman) is Poseidon's son and on a quest to return Zeus's stolen lightning bolt. However: The "Percy" books were written for juveniles. Can the movie pull in older teens?

New Line has the perfectly titled romantic comedy for Valentine's Day in "Valentine's Day," directed by Garry Marshall ("Pretty Woman") with an ensemble cast including Jessicas Alba and Biehl. Its intertwining tales of L.A. romance should be a magnet for women dragging their husbands and dates. However: It's tough to engage audiences with multiple storylines.

Moviegoers can set sail February 19 for Paramount's "Shutter Island." Directed by Martin Scorsese ("The Departed"), the thriller stars Leonardo Di Caprio. "Shutter," originally set for release in 2009, has the weekend to itself, a good sign that competing studios expect it to do well. However: Will it play too adult?

March: March should come in like a lion with Disney's 3D "Alice in Wonderland" (March 5). Directed by Tim Burton ("Edward Scissorhands"), it stars Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter. Mia Wasikowska plays 19-year-old Alice falling down the rabbit hole once again. However: Will audiences warm to Burton's idiosyncratic vision?

March should go out like a two-headed lion. Family audiences will head March 26 to DreamWorks and Paramount's 3D animated "How to Train Your Dragon" with the voices of Gerard Butler and America Ferrera. However: It's an original and family audiences gravitate to the familiar.

The male action crowd will check out Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures' fantasy adventure "Clash of the Titans." Sam Worthington plays Perseus, who's trying to save his family from Hades (Ralph Fiennes) and wants to seize power from Zeus (Liam Neeson). However: Will audiences want more mythology after "Percy?"

April: Fox could make big money with "Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps" (April 23). Directed by Oliver Stone ("Wall Street"), it stars Michael Douglas and Shia LaBeouf. However: It's 23 years since the original opened and they may have had enough of real-life Wall Street shenanigans!

The month should end on a lively note April 30 with New Line's "A Nightmare on Elm Street," starring Jackie Earle Haley as Freddie Krueger. However: How many visits to Elm Street do moviegoers want to make?

May: The pre-summer box office should start sizzling May 7 with Paramount and Marvel Entertainment's "Iron Man 2," directed by Jon Favreau ("Iron Man"). Robert Downey Jr. returns as Tony Stark/Iron Man and Gwyneth Paltrow is back as Pepper Potts. The original grossed $318 million domestically after opening May 2, 2008 to $99 million. However: Nothing to worry about here.

Universal has a brand-name action-adventure in "Robin Hood" (May 14). Directed by Ridley Scott ("Gladiator"), it stars Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett and may wind up in 3D. However: Do you still believe in Russell Crowe and in tights, no less?

DreamWorks and Paramount have May 21 all to themselves with the 3D animated family franchise "Shrek Forever After." Its all-star voices include Cameron Diaz, Mike Myers, Julie Andrews, Antonio Banderas, Eddie Murphy and Jon Hamm. However: Is there still a compelling story to tell?

Memorial Day weekend kicks off May 28 with Disney and Jerry Bruckheimer's male fantasy action-adventure "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time." Directed by Mike Newell ("Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"), it stars Jake Gyllenhaal. However: It's an original, which is never easy, but its roots are in a video game, which means it could pull in the fanboys.

It also will be girls night out thanks to New Line's "Sex and the City 2." Director Michael Patrick King reteams with Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Kristin Davis, Cynthia Nixon and Chris Noth. This time they're on the road to Morocco. However: Did the original provide all the closure that fans of the series needed?

June: The summer box office heats up June 18 with Disney and Pixar's 3D animated family franchise "Toy Story 3." Tom Hanks and Tim Allen return to voice Woody and Buzz Lightyear. However: Is there still life in this story?

Teen and tween girls will turn out June 30 for Summit's "Twilight Saga: The Eclipse," starring Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart and Bryce Dallas Howard. The franchise's last episode "New Moon" grossed $280 million so it's a safe bet that as July 4 approaches Hollywood will be seeing the kind of box office fireworks it most enjoys.

01-03-10  05:26pm - 1670 days #6
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
I'm eagerly awaiting Percy Jackson, Clash of the Titans, How to train your dragon, Twilight's next movie Prince of Persia and Iron Man 2. Although I'm not crazy about the idea to reveal Tony Stark as Iron man. Call me crazy but that makes it real easy to stop Iron man by killing Tony Stark. I think that's why they came up with the concept of a secret identity.

Of the other ones you have named. Maybe Alice and Book of Eli has potential, but all the others are either really bad ideas or simply movies that I couldn't care less.

Let me add to your list:

Legion in January, The Wolfman in February and The losers in April. Long live the Brown Coats.

01-03-10  07:04pm - 1669 days #7
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Originally Posted by pat362:


I'm not crazy about the idea to reveal Tony Stark as Iron man. Call me crazy but that makes it real easy to stop Iron man by killing Tony Stark. I think that's why they came up with the concept of a secret identity.


At the end of the Iron Man I movie, Tony Stark already revealed that he is Iron Man. He did that at a press conference. So he doesn't have a secret identity, unless they use a special gas that causes amnesia in everyone, or unless they reveal that part of the movie was just a dream sequence, or use some other special device to change what happened, which movies sometimes do.

I enjoyed the 1980s Clash of the Titans. The new one should be quite different because Ray Harryhausen isn't creating the monsters, and the storyline is being rewritten.

Twilight Parts 1 and 2 both seemed very slow to me, aimed at the teen girl audience.

I think I saw the original Dracula, Frankenstein, and Wolfman movies in the theaters, but obviously not on their first run. I also watched them on TV, and found them scary when I was younger. But the trailer for the new Wolfman movie did not impress me. I liked An American Werewolf in London (1981) by John Landis, but in spite of Anthony Hopkins and Benicio Del Toro and some other fine actors, I am not expecting much from this remake and will wait to watch it on DVD.

I agree that Alice and the new Denzel Washington movie could be very good.

01-03-10  07:10pm - 1669 days #8
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,936
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


Twilight Parts 1 and 2 both seemed very slow to me, aimed at the teen girl audience.


I didn't think you were the typical "Twilight" viewer, but maybe you've been lying about your age and gender all this time. :) "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

01-03-10  07:16pm - 1669 days #9
PinkPanther (46)
Active User



Posts: 872
Registered: Jan 08, '07
Location: Oakland, CA
Edge of Darkness with Mel Gibson seems like the real winner to me. Gibson is so clearly haunted with demons in his personal life that when he gets to play a character that allows him to manifest that, it can be brilliant. Payback is one evil fucking movie and probably my favorite Mel Gibson performance.

He's an actor that has enough substance that I could see him being powerful into his 70's.

01-03-10  10:39pm - 1669 days #10
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Originally Posted by turboshaft:


I didn't think you were the typical "Twilight" viewer, but maybe you've been lying about your age and gender all this time. :)


The truth shall set you free. Never try to hide a falsehood from the sharp eyes of the PU community.

Twilight Parts 1 and 2 made a ton of money. But that doesn't mean they would appeal to the average PU member.

01-04-10  03:50pm - 1669 days #11
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,936
Registered: Apr 01, '08
I dislike most of these films that make tons of money, but I am sure some PU members do like them, including "Twilight." I did like Avatar however, but all of the previews (most of which are in the above Yahoo! list) looked like shit; way too much computer animation without the story to back it up. Plus way too many of these upcoming films are just sequels and remakes, which I hate even more than relying on the CGI bullshit. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

01-04-10  04:11pm - 1669 days #12
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Avatar will turn out to be the biggest, most successful movie ever made. How do I know? My grandson has gone to see it three times so far (Cinemax prices, too) and is debating with himself if he should go see it one more time! :-)

Now for something completely different simply because I have to vent to someone and you happen to be a captive audience:

I hate movies shot in the hand-held camera style. "The Bourne Identity" was one of my favorite thrillers and those who made the two sequels totally ruined them for me because the picture of both movies was jerky, disconcerting, confusing. The critics raved about the sense of "immediacy" created by that novel way of shooting a picture, the public accepted without a murmur of protest, so I appear to be in the minority. Same with "Zorro," the first one was great, the second one a jerky, hand-held camera, in-your-face mess. Never did see the end of it, too nerve wracking. Thank you for the opportunity to let off steam a bit! I shall now return you to Porn! :-)

01-04-10  04:42pm - 1669 days #13
Wittyguy (95)
Active User



Posts: 1,055
Registered: Feb 04, '08
Location: Left Coast, USA
I don't get the whole "up close, hand held" jerky shots either ... and we all thought that "jerk motion photography" was just limited to our porn viewing and the morons who shoot most of it ;. I think the idea is make you feel part of the action but all it does is make my head spin. I think that the effect could be better if a scene like that was shot in 3-D but otherwise it's just a bunch of in your face, flashy quick cut action that nearly triggers epileptic seizures in half the audience. I just saw a trailer for an upcoming Matt Damon flick (Bourne Part IV -- actually not Bourne but pretty much the same damn character in the form of US special forces guy in Iraq) and it looks like he is contractually obligated to only star in action flicks with this type of shot framing.

01-04-10  06:15pm - 1668 days #14
PinkPanther (46)
Active User



Posts: 872
Registered: Jan 08, '07
Location: Oakland, CA
I liked the Bourne movies - all of them - but it's a thin line with that hand-held stuff - some of it I enjoy - such as those films - some of it I don't.

A movie that I REALLY want to see - I might have to find a bootleg DVD or something - the film of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Of course, unless it's subtitled, I'd have a hard time understanding it, but I really love Stieg Larsson's books.

I swear I'm the kiss of death for writers that I like - first Octavia Butler, then Stieg Larsson. I don't know if I'm going to wait until late May for the US release of the 3rd book in the trilogy. I might "cheat" and get a UK edition.

Lisbeth Salander is one of my favorite all-time characters in literature. It's cool to have a young woman character that is not in the military with the Jason Bourne-like bottomless pit of resources to confront her attackers/opponents.

01-04-10  06:21pm - 1668 days #15
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Originally Posted by Wittyguy:


I don't get the whole "up close, hand held" jerky shots either ... and we all thought that "jerk motion photography" was just limited to our porn viewing and the morons who shoot most of it ;. I think the idea is make you feel part of the action but all it does is make my head spin. I think that the effect could be better if a scene like that was shot in 3-D but otherwise it's just a bunch of in your face, flashy quick cut action that nearly triggers epileptic seizures in half the audience. I just saw a trailer for an upcoming Matt Damon flick (Bourne Part IV -- actually not Bourne but pretty much the same damn character in the form of US special forces guy in Iraq) and it looks like he is contractually obligated to only star in action flicks with this type of shot framing.


I always think of the Emperor's New Clothes when I see the critics rave about the "innovative style" of those new directors. I can only see that it's a lot cheaper than closing off whole streets, rehearsing stunts, setting up stationary cameras etc. etc., so they take a chance on epileptic seizures .. and people keep going to those movies so why not do it the cheap way. The Bourne Trilogy could have been great, instead only the first movie was. At least that's the way I see it through my peasant, culturally challenged eyes.

01-04-10  06:55pm - 1668 days #16
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


At the end of the Iron Man I movie, Tony Stark already revealed that he is Iron Man. He did that at a press conference. So he doesn't have a secret identity, unless they use a special gas that causes amnesia in everyone, or unless they reveal that part of the movie was just a dream sequence, or use some other special device to change what happened, which movies sometimes do.

I enjoyed the 1980s Clash of the Titans. The new one should be quite different because Ray Harryhausen isn't creating the monsters, and the storyline is being rewritten.

Twilight Parts 1 and 2 both seemed very slow to me, aimed at the teen girl audience.

I think I saw the original Dracula, Frankenstein, and Wolfman movies in the theaters, but obviously not on their first run. I also watched them on TV, and found them scary when I was younger. But the trailer for the new Wolfman movie did not impress me. I liked An American Werewolf in London (1981) by John Landis, but in spite of Anthony Hopkins and Benicio Del Toro and some other fine actors, I am not expecting much from this remake and will wait to watch it on DVD.

I agree that Alice and the new Denzel Washington movie could be very good.


I was really hoping that the ending of Iron Man 1 was a kind of inside joke where you see someone else inside the suit at the same time as Tony Stark, but clearly the previews say differently.

I have Clash of the Tiatns on DVD. I agree that this one will be very different. I hope that it's not a CGI mess with mindless super kinetic action and no story.

I prefered the first Twilight the New Moon but both movies are crappy rendition of the movies. Whoever is writting the movies is missing the important things about the books.
Oh well, they still have 2 or 3 more movies to get it right.

I have a fondness to the Hammer films versions of Dracula, Wolfman and Frankenstein. I also really liked the 1972 version of Dracula starring Frank Langella. Long live the Brown Coats.

01-04-10  10:01pm - 1668 days #17
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,936
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by messmer:


Avatar will turn out to be the biggest, most successful movie ever made. How do I know? My grandson has gone to see it three times so far (Cinemax prices, too) and is debating with himself if he should go see it one more time! :-)


I have to admit that when I saw it in 3D it was quite an experience (even with the assholes who didn't have the discipline to sit through its entire length without babbling to their friends or texting), and something I doubt a big screen or 'home theater' could even get close to recreating, so rewatching it in theaters would be the way to go. I am also glad that someone like Michael Bay didn't direct, instead there were long, smooth takes. Oh, and no herky-jerky cinematography either.

Originally Posted by messmer:


I hate movies shot in the hand-held camera style. "The Bourne Identity" was one of my favorite thrillers and those who made the two sequels totally ruined them for me because the picture of both movies was jerky, disconcerting, confusing. The critics raved about the sense of "immediacy" created by that novel way of shooting a picture, the public accepted without a murmur of protest, so I appear to be in the minority. Same with "Zorro," the first one was great, the second one a jerky, hand-held camera, in-your-face mess. Never did see the end of it, too nerve wracking. Thank you for the opportunity to let off steam a bit! I shall now return you to Porn! :-)


If you don't like hand-held camera work how can you return to porn? :) It's practically all hand-held with the occasional scene shot from a coffee table as the guy does double duty as both performer and director and keeps looking back at the camera to make sure the battery hasn't died or his female counterpart is still in frame. It barely works, but you gotta love it! "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

01-05-10  05:47am - 1668 days #18
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Originally Posted by messmer:


I hate movies shot in the hand-held camera style. "The Bourne Identity" was one of my favorite thrillers and those who made the two sequels totally ruined them for me because the picture of both movies was jerky, disconcerting, confusing.

When I have complained about the jerky quality of the hand-held camera style in movies in recent years to my friends, they look at me as if I'm weird. Don't I enjoy the special effects or whatever the hell is supposed to be happening on the big screen? My problem is that I can't really understand or see clearly what is happening, especially when the lighting is low, and the action is so fast and jumbled together and whatever. I mean, I realize that it's supposed to represent fast, explosive action, but I would like to see it more clearly so I could enjoy it.

Separately, I also have the older Clash of the Titans on DVD, and rewatch it occasionally. It's a cute movie. Not great, but enjoyable.

I was a fan of Octavia Butler from her first books, the Patternmaster series. James Tiptree Jr. was also a fine science fiction writer. Edited on Jan 05, 2010, 03:23pm

01-05-10  08:46am - 1668 days #19
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Originally Posted by turboshaft:



If you don't like hand-held camera work how can you return to porn? :) It's practically all hand-held with the occasional scene shot from a coffee table as the guy does double duty as both performer and director and keeps looking back at the camera to make sure the battery hasn't died or his female counterpart is still in frame. It barely works, but you gotta love it!



No car chases in porn, so it's tolerable! :-) In porn my pet peeve is a guy named Janeiro. Who let him in?

01-08-10  03:25am - 1665 days #20
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
The porn world has lost a major star.

Natalie Portman vows never to strip naked on the big screen again.

Who can replace this fabulous actress in our hearts and minds (and crotches)?

I've liked her since The Professional (1994), the first movie she made when she was around 12 years old.

But should we really agonize over whether this actress will expose part of her body so porn sites can post pictures of her? There are porn sites that will post pictures of her whether she is nude or not, because that's part of what they do, post pictures of actresses to attract more viewers.

By the way, in spite of enjoying some of her movies, I haven't seen the movie where she partially stripped. And I haven't seen any of the stills from that movie posted on the Internet. So maybe I'm not part of the Internet Peeping Tom crowd. But since I have joined Internet porn sites, then again, maybe I am part of the Internet Peeping Tom crowd.

I refuse to classify myself as a Peeping Tom. Isn't that something illegal?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.asp...450556&GT1=28101

Movie News


Natalie Portman: I won't be taking off my clothes again
Jan. 7, 2010, 5:25 PM EST

WENN

Natalie Portman has made herself a promise never to strip naked onscreen -- because she doesn't want to find herself on a porn site.

The actress partially stripped for a sex scene in 2007 movie "Hotel Chevalier," and that was enough to send lusty Internet peeping Toms into overdrive, posting stills of the saucy scene all over the web.

She told WENN, "It really depressed me that half of every review on the film was about the nudity. It made me think I shouldn't have done it.

"I'm not prudish about nudity. I think it's beautiful in films, and sex is such a big part of life. My issue is that I feel it takes something away from what you're doing when the focus is put on the wrong thing. My picture ended up on porn sites, and that's the dilemma."

Also: Portman says she thinks about having kids

The experience left Portman shaken and now she's committed to keeping her clothes on at all times.

She tells Elle magazine, "I just don't want to do something that will end up as a screen grab on a porn site.

"You look at Meryl Streep, who is so phenomenally, freakishly gorgeous, and, in some ways, it's just bizarre that she was never a sex symbol, but it was always about her -- and now it doesn't matter that she's getting older, because we just want to continue watching her be an interesting person.

"Whereas you see actresses who marketed themselves on their bodies, and they might be good, but, over time, they just lose it because that sort of thing doesn't last."

The Israel-born star is also keen to steer clear of Jewish roles: "I've always tried to stay away from playing Jews... I get, like, 20 Holocaust scripts a month, but I hate the genre."

01-08-10  10:51am - 1665 days #21
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,936
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Hmm, I wasn't even aware that she had ever done a nude scene--thanks, lk2fireone! Us "Internet peeping Toms" have to stick together! ;)

I have never been a fan of sites that throw together grainy VHS captures, old magazine scans, and early "modeling work" to quench the fans' cravings for glimpses and hints of their favorite movie stars in the buff or nearly in the buff. Yes, there are plenty of mainstream actresses I want to see do nude scenes or even a feature length porno (c'mon, is that really too much to ask?), but if they aren't going to do it then it's not happening--not even with a stunt butt or stunt silhouette.

I think the problem is Hollywood and American audiences, not Portman. As Americans we have come to accept an incredible amount and level of violence that I think is a little more than disturbing. It's amazing what warrants an 'R' rating in the U.S.; naughty words, pee-pee parts and of course the evils of drug use (it supports terrorism after all), but not the type of violence that continually causes real problems in people's real lives.

I do like how she says "sex is such a big part of life"--yeah, especially if you are planning on having a kid, or perpetuating the species, it can be a real deal breaker! Puts a smile on my face every time. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove Edited on Jan 08, 2010, 11:15am

01-08-10  07:30pm - 1664 days #22
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
I don't know if this is true but I read that she has an hot lesbian scene with Mila Kunis in the upcoming movie Black Swan. I guess it might not include any nudity or this could simply be her way of making headlines.

She has appeared nude in Goya ghost and Hotel Chevalier but all you really see is a profile shot and one of her naked ass. I agree that she is nude doing the scene but if it's edited out or filmed in such a way that you see next to nothing then I don't see her point. You could say that Olivia Mun and Heidy Montag appeared in Playboy but I certainly won't use the word nude to describe their pictorial. Long live the Brown Coats.

01-08-10  07:35pm - 1664 days #23
Khan
PornUsers Staff




Posts: 1,579
Registered: Jan 05, '07
Location: USA
FWIW, supposedly it was a body-double in Goya's Ghost Senior Administrator
PornUsers.com

"What screws us up most in life is the picture in our head of how it's supposed to be"

01-09-10  09:50am - 1664 days #24
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by Khan:


FWIW, supposedly it was a body-double in Goya's Ghost


Some of the scenes are a body double but some are of her. Either way it doesn't make much of a difference because you don't see much of anything. To date the only movie that gives you visible nude parts is Hotel Chevalier. You get a good one of her baskside and a partial view of her right breats(Don't blink). I don't mind if she does or doesn't do nude scenes but let's not call them nude scenes if you don't see anything.

I'm still amazed that she played a stripper in Closer and not once does she take her clothes off. Long live the Brown Coats.

01-09-10  01:19pm - 1664 days #25
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
I believe that in Closer Natalie Portman did take her clothes off in one scene, but that scene was cut from the theatrical version of the movie. I don't know if there are any Internet outtakes from that scene, or if that cut scene was included in the deleted scenes for a DVD version of the movie. Probably not.
I'm pretty sure Natalie Portman said she was happy the nude scene was not included in the final movie. My impression is that she was never comfortable with her being nude in any movie.

She was also uncomfortable, after the movie was released, with the overly sexual aspect of her first movie, The Professional, filmed when she was only 12, where she was playing a lolita-like role in some ways to the professional assassin who is the main character. There was no sex between the Natalie Portman character and the assassin, but there was love between them.

Edit: There is a shorter and longer version of The Professional. The longer version has a scene where the lolita-like role is expanded, and I believe the Natalie Portman character actually does offer to make love to the assassin. But I saw the movie years ago, and the details are not really that clear to me. The theatrical version in the U.S. was the shorter version, which reduced the lolita-like aspect, to make the movie less controversial, because the movie has a ton of violence even without the lolita-aspect. Edited on Jan 09, 2010, 01:28pm

01-09-10  06:22pm - 1663 days #26
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


I believe that in Closer Natalie Portman did take her clothes off in one scene, but that scene was cut from the theatrical version of the movie. I don't know if there are any Internet outtakes from that scene, or if that cut scene was included in the deleted scenes for a DVD version of the movie. Probably not.
I'm pretty sure Natalie Portman said she was happy the nude scene was not included in the final movie. My impression is that she was never comfortable with her being nude in any movie.



I read the same thing about there being a nude scene that was cut and destroyed from Closer. I classify that story as pure Bullshit. I could believe that she had a no nude clause in her contract and during filming certain scenes might have been filmed where she is nude. THat would make sence to destroy those but there is no way that after you get permission from the star to film a nude scene that you will destroy the scene. I can't believe that the producer would willingly destroy what was going the selling point of the movie. Who wants to watch a movie about a stripper that never gets naked? Long live the Brown Coats.

01-09-10  09:21pm - 1663 days #27
PinkPanther (46)
Active User



Posts: 872
Registered: Jan 08, '07
Location: Oakland, CA
Avatar in 3D - exceptional!

People had raved about the flying in the Spiderman movies - I found nothing exciting about them - but the flying on dragons or whatever they are in Avatar - fantastic!

01-10-10  10:09am - 1663 days #28
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by PinkPanther:


Avatar in 3D - exceptional!

People had raved about the flying in the Spiderman movies - I found nothing exciting about them - but the flying on dragons or whatever they are in Avatar - fantastic!


I think that the main difference is technology. Cameron has already said that he could not have made this movie before now because the technology simply didn't exist yet.
You need some serious hardware and graphic engine to be able to make that kind of animation. Since he said that he would make the technology available to all commers than we will be able to judge future movies.

On a side note: Cameron filmed a sex scene that he cut from the theatrical realase but will be available on the DVD. Can you say CGI porn??? Long live the Brown Coats.

01-11-10  09:36pm - 1661 days #29
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Hollywood can be a fast-changing place. Last week Tobey Maguire (who played Spiderman in the first 3 Spiderman films) said he was excited about the next Spiderman film and that he had specific ideas about the evolution of the character on the big screen.

Today, he said ""I am so proud of what we accomplished with the 'Spider-Man' franchise over the last decade."

However, Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios announced today (Monday) that a new "Spider-Man" film based on a script by James Vanderbilt that focuses on Peter Parker in high school would debut in the summer of 2012 with a new cast and filmmaking team.

So Tobey Maguire and Sam Raimi (the director of the first 3 Spiderman movies) are out.


http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.ap.o...iderman-franchise-ap

01-12-10  06:15pm - 1660 days #30
PinkPanther (46)
Active User



Posts: 872
Registered: Jan 08, '07
Location: Oakland, CA
That'll teach a lowly meat puppet (actor) to have "specific ideas about the evolution" of their character.

01-12-10  06:39pm - 1660 days #31
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
I can understand the studio thinking that a 34 yrs old Tobey Maguire was getting a little old to play what was essentialy a teenager. I can also understand that after that mess that was Spiderman 3 the studio would be affraid of giving Sam Raimi's free reins over the franchise. I was a huge Spidey fan until the third movie. I'm not exactly sure what they had in mind when they made that movie and we will probably never know. All I can say is that they should have known that no movie can survive 3 bad guys, 2 damsel in distress
and intermixed in that mess a love story/break up/get together again
storyline.

That doesn't mean you can revamp a franchise that is not even 10 yrs old. If that is what they want to do then simply pull the plug because they might as well take the millions they want to spend on it and light a giant fire. Who really wants to see Peter Parker having secret powers and at the same time dealing with teenage anxiety about zits, making the football team so that he can get the cheerleader. Long live the Brown Coats.

01-13-10  12:15am - 1660 days #32
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,936
Registered: Apr 01, '08
A fourth Spiderman seems to be pushing it, but I guess the almighty dollar rolls on... Fortunately it's Spiderman and not -men because then they would start fleshing out every character with his or her own film like they have started with X-Men and Wolverine.

---

I just saw "The Hurt Locker" on DVD and was impressed. It was thrilling and very watchable while still being respectful of the subject matter (the Iraq War from the point of view of American soldiers). It would have been way too easy to just turn this into another action flick for audiences with short attention spans--and it seems to be marketed that way, though inaccurately so.

My one gripe is the shake-'em-up cinematography (thank you, "Saving Private Ryan"). I know, I know; shake the camera, and suddenly the film is 'real' and can 'immerse' you in the story but I would really love to see a modern action or war film have some control and remount the camera for at least part of the film. I also think it goes on a little too long as the last five or so minutes are unnecessary and too cliche (sorry, I'm not giving the ending away).

Still, despite my personal prejudices, I enjoyed it and am relieved that a decent film could actually be made of the Iraq War this early on (the war is still going on, BTW)--I mean I actually want to re-watch it. All the other films and documentaries I have seen on the war have just left me angry and depressed, but this didn't. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

01-13-10  03:06am - 1660 days #33
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
I'm no fan of shake-'em-up cinematography.

But give them time, and I'm sure we will be able to watch Spiderman and his buddies (does he have any friends who are superheroes or superhero wannabes?) fighting the forces of evil for the next 20 years, which is the responsibility of every superhero.

I don't really understand why Batman lost Robin. Did Batman just lose interest in being a father-figure, or was there some homo-erotic element that Batman grew past? I've read different interpretations on why Robin was no longer relevant.

01-13-10  04:45am - 1660 days #34
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Megan Fox (the hottie in Transformers) is the new lead model for Armani. Great face, great body. Does it matter if she can act? Not with a body (and face) like hers.

01-13-10  07:38pm - 1659 days #35
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


Megan Fox (the hottie in Transformers) is the new lead model for Armani. Great face, great body. Does it matter if she can act? Not with a body (and face) like hers.


For me it does matter if she can act. I haven't seen anything except her 2 roles in Transformers so I can't judge how talented she is. She was very good in both movies and she's also a very good looking girl. I won't dish out 12$ to see a movie that stars her being good looking and bad acting even if she appear butt naked and going all frontal....OK maybe I might peak in for the full frontal. Long live the Brown Coats.

01-14-10  05:50am - 1659 days #36
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
For the full frontal, buy me a ticket. I'm short of change at the moment. Lol.
I kind of doubt you will be seeing her full frontal naked for at least a few years yet. She just started modeling underwear for Armani, so you can get a pretty good idea of her body. But most actresses don't go totally nude until they really need/hope for a career boost from Playboy, after their career has slowed way down. At the moment, Megan Fox is very hot from the Transformer movies.

01-14-10  06:56pm - 1658 days #37
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


For the full frontal, buy me a ticket. I'm short of change at the moment. Lol.
I kind of doubt you will be seeing her full frontal naked for at least a few years yet. She just started modeling underwear for Armani, so you can get a pretty good idea of her body. But most actresses don't go totally nude until they really need/hope for a career boost from Playboy, after their career has slowed way down. At the moment, Megan Fox is very hot from the Transformer movies.


Here are some of the problems that I think Megan Fox may soon face. Except for the Transformer movies. She hasn't had an actual movie career. She's currently involved with 2 projects. Jonah Hex with Josh Brolin. That one has potential and Passion Play with Mickey Rourke. That one is likely to sink faster than you can say (BOMB). It's the story of a nice girl who's under the thumb of a ruthless gangster that gets saved by a trumpet player down on his luck and it's set in the 50's. Wow! that sounds like Oscar material to me. To add insult to injury. It's a first time director, who happen's to be the screenplay writter. She's attached to The Crossing but that's in production so that could go nowhere real fast and her name is tied to 2 more pojects that are in development but only Transformer 3 is likely.

I'm sure the studio responsible for Jennifer's Body were hoping that her name alone would bring in the teenage boys and if she had appeared p partially nude then they might have been right but the movie cost at least 16 million and has only made a little over 16 millions domestically and 30 millions if you count international box office takes.

She has had some fairly deregatory statements in regards to Micheal Bay and since he's the guy responsible for any and all of your actual screen successes. How big do you think her role might be in the next Transformer movie?

I hope that she does well because I really think she has actual acting talent. Long live the Brown Coats.

01-21-10  09:33am - 1652 days #38
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Iron Man 2 is coming May 7:

With Robert Downey Jr., Mickey Rourke, Scarlett Johansson, Sam Rockwell, Don Cheadle, Gwyneth Paltrow. Those are top names for actors, and the movie is expected to be one of the top movies of the year.

New cast members for part 2 are:
War Machine (Cheadle)
Black Widow (Johansson)
Whiplash (Rourke)

01-21-10  02:52pm - 1652 days #39
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,936
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Please, no more sequels or that kitten is really getting it! There is already talk of not one but two (two!) sequels to "Avatar" since it is bringing in truckloads of money, possibly even more than "Titanic" did twelve years ago. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

01-21-10  05:23pm - 1652 days #40
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Two major reasons Avatar is approaching the box office of Titanic (besides the special effects and whatever): inflation of ticket prices since Titanic was released;
the exta-high prices being charged for the 3-D version.

The number of tickets sold for Titanic is far ahead of ticket sales of Avatar.

And if you threaten my kitty, I will set Drooler's ferocious mutt on you. What kind of dog is he, anyway?

01-21-10  06:15pm - 1651 days #41
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


Two major reasons Avatar is approaching the box office of Titanic (besides the special effects and whatever): inflation of ticket prices since Titanic was released;
the exta-high prices being charged for the 3-D version.

The number of tickets sold for Titanic is far ahead of ticket sales of Avatar.

And if you threaten my kitty, I will set Drooler's ferocious mutt on you. What kind of dog is he, anyway?


That's part of the reason but Avatar is not making so much money because waves of girls are going to see Leonardo 12 times on screen.

I know there is a lot of talk about a sequel for Avatar but then again why wouldn't studios say that when the movie has grossed nearly a billion. I'm just not willing to believe all the talk just yet. Although the movie is the highest grossing movie of all time it also holds the honor of being the most expensive one as well. There is argumenting from many sides but estimates are that the mvie cost anything from 250 to 500 millions. That may not include the cost of marketing which could add another 100 million to the total.

How many studios are going to be willing to spend half a billion dollars on a sequel that is not guaranteed to be remotely as successful as Avatar since sequels usually do worse for all the right reasons. Long live the Brown Coats.

01-21-10  06:44pm - 1651 days #42
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Originally Posted by turboshaft:


Please, no more sequels or that kitten is really getting it!


The stars are listening to turboshaft.

The first two installments of "Night at the Museum," starring Ben Stiller, have brought in close to $1 billion worldwide at the box office, so it should come as no surprise that a third installment is in the works.

Perhaps turboshaft could serve as technical adviser of sequels. I knew there was a sneaky reason behind his anti-sequel posting.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovies.ac...night-museum-3-works

01-21-10  06:44pm - 1651 days #43
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Originally Posted by turboshaft:


Please, no more sequels or that kitten is really getting it!


The stars are listening to turboshaft.

The first two installments of "Night at the Museum," starring Ben Stiller, have brought in close to $1 billion worldwide at the box office, so it should come as no surprise that a third installment is in the works.

Perhaps turboshaft could serve as technical adviser of sequels. I knew there was a sneaky reason behind his anti-sequel posting.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovies.ac...night-museum-3-works

01-22-10  10:15am - 1651 days #45
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
I did an internet search on Drooler's dog. Turns out he's 100% purebred junkyard dog, bred for savagery. Although importing such dogs into the United States is illegal, a special exemption was passed, making it legal to own such dogs that are already located within the United States. No warnings badges or licenses are required when walking such dogs, since the law regulating such animals believes the dogs themselves are recognized by the public at large as predators.


turboshaft, you have been warned. End of legal notice. turboshaft is now fair game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Djj7jW6ny2M Edited on Jan 22, 2010, 12:13pm

01-23-10  12:35am - 1650 days #46
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,936
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Lol. Great clip with the now-current governor of California. Only in America!

Don't think I didn't know or I forgot that Cameron also made the sequel to "The Terminator" (though none of the other sequels). But a little bad news; supposedly the director of the 4th film is working on doing a fifth Terminator to add to the heap. I guess those damn machines never die. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

01-24-10  10:20am - 1649 days #47
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
I was reading on AICN that Jason Momoa is going to be the next Conan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Momoa. I've only seen him on Stargate and although he's very good. I would still like to know exactly how his name got on a list to play Conan and then how did it manage to get to the top of it? Long live the Brown Coats.

01-24-10  04:51pm - 1649 days #48
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,542
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Momoa

An actor who can survive a real-life attack with a broken beer glass, that requires him to have around 140 stitches during reconstructive surgery, should be able to have action scenes where he is able to use his dreadlocks in the fight scenes. What kind of a wimp is he, anyway? Complaining of headaches, and even whiplash from his dreadlocks? Are television and the movies completely fake, where the actors don't even have their own hair, but have to wear wigs because their hair weighs too much?

These actors should be forced to wear large signs on their chest, stating that their hair and other parts of their body are fake, and that whenever a double is used, that double should be given credit with subtitles whenever a double is used in a scene.

Enough bullshit and fakery in TV and the movies. Let's get some reality in here so, once again, we can start to believe in what we are seeing.

01-26-10  07:38am - 1647 days #49
mbaya (356)
Active User



Posts: 442
Registered: Jul 07, '08
Location: new jersey
Has anyone seen Avatar? What did you think of it?

01-26-10  08:42am - 1647 days #50
Khan
PornUsers Staff




Posts: 1,579
Registered: Jan 05, '07
Location: USA
Originally Posted by mbaya:


Has anyone seen Avatar? What did you think of it?


Several in this thread have mentioned Avatar ... including Wittyguy's initial post. Senior Administrator
PornUsers.com

"What screws us up most in life is the picture in our head of how it's supposed to be"

01-26-10  06:22pm - 1646 days #51
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,900
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
I don't know if it's the same with people you know but there isn't a single person on my end that did not like Avatar. That's pretty rare when talking about a science fiction movie. Long live the Brown Coats.

1-50 of 1198 Posts Page 1 2 7 12 17 23 24 Next Page >
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home


Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Porn Review - Webmasters

Protecting Minors
We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.

DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.

To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP!  We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction?  We recommend this helpful resource.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.


Loaded in 0.14 seconds.