My netflix picks for this week with reviews

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Equilibrium is insane, you need to reevaluate

[/ QUOTE ]

Reevaluate what? I said it's a good action flick but it's premise is unoriginal. Are you saying that it is an original storyline?

[/ QUOTE ]

So for a movie to be great is must have an original storyline? Screw you, it was a great action movie.

BTW for fans of gun kata - "Wimmer has said his own vision of gun Kata can be seen in most of it's glory in his next film, Ultraviolet."

[jokerthief]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Equilibrium is insane, you need to reevaluate

[/ QUOTE ]

Reevaluate what? I said it's a good action flick but it's premise is unoriginal. Are you saying that it is an original storyline?

[/ QUOTE ]

So for a movie to be great is must have an original storyline? Screw you, it was a great action movie.
"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. A great movie absolutly does have to be original. There is nothing original at all with equilibrium. I've seen the ethical questions that it lays out a bunch of times before in works like Harrison Bergeron and 1984 and I've seen the cinematography and action scenes before in the Matrix. Had this movie come out before the Matrix I would have liked it much better because the action sequences would have been new. If the screen play was written before HB ,1984, or Brave New World, then I could have seen the story as intelligent.

Also, screw you for disagreeing with me. Bastard.

[surfinillini]

[ QUOTE ]
Equilibrium is insane, you need to reevaluate

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a decent movie that had such a low budget...action scenes were somewhat novel, never seen Gun-Fu before or whatever the [censored] it's called.

Batman begins - solid flick, but #2 to Nicholson/Keaton combo.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]

Batman begins - solid flick, but #2 to Nicholson/Keaton combo.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the correct answer.

[jokerthief]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Batman begins - solid flick, but #2 to Nicholson/Keaton combo.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the correct answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I only slightly disagree with this.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Batman begins - solid flick, but #2 to Nicholson/Keaton combo.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the correct answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I only slightly disagree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see how the sequel turns out and then we can really see who makes the better batman/joker combo.

[surfinillini]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Batman begins - solid flick, but #2 to Nicholson/Keaton combo.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the correct answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I only slightly disagree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see how the sequel turns out and then we can really see who makes the better batman/joker combo.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're joking right?

[fluxrad]

I'm sorry that you disagree. But a crack team of mathematicians worked long and hard over a period of three months on several of these movies and were finally able to express the correct answer in terms of an algebraic inequality.

Michael Keaton as Batman > Any other actor as Batman.

They then came up with what is now known in the math world as "Keaton's theorem." Keaton's theorem states that, a movie made as a direct result of Keaton's starring as Batman (expressed algebraicly as M(x) ) will, as a result, be better than a movie made by any other actor ( M(y) ). Expressed in terms of a relationship, we can see a clear result, based on the fact that Michael Keaton is a better Batman:

M(Michael Keaton) > M(Any other actor), where M is such that M does not equal Steve McQueen.

As you can see, when we plug in the necessary variables, Batman is better than Batman Begins.

You can't argue with that dude. It's math.

[jokerthief]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Nicely done BUT, there is more to a movie than just acting.

[surfinillini]

[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Nicely done BUT, there is more to a movie than just acting.

[/ QUOTE ]

right, like marquis names...

thus according the Keaton theory

Keaton > Bale

and more importantly

Nicholson > (Bale+Neeson+Holmes)^nth