137 Forum Posts by "MrKickyourbutt"
At 12/18/10 05:43 PM, TimeBender wrote: You know max paynes appearance was changed drastically from the first game to the second. I dont like his new appearance but like, the gameplay of the first and second games is mediocre its all about the story. unfortunatly the game is written by a new writer though
Who the fuck cares about Max Payne's appearance? They completely stripped this game of its noir themes, which were the point of the earlier games. And the gameplay is only mediocre is you compare it to today's games.
You must not see many movies. I highly doubt it will even come close to best of the year, not with films like Moon.
Although I am not supporting this bill, here's your "cyber emergency" and and how they do it.
I've had Vista for a year and a half, and I have gotten no trouble from it, besides Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory not working. It's so much more convenient than Vista.
That's not to say it's without problems. It basically treats you like a kid, and doesn't allow you to see the inner workings. For example, when you want to defragment the hard drive, it does not give you that fragmentation graph that XP does, nor does it tell you which files are the most fragmented. All it says is "You (do not) need to defragment this hard drive."
Also, I run Vista on full settings just fine with 2 gigs of ram.
Is this the videogame forum?
I never used to watch audio commentaries. I thought it was just going to be like watching the movie over again, and I would rather watch the movie again.
Then, late at night after watching Toy Story, I decided to check out the commentary for some reason. It was one of the most fun and insightful pieces I've ever heard. It's John Lasseter, Pete Docter, Andrew Stanton, and a few producers. It conveys how hard they worked on the project and what a labor of love it was. After listening to it, I had a newfound respect for Pixar. Since then, I have heard all the other Pixar commentaries, the Donnie Darko commentary (which explains a lot,) and a few others. I have realized that they are usually the best, and most informative special feature on the DVD.
If you hear just one commentary, make it the Tropic Thunder actor's commentary. It's as funny as the movie.
I know exactly what you mean. I would LOVE to have a PS3, but I'd be pretty much breaking the bank buying this one. The thing is, two movies recently came out that I would love to have on Blu-Ray (Dark Knight and Wall-E.) I highly doubt any player, including the PS3, will come down in price anytime soon. Maybe next Christmas, but I REALLY don't want to wait that long. Movies are my passion, and It's just killing me having to watch them on DVD, while everyone else gets the glory of High Def.
Well, I've been looking for a cheap player for a while, and I think I've found it in the Olevia BD-100. It's going for $150 at Target, which sounds like a steal. HOWEVER, I've been getting mixed messages on whether it's a Profile 1.0 or 1.1 player. To my understanding, 1.1 can play the movie and all of it's special features other than the ones that require internet connectivity. Is this correct? Do you know what profile this player is (or where I can find out?) Will every movie work with profile 1.1? Am I missing anything significant with profile 2.0?
I know this is a lot of questions, but I've been doing a bunch of research and I can't seem to get any straight answers. Any help would be GREATLY appreciated.
I am also looking at the Memorex Blu Ray Player that goes for $160 at Amazon. Same questions apply to this.
At 12/20/08 05:44 AM, Lizzardis wrote: Iy's free though, just create one then click the link above, further up the page. Its a 10.2mb file so i'd go get a drink while your wating for it to download
lol at your slow internets! It took me literally 7 seconds to download!
This.
Car insurance for women only? What the fuck.
It almost looks like a parody. From their website:
Unlimited cover for shoes, make-up, handbags and clothing in your home.
At 11/6/08 02:21 AM, Zeistro wrote: I'd increase military spending from 5% to 12% of our budget.
We spend around 47% of our tax dollars on the military. Maybe you should do a little research first.
Who is they? Moar explanation needed.
You guys will really love this one:
-
Swamp Monster by not-an-alt-accountClick to view.
- Type
- Movie
- Rated
- Adults Only
-
Sonic NC-17 by DeathlyambienceClick to view.
- Type
- Movie
- Rated
- Ages 13+
Tina Fey. She's a hell of a writer, but I wouldn't want her to do standup.
If you want hardcore, get the angry faic tattooed on your arm.
Andrew.
Though people usually call me by my rather unique last name.
I made a lot of mistakes in my post, lol. I meant second best movie of the year, after Wall*E.
At 8/1/08 12:26 AM, DarkLotusJuggalo wrote: Scarecrow made a cameo appearance, if that, and while it was good to see him in the movie, his role was a bit lacking.
He was in the previous movie, also by Christopher Nolan, so it would suck to have two movies in a row centering on the Scarecrow (who sucks anyway.)
:As Two-Face became known to the world, one could only wonder why he wasn't brought about sooner, but of course this was done so another movie could be made, which would have the potential to progress the story even more.
I don't think you realized this, but that portion of the movie wasn't about Two Face the villain, but a great man's decent into madness. Harvey Dent's development is much more powerful, and contributes more to the story, than what he eventually becomes.
Also, if you didn't notice, he dies in the end, so he's not going to be in the next movie.
All in all, I liked the movie, but with the lacking role of other 'villans' and the crappy looking gear on Batman (hard plastic look to it), the movie had left me wanting, and expecting a bit more.
How oldschool did you say you were? If I recall correctly, all of the live action Batman uniforms had some sort of plastic on them, unless you're talking about the Adam West series, of course.
Anyway, stuff the looks great in comic books doesn't necessarily translate well to the silver screen. A tights wearing batman would have enemies laughing rather than fearing him. Top-secret high-tech military gear works so much better in instilling fear (a necessary component for a superhero who has no powers) and protecting him in the age of high-powered, technologically advanced criminals, mobsters, and terrorists.
Has anyone else felt this way about the movie, or am I the only one?
I'd say it was the second best movie, after Wall*E.
The only good Anime series is Cowboy Bebop.
At 7/11/08 11:13 AM, thecripple1 wrote: This is why america is retarded: people would rather play a game then do the real thing.
Damn those kids! If only they would jack cars and kill random people, rather than doing it in GTA, this country would be so much better!
At 7/14/08 11:32 PM, Superperpel wrote: I admit, Ratatouille and the Game Plan are good movies, but not memorable. They're popular for about a week, and plummet.
The Game Plan sucked, but Ratatouille was awesome. It was popular for WAY more than a week. It was nominated for 5 Oscars and won 1. It made bank at the box office. It has 95% at Rotten Tomatoes. Tell me how it sucks again?
The reason why you think these new movies suck, is because you haven't got that childlike mind that you had when you were five. You're old and cynical, and you aren't receptive to new ideas. I'll bet if Aladdin came out today, you would think it sucked too.
Besides, there's always the Princess and the Frog.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
I must know what happens next!
But seriously, it is pretty fucked up that all that student money goes to this christian thing.
The only good thing about this movie is the song during the end credits by Danny Elfman. HERE.
H-K-S wrote:
So far the GNAA got three million people.
How can you tell?
At 5/11/08 09:44 AM, McZero wrote: Someone Screen Cap
I will nto risk going in again. Firefox barley held against the super spam and viruses.
Your wish is my command.
