Bullets 'n' Babes

Who says In Bruges was a flop in the states? It grossed $7.7million in the U.S, which is most likely more than its production budget. It's certainly been a modest hit over here, so a Blu-Ray release is pretty much certain.

saltysam wrote:wasn't she nominated for an oscar for Sherry Baby? she's a far better actress than katie holmes ever will be,in Romero's world does every actress have to be a fuckable babe to get decent roles

Nah it was a Golden Globe (her 2nd nomination, 1st was for Secretary). She's very good in Sherrybaby, more impressive than the film itself.

Hancock: 3.5/5

The first part of the film is light and breezy, with some often very amusing scenes (A scene featuring a beached whale is brilliant ). Jason Bateman is funny, and its interesting to see Will Smith playing an unlikeable person.
I really enjoyed those comic scenes. Then in the last act, the film changes tack and becomes a bit darker. Good fun, and nice to see a superhero film thats a bit different. Enjoyable!

bradavon wrote: Right, because all women sleep their way to the top. You misogynistic pig.

Go get laid

Shingster wrote:Who says In Bruges was a flop in the states? It grossed $7.7million in the U.S, which is most likely more than its production budget. It's certainly been a modest hit over here, so a Blu-Ray release is pretty much certain.

Well we will never know how much it cost, made or lost, as like so many other films they wont say how much they made it for. It was described in the american press as a flop, maybe they know more than us.

Maggie was also in Stranger Than Fiction

Wall-E: 2,5 / 5
Meh. Doesn't live up to the hype.
-The funniest bits were in the trailers.
-The storyline is predictable.
-Characters have no depth (I know they're robots, but still...)
-The live-action footage was stupid and unnecessary.
-The music never fits the action.

Sure the first 20 minutes are fun, and Wall-E itself is a cute little character.
But it's not enough to make a good film.

Don't know whether I'll buy the BD.

Maggie's not stunning, but to call her ugly and a crack whore is way over the top. Sometimes she's even pretty, IMO. But then I try to look for the positive in a woman's individual looks and realise that gracing the cover of FHM isn't a deciding factor.

https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... Maggie.JPG

romerojpg wrote:Well we will never know how much it cost, made or lost, as like so many other films they wont say how much they made it for. It was described in the american press as a flop, maybe they know more than us.

If that film cost much more than $2-5mill I'd be very surprised, as 95% of it is just Farrel and Gleason walking around Bruges talking.

romerojpg wrote:Go get laid

aka: You're an ignorant fuck as well as misogynistic pig.

romerojpg wrote:Well we will never know how much it cost, made or lost, as like so many other films they wont say how much they made it for.

I'd be surprised if it was much, you can see it would've cost as much as a major Hollywood Blockbuster.

Markgway wrote:Maggie's not stunning, but to call her ugly and a crack whore is way over the top. Sometimes she's even pretty, IMO. But then I try to look for the positive in a woman's individual looks and realise that gracing the cover of FHM isn't a deciding factor.

Agreed. I look at it like this:

1. There are real women who certainly don't need to be stunning in every department, many women who're not beautiful in the "usual" sense of the word are gorgeous in other ways (maybe other aspects of their physical form, maybe their intelligence alone makes them sexy), some of "Hung's women" fit into this category for me.
2. Then there are women who're effectively imagery (obviously technically they're real, you know what I mean), they adorn the pages of FHM, Loaded, Nuts, Zoo and any other Lads mag you can think of. As I don't consider these real women (again you know what I mean) I want big tits, a peachy ass and stunning looks. If I get less I'm usually disappointed. Yes it's shallow but then the entire concept of "getting your tits out for the lads" is shallow. The women don't appear in the magazines because they have anything intelligent to say (even the actresses/musicians who appear in FHM/Maxim), so why credit them with more than they're intending you to?

Maggie Gyllenhaal obviously goes into the first category.

Brad you aint even seen In Bruges so how on earth can you even comment on it.

Shingster wrote:

romerojpg wrote:Well we will never know how much it cost, made or lost, as like so many other films they wont say how much they made it for. It was described in the american press as a flop, maybe they know more than us.

If that film cost much more than $2-5mill I'd be very surprised, as 95% of it is just Farrel and Gleason walking around Bruges talking.

Look at Farrels past films and even some of them set in one location with no action at all, some pure dramas in sets cost $10+ million with no stars at all apart from Farrel, so In Bruges will be more than them (you would think). Location work aint cheap and lots of the film was outside on location in poor conditions.

$2-5 million is not realistic for In Bruges.

Films with people just talking can cost a fortune, depends on whos makes it and how they spend it. If it was a piece of shit no talent badly made film maybe a few million would be right, bit its not.

Woody Allen films cost $10-20 million and they have bugger all in them and he is suposed to be a cheapo film maker.

But again its all guess work, only them buggers know how much they spent, so its wasted time I guess. They probibly got some film funding tax break for going to Burges anyway and done an Uwe Boll.

romerojpg wrote:Brad you aint even seen In Bruges so how on earth can you even comment on it.

What's that got to do with comparing how much a film cost with a big blockbuster Hollywood film?

It's obvious from the trailer alone, it cost less than say The Dark Knight.

Well that is obvious, even you you Batmans suit probibly cost more than In Bruges entire budget. Yet In Bruges is better than Batman Begins.

Rambo: First Blood - 4/5

Thought this was very good, less action than I thought there'd be (Stallone actually only kills 1 person in the whole film), but its the focus on the story, and the pain and trauma that his character has suffered because of Vietnam that surprised me. Sly expresses this well I thought.
How do the sequels measure up?

grim_tales wrote:Thought this was very good, less action than I thought there'd be (Stallone actually only kills 1 person in the whole film)

He did not kill anyone from what I saw I would let him off if I was on a Jury. Self defence.

Yeah he killed no one, the guy fell from the helicopter himself.

First Blood is a drama with a small amount of action, the other three are outright action films and have little in common with the first film. Rambo: First Blood: Part 2 is very much B-Movie Dumb 80s action but has some inventive action scenes, which are great.

Rambo 3 tries to be a drama and action film and fails on both accounts. It's probably the weakest of the Quadrilogy. I'm not sure, I don't think much of First Blood. Start and end aside which are excellent, you otherwise have an average 80s drama.

Of the original Trilogy Rambo 2 is my favourite, it's very dumb in places but the action is lots of fun. I want one of those bow and arrows .

Rambo (2008) is excellent, a hell of a lot fun, is easily better made than Rambo 2/Rambo 3 and is by far the best IMO. My thoughts for all four films are here:

https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... &start=140

p.s - It's definitely best to watch them in order.

Thanks Brad I'll check out the other films then may go HD with them if I like them enough, dunno

romerojpg wrote:Look at Farrels past films and even some of them set in one location with no action at all, some pure dramas in sets cost $10+ million with no stars at all apart from Farrel, so In Bruges will be more than them (you would think). Location work aint cheap and lots of the film was outside on location in poor conditions.

$2-5 million is not realistic for In Bruges.

You can't really compare In Bruges to a Hollywood production, it is a small independant UK/Belgian production. Farrell and Gleason would have been working on a heavily reduced wage, and the cost of location shooting isn't as expensive as you say when you're not trailing around a massive cast and crew or doing any significant stuntwork. In fact, the only extravagant (from a production viewpoint) scene in the film is Gleason's suicide.

I wonder how the original Rambo tirlogy would've turned out had Stallone directed them himself as he did with the Rocky sequels. Rocky 3 and 4 are my favourites.

That would've been interesting.

Did he direct Rambo Part 4?
I heard theres a new boxset coming soon on R1 too.

grim_tales wrote:Did he direct Rambo Part 4?

Where have you been?

I'll take that as a yes then..

If the rumours are to be believed, Sly ghost directed a lot of Rambo 2. Ditto for Kurt Russell + Tombstone.

Thanks Eva, didnt know that