Sam Hutcheson wrote: On Jun 18, 11:14 pm, "bgs" <b...@mindless.com> wrote: Likewise, I thought the sixth sense was very good. Luckily, despite seeing it on DVD, we had avoided the big spoiler. Unbreakble was good too, IMO. The surprising thing to me is that Signs, originally a big disappointment to me, has improved over time. It's not really one of those watch me over and
James Sidbury wrote: In article <6bttoaF3e1u06U1@mid.individual.net>, "Colin William" <colintwilliam@hotmail.com> wrote: "Dale Hicks" <dgh1138@southernbell.com> wrote I'm beginning to believe that M Night is a one trick pony (at least for moviewatchers with my tastes). "Unbreakable" was the only movie of his I've enjoyed. I liked Unbreakable, and I'm
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:07:34 -0500, Dale Hicks <dgh1138@southernbell.com> wrote: In article <g06j549g4iaq4fqegh7hm10ovabsi84erk@4ax.com>, GhostofGeneralLee@gmail.com says... Yes, I know, it had a couple of strikes against it when I walked in (namely, Mark Wahlberg and John Leguizamo), but with an M. Night Shyamalan film, you figure you ought to at least give it a chance. Wrong
In article <g06j549g4iaq4fqegh7hm10ovabsi84erk@4ax.com>, GhostofGeneralLee@gmail.com says... Yes, I know, it had a couple of strikes against it when I walked in (namely, Mark Wahlberg and John Leguizamo), but with an M. Night Shyamalan film, you figure you ought to at least give it a chance. Wrong! If you saw the trailers for this movie, you've already seen the best parts of it.
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:03:29 -0700, crookedjunk wrote: the rob cypher movie review 10,000 BC - Jesus Christ, they updated _Eergh!_! Why? F Baby Mama - Christ, another overlong "SNL" skit. The only way this earns my $8 is if these bitches are dyking it out somewhere in this waste of 90 minutes of celluoid. Earns another $2 if one of them happens to be preggers during the
