Is that an open invitation? How long will it take to drive from Alberta to... Wherever you are?
Fuck it, I'm on my way anyway. Providence will guide me to you, and your alcohol, right?
Another fargin' Transformers movie?
- Thread starter DarkAudit
- Start date
- Status
Fuck it, I'm on my way anyway. Providence will guide me to you, and your alcohol, right?
Those are pretty good, actually:
The American Flag drink recipe
Other names: The Patriot
Ingredients
Mixing Instructions
- 1 part Creme de Cacao, white
- 1 part Curacao, blue
- 1 part Grenadine
This is a layered shot, with the end result being a layer of red, then white and blue. Fill the shot 1/3 of the way with grenadine. Using the back of a spoon (bar spoon if you have one), pour in the white creme de cacao. Use the same technique to fill the final 1/3 with blue curacao. Enjoy the effect.
I can't find a flaw in your logic.
The reason Buzz did such a great job on the set is it wasn't the first time he acted on a movie set.
Anyway, getting back to the movie, the first movie showcased bad acting, a weak female lead with no real purpose in the film, a storyline with multiple plot holes (more plot holes than Bush's "terrorists were behind the 911 attack" gig. Building #7 didn't collapse on it's own.) and over the top action. The second movie showcased bad acting, a weak female lead with no real purpose in the film, a storyline with multiple plot holes (more plot holes than a lone gunman taking down JFK.) and over the top action.
So if you watched the first two movies, thought they sucked, and still shelled out your hard earned cash for this one you can officially call yourself Michael Bay's bitch because he got you. You knew it'd be more of the same.
Meanwhile Roger Ebert wants to whistle a tune but without a lower jaw all he can do is dribble.
Anyway, getting back to the movie, the first movie showcased bad acting, a weak female lead with no real purpose in the film, a storyline with multiple plot holes (more plot holes than Bush's "terrorists were behind the 911 attack" gig. Building #7 didn't collapse on it's own.) and over the top action. The second movie showcased bad acting, a weak female lead with no real purpose in the film, a storyline with multiple plot holes (more plot holes than a lone gunman taking down JFK.) and over the top action.
So if you watched the first two movies, thought they sucked, and still shelled out your hard earned cash for this one you can officially call yourself Michael Bay's bitch because he got you. You knew it'd be more of the same.
Meanwhile Roger Ebert wants to whistle a tune but without a lower jaw all he can do is dribble.
J
Jiarn
It was funny till you added the other conspiracy theories, then your troll was showing.
I thought it was the tasteless shots at Roger Ebert that showed his trolling.
Yeah... pretty low there "Steve".
Wouldn't know, maybe you like that mediocre game more than I did. As one who expressed oneself after experiencing it, I needed no alcohol.
/shrug
Could have helped, I was dehydrated after shedding all those tears of boredom.
I thought it was obvious he was trolling in the first post, I was just amazed he went there.
No one had any doubt it would make a shitload of money.
That may have been over the line. Was trying my best "Charlie" impersonation. Perhaps it's best to leave Charlie to Charlie. Apologies to those offended.
I am a Ryan Dunn fan but that had nothing to do with the post. I was just trying to display the absurdity of the criticism of Transformers Dark of the Moon. You can ridiculously pick a movie apart. And with the third being no different in format than the first two there's really not anything to complain about. If the first two were on par with "The Godfather" and then we got this one, yeah, beat the hell out of the movie, but when all three follow the exact same format at that point it becomes like an abusive relationship that one just can't get away from. The dig at Ebert was nothing more than a low blow at a psychical characteristic (intended no differently than calling someone fat, geek, etc.) was meant in jest and not to be mean spirited.
figmentPez
Staff member
On the main forums page, users found this page by searching for: "why didnt megan fox return in t3?"
Bwahahahaha!
Bwahahahaha!
That didn't sound like Charlie at all, except maybe a drugged up Charlie Sheen.
The only thing offended was humor itself.
D
Disconnected
I liked tf 1, 2 and 3.
i have been Bay's bitch since "The Rock".
i have been Bay's bitch since "The Rock".
J
Jiarn
I don't think this is a thread about if people enjoyed the film, but if it was a bad film by ratings standards.
I have zero interest in these movies, but I almost wish I'd been at this one's opening night in my college town, because it sounds like opening nights for this had fun, excited audiences. I know Spoony hated it in his review as he was talking about how game the audience was before the movie started and during the movie, but that's what I love about going to the movies, and audiences are so rarely fired up these days.
D
Disconnected
thank you for opinion, I will take it under advisement.
You might even subscribe to his newsletter?
J
Jiarn
Well I guess I worded it wrong, I meant that it sounded like you were correcting someone instead of stating an opinion. My mistake.
But what's the number of ticket sales?
I... what the... oh, BRAVO, Steve. *golfclap*
Haven't found that data yet. Everyone is fapping over the dollar signs.
But... according to EW, Spider-Man 2 sold more tickets in spite of a lower take.
Which is my point anyway. Grosses are just big numbers to numb the public with. Says nothing about how many people actually bought tickets (and less about how many STAYED
).
J
Jiarn
They showed this in 3D, with the higher ticket prices from those sales it's very obvious it didn't have higher tickets, just higher $ tags.
With an attitude like that you'll be missing Titanic in 3D. http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/05/19/titanic-3d-rerelease/
- Status