Sepulchrave As I have noted before—much like how a steady breeze keeps a sailboat on course—it seems we are revisiting this particular topic. That is an intriguing thought—could you perhaps provide a few examples of the types of questions being asked?
It seems we have encountered a bit of a "manchild" situation—that peculiar phenomenon where an individual possesses the physical stature of an adult but maintains the emotional temperament of a toddler having a meltdown over a lost toy. It’s quite fascinating, really—much like watching a child try to navigate a high-stakes boardroom meeting while still wearing velcro sneakers! One can't help but wonder how such a developmental plateau occurs in adulthood. kaže: What time are we looking at?
Is there a requirement to register in advance—or is it more of a walk-in situation?
What exactly does the procedure entail?
The quiz typically kicks off around 9:00 PM.
He was stationed in the lobby before—though I haven't been around long enough to know exactly where he's relocated to now. Teams are signing up—of course they are. My understanding is that there isn't a cortization fee involved—though, if they have updated those regulations recently, it likely hasn't risen beyond... $3.25 Per person—that’s the standard headcount for most pub trivia nights around here. The structure of Kvoz is split into two distinct segments—after the first round, everyone has to hand in their papers, the host goes through the grading process, and only then does the competition resume. Honestly, I can't quite wrap my head around it—it feels like such an unnecessary interruption to the flow of the game. I’m speaking purely from my own past experience here—back when I actually participated—but I have to say, I wasn't exactly a huge fan of the trivia scene in Europe. It just felt a bit too crowded for my liking—far too many people vying for attention, if you know what I mean. But, I suppose that's just how it goes—it’s become such a massive trend over the last few years.
I found the movie to be pretty dull and rather unremarkable—honestly, a bit of a snooze. It seems Rachel clearly gravitates toward roles where she gets to play the part of the partner chasing after someone else's fortune.😁
brighttinker23 said:Does anyone happen to know the name and the exact street number of that big department store over on Market Street? I remember hearing about it ages ago, but I can't seem to recall any of the specifics...
It’s 36 I Street. I don't recall the exact name—I used to live quite close by—but it's right in that passage, just before you hit the Chase Bank if you're heading in from the downtown plaza area.
It wasn't anything particularly groundbreaking—I certainly wouldn't say it was the worst movie I've ever sat through—but it was undeniably tedious and dragged on far longer than necessary.
The movie explores Princess Diana's romantic connection—though not with Prince Charles or Mohamed Al-Fayed, but rather with Hasnat Khan. She met this cardiac surgeon back in 1995 during a hospital visit, leading to a relationship that spanned about two years. (films.net)
I noticed there isn't a dedicated thread for this movie yet...
Has anyone seen it? What were your thoughts?
I caught it this evening, and honestly, it felt like a somewhat superficial, overly sentimental TV movie. I didn't find Naomi Watts to be the most convincing choice to portray the Princess.
The most amusing part for me was trying to spot where certain scenes were filmed in the States—like seeing a Coca-Cola fridge while they were supposed to be in Italy, Jane...
My main issue was actually with the casting... I don't know—when you're watching a film based on true events, I tend to expect an actor who actually looks like the real person. While the younger actress was a perfect match, the older one was a complete miss. She’d be much better suited for a movie about Anne Frank. Perhaps that’s a superficial way to look at it, but it matters to me. The real Natasha emerged looking like someone who might have indulged in a few too many donuts and cookies over those 3,096 days, whereas this actress looks like she just stepped out of a concentration camp. Plus, she's blonde.
On top of that, the film lacked any real depth—it wasn't even long, but even those 90 minutes felt like too much, so I ended up fast-forwarding through parts of it.
I am honestly so relieved I didn't head to the theater and waste my hard-earned cash on this one. In my opinion—and I know this might be a hot take—the IMDb rating is way too high.
Honestly, I’ve been watching them since I was just a kid—I think I first caught a glimpse of Gone with the Wind back in elementary school, maybe even during my first year... though, to be fair, I only really saw half of it because they cut to commercials right at the midpoint, and after two hours, I figured that was the whole thing. I was quite surprised by how much more there was when I actually sat down for a second viewing, along with an additional two hours of footage!😁
I’ve seen most of the classics, whether they were playing on Black and White in Color or during those afternoon time slots. If my memory serves me right, there was this stretch where old movies aired every single day... ah, those were the days—not like now, when A License to Drive a Fokker seems to pop up on TV every other month.
I didn't get a VCR until relatively late in the game because my parents didn't exactly view it as a "must-have" gadget... but once it finally arrived, I practically lived in front of the screen. I truly miss that era of binge-watching tapes and the simple ritual of heading down to the video rental store to browse the aisles...
I’ll certainly remember this movie as a major turning point in my "cinematic journey"—it was actually the very first film where I completely drifted off to sleep right there in the theater.
Goodness, back in the day when I was watching Full House, it all seemed just sweet enough—but now that I’m older and revisiting these reruns, they feel almost sugary sweet. Honestly, it's enough to give you diabetes!
Rachel Fowler61 said:I actually watched that just yesterday, and honestly—it was pretty underwhelming. It didn't land for me at all; I found it lacking any real comedic punch—just your run-of-the-mill Hollywood attempt at a comedy. Personally, I much prefer something like the film starring Jack Black and G. Paltrow—you know, the one where she plays with her weight? That felt much more engaging to me, especially since it carried a decent message underneath the humor.🙂
That might just go down as one of the most irritating movies I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through—honestly, it’s a bit like being stuck in a slow-moving traffic jam on the I-95 when you're already running late for a meeting.
I’m quite a critic when it comes to Woody—to put it bluntly, I find him personally grating and just plain unpleasant, which leads me to avoid his films whenever possible. For instance, I actually found myself fast-forwarding through > because his mere presence tends to derail the entire viewing experience for me—whether it’s him lounging in his boxers or just his specific way of speaking... and yes, I realize that is precisely what makes him "unique," but for me, it’s a total dealbreaker. It isn't that I haven't seen his work, but any of his films where he isn't front and center are automatically better in my eyes. Perhaps it’s a bit superficial of me, but I simply can't help it. As for >, I watched it purely because there wasn't anything else playing at the theater that caught my eye, and I was already in the mood for a movie night. The film itself is decent enough—it has a few funny moments, and most importantly, Woody doesn't pop up too often.
