Die before seeing

[BadBeast]

Hey, what the hell was wrong with Showgirls?  It was campy bitchy gayness with tits.


CAMPY BITCHY GAYNESS WITH TITS!



Eh, maybe it was too gay for your tastes.



LMNO
- Boys, boys, boys.

Never seen "Showgirls, but from your description, it sounds like "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert".

(With tits)

[President Television]

Batman & Robin (with constant shots of the BatNipples, and the BatAss, and the blatant homosexuality between Batman and Robin. THEY ARE HEROES, NOT BUTTBUDDIES, kthx).

ITT: gayness is not heroic

[Payne]

-Any movie with Matthew McConnacunt

-Any movie by James Cameron

-Any movie series that has spawned multiple sequels before I was aware there was even one sequel (I'm looking at you, Saw)

-Same as the above, but with it having a sequel before I was aware there was even the first movie at all (I'm looking at you, Twilight)

-Any movie that is touted by critics for its "AMAZING SPECIAL EFFECTS", and for NOTHING else.

-Any movie which is an adaptation of a book I really enjoy. Most of the adaptations I have seen so far leave me thinking either/or is the best policy in these cases.

[AFK]

Hey, what the hell was wrong with Showgirls?  It was campy bitchy gayness with tits.


CAMPY BITCHY GAYNESS WITH TITS!



Eh, maybe it was too gay for your tastes.



LMNO
- Boys, boys, boys.

Yeah, Showgirls belongs in that other thread about bad movies worth seeing.  The acting is awful, but, it's just one of those things you gotta see.  But not the cable versions.  What's the point of showing that movie on cable? 

[President Television]

-Any movie which is an adaptation of a book I really enjoy. Most of the adaptations I have seen so far leave me thinking either/or is the best policy in these cases.

What about Fight Club(I'm assuming you enjoyed the book)?

[BadBeast]

Batman & Robin (with constant shots of the BatNipples, and the BatAss, and the blatant homosexuality between Batman and Robin. THEY ARE HEROES, NOT BUTTBUDDIES, kthx).

ITT: gayness is not heroic

I think Batman is getting a bit of an unfair slating here. In the whole of the DC Universe, he is still a top hitter, up there with the best of them, JLA,  The Flash, Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Nightwing, Superman, but he still hasn't got any superpowers! And I think the homoerotic subtext in Batman is all down to Adam West, camping it up, 40 bloody years ago! And he still keeps Gotham safe, rubber nipples or not. And Bane is still staying away, as far as I know.
Batman is a fucking Hero! As for blatant homosexuality, between him and Robin, well, I must have missed that bit! Rumours, lies, and innuendo. Nothing more. Not even a whiff of any impropriety. OK, a billionare playboy, with an underage "ward" called Dick, who wears a miniskirt, and tights, but it was the fucking 60's people! All that stuff was manly, and heroic back then! I mean, the Joker obviously had teh Gay for Batman, but Batman never led him on, or flirted with him. Ok, so he flirted with him, but only to put him off his guard, once or twice. It was obvious he was in love with Catwoman. When she was Eartha Kitt. You only had to see them dancing together to see the sexual magnetism there! Look at him dancing with all these hot chicks, then try and say he's anything other thasn a red-blooded hetero!  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L3UrW_jCDY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGU4nebGW-g

"Come along, Robin, to the Batcave!  You'll have to grease my Batpole, if you want to slide down that way tonight"
Cruisin' around in the Batmobile, Buttman, and Throbbin' Shit! you've even got me at it now.  

[Payne]

-Any movie which is an adaptation of a book I really enjoy. Most of the adaptations I have seen so far leave me thinking either/or is the best policy in these cases.

What about Fight Club(I'm assuming you enjoyed the book)?

I saw the movie before I read the book. Srsly.

[BadBeast]

-Any movie with Matthew McConnacunt

-Any movie by James Cameron

-Any movie series that has spawned multiple sequels before I was aware there was even one sequel (I'm looking at you, Saw)

-Same as the above, but with it having a sequel before I was aware there was even the first movie at all (I'm looking at you, Twilight)

-Any movie that is touted by critics for its "AMAZING SPECIAL EFFECTS", and for NOTHING else.

-Any movie which is an adaptation of a book I really enjoy. Most of the adaptations I have seen so far leave me thinking either/or is the best policy in these cases.

Yeah, any movie by James Cameron is dead in the water, as far as I'm concerned. Every film of his I've seen, flows with all the grace,and smoothness of a river of housebricks. So I'm not convinced that he suddenly got it right with "Avatar". Stilted, and preachy, with shades of mid 70's Disney technique, and the "moral messages" he always thinks he slips ever so subtly into the plots, you can generally see the marks of the crowbar he uses to wedge them in. As an afterthought, by the looks of it. Fuck him anyway.

It's unusual to see a film that lives up to your expectations of a good book. But a notable exception was LOTR. I enjoyed the book immensely when I read it, and was resolutely prepared to be let down by the Film. But I loved it. Even Sean Bean was cast well as Boromir. And his acting always hits its peak in his death scenes. (I quite enjoy watching Sean Bean die) And when you think he's gone, with that farking huge Uruk Hai arrow stuck right in him, he jumps up again to try and save the lickle mudkieps, but is brutally, and convincingly hacked to bits by that big ugly bastard. And still manages to hold out until Aragorn, Legolas and Wee Hagrid get there. Class!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKS0rwI46Dk&feature=related 

[Freeky]

Relevant. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA Part 1 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLzKwTcGO_0&feature=related Part 2

[BadBeast]

Relevant. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA Part 1 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLzKwTcGO_0&feature=related Part 2

That's actually not a bad review of "Avatar". Although  I have now seen a little more of the film, than I was ever intending to, it doesn't count because It's more than made up for by seeing that fucking boat sink again. And again.     James Cameron is certainly no Ridley Scott. I prefer Ed Wood's films to Cameron. At least they are unpretentious.

And there's a beautifully placed meme in the middle of the review too. "The best thing about waking up, is Acid in your coffee!"
And I'm glad it's not just me that hates Cameron's spastically lurching plots, "messages" and "Right on" PC Bullywank.
Hopefully he can afford to take the rest of his life off now. But I kind of know he won't. Directors are worse than Despotic Dictators, whan it comes to retirement.

The way the special effects were pimped before LOTR  nearly put me off seeing it in the Cinema, but although they are brilliant, the Film doesn't rely on them to sneak a shitty plot, or a whole bunch of crap acting on the audience.   

[Abbess Jade]

Hey, what the hell was wrong with Showgirls?  It was campy bitchy gayness with tits.


CAMPY BITCHY GAYNESS WITH TITS!



Eh, maybe it was too gay for your tastes.



LMNO
- Boys, boys, boys.

I just don't like a movie about women complaining about how they never got used to the feeling of not getting their face ejaculated on.

[Fredfredly ⊂(◉‿◉)つ]

Top Gun. never wanna see.

will listen to the song from it tho

TAKE MY BREATH AWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY

[Jasper]

It had a pretty decent soundtrack.  "Danger Zone" was enjoyable, until everybody played it to death.