fair warning to all involved.The outcome will prove VERY interesting if the membership votes best songs by decade for the next tournament.
TCB...ALL DAMN DAY
The outcome will prove VERY interesting if the membership votes best songs by decade for the next tournament.
Bookmarked.That's a thought.... best "movie sound track" ? ... by year? ... by genre ?... by decade ?
that would be really fun.
Yeah. No. I would recommend to anyone to not use custom lists for determining what the people behind IMDB think of a movie. I added the image below to help illustrate what I am saying.Thanks for your effort and sharing;
https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?...000,&sort=user_rating,desc&title_type=feature
Above is the link where i saw IMDB listing Avengers End Game as Sci- FI
In this instance I support IMDB's description. Back when Thor: Ragnarok premiered, I posted my opinion of it in the Rate The Last Movie You Saw thread (link to my post), briefly stating, "...and many punchlines were strained in delivery." There was a large number of (not well delivered) punchlines in the movie in my view, far too many I think that the screenwriter, producer and director were not intentionally shooting for a really transparent comedic element throughout the film running side-by-side with the action and adventure storyline.
Certainly, you are not alone in that shared observation but I disagree. While I do agree they shot for a Guardians/Gunn atmosphere in Ragnarok, the strategy failed in my eyes.
Thor: The Dark World has taken it on the chin a good bit. I have a different opinion of the movie and personally rate it above Ragnarok.
Talking movies is fun, even when people do not agree. And I do not agree about Volume 2. For me, Marvel has done a smash up job adapting comic to screen. It is why I gave it an 8.75 out of 10 rating (link to my post)- the irony ? While GOG (guardian) was an instant smash, i was disappointed in Gunn's work with the 2nd GOG movie with the ridiculous
villain EGO (kurt russell) who is actually an " living " entire planet as a villain, but Gunn cheaply made Ego a effortless joke in the 2nd film.
besides the usual Rocketeer, Star-Lord, and Drax one liner and joke moments, i got nuthin memorable out of the 2nd Guardian film.
Certainly, you are not alone in that shared observation but I disagree. While I do agree they shot for a Guardians/Gunn atmosphere in Ragnarok, the strategy failed in my eyes.Yeah. No. I would recommend to anyone to not use custom lists for determining what the people behind IMDB think of a movie. I added the image below to help illustrate what I am saying.
IMDB custom search lists tie info submitted from site contributors. Contributors can be in the entertainment industry or movie fans just like you and me. People submit their opinions of movies, television shows, etc. All that info gets dumped into a database that can generate search results like the above.
IMDB itself (in my experience) limits genre descriptions from one to three. It means that even though a search for 'sci-fi movies' will generate with Avengers: Endgame because one or more contributors sees the film as Sci-Fi and entered that description into IMDB's database. However, IMDB staff defines the movie as 'Action, Adventure, Drama'.
It is anyone's guess exactly how many genres would list with every IMDB movie if the site allowed contributors' definitions as the 'official' genres.
In this instance I support IMDB's description. Back when Thor: Ragnarok premiered, I posted my opinion of it in the Rate The Last Movie You Saw thread (link to my post), briefly stating, "...and many punchlines were strained in delivery." There was a large number of (not well delivered) punchlines in the movie in my view, far too many I think that the screenwriter, producer and director were not intentionally shooting for a really transparent comedic element throughout the film running side-by-side with the action and adventure storyline.
Certainly, you are not alone in that shared observation but I disagree. While I do agree they shot for a Guardians/Gunn atmosphere in Ragnarok, the strategy failed in my eyes.
There were trying too hard to be funny in my opinion. Good comedy, whether it is satirical, flat out funny, etc., should be effortless in presentation. It felt strained for me almost the entire two hours.
Thor: The Dark World has taken it on the chin a good bit. I have a different opinion of the movie and personally rate it above Ragnarok.
Talking movies is fun, even when people do not agree. And I do not agree about Volume 2. For me, Marvel has done a smash up job adapting comic to screen. It is why I gave it an 8.75 out of 10 rating (link to my post)
In the comics, Thor, Captain Marvel and the Guardians deal in cosmic storylines. Ego is a long established cosmic level character in the Marvel Universe. The Guardians and Ego was a perfect movie plot was a joy for me to watch. And I LOVED Kurt Russell playing the humanoid presentation of The Living Planet.
Even Gunn's tribute to the pre-reboot of the Guardians comic with Rocket, etc., as the main characters--with Ving Rhimes as Charlie-27 and Sylvester Stone as Starhawk and Martinex, etc.--seen during the Reavers funeral scene, really warmed my old comic book fan's heart.
I cannot disagree. That was one of the few jokes I did not complain about.
I keep forgetting to check out the tallies, because when a thread is no longer in bold letters, I just figure there's nothing new added to it. lol
Oh please, like you wouldn't be campaigning for the man with no name.
sure....and dirty harry....and rocky...and rambo...and you damn well better believe Vince Everett,Chad Gates and Lucky Jackson.Oh please, like you wouldn't be campaigning for the man with no name.
Who?
vince everett...from jailhouse rock.
LVIS
Lolvince everett...from jailhouse rock.
chad gates...from blue hawaii.
lucky jackson...from viva las vegas.
E
