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
1001-1050 of 1198 Posts < Previous Page 1 2 6 10 14 20 Page 21 22 23 24 Next Page >
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home

02-18-13  01:03am - 519 days #1025
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,541
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
I saw "Fido", a zombie comedy a few years back on DVD. Thought it was a cute movie. The movie did less than $500,000 worldwide gross.

I have a hard time understanding why some movies make a lot of money, and other movies bomb.

$500,000 worldwide gross probably didn't even cover the salaries of the main actors. The cast included Carrie-Anne Moss, Billy Connolly, Tim Blake Nelson, Dylan Baker and other actors who've been around for years. Edited on Feb 18, 2013, 07:31am

02-19-13  06:02pm - 517 days #1026
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,895
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^It's a Canadian movie so the budget must have been pretty low but probably higher than half a million. The good news is that it made at least 2.9 million in domestic dvd sales so I'm sure the producers made some money. Long live the Brown Coats.

02-21-13  08:34pm - 515 days #1027
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,541
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
i saw Warm Bodies today in a theater. I was the only person in the theater. First time that's ever happened to me. It was a Thursday, and it was afternoon matinee, and the movie has been out for 3 weeks, but still, to be the only person in the theater was a new experience for me.

I liked the movie. The two leads are both attractive, that Teresa Palmer is a great-looking woman. I could totally believe she could warm up any zombie who got close to her.

02-23-13  10:29am - 513 days #1028
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,541
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
I really enjoy movies that start out with the disclaimer, "Inspired by actual events, the following is a fictional film that does not depict any actual people or events."

So I am left wondering: How much truth is there to this movie? If the people and events are non-actual, does that mean they are fictional?

Is the President of the United States a real person, or is he a cartoon character? Or worse?

Where is my Prozac? I need my meds!

02-23-13  12:19pm - 513 days #1029
Dracula (5)
Active User



Posts: 185
Registered: Jan 27, '13
Location: Romania
Sometimes movies try to rewrite history too. Those that are inspired by actual events can go either way. A true neck-lover.

02-23-13  03:21pm - 513 days #1030
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,931
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


I really enjoy movies that start out with the disclaimer, "Inspired by actual events, the following is a fictional film that does not depict any actual people or events."

So I am left wondering: How much truth is there to this movie? If the people and events are non-actual, does that mean they are fictional?


You mean like Fargo?

And even if something is a "true story" how much of what we are seeing onscreen is even real? Is that a stunt double--are those her real tits? Is he really driving that car? Wait, this wasn't shot on location? Fake fake fake!

Arguably documentaries can be worse because they are ostensibly "real"--no SFX, stunts, or script. But then you have Errol Morris-style slo-mo retellings, Michael Moore-style editing, and whatever the hell this falls under.

At least it's good for some entertainment if not much in the way of education.

Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


Is the President of the United States a real person, or is he a cartoon character? Or worse?


Worse! He may not be the Antichrist, but he is "paving the way for the future reign of the Antichrist."

Just look what he's doing to the U.S. Constitution (at least according to crap art painter Jon McNaughton):



"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

02-23-13  05:18pm - 513 days #1031
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,541
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Unfortunately, they use stunt doubles for more than titis. They also use stunt doubles for hands, feet, legs, ass, whatever.

I remember Lena Heady was on some late night talk show, and she said her brief nudity on Game of Thrones wasn't really her. The used a stunt double for her naked ass shot.

You need a stunt double for a naked ass shot? Maybe it was in her contract that she didn't have to appear nude. And there is nudity in the Game of Thrones series. Emilia Clarke was naked a lot in Season One of Game of Thrones (she's the girl with the long blonde wig who marries Khal Drogo the Dothraki warlord).

02-23-13  06:40pm - 513 days #1032
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,895
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


I really enjoy movies that start out with the disclaimer, "Inspired by actual events, the following is a fictional film that does not depict any actual people or events."


I tend to avoid all movies that have the "inspired by true events" attached to them because I think they are full of shit. It sort of pisses me off when Hollywood rewrites history to make it look like Americans are the heroes when often it was other people. Case in point is the recent Argo. Aftr this Americans will think that Canada had very little to do with the safe rescue of six American diplomts when the reality is quite different. Long live the Brown Coats.

02-24-13  12:31am - 513 days #1033
slutty (111)
Active User

Posts: 459
Registered: Mar 02, '09
Location: Pennsylvania
Originally Posted by pat362:


I tend to avoid all movies that have the "inspired by true events" attached to them because I think they are full of shit. It sort of pisses me off when Hollywood rewrites history to make it look like Americans are the heroes when often it was other people. Case in point is the recent Argo. Aftr this Americans will think that Canada had very little to do with the safe rescue of six American diplomts when the reality is quite different.


To be fair pat, it has been pretty well publicized in the US that the Canadians played the most important role in this operation, I forget the guy's name now, but he basically said that Affleck's character was only really there for a day or so, and that Canada was for more important then portrayed. I generally don't mind artistic license with "true stories" as long as they don't go crazy, it is after all meant to be entertaining (I really enjoy Moneyball, but made the mistake of watching it with a baseball nut of a friend who spent the entire movie pointing out everything that was factually wrong with it). There is after all some suspension of disbelief required with watching most films, Fast 5 had two guys dragging around a huge safe behind their car for 10 minutes, but I guess that is a bad example since it is a terrible movie, but you get my point.

There are plenty of other examples of these kinds of things that piss people off, Lincoln had all of the Conn. delegation voting against the 13th amendment, which is wrong, but probably a result of laziness or poor research. Zero Dark 30 over-emphasized the use/effectiveness of torture (which is probably the worst thing the movie could do, as it makes idiots think it is effective), but I don't know that it makes it a bad movie? Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars.
Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited.

02-24-13  10:49am - 512 days #1034
messmer (137)
Active User



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


To be fair pat, it has been pretty well publicized in the US that the Canadians played the most important role in this operation, I forget the guy's name now, but he basically said that Affleck's character was only really there for a day or so, and that Canada was for more important then portrayed.


The guy's name was former President Jimmy Carter on CNN's Pierce Morgan show, slutty. This movie is causing a huge uproar in Canada because, even though we tend to be self-effacing when it comes to our accomplishments, we would still like to have our contributions acknowledged a bit more often by others. And to have a rescue mission that was almost completely carried out by the Canadian Consular staff in Teheran turned into a glorification of the CIA, with Canada only being given a nod, sticks in our collective craws.

This is not a reaction to this one incident but an accumulation of resentment over Canadian heroism and contributions in various wars and peace keeping missions that have been mostly ignored by the world and definitely by America.

If everyone were as wise and clued in as you are then there would be no problem. But ask the average American, after they see this movie, who was responsible for the rescue in Tehran and the majority will shout: USA, USA, USA!

It may be just a movie and have its merits but by claiming to be based on true events it becomes dangerous and in our case hurtful.

02-24-13  10:51am - 512 days #1035
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,895
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^I would be willing to go agree with you if many Americans didn't get their history lessons from movies but that is sadly not the case. We are now going to have generations of Americans who will believe that Canada was only a bit player and that it was the US that did all the difficult and dangerous work.

I agree that suspension of disbelief is often necessary for someone to enjoy a movie but a movie like Argo isn't asking the viewer to do that but is in fact rewriting history to make one group (Americans in this case) look better than they were. How would you feel if Japan made a version of Pearl Harbor but in their version the attack was really in retaliation for something the US did?

There is a good chance that Argo will win for best picture but will anyone accepting the Oscar mention the name of Ken Taylor(the Canadian Ambassador) who is really the hero? Long live the Brown Coats.

02-24-13  11:00am - 512 days #1036
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Originally Posted by pat362:


^I would be willing to go agree with you if many Americans didn't get their history lessons from movies but that is sadly not the case. We are now going to have generations of Americans who will believe that Canada was only a bit player and that it was the US that did all the difficult and dangerous work.

I agree that suspension of disbelief is often necessary for someone to enjoy a movie but a movie like Argo isn't asking the viewer to do that but is in fact rewriting history to make one group (Americans in this case) look better than they were. How would you feel if Japan made a version of Pearl Harbor but in their version the attack was really in retaliation for something the US did?

There is a good chance that Argo will win for best picture but will anyone accepting the Oscar mention the name of Ken Taylor(the Canadian Ambassador) who is really the hero?


Glad you wrote this, Pat! (See my comment above yours) And I would be willing to bet that if they win the Oscar that Ken Taylor will be mentioned because Ben Affleck is keenly aware of our negative reaction. However, in my eyes, a bare mention cannot undo the harm that is being done to history by this movie.

02-24-13  03:49pm - 512 days #1037
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,931
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by slutty:


There are plenty of other examples of these kinds of things that piss people off, Lincoln had all of the Conn. delegation voting against the 13th amendment, which is wrong, but probably a result of laziness or poor research. Zero Dark 30 over-emphasized the use/effectiveness of torture (which is probably the worst thing the movie could do, as it makes idiots think it is effective), but I don't know that it makes it a bad movie?


Zero Dark 30 has been the progressive controversy du jour since before it was even released. Critics of Obama and Bush II's wars, and their foreign policies in general, have been jumping at the opportunity to give it a lot of shit because it seems to validate the worst theories of how to fight terrorism (torture/"enhanced interrogation"=catching Bin Laden). Defenders of the film have sort taken this all as criticism of the movie itself, which generally isn't the issue. Like saying The Grey or Jaws were bad pictures because they have a negative view of nature and wild animals. They can both be good films with terrible messages.

Bu I get more pissed off not so much by the factual minutiae but any overall context that is sacrificed for the comfortable boundaries of a movie's specific story or "interpretation." Just off the top of my head, Charlie Wilson's War is one of the best examples, because it presents a rather lighthearted portrait of a guy who's actions would eventually lead to the Taliban to taking over Afghanistan. It's still an entertaining movie, but afterwards I couldn't help but think Why the fuck was any of that shit supposed to be a good idea?

Yeah, Charlie Wilson seemed to have been a rather harmless character for a congressman who was a skirt-chasing, coke-snorting drunkard, but you'd have to have been living in a cave--and probably not one in Afghanistan--to ignore the connection between the U.S.'s supply of weapons to Afghanistan in the '80s and then the dangerous power vacuum once the Soviets left. But hey, we struck a knockout punch to communism and, really, what else matters? Al Qaeda who?

Just my "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

02-24-13  05:31pm - 512 days #1038
Dracula (5)
Active User



Posts: 185
Registered: Jan 27, '13
Location: Romania
I read the book and saw the movie Charlie Wilson's War. I thought the movie was pretty entertaining and kept to the facts. The ending was truly sad. Had we invested in those schools Wilson asked for, the Taliban may have had a tougher time establishing itself in Afghanistan and 9/11 most likely never would have happened. I don't care much for most self serving politicians, but Charlie Wilson is the exception. I believe he passed away not very long ago.

For those who never watched this movie, it's worth your time. Tom Hanks plays Charlie Wilson. A true neck-lover.

02-24-13  05:58pm - 512 days #1039
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,895
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by messmer:


I would be willing to bet that if they win the Oscar that Ken Taylor will be mentioned because Ben Affleck is keenly aware of our negative reaction.


Even if Ben Affleck makes a 30 minute speech explaining that his movie is pure fiction when it comes to the role the US had in the liberation of 6 Americans. Will anyone remember it a week from now? Probably not but I'm willing to bet that the movie will more than likely be played in US schools for years to come. Afterall it is a feel good movie. Long live the Brown Coats.

02-24-13  09:44pm - 512 days #1040
Dracula (5)
Active User



Posts: 185
Registered: Jan 27, '13
Location: Romania
Mr. Affleck won Best Picture, no mention story being fiction. A true neck-lover.

02-25-13  12:29am - 512 days #1041
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,541
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Originally Posted by pat362:


How would you feel if Japan made a version of Pearl Harbor but in their version the attack was really in retaliation for something the US did?


The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was actually in retailiation for the US position against Japan.
The US had an embargo on oil and scrap metal against Japan.
Those are essential resources for Japan.

The US had also frozen Japanese assets as punishment for Japan's invasion of China in 1931.

02-25-13  06:33pm - 511 days #1042
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,895
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^I should have been more clear and added military action. All of those things were economic in nature. Long live the Brown Coats.

02-26-13  12:40am - 511 days #1043
slutty (111)
Active User

Posts: 459
Registered: Mar 02, '09
Location: Pennsylvania
The guy wasn't Jimmy Carter messmer, my memory may be shot, but it ain't that bad, it was some guy from the CIA on NPR.

I can understand how Canadians would feel about a movie like Argo, but there are a few things to realize - it is a money making enterprise, so it is necessary to appeal to your wider audience (the US), also perhaps the CIA report that was declassified embellished American involvement. Is it so surprising that the American movie industry is focused primarily on American stories? Perhaps the best thing for the Canadian ego, is for the Canadian film industry to start releasing more films internationally, I can't recall having seen a Canadian film since the Kids in the Hall movie.

I do find it funny that most of the Canadian TV that has been purchased/played in the US has been seemingly intentionally written to avoid any and all references to Canada (except the accents, or shots that are obviously Toronto).

Movies are movies, be it loosely based on fact or entirely fiction it is both intended to entertain and make money (and often facts that writers and producers don't deem important probably aren't well investigated).

Sorry if Hollywood has offended you, but they offend me all the time - Battleship (WTF), the fact that Paul Walker or Vin Diesel still make money acting... I am just waiting for the Hollywood version of Monopoly. Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars.
Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited.

02-26-13  12:42pm - 510 days #1044
messmer (137)
Active User



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


The guy wasn't Jimmy Carter messmer, my memory may be shot, but it ain't that bad, it was some guy from the CIA on NPR.


I believe you, slutty. It's just that Jimmy Carter said the identical thing on CNN.

Originally Posted by
I can understand how Canadians would feel about a movie like Argo, but there are a few things to realize - it is a money making enterprise, so it is necessary to appeal to your wider audience (the US), also perhaps the CIA report that was declassified embellished American involvement. Is it so surprising that the American movie industry is focused primarily on American stories? Perhaps the best thing for the Canadian ego, is for the Canadian film industry to start releasing more films internationally, I can't recall having seen a Canadian film since the Kids in the Hall movie.

I do find it funny that most of the Canadian TV that has been purchased/played in the US has been seemingly intentionally written to avoid any and all references to Canada (except the accents, or shots that are obviously Toronto).
:


I can understand how Canadians would feel about a movie like Argo, but there are a few things to realize - it is a money making enterprise, so it is necessary to appeal to your wider audience (the US), also perhaps the CIA report that was declassified embellished American involvement. Is it so surprising that the American movie industry is focused primarily on American stories? Perhaps the best thing for the Canadian ego, is for the Canadian film industry to start releasing more films internationally, I can't recall having seen a Canadian film since the Kids in the Hall movie.

I do find it funny that most of the Canadian TV that has been purchased/played in the US has been seemingly intentionally written to avoid any and all references to Canada (except the accents, or shots that are obviously Toronto).


Sadly, the Canadian Film industry tends to work with a shoestring budget and the end results tend to reflect that. Most Canadians don't like watching Canadian movies for that reason. Actually there was a movie made years ago, by Canadians, about this affair which was truer to the facts but it didn`t get any international distribution, at least not to my knowledge.

As for Canadian TV shows, they have actually been getting better and now, in this multi-channel universe, get wide international distribution. The reason why so many of them try to disguise the fact that they are made in Canada is once again American attitude. If it isn`t made in the U.S. it can`t be any good. There was also a time where this was true. All of us here in Canada preferred American shows for our entertainment for this reason. And what do you mean "accent" - you are the ones with the accent!

Originally Posted by
Movies are movies, be it loosely based on fact or entirely fiction it is both intended to entertain and make money (and often facts that writers and producers don't deem important probably aren't well investigated).

Sorry if Hollywood has offended you, but they offend me all the time - Battleship (WTF), the fact that Paul Walker or Vin Diesel still make money acting... I am just waiting for the Hollywood version of Monopoly.
:


Movies are movies, be it loosely based on fact or entirely fiction it is both intended to entertain and make money (and often facts that writers and producers don't deem important probably aren't well investigated).

Sorry if Hollywood has offended you, but they offend me all the time - Battleship (WTF), the fact that Paul Walker or Vin Diesel still make money acting... I am just waiting for the Hollywood version of Monopoly.


Oh, I know, slutty. It was just a temporary snit on my part. I shouldn't have expected truth in a Hollywood movie. I still remember the movie about how the Americans stole "Enigma" off a German sub, when in actuality it was the British and Poles who did it.


P.S. Sorry about the mess. I was trying my hand at splitting your post. Terrible result. I have no idea how I got your quote twice, once in normal font and once in bold!!

02-26-13  06:16pm - 510 days #1045
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,895
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^The one good thing we can now say about Canadian made TV shows is that they are no longer looked in negative light by US distributors/customers. Case in point are two more or less recent tv shows. Lost Girl about a succubus crime fighter and the much newer Continuum. These are two top notch sci/fi shows with a huge following and although I'm not sure if Lost Girls ever discusses location so as to avoid mentioning Canadian cities and such. Continuum makes it a point of saying that all the action happens in Vancouver of today and of the futur. Long live the Brown Coats.

02-26-13  10:24pm - 510 days #1046
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Originally Posted by pat362:


^The one good thing we can now say about Canadian made TV shows is that they are no longer looked in negative light by US distributors/customers. Case in point are two more or less recent tv shows. Lost Girl about a succubus crime fighter and the much newer Continuum. These are two top notch sci/fi shows with a huge following and although I'm not sure if Lost Girls ever discusses location so as to avoid mentioning Canadian cities and such. Continuum makes it a point of saying that all the action happens in Vancouver of today and of the futur.


Thanks, Pat, for mentioning Continuum. I love sci/fi but had never heard of theshow. I must check my TV guide to see if we carry the channel that airs it!

02-26-13  11:50pm - 510 days #1047
slutty (111)
Active User

Posts: 459
Registered: Mar 02, '09
Location: Pennsylvania
I've seen a couple of episodes of Continuum, didn't even realize it was produced in Canada, guess I wasn't paying attention. There are several shows that broadcast networks play from Canada, but they are mostly police procedural type stuff (Rookie Blue, some show with Enrico Cantiloni, and some show about folks moving to LA), I am pretty confident that most Americans never would realize these shows came from Canada unless they looked it up. I guess maybe there is a risk of turning off an international audience, but I just don't get why it is so whitewashed, it makes the police shows seem even more bland than procedural cop shows typically are.

All in all, I don't know that Canada is as ignored as you think. Most high school kids in the US still learn which countries landed on which beach on D-Day. Personally, both me and my girlfriend would love to live in Canada over the US (but unfortunately it is hard for doctors trained in the US to work in Canada). Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars.
Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited.

02-27-13  07:27am - 509 days #1048
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,541
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
For those of us who didn't have the money to see Breaking Dawn Part 2 (the Twilight series) in a movie theater, the DVD will be released on March 2, 2013. That's this coming Saturday, folks.

02-27-13  10:07am - 509 days #1049
messmer (137)
Active User



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


I've seen a couple of episodes of Continuum, didn't even realize it was produced in Canada, guess I wasn't paying attention. There are several shows that broadcast networks play from Canada, but they are mostly police procedural type stuff (Rookie Blue, some show with Enrico Cantiloni, and some show about folks moving to LA), I am pretty confident that most Americans never would realize these shows came from Canada unless they looked it up. I guess maybe there is a risk of turning off an international audience, but I just don't get why it is so whitewashed, it makes the police shows seem even more bland than procedural cop shows typically are.

All in all, I don't know that Canada is as ignored as you think. Most high school kids in the US still learn which countries landed on which beach on D-Day. Personally, both me and my girlfriend would love to live in Canada over the US (but unfortunately it is hard for doctors trained in the US to work in Canada).


Who knows why they whitewashed Canadian produced shows to make them look as if the action took place in the U.S. I always assumed that a certain percentage of Americans needed to see an American flag in every episode of a show or they just didn't feel right about it ... but ... come to think of it Canadian shows used to be so bad, until a few years ago, that it could be they were trying to deceive us into thinking they were made in the U.S. just so we would take a chance on watching them!

And I am sorry to hear that U.S. trained doctors would find it hard to work in Canada. With many countries some retraining is essential so that the doctors get used to our way of doing things, but I would have assumed that American doctors were held in high regard and that the obstacles to their practicing their skills in Canada would be small. We sure could use you (or your girlfriend, or both of you). There are many people here who have to go to Emergency with minor illnesses because they can't find a family physician because many of them (as well as many of our nurses) have left for greener pastures in the U.S. Universal Healthcare may be great but not too many doctors get rich of it. Mind you, they are not exactly poverty stricken either.

02-27-13  08:32pm - 509 days #1050
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,931
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by messmer:


And I am sorry to hear that U.S. trained doctors would find it hard to work in Canada. With many countries some retraining is essential so that the doctors get used to our way of doing things, but I would have assumed that American doctors were held in high regard and that the obstacles to their practicing their skills in Canada would be small. We sure could use you (or your girlfriend, or both of you). There are many people here who have to go to Emergency with minor illnesses because they can't find a family physician because many of them (as well as many of our nurses) have left for greener pastures in the U.S. Universal Healthcare may be great but not too many doctors get rich of it. Mind you, they are not exactly poverty stricken either.


Maybe Canada thinks for-profit healthcare is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath? (It certainly isn't what I'd call moral.)

Time magazine recently published an article about the wickedly profitable state of American medical care. It wasn't so much about doctors getting the most riches (though they're hardly in danger of applying for unemployment benefits), but how health in the U.S. operates as a continually profitable economy that is separate from the rest of the economy and never suffers recession. Even "nonprofit" facilities can bring in truckloads of money because of the lack of price controls, wide variations in prices between hospitals, and the way customers/patients can't easily comparatively shop they way they can for other consumer goods and services.

Of course try to make a movie about this absurd system and you probably would end up with something as nauseating as Saw VI. Some critics interpreted it as subtly criticizing the national healthcare debate at the time, which is probably appropriate considering it's insanely gory torture porn. "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

02-28-13  10:15am - 508 days #1051
messmer (137)
Active User



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


Maybe Canada thinks for-profit healthcare is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath? (It certainly isn't what I'd call moral.)

Time magazine recently published an article about the wickedly profitable state of American medical care. It wasn't so much about doctors getting the most riches (though they're hardly in danger of applying for unemployment benefits), but how health in the U.S. operates as a continually profitable economy that is separate from the rest of the economy and never suffers recession. Even "nonprofit" facilities can bring in truckloads of money because of the lack of price controls, wide variations in prices between hospitals, and the way customers/patients can't easily comparatively shop they way they can for other consumer goods and services.

Of course try to make a movie about this absurd system and you probably would end up with something as nauseating as Saw VI. Some critics interpreted it as subtly criticizing the national healthcare debate at the time, which is probably appropriate considering it's insanely gory torture porn.


I really don't know why Americans don't take to the barricades after reading Time's latest article "Why Medical Bills Are Almost Killing Us!" It is an incredible story about how those non-profit medical centers and hospitals rake in huge amounts of money by charging ridiculous prices for everything from a Tylenol to a CT scan. It is especially baffling to me that so many ordinary people were dead set against an even small reform to your present health care system. Boy, they must have incredible health insurance plans! I won't praise our present health care system too loudly because it has developed too many gaping holes because of underfunding, but on the other hand I am sure we will never go bankrupt from a catastrophic illness.

02-28-13  03:40pm - 508 days #1052
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,931
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by messmer:


I really don't know why Americans don't take to the barricades after reading Time's latest article "Why Medical Bills Are Almost Killing Us!"


It's how our system is set up, with immensely powerful interests defending every part of it, so you would have to turn everything upside down to truly have something resembling universal healthcare.

I remember watching a Q&A video with Christopher Hitchens, who was born in Britain but eventually became an American citizen, where he was asked about universal healthcare in the U.S. He responded that he thought that a large part of America don't actually want it, including those who would benefit from it most. I don't remember his answer exactly (it's on YouTube somewhere), but he said people seem to view it as a sort of personal liberty, being free and independent in regards to what they choose to do with their own lives. An insane view in my opinion, if you consider the consequences of not being able to see a doctor, as well as how so many of our laws determine just how much liberty you really have over your own body (drug usage, right-to-die, abortion, etc.).

The state of American healthcare is something I find deeply troubling, but the fact that a percentage of Americans may agree with it, no matter how dire the consequences are for them personally, may be even more troubling. "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

02-28-13  06:26pm - 508 days #1053
slutty (111)
Active User

Posts: 459
Registered: Mar 02, '09
Location: Pennsylvania
Originally Posted by turboshaft:


The state of American healthcare is something I find deeply troubling, but the fact that a percentage of Americans may agree with it, no matter how dire the consequences are for them personally, may be even more troubling.


The fact of the matter is far too many American's base everything purely on the good of themselves, rather than any kind of common good whatsoever. If they perceive that a single payer system would diminish their current benefit structure they raise hell (and humorously/horrifically manage to convince a lot of, let's call them people of lesser intellect, to join the battle).

The problem in the US, as stated in that Time article, is there are far too many special interests getting their cuts of pie, and very few looking out for the healthcare consumer. It would be better as a start if they got rid of fee for service altogether, it creates a disincentive for efficiency and leads many good doctors to specialize into more 'profitable fields' leading to a lack of primary care doctors. In many cases you are better off financially getting almost any job rather than going into family care considering the enormous debt you must go into for training. There is now way the salespeople that sell medical equipment should be getting paid so much more than the doctors that use it. Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars.
Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited.

02-28-13  06:43pm - 508 days #1054
Dracula (5)
Active User



Posts: 185
Registered: Jan 27, '13
Location: Romania
Very true, and let's not forget the staggering insurance coverages doctors must pay for to protect them from law suits. A true neck-lover.

03-06-13  01:18pm - 502 days #1055
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,541
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Has anyone seen Carrie Fisher in the last few years? For her to return as Princess Leia in a new Star Wars movie, you would need a balloon over her head to identify has as Princess Leia. It's been 35 years or more since she appeared in Star Wars, and she has put on a little weight. As well as being slightly older than she was back then.

I don't have anything against actors aging as they get older. But instead of calling her Princess Leia, maybe they should name her "Grandmother Leia". That might be more appropriate.


==============
==============

Carrie Fisher says �Yes� to returning as Princess Leia in �Star Wars: Episode VII�
By Bryan Enk | Movie Talk � 59 minutes ago

Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia (Photo: 20th Century Fox/LucasFilm)

We're now picturing new "Star Wars" scribe Michael Arndt trying to figure out how to fit "Aren't you a little short for a Stormtrooper?" into his screenplay.

It would appear that the rumors that the new "Star Wars" movie will serve as something of a reunion for old friends and familiar faces are at least somewhat true as Carrie Fisher has confirmed that she'll indeed be reprising her role as Princess Leia Organa in "Episode VII."

Fisher broke the news in an interview with Palm Beach Illustrated, responding simply with "Yes" when asked if she can confirm whether she'll be returning for the continuing "Star Wars" saga. She also had some ideas of what we can expect from the now pushing-60 Princess.

"[She's] elderly. She's in an intergalactic old folks' home," said Fisher with a laugh. "I just think she would be just like she was before, only slower and less inclined to be up for the big battle."

Don't count out seeing Leia embracing some of her classic trademark fashion statements, either, as Fisher went a few steps further when asked whether we might see the Princess sporting her iconic hairstyle from "A New Hope."

"The bagel buns and the bikini, because probably she has sundowners syndrome," said Fisher, making us happy that there's at least one "Star Wars" alum out there who can laugh at all this madness. "At sundown, she thinks that she's 20-something. And she puts it on and gets institutionalized."

Nothing's officially official until we hear it from Disney, but as Mark Hamill revealed last month that he may be returning to the franchise and even Harrison Ford is rumored to be involved, it looks like "Episode VII" will indeed focus on the further adventures of Luke, Han and Leia -- and probably also the new adventures of their children, who already have an intricate history and mythology of their own thanks to the many "Star Wars" novels and comic book series.

One possible storyline would focus on Han and Leia's twin offspring, Jacen and Jaina, who are both powerful Jedi Knights. Jacen eventually succumbs to the temptation of the Dark Side and becomes Darth Caedus and Jaina eventually becomes a protege of bounty hunter Boba Fett (that might cause some tension at the family dinner table, no?).

03-06-13  06:59pm - 502 days #1056
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,895
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^I heard that Mark, Carrie and Harrison are all scheduled to make an appearance in a futur Star Wars movie but let me state that I hope this is just someone floating an idea because I truly hope to not see any of them make any kind of cameo appearance. Lucas already fucked enough with the entire Star Wars universe that we don't need a new company to insert their own clusterfucks.

Return of the Jedi was 30 years ago and although everyone looked great back then. None of them look remotely like they did back then. Carrie as the youngest is 56, Mark is 61 and Harrison is a ripe old 70. I'd say that they have all aged pretty well considering but my idea of them is as those young rebel fighters and not as grand-parents.

If they plan on using them then what kind of timeline are we looking at? 30 years after the fall of the Empire? Long live the Brown Coats.

03-06-13  07:11pm - 502 days #1057
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,895
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
I saw Jack the Giant Slayer on the weekend and I really enjoyed it. The story is decent, the acting is quite good and casting is top notch. I think the biggest problem is that the studio didn't know how to market the movie and this is often deadly with these kind of movies. If you choose to target young children than you have to make sure that the content will not make parents cringe during the movie and when you are talking about giants killing and eating people than you are getting close to making some paretns newrvous. In return if you want to target young male then there needs to be a little more action, a little more blood and guts. I don't know if there are 2 versions of this movie and unless there is a direcors cut later on dvd/Bluray then I will never know but it wouldn't surpise me to find out that some scenes never made it onto th screen and some were edited to remove the more gruseome aspect.

I didn't regret spending my 11$ on this movie but if some of you can be patient then I think you will really enjoy it once it gets to dvd. Long live the Brown Coats.

03-06-13  10:39pm - 502 days #1058
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,931
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by pat362:


Return of the Jedi was 30 years ago and although everyone looked great back then. None of them look remotely like they did back then. Carrie as the youngest is 56, Mark is 61 and Harrison is a ripe old 70. I'd say that they have all aged pretty well considering but my idea of them is as those young rebel fighters and not as grand-parents.


They weren't all young in the original series. Alec Guiness (Obi-Wan) and Peter Cushing (General Moff Tarkin) were born in 1914 and '13 respectively, making them both in their 60s when they played their roles in Episode IV. Of course both characters are killed off rather climatically.

Guiness never seemed to have many positive things to say about his role, and was kind of let down when Stars Wars nerds identified him solely because of a series of films that he thought were childish and full of silly dialogue (he might have a point there ). I'd imagine a guy who had already worked for decades as an actor, including in Shakespeare plays and Oscar-winning films, a sci-fi series is best regarded for its paycheck and not much else.

What happened with Ford, Fischer, and Hamill is pretty different. Ford of course became one of the biggest stars of all time while Hamill and Fisher never seemed to fully escape that weird fan universe Star Wars birthed. Still maybe they can at least bring back Han Solo just so he can lethally blast that awful Jar Jar Binks or freeze him in carbonite--permanently! "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

03-07-13  05:19am - 502 days #1059
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,541
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
I believe Alec Guiness was considered one of the greatest actors in his generation. He didn't actually hate working in Star Wars, but I believe he was surprised (and disappointed) that so many fans thought it was his best (or most famous) work, when he had already had a long and distinguished career before Star Wars. He won an Academy Award for The Bridge on the River Kwai.

He was also nominated for an Oscar for his work in Star Wars.

03-07-13  05:30am - 501 days #1060
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,541
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
I saw Warm Bodies in a movie theater, and really enjoyed it. Teresa Palmer (the heroine) is a stunner. The movie is fun and humorous.

But I will probably wait to see Jack the Giant Slayer on DVD. Where I live, the movie is showing in IMAX 3D, which means it would cost around $15.50, even with a senior discount. $1 at Redbox sounds a lot better.

An adult ticket to an IMAX 3D movie is $19. Jeez, money is almost worthless. Edited on Mar 07, 2013, 05:38am

03-07-13  06:31pm - 501 days #1061
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,895
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^Theresa is one amazingly beautiful woman. I would really like to see her play a role where she can talk normally and not as an American so that I can hear her speak with her Australian accent.

I definetely agree with you that you should wait until Jack gets to dvd or you can see it in a regular theater because I don't think Imax and or 3D is worth it. Nor do I think that paying nearly 16$ is a good idea. Long live the Brown Coats.

03-07-13  06:33pm - 501 days #1062
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,895
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by turboshaft:


They weren't all young in the original series. Alec Guiness (Obi-Wan) and Peter Cushing (General Moff Tarkin) were born in 1914 and '13 respectively, making them both in their 60s when they played their roles in Episode IV. Of course both characters are killed off rather climatically.



Very true but both these actors were never seen playing a younger versions of themselves prior to doing Star Wars but all of us have seen Mark, Carrie and Harrison play their roles when they were much younger than now. Long live the Brown Coats.

03-07-13  08:41pm - 501 days #1063
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,931
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


I believe Alec Guiness was considered one of the greatest actors in his generation. He didn't actually hate working in Star Wars, but I believe he was surprised (and disappointed) that so many fans thought it was his best (or most famous) work, when he had already had a long and distinguished career before Star Wars. He won an Academy Award for The Bridge on the River Kwai.

He was also nominated for an Oscar for his work in Star Wars.


He certainly didn't hate the money. He supposedly got a percentage of whatever the director (Lucas for Episode IV) earned in residuals for the rest of his life. Guiness died in 2000, so merchandise, video games, VHS, and maybe even DVDs, likely brought him some healthy royalty checks over the years.

I don't think any of the original younger actors could pull off that kind of a deal that early in their careers, or at least not anywhere as much as Guiness or for Episode IV. Still, you have faith in a big project like that--Guiness believed it would be successful--and you play your cards right then it can pay off quite well. "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

03-07-13  09:01pm - 501 days #1064
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,931
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by pat362:


Very true but both these actors were never seen playing a younger versions of themselves prior to doing Star Wars but all of us have seen Mark, Carrie and Harrison play their roles when they were much younger than now.


True. And if this next (last?) Star Wars trilogy is a sequel then Disney hopefully won't insert younger versions of those actors from old footage, like they did with the newer DVD releases by replacing the original actor (Sebastian Shaw) who played the ghost of Anakin Skywalker at the end of Return of the Jedi with the younger Hayden Christensen from the prequels. "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

03-08-13  08:40am - 500 days #1065
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,895
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^I agree that except for tweaking some special effects in the original trilogy then most of the other changes Lucas did were pure cinematographic sacrilege. Replacing Shaw with Hayden made absolutely no sense since we spent two movies seeing that a dead jedi who comes back as a spirit look's exactly like he did at the moment of his death then why would Luke see a younger version of his father. This is made even more obvious since he never actually saw that version of his father.

I'm actually more pissed at the Greedo and Han Solo scene in the cantina because Lucas completely altered a very important trait of Solo by adding the usuless Greedo shot first effect. Solo is a tough no nonsense mercenary who has no problem shooting a guy first if he treathens him in the original print but after the new version then he is simply a soon to be nice guy who's defending himself. Long live the Brown Coats.

03-08-13  08:48am - 500 days #1066
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,895
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
I've said it before but I think Disney would be much wiser starting from scatch and doing what J.J Abrams did for Star trek. That is to shoot all new movies starting with Star Wars and then continuing beyond. This way you could use todays technology to shoot the kind of movie Lucas wantd to do and it would be a lot easier to do sequels beyond Return of the Jedi because the actors would all be at the right age for the story.

I for one would have no problem paying money to see a new version of Star wars because I would always have the original to enjoy. Of course Disney must avoid doing The Phantom menace and all of other prequels because those movies were giant piles of sith poo. Long live the Brown Coats.

03-20-13  06:54pm - 488 days #1067
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,541
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Not really movies, but some TV series I have enjoyed watching lately.

Justified, with Timothy Oliphant. A cop show. On FX channel.

The Americans. Spy show. FX channel.

Banshee, Crime show. Cinemax.

--------------------------------

Upcoming TV series returning for new season:

Game of Thrones. SF/Fantasy series. HBO.

Magic City. Crime series. Starz.

03-22-13  01:26am - 487 days #1068
slutty (111)
Active User

Posts: 459
Registered: Mar 02, '09
Location: Pennsylvania
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:



The Americans. Spy show. FX channel.

--------------------------------



I really like The Americans, I think it is a very interesting and well done show (nice to see good old Felicity getting some work).

Did any of you see the recent episode of Girls? Can't recall having seen semen (fake I'm sure) in any non-porn media since Happiness. I think they do a good job of depicting being young and stupid, but christ that show brings uncomfortable moments to a whole new level - which I suppose is part of being young and stupid.

Veep is also returning sometime in April, a very funny show in my opinion, I highly recommend it. Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars.
Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited.

03-22-13  09:24pm - 486 days #1069
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,895
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


Justified, with Timothy Oliphant. A cop show. On FX channel.

Upcoming TV series returning for new season:

Game of Thrones. SF/Fantasy series. HBO.


I really like Justified but this is the kind of show that makes me nervous because you are never too sure where they will go and that is sometime a good thing but not so much when it involve's main characters because these tend to meet untimely deaths.

I was aware of Games of Thrones and I love fantasy but it has taken me until this year to start watching this show. It is quite addictive.

I really like the new Sherlock show done by CBS. Long live the Brown Coats.

03-26-13  11:59pm - 482 days #1070
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,541
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Finally, the movies we have all been waiting for, will now be coming. Independence Day Part 2 and Independence Day Part 3 are in the planning stages.

Who will save the world this time?
---------------
---------------




More Alien Mayhem: Two ‘Independence Day’ Sequels Announced
By Mark Deming | Movie Talk – 7 hours ago



If a movie is a solid hit, the studio usually sets up a deal for the sequel in a matter of weeks. But it's been nearly seventeen years since "Independence Day" became a box office blockbuster, and confirmed beyond a doubt that Will Smith was bankable star. Director Roland Emmerich has taken a while to get to work on a follow-up, but now he's making up for lost time - he's announced that not one but two "Independence Day" sequels are in the works.

Emmerich, who caused all sorts of mayhem in Washington D.C. in "Independence Day," is doing it again this summer when his thriller "White House Down" opens on June 28 (by which time, Emmerich and Columbia Pictures are probably hoping you've forgotten all about "Olympus Has Fallen"). While doing press for "White House Down," Emmerich spoke a bit about the upcoming "ID4" sequels, "ID Forever Part I" and "ID Forever Part II."

Emmerich's statements suggest the long gestation period for the sequels has been built into the story, which will take place about two decades after the events of the first movie. By this time, word from the alien invaders has gotten back to their home planet, and knowing that their advance force has been defeated, another band of ill-mannered spacemen are on their way to conquer the Earth. "We've rebuilt," Emmerich said. "But (the aliens) also do different things."

"The humans knew that one day the aliens would come back," Emmerich said. "And they know that the only way you can really travel in space is through wormholes. So for the aliens, it could take two or three weeks, but for us that's 20 or 25 years."

Emmerich also mentioned the invaders may be fighting against their own technology. "It's a changed world," he said. "It's like parallel history. (Humans) have harnessed all this alien technology. We don't know how to duplicate it because it's organically-grown technology, but we know how to take an antigravity device and put it in a human airplane."

And while some of the heroes from the first movie will be back, expect plenty of new heroes as well. "It's still some of the same characters, but also new younger characters; it's a little bit like the sons take over," Emmerich said.

One thing Emmerich didn't say is how many of the characters from the first movie will be played by the same actors. Bill Pullman is said to be on board, but there's no word if Will Smith will be returning (Smith is still a bankable star, while Pullman is a regular on the sit-com "1600 Penn" these days). And Emmerich may still be fiddling with the script: reportedly, the director and Dean Devlin (who co-wrote "ID4") have finished screenplays for the two pictures, but James Vanderbilt, who wrote "White House Down," has been brought in for a rewrite.

Once the smoke clears following the release of "White House Down," solid information will probably surface, but Emmerich has made it clear that after more than a decade and a half, the aliens are coming back to the nation's capitol, and they'll be no happier than they were the first time.

03-27-13  10:23am - 481 days #1071
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,541
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Here's the real movie we have been waiting for, even more than the Independence Day ripoffs: G.I. JOE: RETALIATION.

This movie opens this Friday (two days from today): Can you wait for the slam-bam action spectacular?

................
................

Film review | G.I. Joe: Retaliation – Daft toys for boys and spectacular action, man!
Posted on 27 March 2013 by Jason Best

G.I. JOE: RETALIATION - Channing Tatum as Duke & Dwayne Johnson as Roadblock

Furiously loud and even more furiously dumb, G.I. Joe: Retaliation proudly flaunts the spectacular daftness we’ve come to expect from action movies based on toys and games.

There’s a new director in charge for this sequel – Jon M Chu replacing G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra helmer Stephen Sommers – but we immediately know we’re in safe hands when the opening scene sees a gung-ho team of elite soldiers, the GI Joes of the title, conducting the stupidest stealth mission ever.

They’re infiltrating North Korea on a rescue sortie but obligingly tip off the border guards to their presence with a spot of snazzy sharpshooting that ensures the opposing team gets to play too.

Back on home soil, Channing Tatum’s Duke and Dwayne Johnson’s Roadblock indulge in a couple of scenes of bromantic banter to establish that the GI Joes are, well, ordinary joes. Further episodes of gunfire, explosions and muscular derring-do swiftly follow. When the dust settles, it’s possible to make out the semblance of a plot.

G.I. JOE: RETALIATION - Adrianne Palicki plays Lady Jaye and Bruce Willis plays Colton

An evil impostor from terrorist group Cobra has replaced the US president (Jonathan Pryce) and it’s only a handful of GI Joes – Roadblock, Lady Jaye (Adrianne Palicki) and Flint (DJ Cotrona) – who can prevent nuclear Armageddon. Bruce Willis pops up to help. The original Joe, he emerges from retirement with his armour-plated smirk and an arsenal of weapons that would out-gun a small country.

Most of the ensuing action is routine, but in the middle of the movie there is one scene that is truly jaw dropping. GI Joes Snake Eyes (Ray Park) and Jinx (Elodie Yung from District 13: Ultimatum) abduct renegade Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee) from a Himalayan cliff-top monastery and zing and ping down the mountain on zip lines while fighting off hordes of red-suited ninja warriors.

The sequence is bonkers and exhilarating. And if you’re watching in 3D, you’ll spend half the time ducking in your seat as yet another chunk of rock or hurtling body whizzes towards you. The filmmakers are clearly chuffed with the scene, so chuffed they even give it a round of applause, cutting the instant the action wraps to the clapping that greets a presidential speech. You’ll probably want to clap too.

In cinemas from Wednesday 27th M

03-31-13  06:14pm - 477 days #1072
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,541
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
G.I. Joe: Retaliation takes first place on opening weekend with $41.2 million.
The Host, the teen sci-fi romance from Stephenie Meyer (the Twilight vampire movies) disappoints with $11 million opening.

----------------
----------------


"G.I. Joe" sequel blasts past cavemen to win box office
Reuters By Lisa Richwine and Patricia Reaney | Reuters – 6 hours ago




By Lisa Richwine and Patricia Reaney

(Reuters) - Action movie "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" won the weekend box office battle in the United States and Canada, fighting off competition from cartoon cavemen, a Tyler Perry drama, and an alien-possessed heroine trying to save the human race.

"G.I. Joe," a sequel starring Channing Tatum, Dwayne Johnson and Bruce Willis, secured $41.2 million in domestic ticket sales from Friday through Sunday, according to studio estimates.

Last week's winner, animated prehistoric adventure "The Croods," slipped to second place with $26.5 million in North America (the United States and Canada). "Tyler Perry's Temptation" landed in the No. 3 slot with $22.3 million.

"G.I. Joe" opened Wednesday evening to get a jump on the Easter holiday weekend. The cumulative box office after Sunday is estimated at $51.7 million. In international markets, the movie racked up $80.3 million, for a global haul of $132 million.

"The result is as spectacular as the look of the movie," said Don Harris, president of domestic theatrical distribution at Paramount Pictures.

"We couldn't be happier with the result in terms of both the domestic and international box office and the response from movie goers."

Inspired by a Hasbro toy, "G.I. Joe" tells the story of elite soldiers fighting the enemy organization called Cobra as well as threats from within the federal government. The sequel to 2009's "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" was slated to open last summer, but the release was delayed to convert the film to 3D.

Viacom Inc's Paramount Pictures, MGM and Skydance Productions produced the sequel for about $130 million. Ahead of the weekend, forecasters predicted a domestic tally around $38 million for "G.I. Joe."

Domestic ticket sales for "The Croods," a Dreamworks Animation comedy about a family of cave dwellers, dropped 39 percent from its debut a week ago. The cumulative international box office takings rose to $140.5 million.

"Temptation," a departure from Perry's hit comedies, focuses on a married woman drawn to a handsome billionaire. The movie stars Jurnee Smollett-Bell, Lance Gross and Vanessa Williams. Reality TV star Kim Kardashian plays a small role and helped promote the film through TV appearances and social media.

Another new release, sci-fi romantic thriller "The Host," finished in sixth place with $11 million. The movie is based on a novel by Stephenie Meyer, author of the "Twilight" vampire series that became a blockbuster movie franchise.

"Host" features a love triangle centered around a young woman whose body is taken over by an alien with good intentions. The two live in the same body, first as enemies before they become friends who team up to save the human race. Irish actress Saoirse Ronan plays the lead character.

Distributor Open Road Films acquired domestic rights for "The Host" for $2 million.

In fourth place, thriller "Olympus Has Fallen" earned $14 million during its second weekend. The movie stars Gerard Butler and Morgan Freeman in the tale of a White House under attack. Disney's "Oz the Great and Powerful" came in fifth with $11.6 million.

"G.I. Joe" was released by Paramount Pictures, a unit of Viacom Inc. "The Croods" was produced by Dreamworks Animation and released by News Corp unit 20th Century Fox. "The Host" was distributed by Open Road Films, a joint venture between theater owners Regal Entertainment Group and AMC Entertainment Inc. Lions Gate Entertainment released "Temptation." "Olympus Has Fallen" was distributed by privately held FilmDistrict.

(Reporting by Lisa Richwine and Patricia Reaney editing by Jackie Frank)

03-31-13  10:42pm - 477 days #1073
PinkPanther (46)
Active User



Posts: 872
Registered: Jan 08, '07
Location: Oakland, CA
"Olympus Has Fallen" is a huge disappointment, given that the director did "Training Day", which was such a great searing film, one that went against the grain and took real chances.

Now he's doing this jingoistic, paint-by-numbers, official-enemy-of-the-moment anti-terrorist film -- what did he, have a lobotomy?

04-04-13  12:01am - 474 days #1074
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,541
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Fee-Fie-Foe-Flop: ‘Jack’ Is a ‘Giant’ Bomb For Warner Bros.
By Bryan Enk | Movie Talk – 13 hours ago

Warner Bros

It's not a happy ending for Warner Bros. as "Jack the Giant Slayer" is the latest reason why Hollywood should maybe reconsider this whole revisionist fairy tale thing.

Director Bryan Singer's mega-budget screen adaptation of the "Jack and the Beanstalk" yarn has made for that rare mega-bomb for the studio, as The Hollywood Reporter brings word that the film is on track to lose somewhere between $125 and $140 million when the dust clears. Admittedly, WB and financial partner Legendary Pictures smelled more than the blood of an Englishman pretty early on with this project, as it was pulled from a Summer 2012 release and underwent a title change ("Slayer" was swapped out for the much more malevolent-sounding "Killer").

"Jack," which opened on March 1, currently has a U.S. gross of just over $61 million and an overseas gross of about $96 million, putting its worldwide total at around $157 million. The film had a budget cost of about $200 million and marketing expenses totaling around $100 million.

WB executives seemed to expect a modest box office performance domestically but were hoping to score major overseas numbers, a la "Clash of the Titans" and its sequel, "Wrath of the Titans." However, "Jack" has been slow overseas due to stiff competition from both Disney's "Oz the Great and Powerful" and Paramount's "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" ... and perhaps also due to the fact that maybe nobody wants to see a stupid Jack and the Beanstalk movie with stupid-looking CG giants.

With a loss between $125 and $140 million, "Jack the Giant Slayer" ranks somewhere in-between Disney's "John Carter" (an estimated loss of $200 million or some such crazy nonsense) and Universal's "Battleship" (an estimated loss of $83 million). It could've been worse, though: at least "Jack" isn't the new "Cutthroat Island," director Renny Harlin's notorious 1995 disaster that had a net loss (with inflation adjusted) of over $147 million, which plunged Carolco Pictures into bankruptcy and effectively destroyed the pirate genre until Disney introduced us to a fellow named Jack Sparrow.

"Jack" flopped, "Mirror Mirror" didn't exactly set the world on fire and Universal's "Snow White and the Huntsman" just barely made enough (overseas, at that) to warrant a sequel that seems more like a studio obligation than a response to audience enthusiasm. Maybe fairy tales aren't "the new comic book movie" after all?

1001-1050 of 1198 Posts < Previous Page 1 2 6 10 14 20 Page 21 22 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 0.18 seconds.