i vowed to never watch another m. night shamalamadingdong movie ever again after watching lady in the water.

7/8/2010 9:01:46 PM

Saw this film.

I didn't enjoy it much. It was full of child actors that cannot act.

I thought it had the same feel as what I have seen of the cartoon though. This was a perfect movie for a kid. Had I been in the 8-12 range i would have loved it.

It was also, completely, made for people who were already familiar with the cartoon.

7/12/2010 8:54:24 AM

7/14/2010 1:30:39 PM

The Happening is better than The Village and Unbreakable is better than Signs.

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

7/14/2010 1:52:35 PM

The Happening is better than none of his movies.

The Village should be much farther up. I agree Unbreakable was good.

I liked Unbreakable, Signs, and the Village more than 6th sense.

7/14/2010 1:57:46 PM

Fuck Signs. That movie was garbage.

And I'm okay with everyone disliking the Village, because I understand why. But I still enjoyed it.

7/14/2010 1:58:46 PM

The Happening is an intentional B-Movie and is hilarious and better than the village and light years better than Lady in the Water.

the village>the sixth sense?

you. are. on. crack.

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 2:54 PM. Reason : .]

7/14/2010 2:54:12 PM

Quote :

"Fuck Signs. That movie was garbage."

7/14/2010 2:56:30 PM

Quote :

"The Happening is an intentional B-Movie "

It sure didn't market itself that way.

Incidentally, it was definitely one of the five worst movies I have ever seen...strong case for absolute worst.

7/15/2010 1:57:08 PM

Quote :

"the village>the sixth sense?"

Who said that??

7/15/2010 2:05:33 PM

I think he was referring to me. He would be incorrect. I said I enjoyed unbreakable, signs, and village more than sixth sense.

7/15/2010 3:06:58 PM

^^

Quote :

"I liked Unbreakable, Signs, and the Village more than 6th sense."

^yeah him.



[Edited on July 15, 2010 at 11:09 PM. Reason : .]

7/15/2010 11:08:40 PM

what a raging douchebag

7/21/2010 12:46:18 PM

while he is probably a raging douchebag, that question was pretty fucked up and I probably wouldve reacted in a similar fashion as he did. She basically said that he made a great movie to start with, then has slowly started to sell-out for the purpose of making money, at the expense of the quality of movie that he's putting out. I wouldnt be very happy about that, and I think answering the question any way besides the way he did would be just as bad as agreeing with her

7/21/2010 12:57:57 PM

Critics give MNS too much shit. I think some of their points are valid about Airbender (it was maybe too somber considering how fun the source material was), but was it really *that* bad? No. It wasn't great, but most movies aren't.

But no one likes reading a "meh" review. They want to read how it was either the best movie ever or (even better) how horrible the movie was. So critics give readers what they want.

Critics are already revisiting their opinions of Unbreakable and Signs (neither of which were actually as bad as critics made them out to be at the time). And if the years are kind, they will revisit their opinions on Airbender in a few year.

[Edited on July 21, 2010 at 1:08 PM. Reason : ``]

7/21/2010 1:05:51 PM

Unbreakable was awesome. Saw it in theater, loved it.

Signs was entertaining. Also saw it in a theater, had a good time.

7/21/2010 2:17:10 PM

^^Signs and Unbreakable both received generally favorable reviews, what are you talking about

7/21/2010 3:24:21 PM

^ but, the films were (and still are) *under*appreciated. And some critics are revisiting these films to say so. For example, Christy Lemiere at the CP notes how under appreciated Signs was in her review of Air Bender:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5j5DhOjRMjVWd4lJ8mOvsWTro2M2Q

Ditto for Unbreakable. Ross Douthat (then at Slate) goes notes that it was flawed but still great move:
http://www.slate.com/id/2146169/

7/21/2010 4:03:59 PM

Pandoras a moon. The people are taller because there is less gravity. I guess everything is blue because the mother planet is blue. (high levels of methane?) Looks like Neptune. The rest is earth-like so its not farfetched for Earthlike features.

Theres certainly no evidence to argue against completely different paths of evolution on a planet iwth the same conditions as Earth.

The three eye suggestion is just absurd. Theres definitely no reason not to have bilateral symmetry.

9/19/2010 1:18:50 AM

^^No.

9/19/2010 1:41:18 AM

^^ GTFO

9/19/2010 4:11:42 PM

^^^ Post something like that in Entertainment again and I'm suspending you.

9/20/2010 12:43:28 AM

lol

9/20/2010 12:47:25 AM

I figured that would be better than making a brand new thread. I am truly sorry. I need the avatar threads to be bumped also.

9/20/2010 1:52:09 AM