|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jul 6th, 2005 11:42 PM | |
| sadie | i'm not about to watch it again to find out for sure, but i was thinking there were quite a few of those stretched-out (BORING) scenes. |
| Jul 6th, 2005 05:10 PM | |
| Rongi |
i saw birth a few months ago. i thought it was ok. it looked nice at least. i thought that one shot of the close up on kidman for five minutes was a lazy way of showing tension |
| Jul 3rd, 2005 11:34 PM | |
| sadie |
a pretty bad what?  spanglish was previewed on that same video; it's the adam sandler/tea leoni one, right? i don't think it could possibly be worse, but i've been known to be wrong about movies and shit. obviously. |
| Jul 3rd, 2005 10:33 PM | |
| Bell E. Laffs |
I don't know, your birth was a pretty bad. :rimshot |
| Jul 3rd, 2005 06:26 PM | |
| MetalMilitia | I accidentally watched "spanglish" the other day and it was probably 1000000 times worse than birth. |
| Jul 3rd, 2005 05:54 PM | |
| sadie |
"birth": don't do it! i usually end up seeing movies late, via rental or even sometimes bargain-bin at walmart. this time, it was "birth." nicole kidman with butchered hair. a little boy claiming to be the reincarnation of her dead husband. what was i thinking when i rented this?!? arggh. it moved so slowly (probably to add *~*suspense*~*) and she kissed the ten-year-old on the lips. they even had a nakie bathtub scene together. stupid, stupid, stupid. i'm sure the rest of you have better sense when selecting movies than to fall into this trap, right? |
