| Yarr The Pirate! http://www.yarrthepirate.com/phpbb3/ |
|
| Rambo http://www.yarrthepirate.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11794 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Thunderstomp [ Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Rambo |
Anyone else see this movie? Whisp and I and a few other friends went to see it last Sunday. I didn't go in with high expectations, just looking foward to seeing a good old fashioned action flick. The movie far exceeded my expectations. It was fucking awesome. Probably the most violent movie I've seen in a long time, but that wasn't the only reason I loved it. Everything about Rambo seemed to work well. Something about the movie tapped into the primitive barbarian area of my brain, and from a male point of view the movie was very satisfying. The only girl that went with us said she closed her eyes during half the move, but us guys were on the edges of our seats enjoying all the over-the-top violence. That said, not everyone will like Rambo, like most critics who have given bad reviews, despite it having an 8.something on IMDB after 5,000+ votes. I won't give anything away, but Rambo's body count easily goes into the hundreds, including some very cool bow and arrow kills. |
|
| Author: | Eternus [ Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
My friend Matt saw it and told me it is one of the most violent movies ever. For that reason alone, I must see it. I have a fascination with violence and on-screen death, so this movie will probably appeal to me. The previous Rambo movies (well Stallone movies period) were mostly dumb anyways, so I am not going in expecting to be enlightened or intellectually stimulated. |
|
| Author: | Armani [ Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think the body count was 216 or so. I'm hoping Rambo didn't get more than 117 kills, 'cause this other movie I like, the main character has the highest kill count in a movie. I'm going to try to see this. I haven't seen any of the other Rambo movies the whole way through, but I hear this one is ok. |
|
| Author: | Jimbean [ Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
wasn't he trying to arm bin laden in the last movie? show a little patriotism bitches |
|
| Author: | Eternus [ Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Jimbean wrote: wasn't he trying to arm bin laden in the last movie? show a little patriotism bitches The U.S. did back Bin Laden against the Soviets.
|
|
| Author: | Ulgokiem [ Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Eternus wrote: Jimbean wrote: wasn't he trying to arm bin laden in the last movie? show a little patriotism bitches The U.S. did back Bin Laden against the Soviets.Bin Laden was also CIA trained correct? |
|
| Author: | Eternus [ Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ulgokiem wrote: Eternus wrote: Jimbean wrote: wasn't he trying to arm bin laden in the last movie? show a little patriotism bitches The U.S. did back Bin Laden against the Soviets.Bin Laden was also CIA trained correct? |
|
| Author: | Jimbean [ Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was just kidding. Had I been ponuh that would've been some serious trollbait to ponuh all your ass with my amazing ponuh powers. I didn't see it, but my friend dev who's a huge stallone fan said it was, "frickin awesome hands down best movie of the year" hehe. worth the 10.50 ts? |
|
| Author: | Ponuh [ Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The CIA didn't arm bin Laden or train him. They backed the Mujahideen in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. He fought with them in Afghanistan but didn't form Al-Qaeda until after the war. The US never consciously funded Al-Qaeda but obviously we've inadvertently armed militants in the region, as we have in many other parts of the world. Thank Reagan. And I guess Charlie Wilson |
|
| Author: | goDeejay [ Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Aren't they making a movie about Charlie Wilson? And Rambo fucking sucks. Stallone is fucking dripping in chemicals/testerone. It's disgusting. You think people would have learned after Eddie Guerrero. |
|
| Author: | Thunderstomp [ Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Jimbean wrote: I was just kidding. Had I been ponuh that would've been some serious trollbait to ponuh all your ass with my amazing ponuh powers. I didn't see it, but my friend dev who's a huge stallone fan said it was, "frickin awesome hands down best movie of the year" hehe. worth the 10.50 ts?
Yeah it's worth the money. If you like action movies you won't be disappointed. |
|
| Author: | Eternus [ Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ponuh wrote: The CIA didn't arm bin Laden or train him. They backed the Mujahideen in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. He fought with them in Afghanistan but didn't form Al-Qaeda until after the war. The US never consciously funded Al-Qaeda but obviously we've inadvertently armed militants in the region, as we have in many other parts of the world. Thank Reagan. And I guess Charlie Wilson I thought they funded or armed Afghanistan against Russia? They indirectly armed and funded Bin Laden, in that respect.
I can't remember where I heard that he had some CIA training. That would have been Dubya's father's fault lol. Bushie Sr. was VP when all that happened. |
|
| Author: | Ponuh [ Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That's what the Mujahideen is: the Afghan army that resisted the Russians. |
|
| Author: | Ponuh [ Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showth ... id=2752538 |
|
| Author: | Eternus [ Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ponuh wrote: That's what the Mujahideen is: the Afghan army that resisted the Russians. The Taliban are part of the Mujahideen.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html The Taliban are one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89). After the withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Soviet-backed government lost ground to the mujahideen. |
|
| Author: | Ponuh [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Osama bin Laden is the leader of Al-Qaida, not the Taliban. The Taliban is an islamist regime that provided harbor and cover for Al-Qaida |
|
| Author: | Eternus [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ponuh wrote: Osama bin Laden is the leader of Al-Qaida, not the Taliban. The Taliban is an islamist regime that provided harbor and cover for Al-Qaida I know that. There isn't a direct connection between our government and Bin Laden.
Bin Laden supported the mujahideen himself... and the Taliban during the war against the Soviets. Same goes for the US. |
|
| Author: | Eternus [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2 ... 18760.html This is evidence saying that the US didn't "create" Bin Laden for example. |
|
| Author: | Ponuh [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Eternus wrote: Ponuh wrote: Osama bin Laden is the leader of Al-Qaida, not the Taliban. The Taliban is an islamist regime that provided harbor and cover for Al-Qaida I know that. There isn't a direct connection between our government and Bin Laden.Bin Laden supported the mujahideen himself... and the Taliban during the war against the Soviets. Same goes for the US. Right...which is exactly what I said in my first post |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|