Ttt

[Godfather]

Simple question and an even more straightforward poll to go along with it. I know that I promised Data not to abuse the poll-system anymore, but this one definitely needed one. ;)

Do you think "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" is going to be better or less good (I do not dare to use the word: worse here :D) than "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring"?

My answer is quite simple: I haven't read the books yet, so I don't know ... but it sure as heaven looks even more spectacular than the previous one.

[THE True Lara]

it can only succeed it.

[THE True Lara]

...and why isn't there an option for those who think they'll both be as good as each other? hummm....?!

[Eddy Bones]

I think it will be just as good... Actually, the fact that I'm going to see it with one of my newer friends will make it that much better;)

[DaveJ]

Having read the books, and knowing what has been changed, I have no idea.

As all 3 movies were made at the same time by the same people, I can only assume it will have the same impact as the first one in terms of entertainment, attention to detail and care in craftsmanship.

I do know it will be darker than FoTR.

One advance review from the London Premiere says it is the best film of all time.

I'll let you know next week.....

[Deekman]

Having been a fan of the books since the early to mid Seventies.
Having read them around 20 times now.
Having followed PJ's progress on this film project since its inception.
Having seen the first film multiple times. And enjoyed it immensely.
Having understood the changes needed to adapt the books to film.
And not been too greatly bothered by them.
(Insert The Lament For The Missing Tom Bombadil here)

Here's my thoughts on TTT:

Ents. Oliphants. Wargs. Helm's Deep. Grima. Gollum.

Return Of The King semi-spoiler:
Barliman Butterbur's 1420 Ale.:D

[TDC]

Do you really expect us to judge a three-part movie series based only on the first movie and trailers for the second? I'm consistently confused by what you're trying to figure out in your polls. This one seems no more "needed" than any of the others.

[Godfather]

Originally posted by TDC
Do you really expect us to judge a three-part movie series based only on the first movie and trailers for the second?

The first movie and trailers for the second were original books, remember? And for those of you (including myself) who hasn't read the books, I just wanted to know what y'all thought of it? R U existed or can you easily wait another month or two?

For what it's worth: I just read some reviews of Martin Scorsese's apparantly grand "Gang of New York". All reviews were VERY positive. Has anyone seen this film already and if so: what did you think of it? If not: how do you think this film will turn out?

I personally think that, if it's only half as good as I read just now, "Gangs of New York" is going to give both "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers", "Harry Potter and the chamber of Secrets" and "James Bond: Die another day" a very hard time. After all, we are talking about a director who has yet to let down. I have seen a few somewhat weaker films by this great man, but I always knew it was due to my own liking and subjective preferences. Even his -to me- weak films were sooo perfect in cinematography.
Martin Scorsese may not have received an Oscar yet by those dummies of the Academy Award Association who also forgot Alfred HitchcOck, Stanley Kubrick and Sir Charles Chaplin (except for his 1929 special :rolleyes: academy award for his performance in "The Circus" which was originally an award (mind you: not a nomination) for best actor), but he sure as heaven can be considered one of thé greatest directors of all time ... if not the biggest one!! I have got lots of respect for this man ... more than most other directors, actors, actresses, ...

I know: I've gone rambling again ... :p

[TDC]

Of course I remember that they were books first. Look at your own poll options. I don't know how you think anyone is supposed to decide whether or not films that they haven't seen yet are good or bad. Why not ask my opinion on food I've never tasted, places I've never been, or people I've never met? Why not offer your opinion on all the characters and events in the LotR books that didn't make it into the movies? It makes no sense.

[Godfather]

Phew, tough pupil. :rolleyes:

I ask everyone here for their opinion (and here it comes ... pay attention now!) so far!!! I'd like to know with what feeling you all go to the cinema next week or so when you go to see this film. Have you been waiting impatiently like we all do on the next Tomb Raider-game: The Angel of Darkness? or do you consider this film just to be like any other than has been/is going to be released ... only just a little bigger then?

I just like to know what people feel about The Lord of the Rings 2 before they go to the cinema and actually watch it. I.e.: I can say that, although I haven't seen the film yet, I am VERY exited to see Martin Scorsese's new "Gangs of New York" and since MS has always been such a fantastic director, my hopes are very high and therefore I'll be disappointed if this film only turns out to be a good film, because I expect a very good -if not excellent- picture.

Obviously you would have to choose option number 4 in the poll. :rolleyes:

Phew *very big sigh* Any "interesting and constructing" questions, maybe? :)

Oh, one other thing: it's just for fun that I make these things. They are hardly to be considered the end of the world, ok? :p :D

[Deekman]

Hitch won the Irving Thalberg award in 1967.
Rebecca won Best Picture and Best Cinematoghraphy.
True, Hitch never got a Best Director Oscar® (though nominated several times), but the Thalberg Award makes up for that.

Oliphants, I say! Oliphants!

[DaveJ]

Originally posted by Godfather
MS has always been such a fantastic director, my hopes are very high and therefore I'll be disappointed if this film only turns out to be a good film, because I expect a very good -if not excellent- picture.




You're constantly setting yourself up to be disappointed this way.

Your best bet is to approach everything with no expectations whatsoever, be it GoNY or LoTR:TTT, or even TR:AoD.

If GoNY only turns out to be "good" you should be thankful... expecting a masterpiece every time is setting the bar too high... for you and the film-maker.

And (option 1) big battles do not always a more spectacular movie make... as Michael Bay (and the bored audience) found out on "Pearl Harbour".

[Xcom]

Originally posted by DaveJ
Your best bet is to approach everything with no expectations whatsoever

That is very true..and applies to about everything in life (not only movies :p )

As for LOTR, I have no special feelings for it. I've never read the books because I grew up in a country where Tolkien is unknown. The first movie was good.. but again, since I am not a fantasy fan, I watched it because there was so much hype about it and I got curious. I will see the sequels but I'll probably rent 'em.

[Godfather]

Originally posted by DaveJ
You're constantly setting yourself up to be disappointed this way. Your best bet is to approach everything with no expectations whatsoever, be it GoNY or LoTR:TTT, or even TR:AoD. If GoNY only turns out to be "good" you should be thankful... expecting a masterpiece every time is setting the bar too high... for you and the film-maker.

Hmm, you're right. I think you have already said this to me before. Now, what I said yesterday sounds a little bit too strong, I think. I said I'd be disappointed ... I don't think that'll happen. And also: I'm not really expecting a very good movie; let alone a masterpiece. I don't why I said that coz I don't feel like this anymore now. I've also learnt to -indeed- approach everything with lower expectations than before. I guess my biggest sin is that I babble first and think things over later. :rolleyes:

But I guess I can say that both TTT and GoNY will become one of the best of this year ... so far I think "Ice Age", "Star Wars II", "The pianist" and "DAD" are the best 2002-films so far.

And (option 1) big battles do not always a more spectacular movie make... as Michael Bay (and the bored audience) found out on "Pearl Harbour".

True, but I wrote this after I had read some of the reviews and
(possible spoiler coming up) they all referred to the big battle at the end of the film as being simply wonderful. Anyway, I disagree with you on "Pearl Harbour". I know that it isn't a "Gladiator" or a "Star Wars", but this film was a good one; I thought. Films like "Patton" and "The Patriot" should be considered good examples of big battle-films that are not first-rate spectacular films.

[DaveJ]

"Should be considered" by who? And on whose say so?

I know many 'in the know' here who would disagree with you on that last one, and I think history will remember the movie "Patton" more fondly than it will "Pearl Harbour"....heck, it already does.

Personally, I thought book-ending 35 minutes of incredible pyrotechnics with the lamest 2 hours of un-necessary romantic padding was one of the biggest crimes in cinema history.


I take comfort knowing that Peter Jackson isn't going this route, at least.


After the embarassment that was Jar Jar Binks, I'm looking forward to what people are already calling the 'cinema's first believable CG character'....my precioussssss.

[TDC]

I ask everyone here for their opinion (and here it comes ... pay attention now!) so far!!!
First time you've said anything remotely resembling that. I'm a little rusty at mind reading.
Have you been waiting impatiently like we all do on the next Tomb Raider-game: The Angel of Darkness? or do you consider this film just to be like any other than has been/is going to be released ... only just a little bigger then?
Okay, you pay attention this time: anticipation is fine, but it makes makes no sense to decide if a movie is going to be good or bad before you see it. I see the conversation has already been had about expectations.
Obviously you would have to choose option number 4 in the poll.
Not in the words you chose, no, which is why I didn't pick it.
Oh, one other thing: it's just for fun that I make these things. They are hardly to be considered the end of the world, ok?
So, let me get this straight - you "definitely needed" to create this poll "just for fun." No, not the end of the world. Not very consistent, either.

[V_Croft]

Well, I saw the first movie (I haven't read the 1st book), then I read the 3rd book and now I'm reading the 2nd book (that's a strange order, but anyway - who cares)
What I've already read from the 2nd book makes me believe that TTT will be even better than TFOTR. Huge battles, continue of the story, new interesting places, evolution of the characters... aren't all these enough?

[John Carter]

Pearl Habor the Movie. Romantic triangle-guy kicks a heart-shaped hole out of an airplane canopy. A great CGI Arizona class battleship is blown up right next door to a modern day Halsey class missile frigate. Et cetera. Puh-lease. Crappy movie.

Patriot. I really don't know what to make of a film evidently designed as an anti-British propaganda film 230 years after the event. I know a great deal about the Southern campaigns of the American Revolutionary war, and Banastaire Tarleton was quite the scumbag, but you'll have to look to 2d SS Panzer's action in Oradour in France 1944 for the most memorable atrocity in the film, the villagers burned alive in the church. That never happened in South Carolina, North Carolina, or anywhere in the Rev. War.

Patton was a wonderful look at an epic personality's greatnesses and smallnesses. So far above the other two in class and style it ain't funny.

[Godfather]

*banging head against wall*

Ok, forget everything I said. It's true, I'm afraid. I do babble too much without even considering that, what I say, is true or just plain stupid. The reason why I want y'all to forget everything I just said, is because I did like the film "Patton" and I did find it a good movie. After reading my previous posts, one may think I'm suffering from schizophrenia.

I've got one more thing to say about big battles that do not always make a wonderful movie. I just saw one of the worst movies ever made which did indeed contain a few big battle-scenes that didn't look bad, but oh so clichéd and old-fashioned after having watched "Gladiator" and "The Lord of the Rings". :rolleyes:

Everything about this film was bad; especially the acting. I'm talking about "The four feathers" with bad-acting backstreet-boy Heath Ledger. Forget that I ever mentioned "Patton" and "The Patriot" because these films were excellent compared to this piece of crap. Anyone wasted his/her time watching this film? :(

I could be wrong again like I was before, but at least: I'll agree with what I've said when I'll come back some time later and read this post again of mine. :p

[DaveJ]

I like Heath Ledger - he was great in "A Knight's Tale".

(A better example of - admittedly intended - anachronism than John Carter's previously mentioned PH faux pas!)

[Godfather]

Originally posted by DaveJ
I like Heath Ledger - he was great ...

Heath Ledger great? Pfff, I don't know man!! :rolleyes: Are you sure you agree with what you just said back there? I mean: Heath Ledger is a bit like Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Hugh Grant. They don't have IT!! They don't have the charisma needed to play their characters in a respectful and satisfying way. Now, I felt the same about Brendan Fraser, but after I saw him in "The mummy" and "The mummy returns", I felt different. I don't really like him in any other movie, but in those two he was great. So, maybe it is just a matter of finding the right characters in the right movie for the right actor.

I don't really like Hugh Grant and I never will, but throughout his career, he was pretty good in "Four weddings & a funeral", "Nine months" and "About a boy". I'm still waiting for that ONE Hugh Grant-performance that'll make me change my mind completely though. The same goes for Ben Affleck. There is not one performance of his that I truly like so far, but he's gonna play in some sort of a Spider-man movie and who knows? Maybe he'll shine in that performance. After all, this is just MY humble opinion; ya know. I'm not saying they're bad ... although I think they are far from good, but I don't like those ironed, boysband-faces. How can you possibly find a decent character for such baby-faced actors?

Personally, Leonardo di Caprio is ten times the actor Hugh Grant, Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Heath Ledger will ever be! He's already proven it in "What's eating Gilbert Grape?" and he's likely to prove it again in "Gang of New York". (Damn!! I'm babbling again! Somebody stop me before I say something that I'll regret later on!!)

[DaveJ]

Not only do you talk too much, you talk a load of rubbish too.

But each to their own.


And as for

Are you sure you agree with what you just said back there?

I wouldn't have said it if I didn't mean it. Heath Ledger was great in "A Knight's Tale", Affleck was great in "Chasing Amy" and Grant was great in "Bridget Jones' Diary".

DiCaprio is ok...but he was in "Titanic" too, and that cancels the rest of his career out.

[Deekman]

Gods and Monsters

[Godfather]

Originally posted by DaveJ
Not only do you talk too much, you talk a load of rubbish too.
I was aware of the -too much-part, but quite unaware of the rubbish-part. But I guess the latter one is simply because you and I find it hard to agree on certain matters. I cannot understand though how you can actually say Matt Damon or Hugh Grant are great actors (even though it's only one film). They're cute (according to their limited female-fan base) baby-faced boys who try out their luck and end up being just better than weak actors ... "but each to their own": as you so nicely put it. ;)

[DaveJ]

Originally posted by DEEKMAN
Gods and Monsters


Brendan Fraser's finest hour (or two). Much better than his driftwood performances in the Mummy movies.


Godfather...maybe its the vagaries of the English language, but I said they were great in the roles... not great actors. They are good actors who will hopefully only continue to improve.

You make the usual easy mistake of labelling them in the "they are pretty so they must be talentless" basket, that plagued Julia Roberts and Brad Pitt throughout their early careers.

Make sure you have watched ALL of the movies featuring the actors in question before casting aspersions...not just the big box office hits.


And charisma has nothing to do with being a great actor.

Who is arguably the greatest living actor? De Niro.

Who is possibly the least charismatic person on the planet? De Niro.

[Xcom]

Originally posted by DaveJ
Make sure you have watched ALL of the movies featuring the actors in question before casting aspersions...not just the big box office hits.

Apparently it was enough for you to watch Titanic to cancel Di Caprio out.

(not that I blame you for that ;) :p )

[DaveJ]

Ha Harr! :D

But I have also seen his performance (singular) in his other movies before casting MY aspersions.

[Deekman]

MD in Good Will Hunting.

I've seen Hugh Grant do really great work and really stupid work.
Personally, I can't stand the guy.

While we're at it, let's nominate Battlefield Earth for a top notch film
with top notch actors.;)

Don't know if it's been seen overseas, nor if anybody overseas really even cares, but did anybody see Billy Crystal's 61*?

[DaveJ]

Originally posted by DEEKMAN


I've seen Hugh Grant do really great work and really stupid work.



He's done some Divine work too.....

[Deekman]

Originally posted by DaveJ
He's done some Divine work too.....

Yeah, but we only got to see the aftermath.

[DaveJ]

Thank heavens for that!

[Godfather]

Originally posted by DaveJ
Godfather...maybe its the vagaries of the English language, but I said they were great in the roles... not great actors.

Isn't a actor great in the roles not a good actor? I mean: a bad or weak actor is someone who's not good in his role. You just said: they were great in the roles ... not in one role. No, in the roles ... that should make them great actors in your humble opinion, right? (btw: i'm not trying to drive you crazy or something. I'm just having a little fun having this discussion ... no hard feelings of any kind; I hope, ok? :( )

You make the usual easy mistake of labelling them in the "they are pretty so they must be talentless" basket, that plagued Julia Roberts and Brad Pitt throughout their early careers.

You are right to a certain degree, although not with women. With women, I find thé most beautiful women to be the best actresses too: Audrey Hepburn, Michelle Pfeiffer, Julia Roberts, Jamie Lee Curtis, Ingrid Bergman, ... with a few exceptions such as Meryl Streep and Sigourney Weaver.
With men it's the other way around. I dislike rock bands with pretty boys. It's just a contradictory thing ... it just doesn't work that way. The same goes with most actors. I admit that I dislike Hugh Grant, Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Heath Ledger because they're good-looking. I never said they were bad though. Heath Ledger wasn't that all bad in "The Patriot" and Hugh Grant was pretty enjoyable as the first-selfish and aggressive to-be-father in "Nine Months" and the insecure and puppy-dog-faced goodfella in "Four weddings and a funeral". It's true that they all had their good moments, but (and here it comes) I feel that, on the whole, they're not very good actors. Hugh Grant comes out best of those four pretty boys, but in the end they're struggling to give us a true dazzling acting performance.
And that's the main difference with other pretty boys such as Leonardo di Caprio and Brad Pitt who HAVE proven to be good actors by -usually more than once- show us their true capabilities as an actor. Di Caprio in "The Basketball diaries" and "What's eating Gilbert Grape" and Brad Pitt in "12 Monkeys" and "Se7en". Now tell me: Can you in any way compare an actor like Heath Ledger with an actor like Brad Pitt? I don't think so. But as I said a zillion times before ... everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

My mom after all is one of the six Belgians who doesn't really like "The Lord of the Rings" ... talk about being an exception, right? :D

And charisma has nothing to do with being a great actor. Who is arguably the greatest living actor? De Niro.
Who is possibly the least charismatic person on the planet? De Niro.

I meant "charisma" as in personality - character, not as in physical charm - what someone looks like.


@ Xcom: With all do respect, but you must have misread my opinion regarding Leonardo di Caprio. I never said he was bad in Titanic. I even think he was pretty good in it. For the love of Lara Croft, I can't understand why most people started to bash on him after his performance in Titanic. Titanic ain't exactly an acting-movie, it's quite the opposite. The main reason why Titanic was so grand was due to the special effects and the entire resurrection of this unfortunate disaster. Titanic never focused on the actors ... at the max: it focused on the relationship between Jack & Rose.

In any case, you might wanna read the below-mentioned part again ... something I wrote some time earlier. Guess you must have missed it. :( Or were you being sarcastic again? I never get sarcasm really good. Ask DaveJ about it; he knows. ;)

Earlier mentioned part: Personally, Leonardo di Caprio is ten times the actor Hugh Grant, Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Heath Ledger will ever be! He's already proven it in "What's eating Gilbert Grape?" and he's likely to prove it again in "Gang of New York".

[Xcom]

Originally posted by Godfather
@ Xcom: With all do respect, but you must have misread my opinion regarding Leonardo di Caprio. I never said he was bad in Titanic.

:confused:

I was commenting on Dave's opinion, not yours. ;)

(I think you are starting to lose it. Time to take a break. :D )

[Godfather]

Originally posted by Xcom
:confused:

I was commenting on Dave's opinion, not yours. ;)

(I think you are starting to lose it. Time to take a break. :D )

It's true. I work too hard. I'll ask Lara Croft for a good time tonight ... it's been (how long?) ... two days already? :p

[Deekman]

Originally posted by Godfather
I never said they were bad though.

Then what does this mean?:
Originally posted by Godfather
..although I think they are far from good..

These "debates" have been fun, but nobody will ever take
you seriously if you continue to be deluded that Lara Croft is a real person,
or consider the Mummy movies to be cinematic triumphs.
http://bigbang.usm.uni-muenchen.de:8002/icons/d/digging.gif

[DaveJ]

Originally posted by Godfather
Personally, Leonardo di Caprio is ten times the actor Hugh Grant, Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Heath Ledger will ever be! He's already proven it in "What's eating Gilbert Grape?" and he's likely to prove it again in "Gang of New York".

'Will ever be'?

How old are you again?
12?!

Think man, think!!!
Imagine the scene nearly 20 years ago...you are watching a young Tom Hanks goofing around in "Batchelor Party".... could you have confidently turned to the person next to you and said "One day not only will that guy win a Best Actor Oscar, but he will widely be regarded as one of the greatest actors of his generation"?

And why the hell can't you understand that if someone is "great in the roles" I mentioned, it doesn't preclude them from being crap in other roles?

A 'great' performance in a movie that suited them does not automatically a 'great' actor make...merely a well cast and competent one. I don't think you fully understand all the uses and implications of the word "great" in the English langauage....beyond its use to illustrate 'monumental' or 'statuesque'.

I had a 'great' dump last night, but it won't get mentioned in history, or have me longing to repeat it.

I'm no fan of Affleck, but he was great in "Chasing Amy", and Hugh Grant proved his worth in "About a Boy" playing against type at long last.

But even your beloved 'great' actors have dog roles in dog movies... De Niro in "Rocky and Bullwinkle"? Gimme a break! Pacino is great, but still tends to have the same mannerisms whether hes playing a good cop, a bad cop or an out and out villain.

To me the greatest actor there is is Gary Oldman...never once given the same performance twice, never the same mannerisms or even accent!


And DiCaprio is an over-rated lady-boy who is - by all accounts - acted so far off the screen in 'Gangs of NY' by Daniel Day Lewis (great actor) that he's still in the lobby waiting for popcorn.

[Deekman]

Scorcese tracked down DDL in Ireland to talk him into doing Gangs.
He'd been on a hiatus from acting for the past five years.
There was nobody else Scorcese wanted for the role of Bill the Butcher.

[DaveJ]

"The Two Towers" (remember that anyone? ;) ) actually opens tomorrow....blimey!

[Godfather]

Originally posted by DEEKMAN
Then what does this mean?:


These "debates" have been fun, but nobody will ever take
you seriously if you continue to be deluded that Lara Croft is a real person,
or consider the Mummy movies to be cinematic triumphs.
http://bigbang.usm.uni-muenchen.de:8002/icons/d/digging.gif

Now you've done it!!! :rolleyes:

The first one's a fact, man!
The second one's only my opinion! Besides: I know other people who think the two Mummy-films are great ones. I can't help it, but please don't kill me when I say that I think both Mummy-films are very good films indeed with little faults in it. Ok, they're no "Lord of the Rings", "Star Wars (original ones)", "Aliens", "The Terminator" or "Gladiator", but they don't wanna be.
When it comes to being popcorn-fun-action-packed-adventure movies, I think we can all agree that "The Mummy" and "The Mummy returns" are amongst the best (of all time)!!

@ DaveJ: Did I finally do it? Did I make you angry? I must be the first person do to this, right? :p

Anyway, maybe you're right. You're definitely right about that Tom Hanks-example. He's really grown as an actor. Hard to believe that we're talking about the same guy, huh? And you may even be right about the fact that Hugh Grant and the other three before-mentioned boys can eventually grow out to become better actors (just not as good as Tom Hanks though ... let's not exaggerate here, ok? :D), but who says that'll ever happen?

I don't think there's anything wrong with laying out my opinion. And my opinion is (regardless of how much you disagree with it, DaveJ) that I'm not too crazy about them as an actor. They're not bad, but they're far from good (one or two exceptions made)! And they'll never become the kind of actors that makes people think: "Wow! Now that was great acting". True, Tom hanks did it in several films (although he should never have won the Oscar for "Forrest Gump" from Morgan Freeman in "The Shawshank Redemption" who was a LOT better ... NO ****IN' WAY!!!)

But in the end: this is all my opinion.

To rap all of this up, I'm gonna say one more thing ... you might be right about one general thing and that is that I should think things over before spreading my opinions out to ya. But don't go nailing me to the wall for liking "The Mummy" or for being in love with Lara Croft.

I'll let you in on a little secret when I had just seen "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings" for the very first time. I thought it was a very good movie, but I liked "The Mummy returns" much better. Every employer at the cinema (good friends of mine ... that happens when you go twice to the cinema each week to see four to five films a week :D) called me completely nuts and crazy, but I refused to change my opinion simply because I felt truthful to what I had said.

It's changed now. I've seen "TLOTR: TFOTR" four to five times and it IS indeed four to five times better than "The Mummy returns", but nevertheless (regardless of what I think of "The Lord of the Rings-films" and without comparing these to the Mummy-films) I still think "The Mummy (Returns)" is a very good movie. ;)

Strange how opinions can be different, huh? :)

btw: no hard feelings with anyone here, I hope?! :(

[Deekman]

First of all. don't get me wrong, I loved both Mummy movies.
I bought both DVDs and have watched them several times.
With gusto.
I also really like Brendan Fraser. Those movies are a lot of fun.
Universal spent big big bucks in the hopes that they would be
major milestones in cinematic history. (IE: the revival of
the Universal Monsters franchises). It just didn't pan ot that way.
They didn't turn out to be quite the blockbusters they were hoping for.
DVD sales probably did better than box office sales.
(Incendentally, Universal is now filming a movie called Van Helsing.
It's the next in the Universal Monsters revival.
It's basically House of Frankenstein and will include The Wolfman,
Dracula and the Frankenstein Monster.


Secondly:
Originally posted by Godfather
NO ****IN' WAY!!!
This is a violation of the TOU.

[DaveJ]

Originally posted by Godfather
I've seen "TLOTR: TFOTR" four to five times and it IS indeed four to five times better than "The Mummy returns


Do you also have some way of measuring this scientifically...with some kind of mass spectrometer or somesuch?


I measured a 94.256% cinematic quality improvement of LOTR over The Mummy....increasing to 96.849% over The Mummy Returns.

[Deekman]

Mass spectrometer not needed.
After the seventh or eighth viewing it will becom seven or eight times better.
Simple mathmatics.

[DaveJ]

True.... in the case of the afore-mentioned bout...but it doesn't apply to all movies.

The spectrometer confirms that "Pearl Harbour" actually sucks more the more you accidentally watch it. "Titanic", too.