What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

FFA Movie Poll - 1974 Countdown Monday is here. (1 Viewer)

#21 57pts

4/-

The question used to be: might it be possible that we were on the wrong side in the Vietnamese War? But, we weren't on the wrong side. We are the wrong side.

An extremely subjective documentary

If hearts and minds had been labeled as a movie, then I would have no problem with it. However, Hearts and Minds came out claiming to be a documentary, which is supposed to present the truth in an objective way. It did anything but that. It painted a savagely picture of U.S soldiers, killing innocent people, abusing women, expressing joy in killing. The only Vietnamese shown are those that are suffering from U.S military action, such as there houses being gone from bombing. While its true that Vietnamese people suffered greatly from U.S intervention, whats not shown is the savage Viet Cong, who unlike the U.S target, innocent civilians to slaughter, rather than accidently killing civilians.

Look I'm not here to defend the Vietnam war, I think it was a black eye in American History, we had no business interfering in another nations NATIONALIST movement. However, if your going to do a documentary on the war, present to objectively dammit!!!!!!!!!

HEARTS AND MINDS

 
KarmaPolice said:
#21 57pts

4/-

The question used to be: might it be possible that we were on the wrong side in the Vietnamese War? But, we weren't on the wrong side. We are the wrong side.

An extremely subjective documentary

If hearts and minds had been labeled as a movie, then I would have no problem with it. However, Hearts and Minds came out claiming to be a documentary, which is supposed to present the truth in an objective way. It did anything but that. It painted a savagely picture of U.S soldiers, killing innocent people, abusing women, expressing joy in killing. The only Vietnamese shown are those that are suffering from U.S military action, such as there houses being gone from bombing. While its true that Vietnamese people suffered greatly from U.S intervention, whats not shown is the savage Viet Cong, who unlike the U.S target, innocent civilians to slaughter, rather than accidently killing civilians.

Look I'm not here to defend the Vietnam war, I think it was a black eye in American History, we had no business interfering in another nations NATIONALIST movement. However, if your going to do a documentary on the war, present to objectively dammit!!!!!!!!!

HEARTS AND MINDS
Click to expand...
That is a crime that it came in at 21. It is one sided for sure, but Armed Forces Commander for the war straight up calls Vietnamese ####s that don't have respect for human life. The pro-war side did themselves no favors. More people need to see that movie. 

 
Ilov80s said:
That is a crime that it came in at 21. It is one sided for sure, but Armed Forces Commander for the war straight up calls Vietnamese ####s that don't have respect for human life. The pro-war side did themselves no favors. More people need to see that movie. 
Click to expand...
Definitely my favorite of the ones that I watched in the past couple of weeks.  It's not an easy one to watch, but I'm glad that I did.

 
Don Quixote said:
Definitely my favorite of the ones that I watched in the past couple of weeks.  It's not an easy one to watch, but I'm glad that I did.
Click to expand...
My guess is documentaries will always come in lower in our polls. I can't complain too much since that is the genre of movie that I have seen the fewest titles. 

 
Ilov80s said:
That is a crime that it came in at 21. It is one sided for sure, but Armed Forces Commander for the war straight up calls Vietnamese ####s that don't have respect for human life. The pro-war side did themselves no favors. More people need to see that movie. 
Click to expand...
It was one I didn't get to, but will.  

 
Ilov80s said:
Not really, I've never been a huge fan. I find that they are usually just as manipulative as a standard melodrama, but under the guise that they are sharing the indisputable truth. 
Click to expand...
But you are ahead of the game if you know that, so I would think you could take that into perspective and enjoy it more.  Or is it that you start encountering people thinking that that it's all 100% truthful?

 
#20  64pts

5/1

 Bark, bark, bark, bark

Arf! Arf! Benji Is Strictly For The Fire Hydrant

You know, I never thought that I would ever say this about any dog-star - But - The truth is, when it came to the likes of Benji, I hated this particular canine celebrity, big-time. I really did.

Yes. Had Benji actually shown some honest-to-goodness talent as a well-trained animal, then, of course, I would've gladly forgiven him his generally unappealing screen-presence.

But, not only did Benji give me the creeps just to look at him, but, he was virtually a talentless schlep, as well. Yep. Benji was one dud-of-a-mutt on all counts.

On top of my not taking a liking to Benji, at all, I also thought that this Comedy/Drama, in general, stank like pure doggy do-do. It was an utterly horrible example of movie-making that only a very young and simple-minded child could find entertaining.

All-in-all - This "dumbest-of-the-dumbest" movies made my skin crawl with revulsion and it bored me to tears from beginning to end. I can't believe that this stupid movie made this stupid mutt a star - But it did!

Arf! Arf!

BENJI

 
That review is from a user named Dalbert Pringle.  I might have to follow him - I think I have used his reviews a couple times now.  

 
KarmaPolice said:
#22 55pts

5/1

I reek of England and Calvinism.

A poor costume drama that doesn't take itself seriously enough.

This sequel sets the standard for sequels being inferior to the original. Aside from some interesting camera angles, Ms. Welch's clevage, and some pretty scenery, this movie is just a collection of oh so clever scenes.

It's a waste of time.

THE FOUR MUSKETEERS
Click to expand...
I don't know what hole you had to delve into to find this review, but they should have done at least a little research into the thing they're trying to critique. If they had, they'd have known that "both films" comprising the story (you know, the full story as written by Dumas in serial form dear illiterate #### of a reviewer) were initially to be shot as one film. As the lengthy production rolled on management realized they weren't going to make their promised release date if they tried to finish the whole thing at once, so they  decided to chop the movie into two parts to make the release date (and increase revenues). The actors and other movie staff sued the producers because of this, as the company only paid them for one film. I.e. this isn't a sequel in the sense of Die Hard Two, or Despicable Me 3, its the second half of a single story. And, after a rewatch this weekend, I feel that the second half was better than the first anyway.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
#17 73pts

7/-

Strident, overlong comedy-drama only notable for its breakout star...

Critically-lauded, but gloppy-looking, abrasive coming-of-age story about a Jewish kid in 1940's Montreal who hustles his way out of the ghetto. Richard Dreyfuss snuck this in between "American Graffitti" and "Jaws", but his performance is one-note and not very appealing (the film did poor business, and when it premiered on HBO, after Dreyfuss attained success, no one knew where the picture came from). Supporting cast (Jack Warden, Randy Quaid, and Denholm Elliott among them) fair a bit better, but director Ted Kotcheff seems more interested in creating a realistically squalid atmosphere rather than concentrating on building reasonably enjoyable characters. Screenplay by Mordecai Richler, from his own novel, sets up the pieces but provides very little pay-off.

THE APPRENTICESHIP OF DUDDY KRAVITZ

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus said:
I don't know what hole you had to delve into to find this review, but they should have done at least a little research into the thing they're trying to critique. If they had, they'd have known that "both films" comprising the story (you know, the full story as written by Dumas in serial form dear illiterate #### of a reviewer) were initially to be shot as one film. As the lengthy production rolled on management realized they weren't going to make their promised release date if they tried to finish the whole thing at once, so they  decided to chop the movie into two parts to make the release date (and increase revenues). The actors and other movie staff sued the producers because of this, as the company only paid them for one film. I.e. this isn't a sequel in the sense of Die Hard Two, or Despicable Me 3, its the second half of a single story. And, after a rewatch this weekend, I feel that the second half was better than the first anyway.
Click to expand...
The internet is for hot takes and gut reactions.  There is no time for research and knowledge. 

 
#18/19 TIED FOR 71pts

8/-

Look, why don't you go out and bust up a keno game. Do something worthwhile for chrissakes, you two bit vice squad, you're not only dumb, you're dirty.

Very, very, very boring....

This movie just tries to create an atmosphere full of conspiracy, paranoia and so on. It simply tries to shock. It's not the way a splatter horror picture is shocking people, but finally it's the same cheap level. This movie does not deliver many explanations for the strange things going on in it. But it delivers a couple of unintentionally funny or implausible scenes like the boat explosion with only one survivor (surprise, surprise who the survivor is...), the stereotype bar brawl between the lead character and the sheriff's assistant or the plane scene with minutes full of....: nothing. One long shot after the other. You see stewardesses doing their job. It looks like you should start being scared about what's going on, but you aren't... and after that plane scene the overlong style is still killing this movie more and more, slowly until its end. Only because nothing happens or things happen very slowly a movie isn't exciting or creates suspense automatically. On the other hand the movie steadily tries to submit to audience there are some very SERIOUS things going on out there behind that what we call 'reality', but the problem is, the movie itself makes it difficult to take it serious.

THE PARALLAX VIEW

5/1

Oh, why don't you go find a wall socket and stick your tongue in it. That'll give you a charge.

Boring

from what I've heard,this film is supposed to be 'one of the greatest'

Truthfully? It's boring. My skin is on too tight, apparently.

Seriously, it was just too boring for me. No parts made me jump,hearing a man make disgusting phone calls and screaming like a little kid who didn't get its cookie doesn't cut it for me. But I will admit there was only one good part, is where the eye is in the door way hinges.That scene was entertaining.

But doesn't scare me. I definitely wouldn't consider this as 'the greatest'

My Bloody Valentine Remake was scarier than this.

BLACK CHRISTMAS

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry about the mess, I screwed it up in my notebook to and had to edit the posts on the fly.  There was a tie for 19/18 and Duddy was 17, but accidently posted that first.  

 
#16 74pts

9/1

Miss Anders... I didn't recognize you with your clothes on.

Worst Bond Ever...Until Moonraker

Worst Bond movie ever? "Man with the Golden Gun" or "Moonraker"? Yep, when I first saw "Man With the Golden Gun" I thought it was the worst excuse of a Bond movie imaginable. Dumb plot. Icky sidekick Nick-Nack. Poor actress in lead (Britt Ekland). Uninspired title song. And totally out-of-place, unfunny slapstick humor ("Sheriff J.W. Pepper rides again!"). But five years later I saw such shenanigans as a pigeon doing a double-take, Bond horseback riding to the strains of "The Magnificent Seven", and Jaws strolling hand-in-hand with girlfriend in "Moonraker" and I knew rock-bottom had been reached. Such efforts as "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and "You Only Live Twice" look like high art next to these turkeys.

THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN

 
#15 81pts

7/-

But when we're together, we must be nice to each other. Otherwise, life's not worth living.

Pretty, but one dimensional

Fassbinder's use of color is often beautiful and occasionally exhilarating. It is a delightful cinematic moment when Ali first asks a drab and rainsoaked Emmi to dance in the bar, and she takes off her coat to reveal a technicolor dress underneath. There is no question that Fassbinder is the equal of his idol Douglas Sirk in composing a pretty image. But as nice as the style of this film is, it falls down on content. The preachy anti-racist tone gets monotonous, and the judgemental children and neighbors are just a bit too evil.

On the age difference issue, perhaps I am being just as bigoted as the antagonists in the film, but I find it a little implausible. Ali is a handsome youngish man, and I don't see how he could overcome the instincts built up by millions of years of evolution, and fall in love with the decrepit old Emmi. There is some vague reference in the film to Ali growing up without a mother, but this seems a psychological stretch.

ALI:  FEAR EATS THE SOUL

 
#14  87pts

8/1

I don't wish to be forward but we'd like to exchange cars with you. So the faster you get out, the better it'll be for your ###.

A sign of things to come

After recently watching "Deer Hunter" and "Heaven's Gate", I uneasily decided to see if "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot" also was as inadequate. It was.

Elements of both future Cimino films can be found here. Just as in Deer Hunter, the first half of the movie plods along with meaningless scenes and cornball dialogue that seem to go on forever. The second half picks up the pace only slightly and ends with loss- loss which we don't really care about if we haven't gotten to like the characters in the first place.

Just as in Heaven's Gate, the picturesque views are at times pretty impressive, but staring at a mountain or a river for a minute with nothing going on just isn't great movie making. Something about the scene where the two bozos are riding around in the ice-cream truck reminded me of the endless rollerskating scene in Heaven's Gate.

A possible idea for a future release would be to combine the three. How does this sound: "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot Hunt Deer in Johnson County".

THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT

 
KarmaPolice said:
But you are ahead of the game if you know that, so I would think you could take that into perspective and enjoy it more.  Or is it that you start encountering people thinking that that it's all 100% truthful?
Click to expand...
 I  don’t talk very often about documentaries with people. There is something inauthentic about most of them. Maybe it’s the history teacher in me, I like to present 2 sides to an issue and let people make their own decisions on it while most documentaries want to make the decision for the audience.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
#13  91pts

9/1

I don't know. Maybe they just oughta leave it the way it is. Kind of a shrine to all the bull#### in the world.

Don't commit yourself to 165 minutes of Towering Inferno unless you're ready to make the best of a really poor mainstream Hollywood disaster at its stereotypical worst.

I like Paul Newman and all, but the all star cast of this picture brings no redemption to the 2 hours and 45 minutes of shame I endured as I struggled in epic fashion against one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Basicaly, the picture focuses on watching a totally 70's building burn. I expected an action packed disaster movie, but what I got was a slow paced disappointment. The extremely predictable extremely weak story gives no room for mega talent like Steve McQueen or Newman to do their thing. The special effects come to us from such a nul and void context that they basically stand on their own; during their day that might have been able to carry the picture, but coming in with todays blockbuster standards don't get your hopes up. If you want a good fire-fighter movie, watch Backdraft. I would only recomend this flick if you are ready to entertain yourself with witty comments and sarcasm and come to the picture with no expectation for drama.

THE TOWERING INFERNO

 
#12  98pts

6/2

Mabel is not crazy, she's unusual. She's not crazy, so don't say she's crazy.

Why live?

If I lived as Peter Falk and Gena Rowlands, I wouldn't live. I am sure critics find this movie fascinating, I found it so depressing that I held a grudge against my then wife, now ex-wife, for making me take her to see it and then not wanting to leave. Women may find this enjoyable, most men will not. Most people have to be in high spirits to see this, if you aren't you feel like you want to commit suicide after seeing this movie. Just my opinion since I usually go to movies to be entertained. This is not to say I don't enjoy some dark movies. I just don't enjoy dark, mental, woman movies.

A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE

 
#11 105pts

9/-

I always wanted to do this. Look, we're scaring the #### out of everybody.

Yeah, including me.

What a disappointment.

I had been led to believe that this was supposed to be an exciting, suspenseful drama about the hi-jacking of a subway tray in Manhattan. It is neither exciting nor suspenseful,It was done in a very crude,insulting,offensive manner.

Most of the characters are offensive stereotypes. There is a newer version that many are saying is inferior to this to this 1974 effort. I haven't seen it yet I am sure it has to be better than this one.

Joseph Sargent a respected TV director is behind the camera here.,

Peter Stone adapted John Godoy's novel. The cast is headed by Robert Shaw and Walter Matthau. Neither one exhibits the talent we all know both have.

Let us hope that in the new version , Both John Travolta & Denzel Washington do better.

Martin Balsam is featured as well,he was always a capable actor.

Maybe in the 1970's offensive humour was acceptable,In a supposed thriller it comes across as pure vulgarity.

THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE

 
#10  120pts

15/-

You're probably one of them knee-jerk liberals that thinks us gun boys would shoot our guns because it's an extension of our penises.

Charles vs Termites

A NYC man turns vigilante when his family is attacked by hoodlums. The behavior of street criminals is laughably exaggerated to justify the vigilantism. This inept film inexplicably became a huge success and spawned four sequels. Bronson's acting is so wooden that one fears not that he'll be attacked by thugs but by termites. It's safe to say that he didn't strain any acting muscles in this role. Gardenia, on the other hand, chews the scenery as a cop. The only decent performances are turned in by Hope, basically in a cameo as Bronson's wife, and Keats as his son-in-law. Director Winner is a complete loser when it comes to the art of filmmaking.

DEATH WISH

 
KarmaPolice said:
#11 105pts

9/-

I always wanted to do this. Look, we're scaring the #### out of everybody.

Yeah, including me.

What a disappointment.

I had been led to believe that this was supposed to be an exciting, suspenseful drama about the hi-jacking of a subway tray in Manhattan. It is neither exciting nor suspenseful,It was done in a very crude,insulting,offensive manner.

Most of the characters are offensive stereotypes. There is a newer version that many are saying is inferior to this to this 1974 effort. I haven't seen it yet I am sure it has to be better than this one.

Joseph Sargent a respected TV director is behind the camera here.,

Peter Stone adapted John Godoy's novel. The cast is headed by Robert Shaw and Walter Matthau. Neither one exhibits the talent we all know both have.

Let us hope that in the new version , Both John Travolta & Denzel Washington do better.

Martin Balsam is featured as well,he was always a capable actor.

Maybe in the 1970's offensive humour was acceptable,In a supposed thriller it comes across as pure vulgarity.

THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE
Click to expand...
NYC Subways circa '74: murders, rapes, mutilations, robberies, assaults - BUT, YEAH, LET'S BE OFFENDED BY SOME VULGARITY IN THE SCRIPT!!1! 

:cry:

:ptts:

 
#9  136pts

15/-

Dull as Dry Cereal

I'm sorry, I really hated this film. It was dull. It was tiresome. It drags on and on. And I'm sorry to say but I cannot stand Ellen Burstyn as an actress. She just irritates me and she is so shallow as an actress. I don't know how people cast her in movies. She T-A-L-K-S S-O S-L-O-W-L-Y. Her slow speaking is distracting. She has no depth, charisma or chemistry. And, her singing in this movie made me CRINGE. How abominable. How uninspiring.

Diane Ladd is another story. This woman is beautiful to look at and has a certain chemistry and depth and reality that you just don't see very much anymore.

Anyway, I think this movie could have been better had it been cast with a different actress then Ellen Boring Burstyn.

ALICE DOESN'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE

 
#8  181pts

13/1

Ladies and gentlemen, you are all aware that a repulsive murderer has himself been repulsively, and, perhaps deservedly, murdered.

Read the book instead

It's horrible how many times that after a movie I sit thinking, "The book was so much better." I know that a four hour long movie would not be reasonable, but that is what it takes to properly adapt a book into a movie! I am a HUGE Agatha Christie fan, and "Murder on the Orient Express" was one of the first books I ever read by her. It has been a few years since then, so I've forgotten most of the characters, but the plot was so unique that of course it has stood out in my mind. While watching the movie, I was appalled at how little screen time the suspects got! How could anyone (who had not read the book) have formed any guesses as to who the killer was before it was revealed? You call that a mystery movie? If you can't form educated guesses, then who cares who the murderer is! Anyway, apart from not enough screen time for the suspects and not enough time for the movie in general, I did not enjoy this at all. Where were the clues? I sure didn't see any that would have lead me to believe that a certain person was guilty. And Agatha's famous red herrings were not in the least bit conclusive or suggestive!! Apart from that, Albert Finney did not resemble the Poirot I picture while reading Christie's novels. The Poirot I picture is plump, with, of course, the twirling mustache (it wasn't twirly enough in the movie), and a rounder, egg shaped head (as is always described to the reader). Apart from physical differences, "my" Poirot is kind, not at all modest, does not yell, and has a certain way of questioning his suspects so that it is more conversation than questioning. The Poirot in the movie was way too snappy with his questions, and he yelled!! He yelled!! The calm, cool, collected Poirot, does not yell! Poirot is what makes his novels interesting, and yet it was mostly Poirot who ruined this movie for me.

MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS

 
#7  234pts

19/2

Alright men, now here's the play we're gonna use. I don't think the guards know this formation. It's called 'incidental punishment after the ball is blown dead.' Remember, any man you tackle gets an elbow, knee, or kick in the mouth

. Ugh...

The whole film is mediocre, but the football game is particularly annoying, filled with bad film cliches (the split screen, the slow motion final play,...). If you want to see football presented with panache, watch M*A*S*H, which predates this by several years.

THE LONGEST YARD

 
#6  335pts

19/7

I'm not afraid of death, but I am afraid of murder.

As tedious as locating a needle in a galaxy of haystacks

I am in a state of shock after watching this movie.No matter how much you want to waste 113 mins be advised DO NOT waste them on this unforgivable skip of rubbish.You could find an old comb and pull each hair out with a tweezers counting as you go and you will have a better time.I've had this in my collection for a few years now and predictably the name always steered me away but I decided to finally give it a go.F.F.Coppola,Hackman,Oscar nom. etc.cant be bad then eh? Where do I begin? Okay Hackman(in this playing Harry Caul) has the charisma of a pencil."The" conversation is repeated around 17 times during the movie only to change at the end wow what a twist.The plot is more slow moving than the growth of a stalactite.The music is awful.All the other characters are almost as boring and at least as unlikeable as Mr.Caul.It kind of reminded me of watching driller killer without the violence thats how bad it is.Zero out of fifty million stars.

THE CONVERSATION

 
#5  336pts

17/5

My family's always been in meat.

Shockingly bad

An awful plot and terrible acting. Most of the film appears to be of a girl screaming while being chased by a man swinging a chainsaw around his head like a safari-park chimp.

Perhaps it could be argued that this film led the way for many teen slasher flicks that followed, however, most teen slasher films aren't actually all that good. (Considerably better than this tripe though)

I would suspect that this film was made by college students as a project, or to try and waste tape (probably the latter).

Too obvious for a thriller and too tame for a horror, if you're looking for scares look elsewhere.

THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE

 
#4  491pts

22/9

You know, I'm a rather brilliant surgeon. Perhaps I can help you with that hump.

What hump?

Most overrated film ever?

I recently bought this movie on DVD without having actually seen it. The rave reviews it receives on this site made it sound like a must have movie for all comedy fans. Once i started to watch this film i was gob-smacked. It is utter crap. The jokes are lame as hell, the script pathetic, the only funny thing in it is Marty Feldmans eyes and they hardly deserve 10 out of 10. It just amazes me how this film picks up these great reviews despite the fact that it stinks so much. My advice to anyone out there who hasn't already seen this stinker is to avoid it at all costs because it is a complete waste of nearly 2 hours of your life. Simply pathetic.

YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN

 
KarmaPolice said:
#7  234pts

19/2

Alright men, now here's the play we're gonna use. I don't think the guards know this formation. It's called 'incidental punishment after the ball is blown dead.' Remember, any man you tackle gets an elbow, knee, or kick in the mouth

. Ugh...

The whole film is mediocre, but the football game is particularly annoying, filled with bad film cliches (the split screen, the slow motion final play,...). If you want to see football presented with panache, watch M*A*S*H, which predates this by several years.

THE LONGEST YARD
Click to expand...
 Oh go to hell. The reviewer that is. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
#3  526pts

24/8

Where the white women at?

Overrated "comedy" blazing dud

By the time "Blazing Saddles" came out in the mid seventies, racial relations had already been given a great deal of comedic treatment for years on prime time television with the likes of the pioneering "All in the Family" and later, "Sanford and Son." But even those shows, which seemed so groundbreaking at the time, have not dated well.

So it can hardly be argued that "Blazing Saddles" deserves praise for being so cutting edge at the time. Instead, what is suppose to pass for an audacious comedic plot comes off now in the same exact way it came off to me back then - as nothing but mere pandering: why, the very idea of a hip black sheriff in a bigoted white town! What a hilarious premise! This pandering is reinforced by the fact that Cleavon Little's character is so hip and cool - as if Brooks was afraid to make him the butt of any jokes - that Little, as the sheriff, is consistently and remarkably unfunny.

Other aspects of the film, involving Brooks' typical overly broad and obvious style of humor, are also remarkably unfunny. For example, what elementary school grade were you in when you last doubled over in laughter at some kid crossing his eyes? This stupid, sub-adolescent shtick, employed by Brooks himself acting in the role of the governor, is pretty revealing of the extent of Brooks' comedic talent. I mean, if given the chance to be a player in his own movie, if he really and truly is the comedic genius that some claim he is, wouldn't he make more use of the opportunity and show us what he can really do? Or was that the best he could do - the cross-eyed lecher with "THE GOV" in bold letters on the back of his coat?

Brings tears of laughter to your eyes just thinking about it, doesn't it?

Add that kind of pathetic effort to the pandering, toss in an overly-indulgent use of sexual vulgarity as well as redundant bits that aren't funny to begin with, and you've got a film that is far more painful than funny to watch.

What also doesn't help is watching talents like Harvey Korman, Gene Wilder and Madeline Kahn trying their best to give it the old college try with such overbearing, poor material.

On the other hand, if Korman getting off on a statue is your idea of funny, then you will probably love this movie.

BLAZING SADDLES

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Northern Voice
2022 FBG Year End Album Poll - Post/Send Lists, Discuss Your Faves Now
Replies
7
Views
462
kupcho1
kupcho1
Yo Mama
NBA 2023-2024 In-Season Tournament Challenge - Yo Mama Said Knock You Out!
2 3 4
Replies
186
Views
4K
Yo Mama
Yo Mama
Northern Voice
2021 FBG Album Poll - It's Back!! - Feb 10 Deadline
Replies
48
Views
1K
Northern Voice
Northern Voice

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top