SC, I do basically agree with you.

FEVER PITCH (**1/2) is basically a baseball geek movie, written by Red Sox fans in the Farrelly Brothers, that which a romance, no matter how expected, is shoe-horned into the middle of it.

In a way, if you took out the romantic storyline, its basically a story about a die-hard fan that has to learn that, believe it or not, there is life outside of Fenway Park. One could even have made it be about a story about all people of all obsessions that overtake way too much of their reality. Not that I condemn such fandoms of sports or whatever, but certainly SC, you know well of who I speak of.

Of course, this isn't an indie small movie. This is a considerable Hollywood-funded production, so instead of possibly a smart little movie about fans, its a chick flick with balls (literally and not of the good kind )

Besides, Jimmy Fallon was always that hack on SNL that was considered to be a major player, yet no one could ever explain why. I still remember when on his last show, they had a "tribute" to his work, and the audience was like half-heartedly into it. I don't blame 'em!

FEVER PITCH isn't a bad movie, but like the 2006 season for your Red Sox SC, its instantly forgettable, and for the better.

P.S. - Hey Irishman, I was going to ask you why SCREAM is a masterpiece (you know, s*it, giggles, civil debate), but what's the point?

The cast was AMAZING, the movie was well written and original (this was the first time I had ever seen 2 killers in a movie), the music was good, there was a good blend of humor with horror and the costume was fantastic!

The Cast was good,But not amazing..

Another Inside Man?

I haven't seen the movie myself so I can't say if its story's outcome warrants a continuation or not, but, despite its box office success, Spike Lee's INSIDE MAN doesn't strike me as the sequel-spawning type. Lee and mega-producer Brian Grazer apparently beg to differ, though, because the pair are developing a follow-up to the film. No word yet on what exactly what it would be about or whether the first movie's stars - including Denzel Washington, Clive Owen, and Jodie Foster - will return to their roles and, while Lee is producing and already working on a script with, the original movie's writer, Russell Gewirtz, he's still in negotiations to actually direct this one. Should he decide to take that gig, he will have to decide if the sequel, over one of several other projects he's considering including the fantasy thriller SELLING TIME, will be next movie he shoots.

Source: JoBlo

De Niro and Fitty?

I can hardly think of an odder pairing than Robert De Niro and 50 Cent (Actually how about De Niro and William Shatner in SHOWTIME?) but it's actually happening. De Niro and Fitty have signed on to star in the upcoming cop drama NEW ORLEANS. As you might expect, the film deals with New Orleans post-Katrina and follows a cop (De Niro) who believes his partner died during the hurricane. When he finds out he was actually shot, he and his new partner (50) seek to find the truth and uncover police corruption. The project has seen extensive rewrites since its original conception as MICROWAVE PARK. It was originally set in LA and followed four detectives but was changed to include a post-Katrina storyline. TV director Tim Hunter ("Deadwood," "Cold Case") will step behind the camera for Millennium Films. De Niro has his next directorial effort THE GOOD SHEPHERD hitting theaters and recently wrapped production on STARDUST. 50 Cent can be seen next in HOME OF THE BRAVE with Samuel L. Jackson and Jessica Biel.

Source: JoBlo

That's probably your longest post in this thread.

Don't get used to it

Before I talk about INSIDE MAN sequel.....what was so smart about the script for SCREAM?

Really, talk about a script that, if it was a person, is that annoying jackass of a nerd working at the video store that makes a big deal that it knows everything in and out of a genre, but thats the depth of their intelligence. Then you proceed to bash him in with your bucket of free popcorn.

Anyway, INSIDE MAN sequel doesn't surprise me. Why not? It was Lee's first serious financial hit.

Hell, I can already see it. Clive Owen up to his shenanigans again...somewhere.....I'll pay to see it.

The New York Hat
(1912/Griffith)
One of the more complex Griffith films we've seen thus far, with increased use of title cards.

The Musketeers of Pig Alley
(1912/Griffith)
Perhaps considered the first gangster movie, with Griffith's first variation from the simple "good triumphs over evil" theme.

The Lonely Villa
(1909/Griffith)

Again, what I found smart about Scream was that it was the first time I had ever seen more than 1 killer. It wasn't a redundent Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street or Halloween kind of killer. It was just 2 average psychopathic high school kids.

As for a sequel to Inside Man, as much as I enjoyed the movie I didn't think they'd make a sequel out of it. What's #2 gonna be, Inside Man: The Fort Knox Mission?

Wow, two killers is very innovative. Never before Scream has any movie, nevertheless a cult horror, had two killers.

Hey Hagen, I'm impressed with you. A good dedication in digging around old stiff D.W. Griffith's work. Much more than I've ever done. Keep up the damn good work.

Irish - average highschool psychopathics? You mean they look as good as Liev Schreiber...and in their 20s?

No, I've known a real medical-certified psychopath back in high school, Irishman. The sort that was cited by the local police for, or suspected of, killing several pets in his neighborhood, but never a stint of jailtime in Juvi hall or real prison.

I didn't know him personally, but I saw every day. I never met him (thank God), but we were of the same class. He was quiet, and nobody thought much of him. Then in senior year, he jumped on some guy at a joint, actually was able to cut the poor guy's nostril(think CHINATOWN, but with knuckles instead of a blade), break 10+ bones on his face, before one of the jumped-guy's buddies pulled out his revolver of a handgun and blasted this crazy fuck to the next world. Police found his personal belongings, and after reading his journals and internet postings...the guy very well might have been on his way to being a serial killer of some form.

If anything Irish, you want a movie that, according to a good friend of mine that now works for the police as a detective, is really accurate, or at least more accurate compared to the rest of Hollywood's take on the nutty killers?

HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER (1989), which I gave my 5-star masterpiece rating some years back.

Check that out sometime Irish. I think you would like it.

P.S. - I did like the Drew Barrymore-cameo opening in SCREAM.

Good movie, although I prefer Broken Blossoms. Musketeers is a bit too short for my taste.

Hey, they asked so I told. And you wonder why I don't review movies

That's what did it for me too. SPOILER! it was like seeing Robert De Niro die halfway through 15 Minutes, you just don't see it in every movie. END OF SPOILER

Irish, come on man. This is the reason why I have problems with you as a critic....and its not for the reason you would assume.

The problem you have as a film critic, and I won't name names, but several other prominent film critics on BB.Net seem to concur with me for the same reasons:

*LACK OF DEPTH IN ANALYTICAL EXPLANATION - I applaud you Irish for what you wrote for SCREAM. I probed your conclusions, since I disagreed with some of them, but you actually explained for once your reasonsing for your judgement. Even if I think SCREAM is an overrated pop fluff piece from the 1990s, at least you tried to defend yourself. Keep doing it.

*THIN SKIN - Really, I wish you would not care what people think of your opinions, and simply express your opinions.

Its like with you on X3 and FANTASTIC FOUR. Sure, I those movies outright pissed me off for various reasons which I've given in the past. However, so you like them. Fine. I'll disagree with you, and even argue on that topic, but in the end, it doesn't matter. We have our opinions.

You are of Irish ancestry, like me. We Irish-Americans have pride in fighting to the bitter end. We are loud and very vocal with what we think. We could care less if it pisses people off. If they try to f*ck with us, they get a bat to the skull.

In other words, have guts, have pride, have some thick skin. BELEIVE what you write is absolutely right, and that everyone else is either partly right, or totally wrong. You are the only critic that matters to you. Act like you have a pair. If DV has a problem with your review, then debate it. Try to convince him to your side, and if that fails, oh well. However, at least the film you're defending has a supporter on its side.

Hell, I've chastised Capo and Hagen over several reviews, but they argued back, and at least held their ground. If anyone critiques you wrongly, you quit.

Its like recently with BLACK DAHLIA. That movie has been trashed at IMDB, Oscarwatch, everywhere...and I defend it as a pretty good, if flawed, picture. Yes, people call me idiotic. Yes, people tell me that I should kill myself. Yes, people wish I was aborted. However, I show everyone my balls, I try to use logic in my arguments, and I attempt to make people at least concede on several key points, which I've gained in the last few days (for example, I've gotten the DAHLIA-haters at my campus to concede that the movie does have Oscar-nomination worthy art direction, Harnett is good, that slow motion sequence on the stairwell is great, you name it).

Irish, you can be worthy of the name Irishman...or else, you might as well rename yourself "PolakMan"...and this is coming from a part-Polak himself.

I appreciate the words you stated ronnie but here are my few reasons why I post the way I post:

*WRITING SKILLS - I don't have strong writing skills. I never have and probably never will. I've never been a writer nor do I really care for writing (and YES, this is coming from a MBA student).

*FILM "CRITIC" - For the most part, unless I'm truly passionate about a film (like the Kill Bills, Scarface, Scream, etc) will I REALLY make an effort to write a decent review. I don't consider myself a film critic really. That's why I never wrote the 2 or 3 paragraphs or half-page reviews on movies.

*THIN SKIN - I've tried in the past to have civilazied conversation with "other pominent film critics on BB.Net" but it always seemed that (in not so many words) I was "dumb" or my opinion was "wrong" if I felt a certain way about a film (like X3 or The Fantastic Four) It might not have been their intention to make me feel so or it may very well have been, I don't know for sure.

So in conculsion ronnie, again I appreciate you brining these matters to my attention and I hope that my retort will help you understand better where I am coming from. I'm not as well educated as you and the other "prominent film critics" on this board. I won't lie, I don't either understand or pay as much attention to the lighting, camera work, etc or a film unless it REALLY stands out at me. Likewise, we've already had the debate on whether film is art or entertainment and I feel my opinion on that matter is well documented. I'm one of "those" people, but it takes different strokes to move the world!

Gojira **
(First Viewing)

The Da Vinci Code ** 1/2
(Second Viewing)

For whatever reason, seemed more enjoyable a second time around

BEVERLY HILLS COP (1985) - ***

Decent action/comedy feature that was an insane box-office blockbuster hit back in the decade of excess. Lacks the stylish visuals of the Tony Scott-helmed sequel, and makes one wonder how a out-of-town cop gets as much leeway in another city, another police territory, another state, without getting his balls busted for doing so. But yeah, with RUSH HOUR and the rest of the BHC movies, why do I even bother asking?

I took my little brother to the cinema with the intention of seeing the Borat movie. The 80 year old asshole at the ticket counter wouldn't sell a ticket to my little brother because he's only 13 and the film is rated-R. I told him that he could go fuck himself and left.

How ridiculous is it that someone isn't allowed to experience a work of art because of their age? Land of the free my ass.

I am fucking infuriated right now.

I just finished watching the tape I had of "Misery" with my mom.

I don't think any movie can ever do a book justice, especially on a psychological one like this - the novel gives such analysis of the characters that every part of it captures you...and it's sort of frustrating to watch a movie after reading the book and think about all of the great parts they weren't able to include, as well as all of the background info of what each person was thinking, wanting, planning...

But that's just how I feel about book vs. movie - nothing against this one in particular, because I thought it was great. Both Kathy Bates and James Caan were incredible, and I think they did as good a job as you possibly can to bring the characters to life on screen. My mom and I were both laughing at Annie's strange antics - "Oh, Paul!" - but I'd be willing to admit it must've been nervous laughter. Here I am, several minutes after it finished, and my heart is still pounding! I think I'll be seeing Annie in my dreams tonight...and now I have a face to the name!

The sledgehammer scene makes me cringe just thinking about it! I remember the first time I watched Misery. Til this day...Cathy Bates frightens me.

xxx_don_corleone_xxx, when and why did you change to XDCX? That's the first I'm noticing that

Winter's coming. The cold causes shrinkage.

Seriously...it was too long. Anytime I'd post...it'd distort the page. With my name shortened...it keeps everything nice and neat.

I feel the same way. Whenever I bring little girls to the porno theatres, I get strange looks, and the usual escort to the police station.

I'd heard so much about that part before ever seeing it that the actual scene didn't freak me out too much. Then, a while after it'd passed, I realized my feet were "hurting" at the thought of it.

Just think, one of those nuts could be living right next door...

This is one of my favorite parts from the movie:

"This isn't what happened last week--have you all got amnesia?--THEY JUST CHEATED US--THIS WASN'T FAIR - HE DIDN'T GET OUT OF THE COCKADOODIE CAR!"

I don't know if I even want to think about this.

I know what this quote is about, from the book, but...it was not in the movie I just watched. And I'm starting to worry. We taped it off the Family Channel - is it possible that they cut out a scene (or several scenes?!) from the movie, because of the viewing audience??? I mean, my dad fell asleep about halfway through, but I know I didn't. And I didn't black out. If that "cockadoodie" Family Channel cut out part of that movie...which they must have...

SPOILER ALERT (in case people hasn't seen it)

It was in there Gina. It was right before the part where she tells him that he must start the book right where his last book ended, with the main character in the grave.

I can't imagine why cockadoodie would have been edited out. It's not "spice" after all!

Well, "spice" was bad because of the hidden word it contained. Maybe that's why cockadoodie would be considered bad.

(Good God...what's happened to me? Those dirty birdies, JG and DM, have made my mind all oogy.)

I really don't remember that part in the movie, though - maybe I'll check it tomorrow, because this is going to drive me crazy.

Edit: I just read over the script online - skipped to that part, then to other parts...and whatever "version" I taped is missing a LOT. I can't believe this! It's like I didn't even see the movie!