Mr_Putter

I got San Andreas.

But of course, it's likely when we colonize Mars, they will still have easy contact and transport with Earth, so they are likely to interbreed. Unless whoever gets there first claims it, turns it into a liveable place and then ends all communication. Then a war would start. That would be a good movie.

Obviously go on a one man vigilante mission, to end all injustice in the universe.

You kicked him in the balls? Do NOT kick guys in the balls. That's all the advice I have.

I would say CGI are pretty important in nowadays cinema. I don't see how those remakes were very bad. And that there was a King Kong in the 70's is very well known. If only for the rant that came when Kon was located at the World Trade Center instead of the Empire State building. But as I said...There wasn't any computer generation in the first...And if there is in the remake, that will take all the authentic feel out of it. Like, when they have the thousands of gangsters all together...Some of the extra's in the original were actual gangsters.

I don't think that's going be good at all. They are taking all the cool/wacky gangs out of the first, and I think it's in like L.A. It's hardly even a remake. http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles ... tory.jhtml Plus, even if you refer to it as a remake, it's only like 25 years old. What's the point of remaking that? It's not like some great new movie invention has come in (ie. colour, or something), and there's no special effects to update. I don't think it will have the charm of the original at all. But I guess we'll see. There are more movies that are being remade from the 70's than The Warriors. For example Dawn of the Dead, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, King Kong (which was remade from the thirties of course). Of course you can do much more with special effects, new techniques, lenses, sound etc. etc. do you think it stopped evolving after the 70's? And you could face a worse director than Tony Scott. It stopped evolving stubtantially...And Plus, None of those remakes were good. I didn't even know there was a King Kong in the 70's. It must have been a real keeper.

The way I see it, assuming that pollution is that bad, we'd all become physically weaker, instead of stronger. I think it's very likely though that we'll end up a race of women who have small waists and big curves and men who are all six foot three inches tall and able to bench press 500 pounds. Humans will have hair on their heads but none on their bodies. Oh yes, and plastic surgeons and physical trainers will rule the world. :P (Wait... maybe that's just where we Americans are heading.) Weller off Americans are heading that way. Lower class/lesser smart Americans are falling victim to internet-speak (less intelligence) fast foot (fat) and the internet (lazy-can order online). That's about how I imagine it. We'll all be big, fat, lazy people, where the general population has a brain of much. A few Philosopher Kings will rule us (fat and lazy, but they will have robots), and ultimately destroy us. We'll be too busy eating fast food to revolt. If these trends continue, this will definately happen. We don't even need evolution. We'll be dead before the next millenium. Fact. Another theory tommorow.

I don't think that's going be good at all. They are taking all the cool/wacky gangs out of the first, and I think it's in like L.A. It's hardly even a remake. http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles ... tory.jhtml Plus, even if you refer to it as a remake, it's only like 25 years old. What's the point of remaking that? It's not like some great new movie invention has come in (ie. colour, or something), and there's no special effects to update. I don't think it will have the charm of the original at all. But I guess we'll see.

Yorkshire pudding has a lot of egg in it, I think. I'm not sure. Sheperds pie is like chicken pot pie, only instead of chicken its ground beef, and instead of pie crust / pastry thingy, there's mashed potatoes. Excellent stuff :wink: What's chicken pot pie :oops: ?

Can I ask what Yorkshire pudding is? While I'm at it, what's sheppards pie? Because I don't think they are what they sound like, at least to North American speak.

Miami Vice looks pretty good. Michael Mann + Jamie Foxx is money. Collin Ferril...I guess we can stand him can't we? So does Southland Tales. Whodda thunk The Rock and Buffy would star in a Comedy/Musical/Sci-Fi/Thriller. The Rock+Richard Kelly+combined genres=best movie of all time? I know so. I hope Max Payne comes out in 2006.

Half the rounds didn't end the way they should've, but hey... can't beat flashy effects and trival bs over everything else which makes a good movie now days - too many people are suckers for the "wow" factor :roll: Go have your little tantrum somewhere else. Yeah LOTR's won, and i may not agree with it. But its still a good film. So just because the movie you wanted to win didn't dosn't mean you can go bashing a great film. Well done LOTR i think it deserves it. Which is it? You don't agree, but then you do agree...You contradict yourself in the space of like 2 lines.

Christmas just isn't Christmas without Jingle All the Way.

Most people aren't on such a bandwagon. In fact, there are probably twice as many people who are on the "vote the LOTR film because it's recent, and I've seen it" bandwagon.

I would suggest playing single-player games...Because even though you may enjoy meeting people, for every 1 cool person you meet there are probably 100 idiots/campers/hackers/9-year-olds/people who suck. But if you want an online game...BF2 is good...But I'm not really the multiplayer person I once was. I've focused on single-player, for reasons discussed earlier. I disagree.

Webcams are the worst invention of all time. They just encourage degenerates to make idiots of themselves.

Damn LOTR and it's winning ways...Game over. This contest didn't end as it should have.

I watched Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, then the Maltese Falcon. Butch Cassidy was real good. Amazing dialogue and acting, excellent directing. Good times for action and a great buddy action movie. It was funny too :). Mad good quotes aswell. I enjoyed it thoroughly. :). (top 100 material :). Maltese Falcon was decent, the plot moved fast though, as did the dialogue. Which is a double edged sword. It's good because if that same movie was made today (which it wouldn't, atleast not in a large commercial sence as there is no swearing, violence, nudity, or explosions) it would take 3+ hours to get all that dialouge and plot out, because they don't seem to be as sharp as the oldies. But it also got kinda confusing, and they talked a little too fast to understand sometimes, so I had to rewind to pick up plot points (which sucked). Excellent dialogue, good acting (Bogart was better in Casablanca I think...he seemed like he was acting here, his Casablanca performance was more believable). Good twisty plot and charecter development though, and some more good quotes :). (Top 100...probable)

You pretty much need one...The only other possible way to even think about doing all those collectables would be with a jetpack...And eventually you'd prolly get stuck...A few I couldn't find even with a guide...Not to mention, the 50 snapshots, you can only see at night, and can only see the icon with a zoomed in camera (there is a pink glow). Plus half the oysters are in absurdly hard to find places...It would take easily a week or two alone just to find all the collectables without some sort of guide.

Most people can beat it in 70-80...

I find it hard to believe you can complete GTA San Andreas to 100% in a week. That's all the storyline missions, gaining all the territories, taxi missions, ambulance missions, firetruck missions, silly person missions, all the cars delivered to the garage, all the sub-missions, all the rampages, all the bike/car/plane school missions, all the running/swimming/biking missions, all the graffiti tags...... i'm pretty sure there's more but even that lot would take way more than a week. Yeah, I find it hard to believe as well... I finished the story in around a week but thats only like 50% of the game... It is technically possible, but not likely. I played (during school mind you) and I got roughly the same as you in a weeks time. But if I, or anyone who really wanted to beat it in a week, it is possible. It's about 10 hours a day, less if he beat all missions first try. But I don't know why anyone would ever do that.

Please :? I've played both F.E.A.R. and CoD2. Fear has a terrible multiplayer at least (I didn't do much in the single player). The weapon models, animations, and sounds suck; the game physics & movement are so soft/unresponsive (it feels like I'm walking around in a fat suit); and for being such a demanding game, it doesn't even look that great. CoD2 I've only played the demo of, but I can see that it is nothing special. The TV commercial is SUCH an exaggeration. Also, I play CS:S on a clan's server with people that also play CoD varieties and Battlefield 2, and have heard a lot of complaints from them about BF2. Resident Evil 4 (Gamecube) looks great, I haven't had a chance to play it though, only bought one game this year. I haven't played enough games to give my choice, but I can say for sure, none of those three are near the top. How can you base games on that? You played some or the F.E.A.R. single player (which is the major focus)...you played the demo of COD2, and you hear BF2 is bad...You're arguement has no worth. I only had to play half of Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes to know it was the worst console game I had ever played. What am I supposed to think, that only the parts of the game I played are mediocre, and the rest is a mindblowing experience? This is a topic about the best game of the year. I may not be able to accurately say how good/bad those games are, but it is crystal clear that they are NOT the best. Fear and CoD2, at least. That statement is so flawed. YES, a game can be slow...I can see how if its THE WORST GAME EVER, half way through...I can't argue with that...But if all you play is a bit, or just the demo....Here read this: Link: http://www.gamespy.com/articles/552/552075p11.html And even with one of the worst first levels I've EVER PLAYED, even of games that came out like 5+ years before it, it went on to win almost every PC game of the year, and many Overall Game of year awards, and is arguably one of the top 5 greatest PC games of all time. There are tons of games like this...No One Lives Forever 2 was slow for about the first half, and improved tonnes to be quite a good game. It too won several GOTY and PC GOTY awards.

I think I got about...60% something in GTA3...Many of the side missions, plus the import/export. I never really looked for packages, jumps, rampages etc, as I played it after Vice City, which was better. I got like 94% in Vice and then got so bored I had to stop. I did however make it to 100% in San Andreas. It was too fun to stop playing :).

It sorta depends. I was sorta in the middle, because most of the time if I lost, I would be really mad at myself, even if no one else cared. I always would get hockey medals with "Everybody's a Winner" on it, but we know we lost and were sad, and they won and were happy. Winning is always better, so long as you do so with class. But then again, if I were on a poor team, I'd lose and we'd laugh. Sometimes in some sports (sports where it would go to a certain score and end [volleyball etc.]) I would want the other team to win (because we lost most of the time) because A. the coach never played me because they didn't like me, even though I was decent enuf (spite! :), and B. so I could go home. So it really sorta depends. I don't really care if people want me to win or not, if I play poorly I'm harder on myself than others are.

Please :? I've played both F.E.A.R. and CoD2. Fear has a terrible multiplayer at least (I didn't do much in the single player). The weapon models, animations, and sounds suck; the game physics & movement are so soft/unresponsive (it feels like I'm walking around in a fat suit); and for being such a demanding game, it doesn't even look that great. CoD2 I've only played the demo of, but I can see that it is nothing special. The TV commercial is SUCH an exaggeration. Also, I play CS:S on a clan's server with people that also play CoD varieties and Battlefield 2, and have heard a lot of complaints from them about BF2. Resident Evil 4 (Gamecube) looks great, I haven't had a chance to play it though, only bought one game this year. I haven't played enough games to give my choice, but I can say for sure, none of those three are near the top. How can you base games on that? You played some or the F.E.A.R. single player (which is the major focus)...you played the demo of COD2, and you hear BF2 is bad...You're arguement has no worth.