Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Sixty8panther

2 movie reviews:

33 posts in this topic

Batman Dark Night: A+

I went into the theater thinking "yeah, like THIS can ever live up to the hype?!" ...but it did!

One of the best movies I've ever had the pleasure to get sucked into.

----

Double Penetration XXIV (just kidding!) :P

Death Proof: C-

I saw Planet Terror a couple months back, and it was enjoyable... the fake but

entertaining scratchy film quality, B-rated acting/cinomatography & special

effects worked together well... I was told that Death Proof sucked, but I like

Kurt Russell... well... Escape from N.Y. era Kurt anyway... and with all those

"merrican muscle cars in it I took a chance ad bought the DVD the other day.

Except for a few cool scenes: (F*** yeah :metal: to the '70 Nova ripping a POS

Honda Civic appart like a wet cardboard box) this movie sucked....

even the cars were weak, flat-black Nova aside.

I'm SICK TO DEATH of movies with '70 Challengers & '70 Chargers.

Whaty a freekin cliche. :rolleyes::yuck:

If it was not for the Honda vs. Chevy sceene and hot chicks this movie

would get a solid F. Seriously. The acting was PAINFULLY crappy.

Hey Tarantino: how 'bout a '70 Chevelle, or '66 GTO, or '69 Olds 442...

honestly how many movies have to feature the '69-'71 Charger?

Dukes of Hazzard everything, Bullitt, Blade, Cannaball Run, Spy Hard,

Grand Theft Auto (the movie from 77) Fast & Furious, Christene,

the Mexican, Gone in 60 Sec. (original, 74), the French Connection,

and now this useless garbage movie... :rolleyes:

As far as the '70 Chellenger it's an uglier, goofy-rippoff of the '67-'69

F-bodys, more so Camaro than Firebird, and even the original movie it

was featured in in 'frigerator white sucked.

WTF is the point of "Vanishing Point" anyway?

It sucks as a movie and it sucks even more as a CAR movie.

See dude on drugs, see dude on drugs drive fast ugly Mopar in a half

heartedly conceived plot, see idiot on drugs commit suicide for reasons

that I still, years later fail to understand.

I guess the lesson is don't get all hopped up on cocaine PCP & then drive

a muscle car like you stole it?!

Thanks I knew better than that when I was 17 y.o.

-----

Soooo.... how 'bout you guys? Thoughts? Differance of opinion? :P

Edited by Sixty8panther
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The DP series didn't catch my attention until # XXV, the episode with no chicks.:smilewide:
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first I though D.P. was Donkey Punch. :P

Also, you're bicthing about a movie because it has a classic car with no B-Pillar...there's just no pleasing some people! Although the rest of the movie seemed to sound like ass anyway. :P

Edited by Dodgefan
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

havne't seen dark night. a friend thinks there are a few scenes/ideas that are just to far fetched and don't flow with the rest of the movie, but I've heard it's a solid 9 out of 10

i'm pretty sure i've seen death proof. it wasn't great, but did have some well above average parts. it's been a while though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ugly-assed Challenger was a post, (weird huh!?)

and the Charger while pillarless, was all tacky & had

the hardtop greenhouse's lines ruined by a big, ugly,

flat black rollcage...

(I know it's a functional item but presantation is everything)

Edited by Sixty8panther
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ugly-assed Challenger was a post, (weird huh!?)

and the Charger while pillarless, was all tacky & had

the hardtop greenhouse's lines ruined by a big, ugly,

flat black rollcage...

(I know it's a functional item but presantation is everything)

I hate that movie because of the pointless destruction of Challengers and Chargers...wouldn't have cared if they had used Camaros and Chevelles (Chevys are way more common than Mopars..) :)

The Challenger was a hardtop, the movie makers added fake door window frames for attaching the belts for the wierd hood surfing scene..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate that movie because of the pointless destruction of Challengers and Chargers...wouldn't have cared if they had used Camaros and Chevelles (Chevys are way more common than Mopars..) :)

You had me up until the part about camaros and chevelles.

I agree it was a very dumb way to wreck a Charger & the

less cool Challenger, but I think a dime-a dozen, ugly &

over-rated Mustang, IF anything, should have been used.

For every ONE '67-'69 Camaro there are about 3 Mustangs.

And a high percentage of the '64.5-'69 Stangs were

throwaway $h!boxes with I-6 motors & granny-mounted

automatic trans., crappy rear ends etc...

The Challenger was a hardtop, the movie makers added fake door window frames for attaching the belts for the wierd hood surfing scene..

That idea had crossed my mind, the door frames looked

quite factory... weird. For a split sec. I thought maybe

that was the reason, that whole entire scene, esp.

the acting, and as a matter of fact 99% of the movie

sucked so damn much it will take many years of well

done car-movies to undo the damage that was inflicted

to my cerebral cortex.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of rare muscle cars, wait until you guys see what I took a picture of...it'll make some of you cry.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and I keep meaning to mention,

a '69-'71 Charger is one of the nicest, cleanest & sleekest muscle cars ever

made, and not one, NOT-A-ONE should ever be destroyed to make some

cool footage, esp. not post-1989... that's what CGI is for!

Even "Dukes of Hazzard" does not make up for the loss of one of these

magnificent Mopars.... maybe, just MAYBE I'll give the classic movie "Bullitt"

props enouogh that the directors destroying one Charger for it was

justifiable. Esp. since it was barelly a used car when the movie was filmed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, and I keep meaning to mention,

a '69-'71 Charger is one of the nicest, cleanest & sleekest muscle cars ever

made, and not one, NOT-A-ONE should ever be destroyed to make some

cool footage, esp. not post-1989... that's what CGI is for!

Even "Dukes of Hazzard" does not make up for the loss of one of these

magnificent Mopars.... maybe, just MAYBE I'll give the classic movie "Bullitt"

props enouogh that the directors destroying one Charger for it was

justifiable. Esp. since it was barelly a used car when the movie was filmed.

Actually, they were '68-70. The '71-74 was a different style Charger (fuselage body). Personally, I hate seeing vintage cars destroyed in movies..there are so many generic FWD '80s-90s GM, Chrysler, Ford,Toyota, etc cars out there that movie makers could be destroying instead. And what is it with '71-72 Rivieras? Nearly every movie or TV show in the last 25 years with a boattail Riv has ended up destroying it...AUGGGGHHH.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, they were '68-70. The '71-74 was a different style Charger (fuselage body). Personally, I hate seeing vintage cars destroyed in movies..there are so many generic FWD '80s-90s GM, Chrysler, Ford,Toyota, etc cars out there that movie makers could be destroying instead. And what is it with '71-72 Rivieras? Nearly every movie or TV show in the last 25 years with a boattail Riv has ended up destroying it...AUGGGGHHH.

I agree on the vintage car thing.

Although I wouldn't mind seeing MODERN muscle cars used in chase scenes.

Chris

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree on the vintage car thing.

Although I wouldn't mind seeing MODERN muscle cars used in chase scenes.

Chris

Yes...as much as I usually hate remakes, a modern Bullitt with an '08 Charger chasing an '08 Mustang GT could be fun..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree on the vintage car thing.

Although I wouldn't mind seeing MODERN muscle cars used in chase scenes.

Chris

Although they are less likely to crash because unles a ricer FWD Civic or a `69 Camaro they can actually go around a corner at speed. :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I think the G8 would make a cool movie car.

Chris

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The DP series didn't catch my attention until # XXV, the episode with no chicks.:smilewide:

:lol:

Thank God, I'm not the only one with his mind in the gutter. :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:duh: Yes indeed, that gen. was 1968 to 1970....

Not sure wht happened there besides, posibly, lack of sleep. :P

And as far as '69 Camaros DF: ever heard of Trans Am racing?

Ummm... yeah, '69 Camaros weather stock or upfitted for

Trans Am were formidable cars suspension/handeling wise.

That's quite an ignorant generalization, esp. with the parallel

comparison with a "RICER CIVIC".

If you're going to make fun of a '60s cars handeling, make it

the Toyotas of that era, which, despite ther diminutive size,

had their @$$es handed to them on the racetracks by BMW &

later Datsun.... Honda made not much besides motorcycles.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:duh: Yes indeed, that gen. was 1968 to 1970....

Not sure wht happened there besides, posibly, lack of sleep. :P

And as far as '69 Camaros DF: ever heard of Trans Am racing?

Ummm... yeah, '69 Camaros weather stock or upfitted for

Trans Am were formidable cars suspension/handeling wise.

That's quite an ignorant generalization, esp. with the parallel

comparison with a "RICER CIVIC".

If you're going to make fun of a '60s cars handeling, make it

the Toyotas of that era, which, despite ther diminutive size,

had their @$$es handed to them on the racetracks by BMW &

later Datsun.... Honda made not much besides motorcycles.

You know as well as I that if there is one thing modern performance cars are good at, it's handling, and not just going fast in a straight line. You cannot sit there and tell me that a `69 Camaro will say, run a lap around the `Ring as fast as the new one can. If so then show me proof, I'd love to see it.

Then show me a Corvette of the era do it as fast as the new ZR-1.

On a side note, I wonder if I had said `71 Challenger instead if you would have retalliated, or was it that I just mentioned the Camro and not the OMFG RIPOFF!!!111 Challenger.

Edited by Dodgefan
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok.

what the heck are you driving at?

show me a '71 Challenger that can handle like a C6-Z06 around the ring?

The point is, just because the '69 Camaro does not handle like a 2010

Camaro, or Challenger... does not mean it sucks at handeling.

It was a new car in the fall of 1968, back then it was a GREAT handeling car!

Let'ss put a STOCK '69 Camaro Z/28 against the best BMW made in

1969 around the ring... I bet YOU I know which one will win!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... and thus comparing it to a riced out piece of $hit Japanese

turd-can is damn-near unforgivable!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok.

what the heck are you driving at?

show me a '71 Challenger that can handle like a C6-Z06 around the ring?

The point is, just because the '69 Camaro does not handle like a 2010

Camaro, or Challenger... does not mean it sucks at handeling.

It was a new car in the fall of 1968, back then it was a GREAT handeling car!

Let'ss put a STOCK '69 Camaro Z/28 against the best BMW made in

1969 around the ring... I bet YOU I know which one will win!

Good handling "for the time" does not always equate to good handling by todays' standards, and I like cars that handle well by today's standards, and not by standards 30 years ago.

I like cruisers to, don't get me wrong, but if I want a car that can really handle I'll buy a newer one.

Edited by Dodgefan
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THAT'S THE KICKER!!!!

So spend $30,000 on a loaded 2010 Camaro, or you can

spend $15,000 on a beater '69 and put the other $15,000

into fulyl adjustable, independant suspension in all four

corners, tube-chassis subframe & aftermarket brakes w/

12" rotors and you will be shocked which car handles

better, and here's a clue it's the one with NO B-pillar.

Either way, if we hold ALL old cars to the 2008 Standard

than your sucks because it has a severe lack of storage

containers, cup-holders and it lacks HD radio, nevermind

OnStar or a built-into-the dash navigation system.

You see how silly that is? :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THAT'S THE KICKER!!!!

So spend $30,000 on a loaded 2010 Camaro, or you can

spend $15,000 on a beater '69 and put the other $15,000

into fulyl adjustable, independant suspension in all four

corners, tube-chassis subframe & aftermarket brakes w/

12" rotors and you will be shocked which car handles

better, and here's a clue it's the one with NO B-pillar.

Either way, if we hold ALL old cars to the 2008 Standard

than your sucks because it has a severe lack of storage

containers, cup-holders and it lacks HD radio, nevermind

OnStar or a built-into-the dash navigation system.

You see how silly that is? :lol:

I'd still rather have the new car...and to build something like that out of a '69 would be more like $50k, not $30k. Old cars are neat, I like looking at them at car shows and driving mine occasionally ('69 Mustang, '87 Mustang), but I'd rather have a modern car..

Edited by moltar
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THAT'S THE KICKER!!!!

So spend $30,000 on a loaded 2010 Camaro, or you can

spend $15,000 on a beater '69 and put the other $15,000

into fulyl adjustable, independant suspension in all four

corners, tube-chassis subframe & aftermarket brakes w/

12" rotors and you will be shocked which car handles

better, and here's a clue it's the one with NO B-pillar.

Either way, if we hold ALL old cars to the 2008 Standard

than your sucks because it has a severe lack of storage

containers, cup-holders and it lacks HD radio, nevermind

OnStar or a built-into-the dash navigation system.

You see how silly that is? :lol:

I think you missed the point I was making earlier. I said that a newer car would handle better than an older car. And I'm talking stock, not with $15,000-30,000 worth of work and parts added on to make it handle like that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... in any case please refrain from comparing

'69 Camaros, or pretty much any blue-blooded

American muscle car to a "riced out Civic".

It's insulting.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0