JD, lol

Must be Orlando Bloom?

Skyking, you have to answer this question, who is cuter? Johnny Depp or Orlando Bloom? LOL

Well I think Rose would need to ask Fencer if it would be OK, but it would be up to Rose. I think it would be a good idea. (I like the idea to combine boards rather then make more) - but final decision is up to Rose and/or Fencer.

Are you taking it up to Texas toest or Roses decission BBW?LOL

Entertainment would be a good name.

Then the text below it can be changed to something like: "General talk about movies, TV, and other entertainment discussion."

That would be my vote

In that case, it should be called entertainment if it combines TV, Radio & movies

This way, we can read what tv and Radio shows other coutry's besides the US watch and listen too. I know My wife likes those british comedies LOL

Just that it premiers in January

anyone know anything about the upcomming remake of Battlestar Galactica on SciFi?

I think it would be much better to add that type of discussion onto this board. (maybe with the rename of Movies, TV, and Radio - or something like that)

Not sure who would talk about Radio, but felt like throwing that in also. :-)

My favorite recent movie is Pirates of the Carrabean

My kids loved it. I found it disappointing. Entertaining, but still disappointing. The acting was horrible. The characters were shallow and unbelievable. The special effects were not "special". It was also very predictable.

BBW's Movie review. (1-10 - 10 being the best)

Aliens vs Preditor - 8 - Pretty good if you like that sort of stuff, and you don't really need to know much of the "back story" of these 2 movie characters

Without a Paddle - 7 (had sneak preview) - Funny, not the best - but not a waste of money

The Village - 7 - Good horror story. Again, not the best but not a waste of money

I Robot - 8 - I actually liked it even though it did not get the best reviews

The Day after tomorrow - 4 - pretty good, but could have been beter - good movie rental maybe

Collateral - 9 - I really liked this movie. Some of it was "predicatable", but it was different and it's always nice to watch something different

Catwomen - 2 - Ugh

The Bourne Supremecy - 10 - Great movie. I really liked the first movie, and I really like this one also.

Garfield - 9 - I really liked this mostly because it was something I could take my 3 year old to, and he loved to watch the cat & dog dance

Shrek 2 - 9 - Again, same as garfield except he really likes when donkey annoys Shrek

Spiderman 2 - 4 - Spiderman 1 was really good, and this one is much more a love story and not enough action.

The Manchurian Candidate - 8 - Really good because it is something different. Yes, I know it's a remake but I never seen the original so to me, this one was some-what original.

OK, that is all. Give me a few months to watch some more movies. :-)

Aliens vs Preditor

I haven't seen many of the Aliens or Preditor films, but I did watch AvP, and it was pretty good - even without knowing any of the "back story"

How would you know it's a "must see" movie if you haven't seen it?

another movie i want to see is anaconda

A good movie better not be because of that...I think it's when somebody sees it and just has to go back again.

What makes a good movie. Sex? Violence? That's not how I'd vote

aleins vs preditors a must see movie, but i'll wait till it comes out on dvd

Went last night to see The Notebook and what a beautiful love story. If you have not seen it, by all means, go. You will be glad you did. I warn you; it is not sad but still a tear jerker, so bring kleenex or a hanky. Not a dry eye in the movie house except some guys like my boyfriend Joe. He is not the emotional kind like I am but neither are a lot of men.

Are you referring to Shrek, or Shrek 2?

when i went to see cat in the hat it like shrek had some adult material in it pulling a hug wad of wax out of one's ear is gross that's the kind of material that's in shrek and in the cat in the hat the cat had his behind showing i think movies like those should be rated pg13

Yeah, it's some of the risque jokes. Three of us saw it together, two of us have never had kids, one had, and has grandchildren (she's not a friend of mine, of course, I'm too young to know grandmothers) and we all agreed it couldn't be considered an across-the-board children's film. But, some parents' tolerence is lower than others. [EDIT: Just a heads up, that's all. I LOVED the film myself.] It's certainly your choice, but I'm not taking any kids to see it. Haha! I'm not taking any kids anywhere.

Sounds a lot like the Simpsons! Kids and adults laughing in different places! (And the kids giving the adults a funny look wondering why they're laughing!)

I don't see any problem with Shrek 2.

I'm guessing TT is talking about some of the jokes which are geared towards adults - which is a good thing about Shrek - that is entertains both adults & kids. But I personally don't see a big problem with them - and most of those jokes will fly right past most kids.

Texas, whats up with Shrek 2? I'm planning on taking the kids to see it this week...

Shrek, or Shrek 2? I've seen both, and must say I don't think Shrek 2 is suitable for the younger people amongst us. Spiderman, I've not seen.

Shrek and Spiderman are tops in 2004

Has anyone seen the movie Big Bad Love?

Remember the film, "March of the Wooden Soldiers" with Laurel and Hardy? Well, the guy who plays Mr. Barnaby is also the guy who plays General Crawford in the old original "Outer Limits" episode, "The Chameleon" - Check him out!:

http://community-2.webtv.net/x-radar/GeneralBarnaby/

The creators & a clip about that cartoon has been on many of the morning TV shows - I seen about it on the Today show earlier in the week - but only now had time to go view it.

The is the funniest thing I've seen in a long, long time. Excellent and completely fair and (un)balanced. lol! Well worth the download wait. It should win an Oscar for best funny short!!!

BBW that is tooo fricking hilarious!!! Poor Clinton gets in trubba again!

Well to get back to the Movies topic, and also at the same time stay political.

Has anyone seen the "This Land" Cartoon which stars both Bush & Kerry?

You can view it here - It is somewhat big, but VERY FUNNY! (Note: It takes jabs at both Bush & Kerry in a very funny way!)

I agree that we are still our parent's children (that never changes) but we are not "children" anymore. But Moore's question in the film is dishonest.

It's like this: Your "child" breaks the law. He is sent before a judge in an "adult" court, and found guilty and then sent to "adult" prison.

Michael Moore takes to the streets in protest and complains "BBW's child is sitting in prison!" "Since when do we send our "children" to prison!!"
"Shame on America. Shame, Shame. Now we've sunk so low as to put our CHILDREN in prision!!!!"

Bystander: "But Michael, the kid's 35 years old.

Michael Moore: "He's still someone's child!!!"

Maybe he should have been sent to juvenile detention?

Well I could respond to most of that, but we are getting more and more off the subject that has been covered in other places like Unsensored Debate. (Plus I still have not had a chance to view all the link you provided below - but I do plan on as soon as I get enough free time.)

The one thing I do want to disagree with is that my parents will always have 3 children, no matter how old we get. Just because a child turn a legal age (adult) does not mean they are still not someone's children. I think they point you are trying to make is by using the world child, it paints a picture of a 9 year old, and of course we all know that 9 year olds are not being sent over to the war. But I'm not 29 years old, and I'm still the child of my parents.

"Actually Lawmakers by agree to go to war actually do send everyone elses children to war."

No. This is not factual. They send soldiers. Adults. If the above statement is true then it's equally true to say Lawmakers send babies into war. My mom considered me her baby and still does. It's an inaccurate statement and therefore false.

"Moore makes the point that only 1 Congressmen had a child (adult child) over in the "war zone". Is this correct or not? I'm not sure."

If Moore makes this point he is wrong. The link I provided earlier lists several. But wait, so what? There is no valid connection between a Lawmaker having an adult "child" in the military and making the decision to go into Iraq. We can only speculate.

"Well that is because if the main stream media reports bad things about Bush, or makes the current administration unhappy - they as Media people will be shut out"

You need to get out more BBW. The mainstream media bashes Bush all the time. I'll find some examples but you are out to lunch on this one.

"Bush looks good. If American start to see that War has a bad side, which (IN MY OPINION) Strongly out weighs the good side, then Bush starts to look bad."

I agree. But if America doesn't see the good that goes on in many places in Iraq, they also get a distorted view.

nuff of that ... ;)

I wish I had time to watch "The Factor" last night.

Actually Lawmakers by agree to go to war actually do send everyone elses children to war.

So me as a parent, if my son were to signup (if he was old enough), I would not actually send him off to war. But if I was a person who helped make this war possible, then it would be me who would be sending this solders to war. Are they actually children, or corse not - but they are someones children. And if I remember the film correctly, not sure if it is true or if I'm remembering correctly - but Moore makes the point that only 1 Congressmen had a child (adult child) over in the "war zone". Is this correct or not? I'm not sure. I think there are others in the military, but only 1 was actually out in the war zone. (But I'm not really sure about this - I would have to do more research.)

"Why is Moore's movie a side of things you won't see in the (main stream) Media?" Well that is because if the main stream media reports bad things about Bush, or makes the current administration unhappy - they as Media people will be shut out. They will not be invited to special events, special news confeces, etc... For example, when Bush made that surprise trip to Iraq on Thanksgiving (Nov 25th), he took along key media people. And who did he not take along. Anyone who was shut out of the loop. So occasionaly you will see some negative news stories on the news, but it is usually just a passing blurb..... where the news will focus on the "happy Iraqi's dancing in the street", and ignore all the familys, houses, children whos lives have been destroyed. Why? Because if American keep thinking we are going a good thing in Iraq, Bush looks good. If American start to see that War has a bad side, which (IN MY OPINION) Strongly out weighs the good side, then Bush starts to look bad.

don't get confused. :)

Michael Moore did say that Bush lied and he repeated it on "The Factor" last night.

Just one more example of how Moore twists things. In the film, he asks some Lawmakers if they will sign up their children to serve in Iraq. Moore is going for embarassment here and putting Lawmakers on the spot. He is out to make it look like Lawmakers are ready to commit the children of others to war, but not their own.

However, this fails for several reasons. First, there are no "children" in the war, they are soldiers. Second, NO PARENT sends their "child" to this war or even signs them up for military service. The "adult" signed up, (volunteered willingly) for the US Armed Services. They are NOT children, they are adults and they are soldiers. Period. Here again Moore plays with words. I'm 52 and my mom still thinks of me as her "baby." Of course I'm an adult. I've been an adult and NOT a baby NOR a child for many years. I hope you get the point. Finally, Moore fails to mention the Congressmen that do have "children" currently serving in Iraq. Why ignore this fact? It doens't support his point.

And just a side note: Why is Moore's movie a side of things you won't see in the Media? Mainly because it's a distortion of the true picture. Don't you have a problem with that? I do.

I'm getting confused now. :-)

Like I said back in my original post, I don't remember Michael Moore saying that Bush lied about WMD, just that Bush mislead America. If Moore did say Bush lied, well then I would disagree with Moore on that point - Since Bush (and administration) were very carefull on what they said.

[This is the biggest problem with the movie. Michael Moore ignores the facts and redefines terms in order to promote his personal view of things. So what you ask? The problem is that many people will see this film and believe it is all true. That is a tragedy. The real villain is guys like Michael Moore who resort to whatever it takes, word twisting, equivocating, omission of crucial facts, to promote their personal ideology.] I actually agree with you 100% - and I always try to tell everyone who has/will see it that it is just one sided. BUT in my opinion, and I believe Michael Moores opion (plus probable many others) - this is the same that Bush (and administration) has done to get the things done that they wanted to get done also - like a war with Iraq. And it is a tragedy that so many people will just believe what Bush & Administration is leading them towards - even if Bush is very careful on what is said. The one thing I disagree with is that is the real villain is guys like Bush. Michael Moore is just trying to "expose" what he has done. And it's like 3rd graders. It's OK for Bush to mislead the public, but how dare Moore try to do the same!

[I’m not arguing here that Bush didn’t lie or intend to deceive. That is not the point I’m trying to make. My argument centers around the film Fahrenheit 9/11. I’m asserting that there is ample evidence within the film itself, that Michael Moore twists facts, presents information dishonestly, completely ignores information he obtains that doesn’t support the points he wants to make in the film (and in fact counter his points).] ---------- Yes, Michael Moore has even said he made a movie to show the side that you normally don't see in the main stream press. He admited that right up front. It would be a pretty boring movie if you see all the things you have also watched on the news for the past 3 months.

“[When you make this statement: "Just like when Bush was deceiving America, Bush left out the information he did not want the public to know." are you willing to agree that if your statement is proven false that you "lied" to me when you said it?]”

You really didn’t answer this question BBW. The reason it’s important is because according to Moore, you’d be guilty of lying. So I’ll assume you’d say no to this question (which is my answer) and I’ll go further and say neither did you mislead others by saying the statement above. You simply made a statement that was false but, since it wasn’t made with intent to deceive, it wasn’t a lie. (I’m speaking hypothetically)

Secondly BBW, you never did answer my final question. You simply returned a question back. I’ll answer for you to save time but I wish you had taken the time to respond directly to the question. A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

“Question is: "Did BBW lie when he said that AD is an art teacher in an elementary school?"”

I believe you’d say NO to this. All the facts you had pointed to AD being a teacher. Someone lied and it wasn’t AD’s friends. They had every reason to believe that AD was really an art teacher in an elementary school. Who lied? AD lied of course.

So, even though you were passing information that wasn’t true, you had every reason to believe it was true. All evidence pointed in that direction. This is a very basic idea I’m presenting. Anyone disagreeing would have to explain why they disagree. This is not a matter of opinion. Something is either a lie or it isn’t. Simple.

Michael Moore redefines what a lie is. According to Moore, Bush “lied” to the American people when he said Saddam had WMD. That of course is not a true statement so Moore is the liar. The 911 Commission has stated that NO ONE LIED. All intelligence agencies had reliable evidence that WMD’s existed in Iraq. Iraq has an aggressive military history that included using WMD’s. There is clear evidence for this and NO ONE disputes this fact.

Stick to the single subject of WMD’s BBW. If all the intelligence agencies (Russia, Britain, US) said there were WMD’s, if history records not only their existence but their use by Iraq, and if for the past ten years Saddam defied all attempts to verify the destruction of WMD’s, what other conclusion is possible to make?

So Michael Moore deliberately misleads the world with his movie, Fahrenheit 9/11 (on this point at least), when he says Bush lied. On this point, Moore is wrong. Bush was wrong (so far yes), and as we now know there were some serious problems with US intelligence. You can say whatever you want about WMD’s, but you can’t say Bush lied. The facts don’t support it. Say he was wrong, say he acted hastily, say his decision didn’t show proper restraint, but you can’t say he lied. That statement would be false. It simply is not supported by the known facts.

This is the biggest problem with the movie. Michael Moore ignores the facts and redefines terms in order to promote his personal view of things. So what you ask? The problem is that many people will see this film and believe it is all true. That is a tragedy. The real villain is guys like Michael Moore who resort to whatever it takes, word twisting, equivocating, omission of crucial facts, to promote their personal ideology.

In order for a statement to be a “lie” it must accurately meet the legal definition of what constitutes a lie. Just because you or I call something a lie, doesn’t make it so.

A lie is:
*A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood
*Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
*To present false information with the intention of deceiving.

I’m not arguing here that Bush didn’t lie or intend to deceive. That is not the point I’m trying to make. My argument centers around the film Fahrenheit 9/11. I’m asserting that there is ample evidence within the film itself, that Michael Moore twists facts, presents information dishonestly, completely ignores information he obtains that doesn’t support the points he wants to make in the film (and in fact counter his points).

Based on Moore’s own use of the term “lie” it’s accurate to say that Moore is guilty of lying not only to the American public, but to the entire world. According to Moore’s own definition, if even ONE of the “facts” he presents turns out not to be true (and there are plenty that have been shown to be false) then Moore lied.

Unbreakable wasn't supposed to be a real thriller, I don't think.

I think unbreakable was kinda slow. I wasnt crazy about it either.

6th sense, and signs - I like both of those movies.

I have unbreakable, but I did not really like that one. It looked and sounded good, but for some reason I did not like it.

He did the 6th sense, unbreakable, and signs. I thought those were all good movies.

The Village Trailer Might be a good one.

I'm not sure which films he did in the past (without going and doing a quick search), but the previews I have seen for The Village looks like it could be pretty good. (Have not heard any review or anything yet - just the preview on TV.)

I do enjoy his movies, and want to see The Village when it comes out. Did you see the documentary that was done on him on the Sci-Fi channel? Sci-fi usually isn't my cup of tea, but when I saw the ads for this, I was curious. So, I watched it, and it was very interesting.

No pumpkin bread. Many dead because of 20 year history of using pumpkin bread. Attempts to let inspectors search the kitchen are constantly thwarted. Aftermath reveals reciepies for pumpkin bread, and staff of pumpkin bread experts. All proof the guy just wasn't interested in pumpkin bread.