Felix_Leiter

i think the cliff bar still wins here

why would you care if it was sinclair, guetta, danny, or clamaran?

Jody Wisternoff from WAY OUT WEST kiss mix this mix is pretty fuckin dope.. http://www.sendspace.com/file/b77t07

shed vomit too

taken from ugo.com

one word.. 'ouch' there are plenty of spoilers so be warned.. Can't say when. Can't say where. Can't say how it was presented. But I've seen Superman Returns. And I'm sorry to report that it's an unmitigated creative disaster. The action is virtually nonexistent, save for one set piece in the middle of the film revolving around a crashing airplane and another sequence at the end where Metropolis falls victim to an earthquake (the effects were still raw in this sequence - just think of it as a better version of the frozen lake in Superman III). Brandon Routh is listless. Kate Bosworth is shot to look unattractive (why is she wearing a wig?), a huge accomplishment considering how beautiful she is in person. Kevin Spacey plays Lex as a direct continuation of Gene Hackman's super silly portrayal (this time with a collection of wigs he never leaves home without). He's really a mean guy - he locks Lois in a closet. And in an embarrassing sequence, Lois enters a boat only to be terrified at discovering the identity of its owner by seeing a row of neatly lined wigs in a room (think Chekov and Botany Bay in Star Trek II, but a truly stupid version of it). At this point, I was in shock at what I was seeing on the screen. This is the Superman movie we have waited for since 1987? Actually, make that 1981. Gone is everything that John Byrne's Man of Steel re-launch in 1986 created, which has permeated through the mainstream via Paul Dini's animated series and the WB's Smallville. There's no Luthorcorp. No Mercy. Just wigs - lots of them, and a lame, out of touch and an extremely out of date love story. And once again, a grand devious plot for Luthor to implement a scenario in which he has the most coveted real estate on the planet. At least in Superman: The Movie the plan made some kind of sense. Here, it is something out of a bad episode of He-Man. There are extended scenes involving Lois' son playing piano with great expertise and a rather long and pointless Chinese food family dinner sequence. Are you depressed and horrified yet? Those craving a kick-ass summer superhero extravaganza must wait until next May when Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3 opens. In this movie, Superman doesn't have any formidable villains. No Kryptonians like Zod or Darkseid or Braniac. No Doomsday to pose a potentially lethal threat. No Bizarro. No Metallo. Just Lex, a couple of his thugs (right out an episode of Rockford Files) and Parker Posey doing her best (worst) to fill Ms. Teschmacher's shoes (this character will be truly offensive to Superman fans everywhere, especially when she starts playing make-believe wedding with dolls on Lex's train track). Lex and his thugs bumble through the story with a cockeyed plan to use the crystal that Clark threw into the snow, which created the Fortress of Solitude (in the first movie), to create a new Krypton on earth. In the process, they plan to destroy all the other continents so that Lex and his band of thugs can become the primo landlords on the planet. I have seen better villain plots on Sesame Street. This plot sounds lame by evenbad '50s movie standard - the execution on film is even lamer (in all fairness, the effects for this sequence were not completed - there was a lot of animatics). As Lex says to Lois, people will be forced to max their credit cards out to pay him rent. I just have one question for Bryan Singer and his lame writers: If you've killed billions of people in a globally cataclysmic event, what sort of social economic system would still be in place where you can use people's credit cards? Come on, Bryan, this is the best you could come up with? None of this seems to have been on the minds of director Bryan Singer and his lame writing partners, Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris. They're more concerned about what's happened in Lois Lane's life since Superman disappeared several years ago and how Clark and his alter ego now fit into the picture. And boy, does it feel like a daytime soap - a bad one. Lois Lane's love interest, Richard White (played by James Marsden) has almost as big and heroic a role as Routh's Superman/Clark (he's the one who saves Lois at the end). Not that it matters - Jimmy Olsen seems to be the one who has big eyes for Clark and is hoping to land him on the rebound. And the big twist at the end - Lois' son is actually the one she conceived with Superman (we assume in Superman II). Thus, the Man of Steel whispers to his boy at the end of the film, "You will be different. You will sometimes feel like an outcast. But you will not be alone. You will never be alone." Warner Brothers was wise to pull their Super Bowl spot. They will yet be wiser to disrupt all AOL instant messaging during the film's opening Weekend as the stink of this turkey will travel faster than a speeding bullet. Because they've got nothing. This is Wild Wild West all over again. This is Superman by way of 1998's Godzilla and 2004's Van Helsing. Don't be fooled by the teaser trailer and the Comic Con footage with John Williams' music and Marlon Brando's voiceover. Brandon Routh's acting is nonexistent. Kevin Spacey's Luthor is hokey and plain painful to watch, considering the evolution of the Luthor character since Superman II in both comics and on TV. The studio has an expensive turkey on their hands, and they will milk it for all it's worth with a last-minute marketing blitz to get the best opening bang possible from an unsuspecting public. When Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest opens the next week, this film is doomed. We're talking a Hulk-like drop of 70-75 percent. Warner Brothers should be ashamed of themselves for thinking that just because Singer did a great job on adapting the X-Men comic books to the silver screen (I guess Tom DeSanto, LS Donnor and Ralph Winter were chopped liver), he would do the same justice to Siegel and Shuster's creation. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Superman is not the same as X-Men. It's this ignorant attitude that used to give movies based on a comic books a bad rep. Singer seems to be blinded by a f*****sh love for Superman: The Movie and its 1981 sequel - so much that he completely ignores the fact that this character was created 45 years before those films and has evolved to great lengths since Superman II. Superman Returns will play to only two audiences: senior citizens and five-year-olds. Somebody please send Bryan a trade paperback of John Byrne's Man of Steel, Jeph Loeb's Superman For All Seasons, Mark Waid's Birthright, DVDs of Smallville and the animated series. When this movie fails, everyone is going to blame the character. It's not the character. It's the filmmaker's vision that utterly fails this incredible, universal, iconic story.

you're precious.. a little treasure that Daryl is very lucky to have

today i have fiber one honey cluster cereal and i add dried cranberries and almond slices and some coffee

i didnt mean healthiest.. but for me the most eatable.and it does look like a little lump of shit

they're actually not that bad.. i think out of all those bars, Cliff Bars are one of the best

dont lie..im sure youve asked her to dress up at least like Princess Leia once

i wouldnt be surprised if that was a pic of SugarnSpice :laugh:

so they are finally releasing the original cut of star wars on dvd 'Star Wars' goes back to basics Updated 5/3/2006 6:43 PM ET By Mike Snider, USA TODAY Die-hard Star Wars fans soon can see the original theatrical versions of the first three Star Wars films on DVD. Even though George Lucas adamantly declared 2004's digitally restored Star Wars Trilogy DVDs the definitive versions of his movies, fans have held out hope for DVDs of the originals. Their wishes will be granted Sept. 12 when Fox releases new two-disc DVDs ($30 each) of Star Wars (since retitled as Episode IV: A New Hope), The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi that include the films as they first appeared in theaters, along with the new, restored versions (now available in the four-disc $70 Star Wars Trilogy). The individual DVDs will be taken off the market on Dec. 31, a strategy that Disney uses on many of its classic releases. Lucas re-released his original three Star Wars films in theaters in 1997 with inserted scenes and improved special effects. Those "special editions" were further enhanced for the four-disc DVD set. With the original versions coming to DVD, here's what you'll see again: • In Star Wars, Han Solo shoots a bounty hunter named Greedo. Lucas changed the scene later so it seemed that Greedo draws first, and changed it again for the DVD so that they appear to shoot simultaneously. • In Empire Strikes Back, the ice creature that captures Luke Skywalker gets less screen time. • In Jedi, Sebastian Shaw returns as Anakin in the movie's final scene. Lucas substituted Hayden Christiansen, who plays Anakin in the more recent films, for the 2004 DVD. Back in 2004, Lucas told the New York Post, "The special edition is the one I wanted out there." This new set of DVDs does not constitute "George changing his mind," says Lucasfilm's Jim Ward. "What we've always said is George viewed the revised versions of the films as the definitive versions." Fan attachment to the originals is strong. The movies topped entertainment website IGN.com's recent chart of Top 25 Most Wanted DVDs. "People want the option of having the movies that they remember and people are opposed to George Lucas' revisionist tendencies," says the site's Chris Carle. The original films' video quality will not match up to that of the restored versions. "It is state of the art, as of 1993, and that's not as good as state of the art 2006," Ward says.

its Derby

yes.. believe it or not :laugh:

whos talking about it?surely not you.. i can pretty much predict your responses at this point

it depends.. im sure if the satanic music had curse words and such then sure.. but there are many songs i play in my office that are "anti-religion" but NO one ever tells me to turn it off..as for the email sig, that would be inappropriate

chatroom heating up

pwned

meaing without the internet he would be celebantbut :laugh: at your analogy

just share in our dislike for sleazeballs

well if he didnt have the internet then he might as well become a priest.

but thats your own interpretation of it.. blessed is a valid word and does not necessarily have to be religious..if she put it in her email sig.. its not her problem if you take it religiously.. now if she had "Jesus Loves You", then youd have an argument.

so true..i dont get why he posts..its not like this thread was titled "Free Cocaine" or something