"THIS" being the fun filled not a care in the world apart from dance music lovers forum? or narnia?

i'll admit it, i'm pretty picky when it comes to music and movies.  my fiance calls it being "snobby" or some such rubbish 

Tim Curry?

I don't see him anywhere in the credits.

But Warwick Davis is in there.

Isn't the movie rated PG? 

I think he's mislabeled there. It looked like him as General Glozelle. I understand that's supposed to be Pierfrancesco Favino but... I dunno.



vs.



The cheeks and jawline are very much the same. I see some resemblance in the eyes too.

  I didnt like the first one, it sucked, no offense to anyone who liked the movie, I just dont see what all the hype was about. Prince Caspian, seems to be a tad more bit promising, but then again, I could be wrong. I didnt even like lord of the rings, so yeah, that also did not go as well, oh well. In this day & age of emo hair cuts and Ipods, good movies are hard to come by. Except for the Super hero movies from comic books now those are great movies to see, whootness. 

It's funny in an ironic sense that I should be reading this subject now. I just got back from my night-job at the local theatre and I couldn't help but over hear a mother speaking to her young daughter (about 5-6-years-old) and it went like this:

"Are you going to be alright. Well, Ms. [I-didn't-quite-catch-the-name] said that there wasn't any violence but she was wrong about that."

I don't know for sure of which film she was speaking of but it was most likely 'Prince Caspian.' I think it unlikely that she would've been speaking of the other family-film showing there: Speed Racer, since it doesn't have as much violence, and I don't think she would've been speaking of Iron Man either.


You may just have a more unique taste in movies. Though I'm curious to know just what you didn't like about 'The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.'


Well I'm not exactly sure what haircuts and Digital Audio Players have to do with good films, but things are better than they were fifteen-or-so years-ago. Mostly because of the increase of fan-input/criticism via The Internet and the decrease in cost of film equipment. Before, we were mostly at the mercy of the major film industry and our best defense were the professional critics. Things could still be better, though. Most better films are limited to smaller market because theatres don't like to give the screen-time of a formulaic-film that's doing well to a more creative film that's more unpredictable. It still upsets me that an awful movies like Harold & Kumar played for as long as it did while great films such as Bella don't always play as long.


Well it's great ones that stand the test of time--Batman Begins and Spider-Man 2 being the current benchmark--but there've still been a fair share of stinkers; Ghost Rider anyone? :/