Anyone seen a good movie lately?

[SD_Eagle5]

saw today that they are making National Treasure 2 due in 2007

Was part 1 any good? I've heard mixed reviews....

The Bourne Legacy will supposedly be released in '07 as well.

[Zanshin]

She goes the other way, you go the other way...you're like two ships passing in the night.

[PhillyGirl]

She goes the other way, you go the other way...you're like two ships passing in the night.

lmfao

[Zanshin]

saw today that they are making National Treasure 2 due in 2007

Was part 1 any good? I've heard mixed reviews....

The Bourne Legacy will supposedly be released in '07 as well.

The Bourne movies have been pretty consistently solid entertainment, I think.

[hbionic]

She goes the other way, you go the other way...you're like two ships passing in the night.

I guess I'm just hoping for that every once in a while collision. 

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

The people who dislike the new "Charlie/Wonka" so far are those who are comparing it to the old one and have little knowledge of Dahl's original story.  Keep in mind that Dahl didn't allow the original movie team to make a sequel, because he absolutely hated the first one, whereas his estate/family is 100% behind this one.

Anyway, it should be fun.  Most reviews are positive so far.

[hbionic]

What the farg does Omar Dahl have to do with this?

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

You, chuggie, are unfunny.

[hbionic]

You, chuggie, are unfunny.

I think it...I know its unfunny...I type it...I see that it is unfunny....yet...I continue to post. Kind of like crack in a way.

[Wingspan]

The people who dislike the new "Charlie/Wonka" so far are those who are comparing it to the old one and have little knowledge of Dahl's original story.  Keep in mind that Dahl didn't allow the original movie team to make a sequel, because he absolutely hated the first one, whereas his estate/family is 100% behind this one.

Anyway, it should be fun.  Most reviews are positive so far.

sorry. if you dont want something directly compared to another movie...don't do a remake.

there is no other reason to remake an existing film other than to make the story better. if you don't improve on the original, you have failed.

and i know this is a "re-image" of the book. but most people have not read the book and it's still the same story. comparing a remake to the original is completely fair, and should be part of the basis in reviewing the movie. no one goes out to remake a movie saying "i want this to be just a crappy or cappier than the original."

/this isnt a review or comentary on chocolate factory...just a commentary on remakes in general.

[General_Failure]

I want to do a remake of Big Trouble in Little China with an all midget cast. And in Esperanto.

[Zanshin]

I want to do a remake of Big Trouble in Little China with an all midget cast. And in Esperanto.

Already been done.  But I hear they're remaking that version, so there's something.

[ParkingLotFlagDude]

all these goddamn remakes. how hard can it be to come up with an interesting story. i would like to know what the studio turned down in order to make HERBIE THE GODDAMN LOVEBUG

idiots

You speak the truth..

Ready to really be sick they are ready to release "The Bad News Bears" with Billy Bob Thorton.

There is no fargING way they can do better then the original from '76.


Tanner Boyle: Jews, spics, stillupfronts, and now a girl?
Amanda Whurlitzer: Grab a bat, punk


Coach Morris Buttermaker: Either you wear 'em or either you don't wear 'em and you don't play.   (jocks and cups)
Jose Agilar: A?Yo no me voy a poner esto! A?Esto duele!
["I'm not going to wear this! It hurts!"]
Coach Morris Buttermaker: What? What are you saying?
Ogilvie: I've been brushing up on my Spanish of late, and I think he is saying something about, you know, his being Catholic, and it's a sin.

[Reidme]

sorry. if you dont want something directly compared to another movie...don't do a remake.

there is no other reason to remake an existing film other than to make the story better. if you don't improve on the original, you have failed.

and i know this is a "re-image" of the book. but most people have not read the book and it's still the same story. comparing a remake to the original is completely fair, and should be part of the basis in reviewing the movie. no one goes out to remake a movie saying "i want this to be just a crappy or cappier than the original."

/this isnt a review or comentary on chocolate factory...just a commentary on remakes in general.

Don't get me wrong, if you didn't see the original, this is stiill a good flick. Problem is, they only expand some storylines here, such as why and who is Wonka, and tweak his character to a darker one, which is not as entertaining as the first. And they lose some good scenes. Besides that, there is nothing new. They redo scenes in their entirety, sometimes lifting dialogue and Wonka quips verbatim from the original. A scene with some squirrels sorting nuts rather than chickens and eggs, expanded use of the Great Glass Elevator, and an improved or updated version of Violet are the only hits in my book. Is that really enough to do the remake? I dunno, but its still a good story, and one that wows on the big screen.

I give this version a B+, but the original a solid A.

Depp is at a deficet here, because there is no way to beat Wilder throwing a maniacal fit on Grandpa Joe and Charlie, snydly commenting on the fate of the little brats, and his startlingly good singing voice. And how do you top the original Loompahs? That was something they should have left alone.

Take the kids, enjoy, but I didn't see anything in this one that I couldn't have lived without, except maybe the squirrels, but they give away that punchline in the trailer anyway.

[Don Ho]

Hot rumor out of Hawaii:

Hawaii 5-0 headed for the big screen.  Guess who is rumored to play Steve McGarrett?  Ben Affleck.  Hey if Jennifer Garner plays Dan-o I'm all for it.

Also a rumor of Magnum PI as well with George Clooney playing the lead.