|
|
Post by PhoenixSnake on Sept 28, 2007 13:04:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by A.G. on Sept 28, 2007 13:35:57 GMT -5
Magneto is my favorite X-men character so I really can't wait for this one!
|
|
cernex
Snake (level 3)
Posts: 722
|
Post by cernex on Sept 28, 2007 20:46:32 GMT -5
Wake me up when they release a movie with Gambit more than half a second, dangit!!!
El Cernex
|
|
|
|
Post by PhoenixSnake on Sept 29, 2007 9:06:41 GMT -5
I heard rumors of a possible Wolverine movie. And any movie with with Wolverine is a must see. I just wish that in one movie they'd have the classic costumes. Tired of the silver.
|
|
cernex
Snake (level 3)
Posts: 722
|
Post by cernex on Sept 29, 2007 23:53:31 GMT -5
I heard rumors of a possible Wolverine movie. And any movie with with Wolverine is a must see. I just wish that in one movie they'd have the classic costumes. Tired of the silver. Actually, judging by how famous both Wolverine and Hugh Jackman (Clint Eastwood 2.0) are, I would say the Wolverine movie is pretty much a "given". El Cernex |
|
|
|
Post by PhoenixSnake on Oct 1, 2007 9:19:03 GMT -5
You know, Hugh Jackman doesn't really do the same type of stuff that Clint Eastwood did. Like Hugh was in "Oklahoma!" See what I mean? Hugh is more of a classical actor, and a damn fine one too. While Clint was, and always will be to me, a western movie actor. An extremely good one too. Whether he was better than The Duke, can't really tell.
|
|
cernex
Snake (level 3)
Posts: 722
|
Post by cernex on Oct 1, 2007 20:54:22 GMT -5
You know, Hugh Jackman doesn't really do the same type of stuff that Clint Eastwood did. Like Hugh was in "Oklahoma!" See what I mean? Hugh is more of a classical actor, and a damn fine one too. While Clint was, and always will be to me, a western movie actor. An extremely good one too. Whether he was better than The Duke, can't really tell. I don't think you can compare them, as both were "in their prime" in different times, and with different directors. It would be like comparing Steve MxQueen to Bruce Willis. In any case, one was famous in american westerns by John Ford, and the other was famous in spaguetti westerns made by a director who couldn't speak a lick of english, Sergio Leone. The Duke was first, but I GUESS Eastwood is far more recognizeable and memorable, specially because of "the good, the bad, and the ugly". BTW, I see Hugh as, probably, more "polifacetical" actor, as although he indeed was very good in Oklahoma, he also was in such movies as X-Men and Van Helsing, movies that most probably Clint would refuse to do from the head-start. I think it's only a difference in times and trends. Plus, they're almost twins!!! XD El Cernex |
|
|
|
Post by PhoenixSnake on Oct 2, 2007 9:04:04 GMT -5
For those ho don't know a speghetti western was a western made in the mid-1960's made by mostly italian studios. Lots more focus on fluid violence then cinamatography.
|
|
cernex
Snake (level 3)
Posts: 722
|
Post by cernex on Oct 2, 2007 21:58:05 GMT -5
For those ho don't know a speghetti western was a western made in the mid-1960's made by mostly italian studios. Lots more focus on fluid violence then cinamatography. Actually, spaguetti westerns are westerns made by italian directors, and not always by italian studios (check "Once Upon a Time in the West", which was made by Paramount, although it was produced by an Italian, though, and filmed mostly in Italy, with some minor bits in Monument Valley, John Ford's favorite location). In any case, the best example of this kind of movies is Sergio Leone's films. El Cernex |
|
