Roger Ebert dead at 70 after battle with cancer

Roger Ebert dead at 70 after battle with cancer

Post by ca1hou » Mon, 08 Apr 2013 15:10:10


Quote:

> On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 23:02:29 -0700 (PDT), ca1houn



> >> On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 10:08:12 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777



> >> >> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 04:58:52 -0700 (PDT), Raja The Great


> >> >> >I never liked the cunt. Prejudiced fool. Anyway Rip

> >> >> prejudiced how? didn't like slumdog?

> >> >> he was married to a black woman btw.

> >> >> bob

> >> >He was prejudiced against horror movies and B movies in general. Why

> >> >do you always have a racist angle to your thoughts?

> >> who likes horror shows anyhow? oh wait ! I forgot you are married to

> >> one !!!

> >That not fare Dave you really think he would pay for a ugly ***?  did he marry because she cooks and cleans well.

> it all be what he cud afford plus he ain't no caruso himself.

Oh Casanova Raja not well in all fairness he is Indian.  Only thing that come from is population growth and big titties.  Oh curry which i will never firour out why people eat that shit
 
 
 

Roger Ebert dead at 70 after battle with cancer

Post by TT » Mon, 08 Apr 2013 22:09:58

7.4.2013 5:07, Court_1 kirjoitti:

Quote:




>>>>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 04:58:52 -0700 (PDT), Raja The Great


>>>>>> I never liked the cunt. Prejudiced fool. Anyway Rip

>>>>> prejudiced how? didn't like slumdog?

>>>>> he was married to a black woman btw.

>>>>> bob

>>>> He was prejudiced against horror movies and B movies in general. Why
>>>> do you always have a racist angle to your thoughts?

>>> Well, let's be honest, most of those slasher horror movies are silly
>>> as hell. I like a good horror film but there are very few good horror/
>>> slasher films. A good horror movie for me is something like the
>>> original The Fly from 1958. Name one really excellent horror/slasher
>>> film. Ebert liked some good horror films like the original Dracula or
>>> Frankenstein, those were good horror films, not some of the trashy
>>> slasher films that are made today.

>>> For example, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is talked about as one of the
>>> best horror slasher films. I saw it a long time ago and it was ok for
>>> what it was, but the last 20 minutes or so of that movie was stupidity
>>> and the ending was weak. There are better horror movies than that one.

>> What about the Twilight movies ? They're supposed to be quite horrifying.

> By that do you mean that the Twilight movies are horrifyingly bad? ;)

Was just about to say the same thing: They are horrifying but for all
the wrong reasons. In same way as listening to Take that is horrifying.

Quote:
> I do not get Pattinson and Stewart as would be actors at all. ????

If I'm perfectly honest I don't think the movies are *that* bad...

But Pattinson and Stewart must be the worst two leads ever to star in
same film... both of them are just horrible horrible actors. They give a
new meaning to the phrase "wooden acting"...

 
 
 

Roger Ebert dead at 70 after battle with cancer

Post by grif » Mon, 08 Apr 2013 22:43:08


Quote:
> 7.4.2013 5:07, Court_1 kirjoitti:




>>>>>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 04:58:52 -0700 (PDT), Raja The Great


>>>>>>> I never liked the cunt. Prejudiced fool. Anyway Rip

>>>>>> prejudiced how? didn't like slumdog?

>>>>>> he was married to a black woman btw.

>>>>>> bob

>>>>> He was prejudiced against horror movies and B movies in general. Why
>>>>> do you always have a racist angle to your thoughts?

>>>> Well, let's be honest, most of those slasher horror movies are silly
>>>> as hell. I like a good horror film but there are very few good horror/
>>>> slasher films. A good horror movie for me is something like the
>>>> original The Fly from 1958. Name one really excellent horror/slasher
>>>> film. Ebert liked some good horror films like the original Dracula or
>>>> Frankenstein, those were good horror films, not some of the trashy
>>>> slasher films that are made today.

>>>> For example, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is talked about as one of the
>>>> best horror slasher films. I saw it a long time ago and it was ok for
>>>> what it was, but the last 20 minutes or so of that movie was stupidity
>>>> and the ending was weak. There are better horror movies than that one.

>>> What about the Twilight movies ? They're supposed to be quite
>>> horrifying.

>> By that do you mean that the Twilight movies are horrifyingly bad? ;)

> Was just about to say the same thing: They are horrifying but for all
> the wrong reasons. In same way as listening to Take that is horrifying.

>> I do not get Pattinson and Stewart as would be actors at all. ????

> If I'm perfectly honest I don't think the movies are *that* bad...

> But Pattinson and Stewart must be the worst two leads ever to star in
> same film... both of them are just horrible horrible actors. They give a
> new meaning to the phrase "wooden acting"...

Verhoeven's Showgirls was also another scary movie. Forgot about that one.

 
 
 

Roger Ebert dead at 70 after battle with cancer

Post by TT » Mon, 08 Apr 2013 22:59:44

7.4.2013 16:43, grif kirjoitti:

Quote:

>> 7.4.2013 5:07, Court_1 kirjoitti:




>>>>>>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 04:58:52 -0700 (PDT), Raja The Great


>>>>>>>> I never liked the cunt. Prejudiced fool. Anyway Rip

>>>>>>> prejudiced how? didn't like slumdog?

>>>>>>> he was married to a black woman btw.

>>>>>>> bob

>>>>>> He was prejudiced against horror movies and B movies in general. Why
>>>>>> do you always have a racist angle to your thoughts?

>>>>> Well, let's be honest, most of those slasher horror movies are silly
>>>>> as hell. I like a good horror film but there are very few good horror/
>>>>> slasher films. A good horror movie for me is something like the
>>>>> original The Fly from 1958. Name one really excellent horror/slasher
>>>>> film. Ebert liked some good horror films like the original Dracula or
>>>>> Frankenstein, those were good horror films, not some of the trashy
>>>>> slasher films that are made today.

>>>>> For example, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is talked about as one of the
>>>>> best horror slasher films. I saw it a long time ago and it was ok for
>>>>> what it was, but the last 20 minutes or so of that movie was stupidity
>>>>> and the ending was weak. There are better horror movies than that one.

>>>> What about the Twilight movies ? They're supposed to be quite
>>>> horrifying.

>>> By that do you mean that the Twilight movies are horrifyingly bad? ;)

>> Was just about to say the same thing: They are horrifying but for all
>> the wrong reasons. In same way as listening to Take that is horrifying.

>>> I do not get Pattinson and Stewart as would be actors at all. ????

>> If I'm perfectly honest I don't think the movies are *that* bad...

>> But Pattinson and Stewart must be the worst two leads ever to star in
>> same film... both of them are just horrible horrible actors. They give a
>> new meaning to the phrase "wooden acting"...

> Verhoeven's Showgirls was also another scary movie. Forgot about that one.

Yeah, it's pretty bad...

However a friend of mine likes it. I think because of Gershon's acting
talent...
http://www.blogginginamerica.com/images/gina-gershon-showgirls-beer-f...

Googling at some pics about it, I realize I haven't ever seen the full
movie... or at least the rated version. I've been missing stuff obviously!

 
 
 

Roger Ebert dead at 70 after battle with cancer

Post by Court_ » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 07:50:03


Quote:
> But Pattinson and Stewart must be the worst two leads ever to star in
> same film... both of them are just horrible horrible actors. They give a
> new meaning to the phrase "wooden acting"...

They are both beyond awful. What about Channing Tatum who is in every
third movie it seems. He is a complete buffoon, how does he get acting
work? I can't watch a lot of these younger actors today, they are
terrible.
 
 
 

Roger Ebert dead at 70 after battle with cancer

Post by grif » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 08:25:57


Quote:

>> But Pattinson and Stewart must be the worst two leads ever to star in
>> same film... both of them are just horrible horrible actors. They give a
>> new meaning to the phrase "wooden acting"...

> They are both beyond awful. What about Channing Tatum who is in every
> third movie it seems. He is a complete buffoon, how does he get acting
> work? I can't watch a lot of these younger actors today, they are
> terrible.

Tom Hardy was excellent in Bronson. Jennifer Lawrence I liked in Silver
Linings.
 
 
 

Roger Ebert dead at 70 after battle with cancer

Post by Patrick Keho » Sun, 14 Apr 2013 00:44:51

Quote:


> > But Pattinson and Stewart must be the worst two leads ever to star in

> > same film... both of them are just horrible horrible actors. They give a

> > new meaning to the phrase "wooden acting"...

> They are both beyond awful. What about Channing Tatum who is in every

> third movie it seems. He is a complete buffoon, how does he get acting

> work? I can't watch a lot of these younger actors today, they are

> terrible.

Side Notes: What else can a man with the name 'Channing' do for a living?

Love the story of how Bruce Willis got the part as David Addison on Moonlighting... but I digress...

P