ABC-TV Still the One 1979 ending

beatnik

that is what i am. Not Yippie. Et toi?

“A beatnik is a person who engages in one or more of the following activities: listen to Jazz, sip coffee, and smoke marijuana”

It’s been over a month...and I still don’t give a sh*t anymore.

that is good news. Sounds like you are making progress ... as have I. I wish I could make progress with the relatives.

Relatives: I’ve simplified that.

If they’re a lib, then distance, if not completely shun them. I’ve done that.

just saw Lincoln. Not very lincolnesque, in my opinion. Glad there were no vampires in it. It was hard to enjoy it with Doris K-G involved.

Lincoln was more coo-coo than Mrs. Lincoln.

“Lincoln was more coo-coo than Mrs. Lincoln.”

Lincoln was a Republican, the first Republican POTUS...you think Hollyweird is going to make him look heroic (and before some Reb chimes in about Lincoln, I don’t care) in any way?

I’m surprised they didn’t say he was a RAT and the slave owners were Republican.

Doris K-G = Michael Moore without the comedy.

. It was hard to enjoy it with Doris K-G involved.

The movie is based on some lib historian's biography? It probably blows then.

“The movie is based on some lib historian’s biography? It probably blows then.”

Exactly.

I am going to go see Django Unchained though. Gimme some racist violence.

Jack Reacher, MAYBE.

Next year, with Star Trek and Anchorman 2 coming out, that’s two flicks I’ll open the wallet to see.

>> That last movie I went to see was Dark Night Rises. <<

The last one I saw in theaters was Men in Black 3. I don’t know why so many people were ripping on it and saying it was a waste of time. I thoroughly enjoyed it, especially Josh Brolin’s dead-on version of a younger Tommy Lee Jones. It wasn’t as good as the first Men in Black (did anyone think it would be?) but it was light years ahead of MIB2.

I’m not a fan of Christopher Nolan’s vision of a “realistic” Batman or Christian Bale’s version of him with throat-cancer. I DID really like Batman Begins, but that was because it was creative and used Batman villains that HADN’T been shown in live action movies before (Scarecrow and Ra's al Ghul). Since then, I’ve found the Nolan fanboys (who show up in droves on the internet every movie to talk about how it’s sooooo much better than Burton’s Batman, coming with a new “reason” everytime when the reason they gave for the previous movie being so great is no longer applicable) to be more annoying than the movies themselves.

>> The Spielberg flick is supposed to be good. The Lincoln/vampire flick was a summer box office bomb. <<

I watched Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter over Halloween expecting to be really campy and a guilty pleasure. It actually takes the ludicrous premise seriously and is not as fun as you’d expect, sort of like how “Snakes on a Plane” failed to live up the hype. The actor playing vampire hunting Abe actually does a solid job and could play Lincoln in a real Lincoln bio. The big problems were with the script… the movie claimed to be historically accurate for the 1800’s and a realistic portrayal of vampire mythology. It failed on both counts. Too many glaring errors like Lincoln having a black guy as his pal and best man at the wedding (sorry, that would never happen in the 1840s!) and convient plot devises made up for the movie like “Vampires can’t kill other vampires”.

As for the Speilberg flick… heard it was good, haven’t seen it, I also heard Speilberg had a bone to pick with Abe because he was a Republican and portrays some of his more contraversal nature, which means some neo-confederates were actually cheering on this film. Puke. I’ll wait til it comes out on DVD to judge.

>> No idea on The Hobbit or Les Miserables <<

I’m seeing The Hobbit tonight, in about two hours actually. I was just arguing with some freeper about it, he insists it won’t contain anything that wasn’t “written by Tolkien’s own hand”, which is ridiculous because I read the book when I was 12 and it’s a breezy lightweight story running 300 pages, compared to the three Lord of the Rings novels that run 600 pages each. They’re making a trilogy of Hobbit films the SAME length as LOTR, so they’re OBVIOUSLY padding the story a great deal. Nevertheless, looks like fun.

As for Les Miserables, never seen the stage play. Judging from what I’ve heard this is a pretty faithful adaptation of it.

>> I am planning on seeing Django, Tarantino’s new flick...comes out Christmas Day. Gimme some racist violence. <<

I heard most conservatives are boycotting that one, after Jamie Foxx referred to Obama as “our lord and savior” and gloats about “killing lots of white people” in this movie? I will probably follow suit and skip the film.

>> “The movie is based on some lib historian’s biography? It probably blows then.” Exactly. <<

Heh. Reminds me when libs were all gushing over the movie Frida, some leftie even gave some Oscar speech about how “Frida would be against Bush’s war!” blah blah blah. Why the artist is famous to begin with is beyond me, I googled her and apparently she was ugly some card-carrying communist Mexican lady who painted self-portraits of herself with a unibrow that made her look even uglier than she already was. This is a bio-worthy story?

>> Next year, with Star Trek and Anchorman 2 coming out, that’s two flicks I’ll open the wallet to see. <<

I did enjoy the 2009 Star Trek reboot, the sequel is long overdue. It did really mess with traditional Star Trek lore, so I know lots of old school Trekkers hated it (Fieldmarshaldj thinks it was a travesty) but they were true to the characters (at the least the big three, Chekov was terrible), and it was fun and exciting.

Anchorman is one of perhaps only three really funny Will Ferrell movies, so hopefully he’ll have a fourth one if it’s done by the same people. The rest of his films range from mildly amusing to godawful. (mostly the latter)