Last movie watched

[Death Mage]

Harry Potter and the Half Movie. I flip back and forth on the Harry Potter films (and no, I have not read the books yet). Sometimes I like them, sometimes I don't. I think the first one is an interesting concept but is rife with amateur problems (some really, really stupid magic that exists for the sole purpose of "It's magic, duh!", etc.), but overall a decent enough story. By the time of the third movie, though, things had tightened up quite nicely. I don't know if the books progressed as well, by judging by the movies, Rowlings did indeed get much better at writing.

I think the movies slipped a bit around 5 (yet still had a lot of good stuff), but the overall story - so far - in this one was pretty good. I do like that the stories get more mature as the characters grow up. Rowlings could very easily have kept them "children's books", but instead treated them as just good stories. Kudos there.

Now, as for this latest movie itself... Well, it suffers from one big problem. One that really couldn't be avoided though. It's half a movie, because it's half the book. Stories generally have a solid beginning, middle, and end, but we're lacking the ending here. We haven't even gotten through the middle. Alone, this movie doesn't stand out well. But, it's not really meant to be considered alone. It is a part 1 of 2.

Until we DO get the last half of this movie, it's not really fair to judge it yet. But, the movie definitely was good enough to make my want to see the rest of it.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!]

[ctrlaltdel*]

thing with the series is, it was not shot by a single crew - the directors are changing (i think from 5 on till the end its always the same guy, but not until), so do the camera men (which i think can do a lot for a movies 'feel'). i liked nr.3 best. i think the weakest was the one that came out before this 'halfling'. it struck me as a very cheap teenie flick.

[Scurra]

The problem with movies 5 & 6 is entirely attributable to the structural problem of the whole book series, which is that the series was fixed at 7 books but once we'd reached the end of book 4 there was actually no real "arc-plot" left between then and the big finish. As it happens, I like book 5 a lot (I think it proves how good Rowling had become at both writing and plot construction) but the movie suffers in the same way as #4 because there''s too much to fit in (albeit very little of it "arc-plot") whereas I like movie #6 more than the book partly because it has much less to fit in, making it far more cohesive.

I have already posted my feelings about #7a although it's true that it's unfair to pass real judgement when it's only half-a-film. I saw it again recently and I still think it's too long for what it is.

(I have recently been having fun working on a sort of "bluffer's guide" for HP in which I've been trying to figure out which parts of the story Rowling always knew (e.g. Lily's eyes), and exactly when she came up with other bits. The most hilarious is the way that the first four books come up with an entirely new method of "instant" transport that pretty much contradicts the last!)
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[Jack_Ian]

I prefer the musicals.
A very Potter Musical and A very Potter Sequel

[Ataraxy]

[Lucresia]

[Death Mage]

I'm trying out a trial Netflix account - streaming only. But it's giving me a chance to see a lot of movies. Some good, some bad. I wish there were more movies available, but the selection in TV makes up for it.

I did get a chance to watch District 9 finally, and see what all the fuss was about. It's a neat concept. Aliens as, basically, refugees. More than a little heavy-handed on social commentary. I mean, really, "Multi-National United"? Why not just call them "Big Business Inc."? Oh, right, becuase then you don't have the nice iconic U and N sitting together in the logo and on all the military equipment. Set the thing in South Africa to highlight, or rather, exploit the problems there. Make sure the one alien is a single father. It looked to me like the creator was thinking his movie was something more than it was. And I guess it fooled the right people, it WAS put up for an Oscar bid, after all (for however much credibility they have left - I haven't agreed with most of their choices for many, many years).

I'm not saying I hated the movie, don't get me wrong. I just think they should have spent more time making an interesting movie instead of exploiting problems in the world. Not to mention the absurd stereotypes. The uncompassionate corporate big-wigs giving the heartless doctors/scientists the OK to kill the man to harvest his transforming body, using a live alien as target practice (literally), the whole experimentation room as a whole, the gung-ho, overly violent military leader, incompetent bureaucrat that starts off "trying to do the right thing" but quickly is corrupted into violence, the local warlord, on and on and on. It was like reading the playbook on why people are no damned good.

I'm someone who detests trying to pick apart a story and look for the hidden meaning. I care more about how well the story stands on it's own. If he creator has a subtle message to convey, I really couldn't care less, one way or the other. However, nothing in this movie was subtle. It was like Avatar, without the pretty panoramic views of Pandora, and no where NEAR as cool action scenes. I tired of the "message" of this movie pretty fast, and the underlying story really wasn't doing a good job holding things together for me. A disappointment, really.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!]

[Janet000]

The last movie which I watched was “Insidious” by James Wan. It is a horror movie.

[Quailman]

Tuesday Mrs. Q and I went to see Water for Elephants. We had a discount coupon for a theater we don't normally go to because it's older and doesn't have the stadium seating the newer ones have. It's not very popular. I don't know how it stays in business. We've been in theaters when they weren't very crowded - only fifteen or twenty people - but we've never before had a private screening. It was just the two of us at 7 PM on a Tuesday. We left our cell phones on ring. We spoke out loud if we wanted.

It was pretty entertaining. It's about the circus during the depression. Sorry I can't write a more colorful review like Scurra does, but there were just the two of us in the theater, and well, um...

[Jedo the Jedi]

Thor - some good nerdgasm things thrown in and an excellent job with Loki, but I didn't think there was enough fighting for Thor. *shrug* The post-credit stuff is totally confusing in the sense of "what in the world are they setting up?"
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[Lepton*]

I'm watching Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times on youtube when I get spare minutes. Superb. I've never seen it before.

[Jack_Ian]

I watched "Johnny Mnemonic last night.
I remembered seeing it when it was released and thinking it was cool.
How times have changed.

It was released when "d'internet" was just a fledgling, so I guess thinking 80 Gb is an enormous amount of data can be excused.

Perhaps I was expecting too much, but the acting was awful, everything was so dated and the plot was trivial, BigCorp Vs OrdinaryFolk.

The only character that impressed me at all was Jones. I'd forgotten about him and was filled with nostalgia when I saw him save the day at the end of the movie.

How did Keanu Reeves ever become famous? The only thing I've ever seen that I liked him in was Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, and that was more the movie script than his performance that won me over.

Oh Wait! It's been years since I've seen that too. Perhaps I shouldn't watch it again in case it disappoints too.

[Chuck]

Oh, yeah. Movies.

Dorian Gray
Repo Men
Avatar
Iron Man 2
Shorts
Moonshot
Creation
The Sarah Jane Adventures, season 1
Strange Days
Cromwell
Get Smart
Timecrimes
Monsters
Inception
Triggerman
Never Let Me Go

I don't remember what all of these were about. Nothing great here. I guess Avatar and Cromwell were the best of the lot.

Triggerman promotes the myth that good poker players draw better cards than poor poker players. Most poker movies do.

[Quailman]

[AcidFast]

I loved Inception - def one of my recent favorites

Drive Angry was pretty bland - kind of disappointing (and I wasn't expecting much...) although I enjoy Nick Cage's variety of roles and I could look at Amber Heard all day...

I liked Hereafter a lot, too - somewhat unpredictable and a bit dark

Loved Iron Man 2, also - just like the first one

Five Minarets of New York was excellent, as well - if you haven't heard of it, it is a Turkish film and maybe one of the best films to ever come out of Turkey - It features some well-known American actors, Danny Glover and Gina Gershon and maybe others, can't remember right now

I liked Traitor, also - I know its been out a while, just got around to watching it
_________________
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead

True story

[Sentran]

Recent movie watches:

Hereafter - I found it a bit slow for me, but good overall.

Unstoppable - I had trouble catching my breath during this movie!

Tangled - Cute movie, and good music.
_________________
Sentran
"Speaking of double negatives, I haven't read greylab yet today." - Lifeinmomland

[Scurra]

Attack the Block

For such a confused mess, this is a far better film than I think anyone had any right to expect. As others have noted, the closest comparison in termas of tone and sheer style is perhaps the fantastic Shaun of the Dead - it's not that good, but it's pretty damn close. And for a first feature from a first time director it's amazing.

The premise is quite simple: there's an alien invasion, but they make the mistake of landing in a south London council "sink" estate, inhabited largely by lower-class gangs of teens. And in that face-off it's not easy to predict who is going to come out on top (although there are few real surprises in the general story structure.)

The film makes a virtue of its low budget, with sparing but effective use of CGI and some inventive use of lighting to create atmosphere and some good scares at relevant moments. The central cast are a little wooden in places but given that this was the first major role for most of them this is also forgiveable. The supporting cast (especially Nick Frost) are great and provide good balance to the somewhat "street" attitude of the gang members. There are some genuinely moving moments too that never feel completely exploitative, although the social message isn't exactly subtle.

I think the part I liked the most was that the dialogue contained a lot of slang which wasn't explained except through context; it reminded me of Trainspotting although perhaps not quite as extreme. But it helped make the characters feel more real rather than as actors speaking lines.

A great little B-movie that doesn't have pretensions to anything greater and is all the better for it.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[Undercover Monk]

Saw Pirates 4 and Thor at the drive-in theater last weekend sound and video quality hurt the viewing but they were ok...i guess.

Pirates suffers from a lack of likeable secondary characters (though Ian McShane's blackbeard was very fun and menacing.)

Thor suffers from too many secondary characters though it was a very interesting take on the supervillian Loki.

both movies felt like set-up movies for there subsequent sequels Pirates 5 and the avengers.
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning

[Scurra]

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

I have to confess that I am not quite sure what to make of the Pirates "franchise". On the one hand, it's clearly a cynical exploitation of an accidental hit designed purely to make money, and on the other it's clearly a cynical etc etc. And yet ... and yet, the first film was actually prety enjoyable. Perhaps because there were no real expectations (after all, it was the third or fourth attempt to make a Disney Theme Park Ride Movie and the previous ones had all failed), perhaps because the time was right, but for whatever reason it became an exemplar of Goldman's Law. ("Nobody knows anything".)

Not solely because of Johnny Depp, although he had a lot to do with it, but also a fairly competent script and some good supporting characters (if you discount Orlando and Keira who clearly just took the money.) What went wrong was that the film made a ludicrous amount of money and so an instant sequel was demanded. And since all the basic ideas had already been used up in the first film, any sequel could only really be a retread or incoherent - or both as it turned out. Indeed they were filming parts of the third film without an actual script: no wonder it was a mess and a half.

So sensibly the producers decided to look for a more solid basis before revisiting the series, which they did by optioning Tim Powers' wonderful occulty pirate tale (partly) about Blackbeard and a search for the Fountain of Youth. The fact that the final film is disconnected in most respects from the book doesn't matter. What matters is that the script had something to build on, and it shows. Instead of spectacular set pieces with no rhyme or reason we now get spectacular set pieces that have some vague narrative justification (sure the opening London sequence is as self-indulgent as the one at the start of The World Is Not Enough but it's just as much fun.) And instead of character arcs that make no sense (cf. Elizabeth Swann) we get almost believable ones.

As a result this is easily the most enjoyable of the Pirates films since the first one (although that's still not saying much in terms of "greatness"), and it proves once again that whilst you can't make a good film from a bad script, but you can at least make a serviceable film from a decent script. Now - the real trick will be to see if they make the same mistake they made last time, and rush into #5 without thinking. You know what? I'm willing to bet they will. Which will be a shame.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[aaron77]

I watched fast five recently with my friends, it was an awesome movie with interesting scenes and thrilling action. The movie is so great I’m thinking of watching it again.

[Poisonium]

Blown Away
A waste of time. But it has a guy making bombs while singing U2. But that was really the only part of the movie that shouldn't be forgotten.

Jurassic Park 3
Also a waste of time, and quite stupid with raptors smarter than humans, and a rather dumb ending.

Full Metal Jacket
Very good movie. Recommended. I liked Adam Baldwin's nihilist.
_________________
I tried apt-get install lifebut it only returned E: Couldn't find package life

[Sniklac16]

The Hangover 2 To be honest, I didn't really want to see this movie, let alone spend money on it, because it looked like it would be exactly like the first. However a friend of mine was on leave from afghanistan and him and his wife wanted to see it. While there were a bit of similarities, it was actually pretty good and really funny. I don't think it was as good as the first, but definitely worth seeing

Fast 5 Simply put, the best fast and the furious movie yet. Go see it
_________________
What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.

[Lucresia]

Finally saw "Red"..yeah a bit late I know Very good movie, highly enjoyable with good actors/actresses.
_________________
"And All anybody knows, is you're not like them" -Elliott Smith

[Scurra]

Senna

I may have just seen my movie of the year. Certainly I will be surprised if I see a better documentary (although Inside Job was hard to top.) And the best bit was that I wasn't expecting it. I had certainly heard nothing but good things about the film beforehand, but I'm not a particular sports fan, let alone a Formula 1 fan, so I wasn't necessarily expecting to be grabbed - certainly not quite so viscerally.

It's an immaculate example of how you can make a (fairly unbiased) biopic of someone simply by using atchive footage - no need to interpolate dramatisations or talking heads here when the original material is so fantastic. Sure, there are moments when it descends a little into melodrama, especially when dealing with his rivalry with Alain Prost, but in general it maintains a very crisp tone that tries to avoid cheap sensationalism.

I know enough about sport to know how the story ends, and yet this too was handled with expert skill; it almost catches you by surprise because you have become so caught up in the narrative.

An object lesson in how to use archive footage to tell a remarkable story, and a wonderful record of someone who was clearly one of the most gifted sportsmen of the 20th century.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[Jedo the Jedi]

[Hitchhiker*]

[Jedo the Jedi]

No. I mean some of the historical stuff leading up to the Crisis and the stand-off outside of Cuba. The missiles were there before we even knew about them.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[LordKinbote]

[AcidFast]

Scurra, your comments about The Pirates series confuse me. You have some vague negative stuff to say about the first movie, but nothing substantial, but then say that you enjoyed it and seem surprised about it. I love all three of the first movies and am looking forward to seeing the fourth. In fact, the series is one of my all-time favorites (and I consider myself somewhat of a movie snob). You seem embarrassed to have enjoyed these movies (or at least afraid to admit it...), and I cannot figure out why...

I also watched The Reader recently, and it was excellent. I like Kate Winslet, and she played a moderately disagreeable character very well in this movie. She was rather unlikeable, but still demanded your sympathy. The storyline was very different and intriguing.
_________________
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead

True story

[Scurra]

note: Holy crap, this is long! Sorry.

The first Pirates film was fine. In the genre of Hollywood Blockbusters it was certainly much better than average, but this was largely because it was relatively small scale. I thought the story was neat, some of the set pieces were well handled and the actors were, on the whole, decent albeit not especially engaging; you're supposed to root for the hero, not admire the scenery whenever he is onscreen. When a secondary character dominates proceedings (as both Depp and Rush do) then you have to wonder if they had any idea what they were doing (cf. Alan Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.)

But none of that makes it a bad film. There are very few cases - especially in the Blockbuster arena - where everything works. As you noted, I did enjoy it. And I don't particularly blame them for wanting to capitalise on their unexpected success. I simply wish that they'd bothered to actually write a script, with believable character development and proper structure, for the two sequels, rather than just string a bunch of cool ideas together in the hope that no-one would notice.

Take The Reader, for instance, since you cited it. There, the characters have, well, character. Their relationships shift and develop in plausible and convincing ways as we learn more about them. And when the moments of crisis arise, you actually care about what happens, because you have invested in those characters through the careful and thoughtful way they have been presented to you, and you don't feel cheated at any point with revelations that make no sense.

In the Pirates sequels, there is none of that. Everything is driven by the need for it to seem cool. Sure, there are vague nods in the direction of "character" - the pathos of Davy Jones. the moral choices of Norrington - but they are all drowned out by the bombast of Krakens, whirlpools, five way sword fights, repetitive sea battles and so on, none of which actually do anything in the way of pushing the story on, they just fill in time. In #3, for instance, the whole first section of the film is solely there to enable Elizabeth Swann to have a crew and ship of her own, even though there is no rhyme or reason as to why she should (other than for plot purposes) or why said crew should follow her at all.
Or consider the entire subsequent sequence in #3 of Jack Sparrow in that undefined "limbo" from which he has to be rescued. The producers clearly concluded that since it was Jack Sparrow that people had gone to see, then give them half-a-dozen Jack Sparrows and they will be six times happier. In fact, this sequence merely reminds you that the similar bit in #2 (with the cannibals) was actually more entertaining because it was - in comparison - quite understated. Of course, at the time in #2 the whole thing seemed wildly OTT.
And that's the heart of the problem. Every time a sequence recurs - and they do because there are only so many genre scenes a Pirate movie can have - it has to get bigger and louder and more complicated. It's the same problem that Lucas faced with the Star Wars prequels - but at least there he knew how the underlying principles of story work, and as a result there is actual cleverness going on with the structure, even if the dialogue and incidental details are appalling. He had a properly worked out through line for his main characters, which meant that, on the whole, they developed along with the plot. Here, there is no sense of a coherent through line for any of the characters, and the main reason for that is that their stories were all concluded perfectly satisfactorily in the first film. So a wholly artificial set of circumstances has to be contrived for the sequels that aren't convincing and in some cases are skated past quickly in the hope that you won't ask awkward questions.

So when we reach #4, one of the reasons it sort of works is that the old characters are basically exchanged so that they have a chance to evolve. Jack Sparrow becomes Barbossa and Barbossa becomes Norrington. This then creates room for Angelica as a plausible neo-Jack - as opposed to the ridiculous transformation of Elizabeth - and the two filler "love interest" characters are wisely relegated to support instead of the main plot. And the set pieces are dialled down a notch or two.

If this had been the first Pirates movie then I think it would have been greeted in much the same way the first one actually was - it's a fun romp with no pretentions to being great art. I didn't come out of the cinema feeling that I had wasted two-and-a-half hours of my life (as I certainly did with #3) but I also didn't feel as though the series had revealed unseen depths. I don't feel embarrassed to have enjoyed it (nor #1), but perhaps it's more a sense of frustration at the squandering of such potential. Or maybe it's the cynicism I hate. I think that perhaps the first movie would be considered much more highly if the temptations of the franchise effect could have been resisted (cf. The Matrix for a similar failure, albeit in a different way.)
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[NancyRoy]

The last movie I watched was “Kung fu panda 2”. The 3D animation of the movie is awesome.
_________________
Be warned, He-Man, for I am a manual spammer!

[AcidFast]

Scurra, it was long, but an enjoyable read - thanks for explaining
_________________
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead

True story

[Undercover Monk]

I will have to disagree with you Sentran as a die-hard pirates fan I have watched not only the movies many times over but also the dvd commentaries. And I think that at least for number one you are forgetting that while Sparrow is not the quote unquote hero of the film (that role belongs to turner for the first film) he is the primary character with Barbossa as the primary antagonist. Turner over the course of the second and third films becomes more of an anti-hero.


And I understand how the krakken scenes and large scale ridiculous battles may not be everyones cup of tea but if you discount those then you must discount nearly every summer blokbuster. it does come with the territory.

but beneath all of that the writers did a remarkable job reverse engineering a fun story. Its all about motivations. I love stories where the heroes are forced to work against each other. as to a specific example Elizabeth was made captain because Sao Feng was in league with Barbossa at the time to release Calypso who he mistakenly believed her to be. (It was not just to give her a ship and crew.) In fact during the council at shipwreck island her new crew disagreed with her and supported barbossa's plan.

I could go on but I dont think this is the thread to do that in
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning

[crk*]

Reservoir Dogs I didn't really like it. I don't quite see what all the hype is about. I don't get Tarantino.

[Scurra]

The Green Lantern

Now this one I wasn't sure about at all, because of all the superhero franchises that have arrived in recent years, this was the one I grew up with. Not Batman, Superman ]or even the X-Men. I was a Hal Jordan kid - probably because I liked the Lensman books and the Green Lantern Corp. were something of an, uh, "homage" to them. So, naturally, I awaited this with some trepidation, as might be expected. And although it is no masterpiece, it certainly wasn't a disaster.

So, let's start with the good stuff. And there is a lot of good stuff here - from Ryan Reynolds (an excellent Jordan) and Mark Strong, a script that gets the tone just about right and some great effects work, especially in making Oa feel special.

Set against that is the fact that the plot is both dumb and too complicated (where Jackson got away with a ludicrously complex prologue for LotR, the same trick doesn't work here), some of the effects work is really horrible (especially the costumes), and the direction is rather flat (in the dramatic sense) - probably because Campbell (the director) was evidently learning about how 3d works as he was going along. (And it's a waste of time, as usual.)

Not a failure then, but more on a par with something like Fantastic 4; a safe, family movie that doesn't try to push any boundaries but simply to set up a potential franchise. As a long-time fan, I was prepared to cut it a lot more slack, but I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as, say, Thor, which was a character I knew virtually nothing about by comparison. But there, Branagh pulled off the brilliant trick of basically making two entirely different movies but stitching them together perfectly (overblown cod-Wagnerian high opera juxtaposed with small town under siege scenario.) Here there isn't a proper differentiation between the two "worlds" and Campbell doesn't seem to be prepared to make the effort to do so - although had he seen Thor first, I think he might well have done.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[JDTAY]

X-Men: First Class

Saw this with my sister. It was pretty good. The best part was naked Jennifer Lawrence. Though next time I want pink instead of blue and at least two more nipples.
_________________
Prohibit nothing. Disclose everything.

[JDTAY]

Oh man, I just some heard from some dude that Cars 2 is evil anti-capitalist propaganda. Someone go confirm it for me, I'm too scared to watch.
_________________
Prohibit nothing. Disclose everything.

[Jedo the Jedi]

Super 8

The movie was pretty good. I have had some people tell me it was the best movie of the summer (and some said of the year), but I wouldn't give it that much credit. It does have an excellent story line which keeps you interested throughout, and the script is pretty good. The worst part is the ending which is somewhat anti-climactic given the rest of the film. Plus, I think they tried to make a point to the film toward the end, but it fell flat for me. It seemed last minute or something. Still, it was definitely worth seeing, and 95% of it was well-crafted.

The only unbelievable part was toward the end between the two fathers. I did not see a good motivation from the characters' standpoints for them to make that move. *shrug*
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[Quailman]

Harry Potter's Final Movie Part 2

Daniel Radcliffe himself had said how much better he thought this one was than any of the others. There certainly was more action, but like people who wondered why technology seemed to have regressed when the Star Wars prequels came out, I found myself thinking "why didn't they do that before?" a few times. I know that each book/movie introduced a new mode of transportation, but some of the stuff the wizards did would have come in handy in earlier episodes.

That being said, it held my interest and kept me awake from the midnight start until 2:15 AM. Many movies I see put me to sleep shortly after the opening credits.

And the 3D glasses were pretty unique.

[Sentran]

CARS 2
Better than the original! I have kids to use as an excuse for why I saw it, but it's definitely worth watching.

X-MEN: FIRST CLASS
If I can put aside my knowledge of the source material and the BLATANT DISREGARD Marvel has for their own timelines and history, this was a really good movie.
_________________
Sentran
"Speaking of double negatives, I haven't read greylab yet today." - Lifeinmomland