Movies you can't unsee!

[samurai-turtle]

Another movie I wish I could unsee... hmm, I don't remember the name of it, but I do remember it having a purple tight-wearing Indy-wannabe superhero that went around collecting three skulls (Jade, Gold, and Crystal, I think). This was quite a while ago, but I do remember it being pretty stupid. The whole plot was just ridiculous.

That sounds like the Phantom. What bugged me the most about that movie (besides the obvious lame bad guy) was his mask. When it was on, his eyelids (plus some) were in black makeup but when it was off the makeup magically disappeared. This was most noticeable at the end on the movie. For the plot I do not really care, it was from the 30's (I think). It was originally a radio drama or comic book.

[Batbrick]

Bahahaha! That is the best description of "The Phantom" I have ever heard read. Poor Billy Zane. At least he got a part in one of the funniest crap movies of all time "Zoolander"

What? Zoolander is in no way crap, it's comedic genius! It regularly makes it in on "op 100 films" lists.

The Benchwarmers however is horrific.

Batbrick Away!

[5150 Lego]

The fast and the furious 2, that whole CGI race was lame, and the 3rd that whole can't drive around corners rubbish.

While i agree the second movie sucked, i believe the third was done as well as a hollywood car movie could be done. No CGI affects, and all driving was done by real professional drifters. (the scene where the 350Z drifts up parking lot ramp was really done. That was not a trick).

And just to cap off, The Dark Knight and Transformers. Here are two movies that have been very well received by the masses, and I think they are both badly glued together messes. I just don't get it man, why are these movies so popular, when I think they're complete rubbish? Arrgghh!! 'Nuff said.

The only reason TDK was decent was because of Heath Ledger. Without him, it would have just been another run of the mill DC comic adaption. There was nothing about it that set it apart or really made it stand out.

As far as TF-ROTF, its an acquired taste. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But people don't want perfect from transforming robots. There more concerned about explosions, special affects, laughing, and just having a good time. For the most part, movies that have the "wow" factor will generally triumph in the box office over those that make you think

A few movies I can't stand/unsee/comprehend/forget:

Next up is The Fast and the Furious movies. All of them. I love cars, and car movies, even if the plot sucks. (A perfect example of that would be 1974's Gone in 60 Seconds) The F&F movies, they don't really have anything going for them except Jordana Brewster. The "race cars" aren't real race cars, 1.6L I-4's that run 16-17 seconds in the quarter mile are stated as running 10's and still manage to beat American made muscle cars with engines almost 4X as big.

Problem, by contrast is that the real "import racer scene" while popular, is generally boring. In order to appeal to the masses, bright colors, big rims, wings, stickers etc. were added. The real "import scene" would have involved basically stock Honda's and Toyota's hanging around a MC' Donald's parking till AM. Doesn't exactly make for good cinema. Not making excuses, but unfortunately thats Hollywood and the general public for ya.

As far as the Honda's running with Muscle cars, when built right, a 4 banger can run a 10 sec. 1/4 mile and run with the big boys.

Warning! There is explicit language in this video.

Dyno video of the same Honda that raced the viper

Now this of course is an extreme example, but shows with the right know how (and a hole lot of money) one can get some impressive power numbers out of 4Cly.

Also notice how stock the car looks. No wild paint seems, crazy colors, neon lighting or the sort. Its all business. When i was a kid street racing, this is a good example of what most of the imports looked like. Although i don't agree with it, its understandable why the producers felt every car needed to look like it was getting ready for a Hot Import Nights car show.

Nitrous doesn't really give the reaction F&F claims it does, there's no such thing as a power adder named NOS, NOS is an acronym for Nitrous Oxide Systems, which is a company that makes the product for which they are named. Thanks to these movies, and their popularity that term has been misused to no end. It's not something I can get mad at someone for, because they don't know any better.

Agreed.

You know what happened to every single male between the ages of 16 and 25 that saw those movies and owned either a Honda, Mitsubitchi, Toyota, or other compact economy car? When they walked out into the parking lot after the movie and saw their car they thought to themselves... "Holy shiit, I own a race car!!!"

Trust me, Males between the ages of 16 and 25 thought they had a "race car" long before this movie came out. I was 19 when the first movie came out. I had a 00" Toyota Celica GTS and active in street racing. My friends and I all went to go see the movie together and as you could imagine, the parking lot was littered with little Honda's, Toyota's etc. with fart can mufflers. After the movie was less than enthused because i knew that represented nothing about the "import scene".

The 3RD movie was defiantly more accurate in terms of cars and driving. many of the back ground cars were real drift cars that competed in the Formula D drift series. While the opening race was a little far fetched with the Monte Carlo keeping up with the Viper in the dirt, anyone with knowledge of cars would know that it would have had no problems keeping up with the Viper. This is evident when they paned over the engine bay to revile the inch merlin big block.

The cars weren't overly done up either. Just enough to get the average movie goers attention and give them that "wow" factor without being gaudy. They worked in the sponsors well too. Instead of plastering Borla stickers all over the Viper, the kid mentioned it had one in an attempt to make his car sound better. Lucas Black used "NOS" in a brief freeway race. No multiple stages used for 5 minutes straight. Just a quick shot like its really used for.

The driving was good too. All believable since it was done by real drift drivers.

The Th was good too. Though the cars lacked, at least they were followed in the line of FF3 and kept the cars simple and clean. The story wasn't bad either.

[Batbrick]

For the most part, movies that have the "wow" factor will generally triumph in the box office over those that make you think

A fact that deeply saddens me.

Batbrick Away!

[def]

That sounds like the Phantom. What bugged me the most about that movie (besides the obvious lame bad guy) was his mask. When it was on, his eyelids (plus some) were in black makeup but when it was off the makeup magically disappeared. This was most noticeable at the end on the movie. For the plot I do not really care, it was from the 30's (I think). It was originally a radio drama or comic book.

The star of that, Billy Zane is pretty much a hack actor now, but just before The Phantom came out, he'd been building up buzz for years, including a role in Titanic as the douche.

I read a gossipy article about him around the year 2000. Apparently, he was at a shindig somewhere, and a waiter or valet was not giving him enough priority service, so he asked the guy, "Do you know who I am? I was in the biggest movie of all time!" The staff smirked and said, "What, The Phantom?" I wish I could find the original article, but it was far too long ago

Crap film though!

[Bobskink]

Haha, very funny.

If I remeber corectly The Phantom was directed by Joel Schumacher the same guy who did Batman and Robin and Batman Forever...

[Thee Pirate]

While i agree the second movie sucked, i believe the third was done as well as a hollywood car movie could be done. No CGI affects, and all driving was done by real professional drifters. (the scene where the 350Z drifts up parking lot ramp was really done. That was not a trick).

While the 3rd movie didn't have CGI special effects, it still had a pretty big mechanical special effect. The Mustang that they swapped the RB26DETT didn't produce enough power to drift, it was converted to a single turbo set up because there isn't enough room in the engine bay for the factory Nissan set up, and it was only used for close up shots. The other 4 Mustangs used in the movie were all powered by various Ford engines, including a factory I6. 2 of them had 430ci Ford small blocks, and those were the only Mustangs that could actually be used to drift

Problem, by contrast is that the real "import racer scene" while popular, is generally boring. In order to appeal to the masses, bright colors, big rims, wings, stickers etc. were added. The real "import scene" would have involved basically stock Honda's and Toyota's hanging around a MC' Donald's parking till AM. Doesn't exactly make for good cinema. Not making excuses, but unfortunately thats Hollywood and the general public for ya.

As far as the Honda's running with Muscle cars, when built right, a 4 banger can run a 10 sec. 1/4 mile and run with the big boys.

I know they can be built up, and more power to the people that due it. I'm a gear head. I love cars very much, and I've owned a number of cars from all over the world, including a few Datsun/Nissan Z cars, a Honda, a '69 Camaro, '98 T/A, VW's, an MG Midget. I'm not denying that it can't be done, only that the way it's done in the movies is over done and unrealistic. As a gear head, I can't stand that.

Now this of course is an extreme example, but shows with the right know how (and a hole lot of money) one can get some impressive power numbers out of 4Cly.

Also notice how stock the car looks. No wild paint seems, crazy colors, neon lighting or the sort. Its all business. When i was a kid street racing, this is a good example of what most of the imports looked like. Although i don't agree with it, its understandable why the producers felt every car needed to look like it was getting ready for a Hot Import Nights car show.

And see, that's much closer to my style of car. I don't need a fancy stereo system, I want a strong running and bulletproof drivetrain because I'd rather participate in a speed competition than a stereo competition.

Well anyway, the day is new. Shall I carry on with the original topic?

Redline (2007) - If you don't remember this movie, it's because it sucked. It was made with the sole purpose of showing off Daniel Sadek's multimillion dollar exotic car collection. Daniel Sadek is now broke, and he no longer owns the cars that starred in this box office bomb. On second thoughts, if you're an old high school enemy of Sadek, you might actually enjoy the movie very, very much.

House of the Dead (2003) Car movies aren't my only guilty pleasure, I also love horror movies. My movie collection contains approximately 2,000 horror films. This one is at the very bottom of the list. It's completely unwatchable. Uwe Boll, in his infinite wisdom, even splices in pieces of the 1996 video game we all loved to play at the arcade. It's great game, but as a movie directed by the second worst director of all time, it has no redeeming properties.

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007) This one's another Uwe Boll film. Jason Statham plays the exact same part he gets in every single movie he has ever been in, only this time his name is "Farmer" His family is killed by a crazy king (Burt Reynolds) and he has to take his revenge on the people that've wronged him. At least that's how I remember it going. I can never get enough of Leelee Sobieski. Besides her and Statham, the only other reason to see this movie is to get ideas for castle MOCs.

[JimBee]

Bahahaha! That is the best description of "The Phantom" I have ever heard read. Poor Billy Zane. At least he got a part in one of the funniest crap movies of all time "Zoolander"

Yes, that was it. Sooo stupid.

@def. That's hilarious. What a slap in the face for Billy Zane.

Did anyone say Catwoman yet? That one was pretty terrible...

[RepublicForces]

This may sound stupid...

But I hate avatar.

Don't really know why but I just don't like that movie.

house of wax

stupid plot, stupid actors (I mean Paris Hilton C'MON!)

and lots of others...

[Bobskink]

Hmm, you must be one of the few who hates the movie (Avatar).

I wasn't overwhelmed either. The action is great, but not really new, the story was very predictable and the special effects, well, if the rest is not good, the special effects don't mather. But still, I found the movie enjoyable, but I think that that is mostly because James Cameron directed the movie. He's just good at what he does. Same goes for Titanic, it's a chickflick, but somehow, for I guy you can sit trough the whole movie.

Anyway, when I studied film, I learned one important thing, which is: You can learn a lot by whatching bad movies.

[Emperor Claudius Rome]

Spawn, it was total crap. The plot was horrid, the CGI sucked, even for 1998, and that demon clown thing was a "Mask" wannabe!

[vexorian]

I swear next time I am forced to watch a dubbed movie i am going to scream.

Just because nobody named it yet: Super Mario Bros. It easily goes for all three categories, specially Why?

[PerryDaPirate]

Brokeback mountain Call me a homophobe, but this movie still creeps in my mind.

The Forbidden Kingdom I honestly don't know why I hated this.

[Tyrant]

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (released 11 July 2003) - I never thought Sean Connery could be in a bad movie... until I saw this one. While I liked the concept, and admittedly the comic on which it was based, the movie failed in execution and special effects. Let me lay it down for you. This movie stole aspects of numerous movies from the previous 2 years of Hollywood productions. A few examples would include Dr. Jekyll talking to Mr. Hyde being strangely familiar to the interactions that take place in Spiderman (2002) between the Green Goblin and Norman Osborn. The Hulk was released just three short weeks prior to this movie (20 June 2003) and the transformation of Jekyll into Hyde is strangely similiar to Bruce Banner's transformation. The chain of events leading up to the submarine bomb's detonation (the camera following the inner workings of the sub and ending with the explosion) is very, very similar to the same event in The Fast and the Furious (2001)

Now hold on a sec, line break. I realize there are few original ideas, and imitation may be the highest form of flatter but imitating other movies so close to the release date of your own movie is poor choice. You see, what happened with me is that I automatically compared LEG to other movies I had seen recently. This in turn took my mind off of the movie I was supposed to be watching, I lost focus, got bored with it, and started picking it apart the second time I watched it.

I'm not going to defend LXG. It is a bad movie. However, I think this is just being nitpicky. For instance, the complaint about being like a movie that came out 3 weeks prior? Really? There is no way at that point they could have changed that. It is unlikely they could've changed it by the time they saw anything like it in a Hulk preview. More importantly, the only similarity is "small guy becomes big guy". The similarity to Spider Man? Again, really? Spider Man didn't invent that technique and it definately applies to Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde. I'm relatively certain they predate Spider Man. For that matter, it predates the Hulk who is in some ways a modern retelling of Jekyll/Hyde so the imitation was all Marvel. And again, by the time Spider Man was released I am sure LXG was already in production. Near Dark came out a few months after The Lost Boys. Both are about vampires. I don't believe Near Dark is copying The Lost Boys no matter how close they were released to one another.

LXG is a bad movie. There's plenty of complaints that can be leveled at it.

House of the Dead (2003) Car movies aren't my only guilty pleasure, I also love horror movies. My movie collection contains approximately 2,000 horror films. This one is at the very bottom of the list. It's completely unwatchable. Uwe Boll, in his infinite wisdom, even splices in pieces of the 1996 video game we all loved to play at the arcade. It's great game, but as a movie directed by the second worst director of all time, it has no redeeming properties.

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007) This one's another Uwe Boll film. Jason Statham plays the exact same part he gets in every single movie he has ever been in, only this time his name is "Farmer" His family is killed by a crazy king (Burt Reynolds) and he has to take his revenge on the people that've wronged him. At least that's how I remember it going. I can never get enough of Leelee Sobieski. Besides her and Statham, the only other reason to see this movie is to get ideas for castle MOCs.

You could put just about any Uwe Boll movie on this list. I say just about because his Vietnam movie wasn't as god awful as his others. It was only bad. Personally I think his worst is either Bloodrayne (guest starring Billy Zane even) or Alone in the Dark.

As for Dungeon Siege, I am relatively certain Ray Liotta killed Farmer's family. Reynold's was his dad.

I read a gossipy article about him around the year 2000. Apparently, he was at a shindig somewhere, and a waiter or valet was not giving him enough priority service, so he asked the guy, "Do you know who I am? I was in the biggest movie of all time!" The staff smirked and said, "What, The Phantom?" I wish I could find the original article, but it was far too long ago

Now that I would've paid to see.

[5150 Lego]

While the 3rd movie didn't have CGI special effects, it still had a pretty big mechanical special effect. The Mustang that they swapped the RB26DETT didn't produce enough power to drift, it was converted to a single turbo set up because there isn't enough room in the engine bay for the factory Nissan set up, and it was only used for close up shots. The other 4 Mustangs used in the movie were all powered by various Ford engines, including a factory I6. 2 of them had 430ci Ford small blocks, and those were the only Mustangs that could actually be used to drift

Not entirely true. Yes, the Mustangs used to drift all used Ford V8's, but it wasn't because the one built with the RB26DETT didn't produce enough power. On the contrary, it actually out performed the stunt cars. When Hot Rod Magazine (yes, hot Rod Magazine, not Sport Compact Car, Super Street on any other Import tuner mag that might have a basis lean) they found the Mustang with the Nissan engine was faster in a straight line than the V8 cars, and had no problem drifting. (though to be fair, the V8 cars suspensions were tuned for drifting and not straight line acceleration) Single turbo swaps on factory twin turbo Japanese I6 engines are nothing new. When big power is needed many teams opt for them. The RB26DETT when built properly, is more than capable of producing 800+ HP reliably. On both single and twin turbo setups.

Now what wasn't real was the movies suggested time of performing a swap of that difficulty in one night. It took a full team of 20+ a month to perform the swap.

The reason they used V8 muscle as opposed to all Nissan powered stangs was mainly time and money. The movie crew first gave Ryhes Millen (the stunt driver and professional drifter that did the some of the driving for the movie) a mustang with a 302ci V8 that produced around 350HP. He came back and said it wasn't enough power. The team then swapped in a couple 351ci V8 that made anywhere from 375 to 450hp. Still not being enough, the team finally went with a 430ci that made around 500hp in which Rhyes was finally happy with. American carburated V8's are easy to swap, build and get power from. While the RB26DETT can make some serious power, it takes more effort and time. It just wouldn't have had make sense to swap in Nissan engines on every single stunt car being used. Having a "hero car"with a straight body panels, working engine (working, not running at full potential) along with several banged up stunt cars with different running gear is nothing new in the movie car world.

Point being while it might be "sack religious" to have a Nissan engine in a Ford, its possible (though it doesn't have any mechanical advantage over using a ford V8) that the car could have performed just as it did in the movie.

I know they can be built up, and more power to the people that due it. I'm a gear head. I love cars very much, and I've owned a number of cars from all over the world, including a few Datsun/Nissan Z cars, a Honda, a '69 Camaro, '98 T/A, VW's, an MG Midget. I'm not denying that it can't be done, only that the way it's done in the movies is over done and unrealistic. As a gear head, I can't stand that.

I'm a gear head as well. Been working around cars my whole life, and have built a few myself. Mainly water cooled VW's, though i prefer Muscle cars. While i understand where your coming from, every movie that focuses on cars has scenes that are unrealistic to give them more of a "wow" factor. I feel this movie did a good job of balancing out whats real, from whats overly done for Hollywood.

Well, to get on topic, i feel i need to add a movie to the list...

Twilight

For the life of me, i don't understand all the hype over this movie. It was absolutely TERRIBLE! Horrible story,horrible acting and the overall movie was boring. I've seen better love stories from pixar movie. And what the hell is up with the vampires "sparkling" in the sun light?!?!? Vampires don't sparkle, they burn!! Honestly, whats the big deal?

[Batbrick]

And what the hell is up with the vampires "sparkling" in the sun light?!?!? Vampires don't sparkle, they burn!! Honestly, whats the big deal?

Heck, if you go back to the original, they don't even burn, they just don't have as much power. Still, one has to laugh at "This is the skin of a monster!" while looking like a real life Ken from some sick Barbie ad.

Batbrick Away!

[Clone OPatra]

I am annoyed that so many people say "This is the way this fictional thing is." Fictional things can be however the creator wants it to be, it's called creative license. People pick and chose vampire traits all the time. In the Blade movies, vampires have reflections. In some vampire stories and movies, holy water and holy wafers don't do squat to hurt a vampire. And I don't see vampires turning into bats in many movies, even though in other stories they can do that. Bram Stoker's Dracula could even turn into a dog.

It's a fictional thing. Stephanie Meyer can have her vampires not burn up if she wants, there's no right or wrong thing about vampires since they're all made up anyway.

I happened to like the Twilight movies because they are so very odd for being main stream, but you don't have to. It's just that you shouldn't be upset that somebody did what they wanted with a fictional thing, even though it was different than what is commonly done.

[Batbrick]

I am annoyed that so many people say "This is the way this fictional thing is." Fictional things can be however the creator wants it to be, it's called creative license. People pick and chose vampire traits all the time. In the Blade movies, vampires have reflections. In some vampire stories and movies, holy water and holy wafers don't do squat to hurt a vampire. And I don't see vampires turning into bats in many movies, even though in other stories they can do that. Bram Stoker's Dracula could even turn into a dog.

It's a fictional thing. Stephanie Meyer can have her vampires not burn up if she wants, there's no right or wrong thing about vampires since they're all made up anyway.

I happened to like the Twilight movies because they are so very odd for being main stream, but you don't have to. It's just that you shouldn't be upset that somebody did what they wanted with a fictional thing, even though it was different than what is commonly done.

I hope this rant wasn't directed at me since otherwise the only one annoyed would be you (and maybe Lego5150, you'd have to ask him though I'm not sure), as I have no problem with the "skin sparkles" idea. It's just that it is executed so poorly and laughably that I dislike it.

Mind you, the satires of it have been glorious!

Batbrick Away!

[Clone OPatra]

No no, not directed at you. I noticed one person post such a comment, and the following rant was about people who say this in general. Yes, the sparkling in the first movie was some really terrible CG that was quite laughable. But the problem with the sparkling was not that it was in place of burning. Vampires don't have to burn up, they're a fictional thing that any author can do what they want with.

[Tyrant]

No no, not directed at you. I noticed one person post such a comment, and the following rant was about people who say this in general. Yes, the sparkling in the first movie was some really terrible CG that was quite laughable. But the problem with the sparkling was not that it was in place of burning. Vampires don't have to burn up, they're a fictional thing that any author can do what they want with.

I somewhat agree with what you are saying. However, if you change something enough then it isn't really whatever you are trying to call it anymore. I'm not saying that is the case with Twilight. I never read the book or saw the movie and I have my doubts I will anytime soon. They drink blood, they're immortal, then they're probably vampires. The rest changes from one version to another. Some are super strong, some can be killed by stabbing them enough times to cause them to bleed out, some can walk in sunlight with no trouble, etc. It's the same thing with zombies. As long as they are dead creatures that eat the living (but not vampires) then they're probably zombies.* Some can run, some are smart, etc. If you mess with the core though, then they aren't what they are trying to be names anymore. Like a vampire that doesn't drink blood (or have some alternative like draining someone's lifeforce or something). That isn't a vampire anymore and the person claiming it is is trying to cash in on the connection to other (likely better) vampire stories. For some folks though, the list of core characteristics is a little bigger and has no room for sparkling vampires. I hate the concept personally (I'm fine with vampires being unaffected by the sun, but unless sparkling is a precursor to combustion then I think it's a stupid idea), but they are vampires from everything else I know of the story.

So I guess what I am trying to say is that while there is room for change, there is a point where there is too much change to still call it whatever the creator is trying to call it.

*A prime example of this is 28 Days/Weeks Later. The movie is a zombie movie for all intents and purposes given the situation and the nature of the creatures, however the creatures are not zombies. Zombie-like in behavior, sure (hence my calling it a zombie movie), but they aren't zombies. Hopefully that makes sense.

[Clone OPatra]

*A prime example of this is 28 Days/Weeks Later. The movie is a zombie movie for all intents and purposes given the situation and the nature of the creatures, however the creatures are not zombies. Zombie-like in behavior, sure (hence my calling it a zombie movie), but they aren't zombies. Hopefully that makes sense.

Are you calling them "not zombies" because they were never dead, they have just been infected? Do zombies have to be creatures that rise from the dead? Because in that case I guess Shaun of the Dead doesn't even count as real zombies.

Still, I do agree with the points you make. There are certain key components of different lore that must be present. I agree that in the case of vampires they have to be immortal and drink blood, though I think that's about it. Vampires are bloodsuckers in control of themselves (unlike zombies), and whatever other traits are changed do not affect them being vampires.

[Dunjohn]

Shaun of the Dead zombies did die, didn't they? Then they reanimated almost immediately.

[Tyrant]

Are you calling them "not zombies" because they were never dead, they have just been infected? Do zombies have to be creatures that rise from the dead? Because in that case I guess Shaun of the Dead doesn't even count as real zombies.

The ones in Shaun of the Dead were real zombies (I feel silly using that expression) because they did die then reanimated. Honestly, I know it's splitting hairs with my example but I believe the undead component seperates zombies from creatures that are still living but have zombie like behavior. Even in my example there are other reasons to not call them zombies. For instance, I don't believe they actually eat their victims. I'm pretty sure they just try to infect them or kill them. That's why they all die out at the end. I still say it's a zombie movie because it has all the features of the typical zombie movie, even if the creatures aren't quite zombies. The upcoming remake of The Crazies looks like it could be in a similar situation based on the previews. I never saw the original so I can't base my opinion on that. Then again the original was made by George Romero so the similarites may be intentional.

Of course I've also seen arguments that zombies can't actually be dead because they are up and walking around. My personal favorite zombie argument is "but they can't run, they're dead". As far as I am oncerned, if they are already violating the known laws of the universe by moving around at all, then why can't they run?

[Batbrick]

Shaun of the Dead zombies did die, didn't they? Then they reanimated almost immediately.

Don't even mention Shaun of the Dead here, that movie is way too awesome!

Also Dunjohn, appreciate the clarification, I understand what you mean though I also agree with the oddly named Tyrant on how the core principles should be kept. Sparkly vampire isn't really a core changing thing to me however but I still do find it ridiculous, as the biggest problem I have with Twilight is that it follows like a self-insert fanfiction where the only thing we know for sure is that "Edward is so fantastic!" and nothing else about anything that isn't slavering to the teengirl boy-fantasy crowd. My opinion of course.

Now if the film was made about the father who had to cope with such a b*tchy daughter and a family of vampires as a single father, I'd be all over that. That would be an awesome concept.

Batbrick Away!

[Bobskink]

I was looking to the TV guide (for Belgium), this week will be on TV: Batman & Robin, Battlefield Earth and Striptease.

I can't belive we left Striptease out so far, what a bad movie. I once red a revieuw about it: A film every filmaker and Stripper should watch, and see how your not suposed to do it.