2 movie reviews:

[Sixty8panther]

Batman Dark Night: A+

I went into the theater thinking "yeah, like THIS can ever live up to the hype?!" ...but it did!

One of the best movies I've ever had the pleasure to get sucked into.

----

Double Penetration XXIV (just kidding!)

Death Proof: C-

I saw Planet Terror a couple months back, and it was enjoyable... the fake but

entertaining scratchy film quality, B-rated acting/cinomatography & special

effects worked together well... I was told that Death Proof sucked, but I like

Kurt Russell... well... Escape from N.Y. era Kurt anyway... and with all those

"merrican muscle cars in it I took a chance ad bought the DVD the other day.

Except for a few cool scenes: (F*** yeah to the '70 Nova ripping a POS

Honda Civic appart like a wet cardboard box) this movie sucked....

even the cars were weak, flat-black Nova aside.

I'm SICK TO DEATH of movies with '70 Challengers & '70 Chargers.

Whaty a freekin cliche.

If it was not for the Honda vs. Chevy sceene and hot chicks this movie

would get a solid F. Seriously. The acting was PAINFULLY crappy.

Hey Tarantino: how 'bout a '70 Chevelle, or '66 GTO, or '69 Olds 442...

honestly how many movies have to feature the '69-'71 Charger?

Dukes of Hazzard everything, Bullitt, Blade, Cannaball Run, Spy Hard,

Grand Theft Auto (the movie from 77) Fast & Furious, Christene,

the Mexican, Gone in 60 Sec. (original, 74), the French Connection,

and now this useless garbage movie...

As far as the '70 Chellenger it's an uglier, goofy-rippoff of the '67-'69

F-bodys, more so Camaro than Firebird, and even the original movie it

was featured in in 'frigerator white sucked.

WTF is the point of "Vanishing Point" anyway?

It sucks as a movie and it sucks even more as a CAR movie.

See dude on drugs, see dude on drugs drive fast ugly Mopar in a half

heartedly conceived plot, see idiot on drugs commit suicide for reasons

that I still, years later fail to understand.

I guess the lesson is don't get all hopped up on cocaine PCP & then drive

a muscle car like you stole it?!

Thanks I knew better than that when I was 17 y.o.

-----

Soooo.... how 'bout you guys? Thoughts? Differance of opinion?

Edited August 5, 2008 by Sixty8panther

[ocnblu]

The DP series didn't catch my attention until # XXV, the episode with no chicks.

[Intrepidation]

I still need to see The Dark Night

[Intrepidation]

At first I though D.P. was Donkey Punch.

Also, you're bicthing about a movie because it has a classic car with no B-Pillar...there's just no pleasing some people! Although the rest of the movie seemed to sound like ass anyway.

Edited August 5, 2008 by Dodgefan

[loki]

havne't seen dark night. a friend thinks there are a few scenes/ideas that are just to far fetched and don't flow with the rest of the movie, but I've heard it's a solid 9 out of 10

i'm pretty sure i've seen death proof. it wasn't great, but did have some well above average parts. it's been a while though.

[Sixty8panther]

The ugly-assed Challenger was a post, (weird huh!?)

and the Charger while pillarless, was all tacky & had

the hardtop greenhouse's lines ruined by a big, ugly,

flat black rollcage...

(I know it's a functional item but presantation is everything)

Edited August 5, 2008 by Sixty8panther

[Robert Hall]

The ugly-assed Challenger was a post, (weird huh!?)

and the Charger while pillarless, was all tacky & had

the hardtop greenhouse's lines ruined by a big, ugly,

flat black rollcage...

(I know it's a functional item but presantation is everything)

I hate that movie because of the pointless destruction of Challengers and Chargers...wouldn't have cared if they had used Camaros and Chevelles (Chevys are way more common than Mopars..)

The Challenger was a hardtop, the movie makers added fake door window frames for attaching the belts for the wierd hood surfing scene..

[Sixty8panther]

I hate that movie because of the pointless destruction of Challengers and Chargers...wouldn't have cared if they had used Camaros and Chevelles (Chevys are way more common than Mopars..)

You had me up until the part about camaros and chevelles.

I agree it was a very dumb way to wreck a Charger & the

less cool Challenger, but I think a dime-a dozen, ugly &

over-rated Mustang, IF anything, should have been used.

For every ONE '67-'69 Camaro there are about 3 Mustangs.

And a high percentage of the '64.5-'69 Stangs were

throwaway $h!boxes with I-6 motors & granny-mounted

automatic trans., crappy rear ends etc...

The Challenger was a hardtop, the movie makers added fake door window frames for attaching the belts for the wierd hood surfing scene..

That idea had crossed my mind, the door frames looked

quite factory... weird. For a split sec. I thought maybe

that was the reason, that whole entire scene, esp.

the acting, and as a matter of fact 99% of the movie

sucked so damn much it will take many years of well

done car-movies to undo the damage that was inflicted

to my cerebral cortex.

[Intrepidation]

Speaking of rare muscle cars, wait until you guys see what I took a picture of...it'll make some of you cry.

[Sixty8panther]

Oh, and I keep meaning to mention,

a '69-'71 Charger is one of the nicest, cleanest & sleekest muscle cars ever

made, and not one, NOT-A-ONE should ever be destroyed to make some

cool footage, esp. not post-1989... that's what CGI is for!

Even "Dukes of Hazzard" does not make up for the loss of one of these

magnificent Mopars.... maybe, just MAYBE I'll give the classic movie "Bullitt"

props enouogh that the directors destroying one Charger for it was

justifiable. Esp. since it was barelly a used car when the movie was filmed.

[Robert Hall]

Oh, and I keep meaning to mention,

a '69-'71 Charger is one of the nicest, cleanest & sleekest muscle cars ever

made, and not one, NOT-A-ONE should ever be destroyed to make some

cool footage, esp. not post-1989... that's what CGI is for!

Even "Dukes of Hazzard" does not make up for the loss of one of these

magnificent Mopars.... maybe, just MAYBE I'll give the classic movie "Bullitt"

props enouogh that the directors destroying one Charger for it was

justifiable. Esp. since it was barelly a used car when the movie was filmed.

Actually, they were '68-70. The '71-74 was a different style Charger (fuselage body). Personally, I hate seeing vintage cars destroyed in movies..there are so many generic FWD '80s-90s GM, Chrysler, Ford,Toyota, etc cars out there that movie makers could be destroying instead. And what is it with '71-72 Rivieras? Nearly every movie or TV show in the last 25 years with a boattail Riv has ended up destroying it...AUGGGGHHH.

[A Horse With No Name]

Actually, they were '68-70. The '71-74 was a different style Charger (fuselage body). Personally, I hate seeing vintage cars destroyed in movies..there are so many generic FWD '80s-90s GM, Chrysler, Ford,Toyota, etc cars out there that movie makers could be destroying instead. And what is it with '71-72 Rivieras? Nearly every movie or TV show in the last 25 years with a boattail Riv has ended up destroying it...AUGGGGHHH.

I agree on the vintage car thing.

Although I wouldn't mind seeing MODERN muscle cars used in chase scenes.

Chris

[Robert Hall]

I agree on the vintage car thing.

Although I wouldn't mind seeing MODERN muscle cars used in chase scenes.

Chris

Yes...as much as I usually hate remakes, a modern Bullitt with an '08 Charger chasing an '08 Mustang GT could be fun..

[Intrepidation]

I agree on the vintage car thing.

Although I wouldn't mind seeing MODERN muscle cars used in chase scenes.

Chris

Although they are less likely to crash because unles a ricer FWD Civic or a `69 Camaro they can actually go around a corner at speed.

[A Horse With No Name]

Actually I think the G8 would make a cool movie car.

Chris

[FAPTurbo]

The DP series didn't catch my attention until # XXV, the episode with no chicks.

Thank God, I'm not the only one with his mind in the gutter.

[Sixty8panther]

Yes indeed, that gen. was 1968 to 1970....

Not sure wht happened there besides, posibly, lack of sleep.

And as far as '69 Camaros DF: ever heard of Trans Am racing?

Ummm... yeah, '69 Camaros weather stock or upfitted for

Trans Am were formidable cars suspension/handeling wise.

That's quite an ignorant generalization, esp. with the parallel

comparison with a "RICER CIVIC".

If you're going to make fun of a '60s cars handeling, make it

the Toyotas of that era, which, despite ther diminutive size,

had their @$$es handed to them on the racetracks by BMW &

later Datsun.... Honda made not much besides motorcycles.

[Intrepidation]

Yes indeed, that gen. was 1968 to 1970....

Not sure wht happened there besides, posibly, lack of sleep.

And as far as '69 Camaros DF: ever heard of Trans Am racing?

Ummm... yeah, '69 Camaros weather stock or upfitted for

Trans Am were formidable cars suspension/handeling wise.

That's quite an ignorant generalization, esp. with the parallel

comparison with a "RICER CIVIC".

If you're going to make fun of a '60s cars handeling, make it

the Toyotas of that era, which, despite ther diminutive size,

had their @$$es handed to them on the racetracks by BMW &

later Datsun.... Honda made not much besides motorcycles.

You know as well as I that if there is one thing modern performance cars are good at, it's handling, and not just going fast in a straight line. You cannot sit there and tell me that a `69 Camaro will say, run a lap around the `Ring as fast as the new one can. If so then show me proof, I'd love to see it.

Then show me a Corvette of the era do it as fast as the new ZR-1.

On a side note, I wonder if I had said `71 Challenger instead if you would have retalliated, or was it that I just mentioned the Camro and not the OMFG RIPOFF!!!111 Challenger.

Edited August 5, 2008 by Dodgefan

[Sixty8panther]

ok.

what the heck are you driving at?

show me a '71 Challenger that can handle like a C6-Z06 around the ring?

The point is, just because the '69 Camaro does not handle like a 2010

Camaro, or Challenger... does not mean it sucks at handeling.

It was a new car in the fall of 1968, back then it was a GREAT handeling car!

Let'ss put a STOCK '69 Camaro Z/28 against the best BMW made in

1969 around the ring... I bet YOU I know which one will win!

[Sixty8panther]

.... and thus comparing it to a riced out piece of $hit Japanese

turd-can is damn-near unforgivable!

[Intrepidation]

ok.

what the heck are you driving at?

show me a '71 Challenger that can handle like a C6-Z06 around the ring?

The point is, just because the '69 Camaro does not handle like a 2010

Camaro, or Challenger... does not mean it sucks at handeling.

It was a new car in the fall of 1968, back then it was a GREAT handeling car!

Let'ss put a STOCK '69 Camaro Z/28 against the best BMW made in

1969 around the ring... I bet YOU I know which one will win!

Good handling "for the time" does not always equate to good handling by todays' standards, and I like cars that handle well by today's standards, and not by standards 30 years ago.

I like cruisers to, don't get me wrong, but if I want a car that can really handle I'll buy a newer one.

Edited August 5, 2008 by Dodgefan

[Sixty8panther]

THAT'S THE KICKER!!!!

So spend $30,000 on a loaded 2010 Camaro, or you can

spend $15,000 on a beater '69 and put the other $15,000

into fulyl adjustable, independant suspension in all four

corners, tube-chassis subframe & aftermarket brakes w/

12" rotors and you will be shocked which car handles

better, and here's a clue it's the one with NO B-pillar.

Either way, if we hold ALL old cars to the 2008 Standard

than your sucks because it has a severe lack of storage

containers, cup-holders and it lacks HD radio, nevermind

OnStar or a built-into-the dash navigation system.

You see how silly that is?

[Robert Hall]

THAT'S THE KICKER!!!!

So spend $30,000 on a loaded 2010 Camaro, or you can

spend $15,000 on a beater '69 and put the other $15,000

into fulyl adjustable, independant suspension in all four

corners, tube-chassis subframe & aftermarket brakes w/

12" rotors and you will be shocked which car handles

better, and here's a clue it's the one with NO B-pillar.

Either way, if we hold ALL old cars to the 2008 Standard

than your sucks because it has a severe lack of storage

containers, cup-holders and it lacks HD radio, nevermind

OnStar or a built-into-the dash navigation system.

You see how silly that is?

I'd still rather have the new car...and to build something like that out of a '69 would be more like $50k, not $30k. Old cars are neat, I like looking at them at car shows and driving mine occasionally ('69 Mustang, '87 Mustang), but I'd rather have a modern car..

Edited August 5, 2008 by moltar

[Intrepidation]

THAT'S THE KICKER!!!!

So spend $30,000 on a loaded 2010 Camaro, or you can

spend $15,000 on a beater '69 and put the other $15,000

into fulyl adjustable, independant suspension in all four

corners, tube-chassis subframe & aftermarket brakes w/

12" rotors and you will be shocked which car handles

better, and here's a clue it's the one with NO B-pillar.

Either way, if we hold ALL old cars to the 2008 Standard

than your sucks because it has a severe lack of storage

containers, cup-holders and it lacks HD radio, nevermind

OnStar or a built-into-the dash navigation system.

You see how silly that is?

I think you missed the point I was making earlier. I said that a newer car would handle better than an older car. And I'm talking stock, not with $15,000-30,000 worth of work and parts added on to make it handle like that.

[Sixty8panther]

Well... in any case please refrain from comparing

'69 Camaros, or pretty much any blue-blooded

American muscle car to a "riced out Civic".

It's insulting.

[balthazar]

>>"...to build something like that out of a '69 would be more like $50k, not $30k."<<

No way. Oh; you can spend that much, and obviously the tip-in price of the '69 can vary wildly, but it doesn't cost 10s of thousands to make a '69 Camaro handle like a new car.

>>"I said that a newer car would handle better than an older car. And I'm talking stock, not with $15,000-30,000 worth of work and parts added on to make it handle like that."<<

You don't think there's thousand's of dollars in the suspension of a new car?

How about you take 2 cars, 1 vintage & 1 new (of the same type), spend the same amount of money, and be surprised how close the 2 turn out.

Or... put the same suspensions under the same cars and see how they handle vs, each other.

People dismiss vintage stuff routinely as if the suspension design was fundamentally different than modern cars. Sure- if we're talking '30s or '40s, but since the '50s, the fundamentals have remained largely the same. Case in point: '59 Buick: FRT- forged 'tubular' lower A-Arm, stamped steel uppers, coil over shocks, threaded bushings, ball joints, 12" aluminum brakes. MID: driveshaft loop. RR: coils, Panhard bar, live axle, 12" brakes. Except for IRS, not much different from many 'modern' cars, plus a few extras. You think with $2500 I can't run with a G8 ?? Wanna bet?

[ocnblu]

balthy: that's a damn FINE ASS '59 Pontiac in your sig. Sexy! Edited August 6, 2008 by ocnblu

[Sixty8panther]

Balthazar's Invicta will shatter convention amongst many of you when it's done.

I wouldn't be shocked if it pulled close to 1.0g on the skidpad... those are some

meaty tires under that beast, & the work that has been done thusfar is very

impressive, I hope at some point after it is completed I am the lucky recipient

of a death-ride in that torque monster, should be enough to impress anyone

short of Jay Leno. :wink:

[A Horse With No Name]

balthy: that's a damn FINE ASS '59 Pontiac in your sig. Sexy!

+1

Chris

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I've seen "The Dark Knight" 2 times now...

I was VERY reluctant to see it because of the Heath Ledger thing. Originally, I didn't think he wads the right actor for the role and then when he passed, I thought "oh no, now everyone is going to be a fan of the movie simply for that reason"

I must say though... I was F-L-O-O-R-E-D... The movie is amazing. I'd give it a 10/10 any day. Ledger gives an Oscar worthy performance and sincerely deserves the award if he gets it. I didn't think anyone could LIVE a character more than Johnny Depp did in Pirates. However, Ledger proved that thought wrong. The movie doesn't even have to be a Batman movie to be a good movie, the story is that good. And the characters are so multi-dimensional that it's a drama just as much as an action.

Ledger gave a perfect performance... The story of Harvey Two Face was BEAUTIFULLY done and everything all the way down to the way Batman is ALWAYS shot in the dark as a demon-esque, divided figure (during the interaction with Dent and Gordon) is sheer perfection IMO.

As for Death Proof... It's not worth the plastic it's embedded in. Planet Terror (Robert Rodriguez half of that venture) was SO MUCH BETTER!

[Robert Hall]

I've seen "The Dark Knight" 2 times now...

I was VERY reluctant to see it because of the Heath Ledger thing. Originally, I didn't think he wads the right actor for the role and then when he passed, I thought "oh no, now everyone is going to be a fan of the movie simply for that reason"

I must say though... I was F-L-O-O-R-E-D... The movie is amazing. I'd give it a 10/10 any day. Ledger gives an Oscar worthy performance and sincerely deserves the award if he gets it. I didn't think anyone could LIVE a character more than Johnny Depp did in Pirates. However, Ledger proved that thought wrong. The movie doesn't even have to be a Batman movie to be a good movie, the story is that good. And the characters are so multi-dimensional that it's a drama just as much as an action.

Ledger gave a perfect performance... The story of Harvey Two Face was BEAUTIFULLY done and everything all the way down to the way Batman is ALWAYS shot in the dark as a demon-esque, divided figure (during the interaction with Dent and Gordon) is sheer perfection IMO.

As for Death Proof... It's not worth the plastic it's embedded in. Planet Terror (Robert Rodriguez half of that venture) was SO MUCH BETTER!

Loved Dark Knight...saw it twice, regular and IMAX. Excellent movie, better than Batman Begins which I thought was excellent also. It really is more of a dark crime drama than a superhero movie. As far as superhero movies this summer, I loved Iron Man, but The Incredible Hulk, not so much.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Loved Dark Knight...saw it twice, regular and IMAX. Excellent movie, better than Batman Begins which I thought was excellent also. It really is more of a dark crime drama than a superhero movie. As far as superhero movies this summer, I loved Iron Man, but The Incredible Hulk, not so much.

I didn't see The Incredible Hulk, despite being a huge Edward Norton fan. I thought the first one looked horrible and never watched it, but I expected this one to be better since it pretty much was Marvel saying "Hey, we screwed up..."

The Marvel movies just aren't that good anymore IMO.

I thought Spiderman II and X-Men (My favorite marvel comic) II were excellent. But Spiderman III lacked substance and talent and X-Men III, while good, wasn't epic enough.

As for Iron Man... It was well acted but, meh...

The preview for The Watchman really ot my attention but I'm not sure if it'll be worth seeing. It looks 'snazzy' but the story could go wither way.

[Robert Hall]

The preview for The Watchman really ot my attention but I'm not sure if it'll be worth seeing. It looks 'snazzy' but the story could go wither way.

It looked interesting...I'm not familiar w/ the source material (1980's graphic novel) but some coworkers that knew have been all abuzz about it...