January 31, 200620 yr Well, I officially decided I'm a complete loser ;) I'm at work and bored because I'm here by myself for 20 of my 40 hours, and that is very quiet occassionally. So, I went to the main computer and printed every movie that we got for the 2005 year. (I work at a movie theator by the way). Out of the 144 movies that came out in 2005, I saw 86 of them. On average, 11 movies came out a month. I saw on average 7 movies a month. The month that I saw the most movies was in July. I saw 10 out of 11 movies. Not counting multiple times that I saw a movie, I saved $516. Counting multiple times that I'm not sure on, I probally saw about $700 woth of movies. On a guess, I saved all of my friends about $200 letting them in to watch a movie. Best movies of the year(in my opinion): Hostage, Longest yard, Kung fu hustle, Stay, and sin city. Worst movies of the year: Alone in the dark, The ring 2, Lord of war, and history of violence. I would type of the movies that I've seen, but i'm too lazy right now. If anyone cares, I will. ~M
January 31, 200620 yr Best Movie in 2005: Anchorman, Crash, King Kong, Star Wars III (haven't watched many movies this year) Worst Movie in 2005: the Longest Yard, The Island, The Skeleton Key, Must Love Dogs (was on airplane, so sthefu!!), Hide and Seek
January 31, 200620 yr It's great having a mate that works at the cinema. I don't know how much I've saved but I know it's quite a bit :P Anyway, 7 movies a month for a whole year is a lot! :shock:
January 31, 200620 yr i wish i knew u in real life MPM best: war of the worlds, ring 2, hp goblet of fire, mr and mrs smith, druce bigalow worst: the island, the longest yard
February 1, 200620 yr Best: lemme see if I can remember my order: 1. Crash 2. Sin City 3. Star Wars: Episode III: Attack of the Clones 4. Walk the Line 5. Batman Begins 6. Cinderella Man 7. Four Brothers 8. The Constant Gardener 9. 40-Year-Old Virgin 10. The Great Raid 11. Lord of War Worst: 1. Grizzly Man 2. Broken Flowers 3. Sahara Still need to see: Munich, Syriana, King Kong, Good Night and Good Luck, A History of Violence, War of the Worlds (we've had this since the week it came out, and I still haven't watched it) Capote perhaps, Narnia perhaps, Brokeback perhaps. Good year for movies, I'd say.
February 1, 200620 yr Brokeback perhaps. NO! i hear there's homos in it! btw bad year for movies, very bad and sad year. :cry:
February 2, 200620 yr Brokeback perhaps. NO! i hear there's homos in it! btw bad year for movies, very bad and sad year. :cry: So what? And 2005 was a very good year, I got a top 10 list somewhere, but that's a bit outdated I'll post something later. I haven't seen that much new movies, I think out of the list from cinema.nl (344 movies) I've seen about 71 now. Top 10: 1. Cacḫ̩̉̉ (Michael Haneke) 2. L'Enfant (Jean-Pierre Dardenne and Luc Dardenne} 3. The Constant Gardener (Fernando Meirelles) 4. Guernsey (Nanouk Leopold) 5. King Kong (Peter Jackson) 6. Sin City (Robert Rodriguez) 7. Manderlay (Lars von Trier) 8. Match Point (Woody Allen) 9. Broken Flowers (Jim Jarmusch 10. Last Days (Gus van Sant) Needs a mention: Shooting Dogs - Not in the list because it doesn't get a proper at all and a limited release in march 2006. A very good movie, better than Hotel Rwanda, if you're in Europe, a must see. One of 2005's best. Most funny, powerful, action packed etc. movies of 2005 in my opinion (this is a new list btw). Worst 5: Be Cool (F. Gary Gray) Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo (Mike Bigelow) Casanova (Lasse Hallstr̮̦̉̉m) A Sound of Thunder (Peter Hyams) Son of the Mask (Lawrence Guterman) Oh, type out what you've seen BTW. I'm curious what kind of movies your theater plays and what you've seen. Does your theater have a website? Oh, I'm also curious why you though Lord of War and A History of Violence were that bad. Signature by Maurice SendakWhen the stars make you drool just like a pasta fazool, that's amore!
February 2, 200620 yr Author 2005 was a good year 0.o very few of the movies I saw would have ranked over 5 :\ I disliked lord of war because there was no action. All advertisement for the movie made it out to be an action movie. And, I thnk it might be because I dont like the main guy. Don't remember his name though. A history of vilence was terrible because there was only a couple of action scenes to make up for a boring entire of a movie. Plus, I went into the movie hoping that he was a goverment robot... And at the end, he didnt kill his family like I wanted ;) Btw, I rate movies very hashly :P I get them free, so I get to do that. Movies with a :)are ones I reccomend seeing. Movies with a :( are ones I wouldnt ever reccomend. 40 year old virgin A lot like love Aeon flux Alone in the dark:( Amityville Horror Bad news bears Batman begins Be cool:) Boogeyman Charlie the the chocolate factory Chicken little:) Closer Coach Carter Constantine:( Corpse bride:) Dark water:( Derailed Deuce bigalow European gigalo Devil's rejects:( Domino Doom Dukes of hazzard Elektra Exorcism of emily rose Fantastic 4 Flight plan Four brothers:( Fun with [bleep] and jane:) Guess who Harry potter and the goblet of fire Hide and seek High tension History of violence:( Hitch Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy Hostage:) House of wax:( Jarhead Just like heaven Kicking and screaming King kong:( Kingdom of heaven:( Kung fu Hustle:) Land of the dead Lord of war:( Lords of dogtown Madagascar:) Monster in law Mr and Mrs smith:) Must love dogs Phantom of the opera Pooh's heffalump movie Red eye:) Rent Robots:) Sahara:) Saw 2:) Serenity Sin city:) Sisterhood of traveling pants:) Skeleton key:) Sky high Star wars 3:( Stay:) Stealth The brothers grimm The cave The fog The island The longest yard:) The pacifier The ring 2 The transporter 2 Unleashed:) Valiant Waiting Wallace and Grommit War of the worlds Wedding crashers White noise:( XXX State of the Union Zathura:( ~M
February 2, 200620 yr 2005 was a good year 0.o very few of the movies I saw would have ranked over 5 :\ I disliked lord of war because there was no action. All advertisement for the movie made it out to be an action movie. And, I thnk it might be because I dont like the main guy. Don't remember his name though. A history of vilence was terrible because there was only a couple of action scenes to make up for a boring entire of a movie. Plus, I went into the movie hoping that he was a goverment robot... And at the end, he didnt kill his family like I wanted ;) So, you didn't like the Lord of War because they advertised it differently, judging a movie on the commercials that got broadcasted is very good. And about History of Violence, there is more about it than action scenes, if you pay some attention and look a bit further there is so much this movie has got to offer. I think the way you judge your movies isn't harsh or something, I think it's very shallow, that's also to be seen in the movies you give a ":)" and a ":(". But that could be me of course. Signature by Maurice SendakWhen the stars make you drool just like a pasta fazool, that's amore!
February 2, 200620 yr Brokeback perhaps. NO! i hear there's homos in it! btw bad year for movies, very bad and sad year. :cry: So what? i was joking, but i really wouldn't want to see it. Its a sin against nature. but i guess you enjoy to watch it.
February 2, 200620 yr i was joking, but i really wouldn't want to see it. Its a sin against nature. but i guess you enjoy to watch it. Sorry, but I really don't see what a "sin against nature" has got to do with the quality of a movie. Obviously you weren't joking. And I haven't seen it yet, going to see it next thuesday, Signature by Maurice SendakWhen the stars make you drool just like a pasta fazool, that's amore!
February 2, 200620 yr Sahara:) Star wars 3:( Ewww. Terrible. What's the matter with you? But you did remind me how much I hated Sahara, so I added it to my list.
February 2, 200620 yr i was joking, but i really wouldn't want to see it. Its a sin against nature. but i guess you enjoy to watch it. Sin against nature... So your God is nature? This is how much you all raised for charity. Thank you.
February 3, 200620 yr Author So, you didn't like the Lord of War because they advertised it differently, judging a movie on the commercials that got broadcasted is very good. Is being disapointed when you get roast chicken wrong if you ordered roast duck? You wanted the roast duck. You waited for it, and when you got it, it wasn't what you were told it was. Movie industries advertise action movies as action movies to attract people who like them. Horror movies as horror movies because people want to see a horror movie. When they advertise an antiwar|family values movie as an action movie, then ya. I'm going to be dissapointed. If I'm up till 2 am on a school night, then it best well be what I waited for. Same thing with history of violence. It was advertised as a suspense|action movie. Instead, it was the movie of a man that put away his old habits to live with someone, switched back to protect himself and his family, and then switched back again. Wooo. ~M
February 3, 200620 yr i was joking, but i really wouldn't want to see it. Its a sin against nature. but i guess you enjoy to watch it. Sorry, but I really don't see what a "sin against nature" has got to do with the quality of a movie. Obviously you weren't joking. And I haven't seen it yet, going to see it next thuesday, obviously i was? i'm just jokin. but having homsexual people in a movie, at least around here, attracts less people. I just don't like dude on dude in a movie. but now there's probably goin to be some big thing where you say you have to f'in read what the movie is about and find out they're really bi. sin against nature thing was just another joke about the homos. Really dude you seem to like comment on any bad post i try to make into a small joke and start an arguemnt.
February 3, 200620 yr Boogeyman was the worst movie ever... :x can't believe I wasted $7.50 to see it. I'd really like to see Brokeback Mountain this year. :D
February 3, 200620 yr misplacedme Tip.It Crew Joined: 22 May 2004 Posts: 1337 :P anyway... best movie that came out this year for me would be Corpse bride.. followed by War of The Worlds... i've been watching classical movies lately on account im in a film study class, and we have to study silent films, musicals.. and all that good stuff... worst movies.... hmmm, i guess i dont really have any, I dont see movies that dont interest me. :P
February 3, 200620 yr Is being disapointed when you get roast chicken wrong if you ordered roast duck? You wanted the roast duck. You waited for it, and when you got it, it wasn't what you were told it was. Movie industries advertise action movies as action movies to attract people who like them. Horror movies as horror movies because people want to see a horror movie. When they advertise an antiwar|family values movie as an action movie, then ya. I'm going to be dissapointed. If I'm up till 2 am on a school night, then it best well be what I waited for. Same thing with history of violence. It was advertised as a suspense|action movie. Instead, it was the movie of a man that put away his old habits to live with someone, switched back to protect himself and his family, and then switched back again. Wooo. No, then it's not wrong, because you ordered something else. Now you didn't, you just got a little peak on the movie and you took the wrong conclusion being a little bit naive thinking ooh it must be an action movie because it has got a lot of action in the trailer. If something is well known it is that trailers are ALWAYS made more spectaculair than the movie is. Also, a little bit of research always helps before you're going to watch a movie. A History of Violence was a suspense|action movie, it had a lot of suspense, just not in the way everybody is used to it. It's a little bit different than the normal 'suspense' movie, it requieres somewhat of a brain (I'm not saying YOU are stupid now). That you can't see that doesn't mean it's a bad movie or not worth a recomendation. obviously i was? i'm just jokin. but having homsexual people in a movie, at least around here, attracts less people. I just don't like dude on dude in a movie. but now there's probably goin to be some big thing where you say you have to f'in read what the movie is about and find out they're really bi. sin against nature thing was just another joke about the homos. Really dude you seem to like comment on any bad post i try to make into a small joke and start an arguemnt. Hahahahahah, everybody watch out: Mr. Funny is in the house, you might fall of your chair laughing and hurt yourself when you are reading his AMAZING JOKES! Hahahahaha he's so funny, he's so funny he pretends to be a homophobic, but when somebody complains about that he hides himself behind the weak "I was just joking" excuse, then he tries to turn the tables and gives me some blame for picking on "every bad post he tries to make as a small joke" and I start arguing. HOW ABOUT NO! JOKES ON HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT FUNNY AND YOUR 'JOKES' WERE NEVER MEANT AS JOKES AND I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BE MAD ABOUT THAT: YOU NEED TO SHUT UP! Signature by Maurice SendakWhen the stars make you drool just like a pasta fazool, that's amore!
February 3, 200620 yr but having homsexual people in a movie, at least around here, attracts less people. I just don't like dude on dude in a movie. So because you don't like it, nobody likes it, mm? Yay for generalizations! but now there's probably goin to be some big thing where you say you have to f'in read what the movie is about and find out they're really bi. Like that'd make a difference. (to you anyway) sin against nature thing was just another joke about the homos. Sin is not something you should be joking about. Least of all when you seem to have a ready-made idea of who's being sinful and who's not - in other words, you're judging, but you expect everyone who's being judged to take things lightly? Give me a break... You know what I think? I think you're one of those right-wing Christian people who think all homos go to hell. And I disagree with you. However, that doesn't mean we can't debate - as long as you have the guts to stand up and say what you mean, instead of hiding behind a silly "this was a joke ignore me please" excuse. Mean what you write, write what you mean.
February 3, 200620 yr Is being disapointed when you get roast chicken wrong if you ordered roast duck? You wanted the roast duck. You waited for it, and when you got it, it wasn't what you were told it was. Movie industries advertise action movies as action movies to attract people who like them. Horror movies as horror movies because people want to see a horror movie. When they advertise an antiwar|family values movie as an action movie, then ya. I'm going to be dissapointed. If I'm up till 2 am on a school night, then it best well be what I waited for. Same thing with history of violence. It was advertised as a suspense|action movie. Instead, it was the movie of a man that put away his old habits to live with someone, switched back to protect himself and his family, and then switched back again. Wooo. No, then it's not wrong, because you ordered something else. Now you didn't, you just got a little peak on the movie and you took the wrong conclusion being a little bit naive thinking ooh it must be an action movie because it has got a lot of action in the trailer. If something is well known it is that trailers are ALWAYS made more spectaculair than the movie is. Also, a little bit of research always helps before you're going to watch a movie. A History of Violence was a suspense|action movie, it had a lot of suspense, just not in the way everybody is used to it. It's a little bit different than the normal 'suspense' movie, it requieres somewhat of a brain (I'm not saying YOU are stupid now). That you can't see that doesn't mean it's a bad movie or not worth a recomendation. obviously i was? i'm just jokin. but having homsexual people in a movie, at least around here, attracts less people. I just don't like dude on dude in a movie. but now there's probably goin to be some big thing where you say you have to f'in read what the movie is about and find out they're really bi. sin against nature thing was just another joke about the homos. Really dude you seem to like comment on any bad post i try to make into a small joke and start an arguemnt. Hahahahahah, everybody watch out: Mr. Funny is in the house, you might fall of your chair laughing and hurt yourself when you are reading his AMAZING JOKES! Hahahahaha he's so funny, he's so funny he pretends to be a homophobic, but when somebody complains about that he hides himself behind the weak "I was just joking" excuse, then he tries to turn the tables and gives me some blame for picking on "every bad post he tries to make as a small joke" and I start arguing. HOW ABOUT NO! JOKES ON HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT FUNNY AND YOUR 'JOKES' WERE NEVER MEANT AS JOKES AND I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BE MAD ABOUT THAT: YOU NEED TO SHUT UP! Yeah i guess so. but really why do you defend homos so much? i'm just curious is all. :oops: btw you have done this before though a few times.
February 4, 200620 yr hey! the longest yard was a good movie and so was the island!! Best:King Kong, Star wars 3, best movie of all time BRAVEHEART!!!!!! btw Titanic is the #1 movie that made the most money in theathers EVER 600M. :)
February 4, 200620 yr Yeah i guess so. but really why do you defend homos so much? i'm just curious is all. :oops: btw you have done this before though a few times. Why I defend 'them'? They're people too, you know. I don't see why I should judge them differently just because they feel attracted to men instead of woman. I've got a few homosexual friends, and they're perfectly normal, sure they've got a few female habbits, but they're great guys, so. And sure I can take a funny joke about homosexuals, no harm in that. But I really don't see the joke in it when you start talking about sins against nature. Signature by Maurice SendakWhen the stars make you drool just like a pasta fazool, that's amore!
February 5, 200620 yr Yeah i guess so. but really why do you defend homos so much? i'm just curious is all. :oops: btw you have done this before though a few times. WOW! You're talking like homosexuals have done something wrong. If you're homophobic, fair enough! Just keep it to yourself. We're ( ;) ) human beings like everyone else.
February 5, 200620 yr Yeah i guess so. but really why do you defend homos so much? i'm just curious is all. :oops: btw you have done this before though a few times. WOW! You're talking like homosexuals have done something wrong. If you're homophobic, fair enough! Just keep it to yourself. We're ( ;) ) human beings like everyone else. Haha, well said! :D I'm heterosexual (I don't like the word straight because it sounds like everything else is not straight, or right) but 2 good friends of mine are not. They're probably the only (male) people that make me cheerful just as soon as I see them. It's as if they have this aura that enlightens every one's day, never worried, always happy. I think that if some one can do that, that person (whatever religion he/she may be) is more 'christian' than anyone else. Isn't the morale of Christianity that you ought to care for others at least as much as your care for yourself? Besides that (I'm not very much of a Christian anyway) I don't understand what people can possible not like homosexuals for. Apart from some who like to participate in those rigid parades most homosexuals are wonderful people. And they're not threat to run away with some girl you fancy either :D Oh and on topic: movies I enjoyed this year: no out-of control good movies but: -Sin City, -Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (despite the often bad critics), -Million Dollar Baby and finally The Chronicles of Narnya. Bill Hicks[/url]":dhj2kan9]Since the one thing we can say about fundamental matter is, that it is vibrating. And since all vibrations are theoretically sound, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that the universe is music and should be perceived as such.
Create an account or sign in to comment