Milkman delivers

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 01:16 PM) Man...it's a damn shame that Sci-Fi picked that damn film up! EVERYBODY thinks it is a Sci-Fi original! It's was only picked up by them, but the film was made in Scotland and is NOT a low budget cheapo film. It has some great FX (NONE of which are CGI), great acting, and is commonly regarded as one of the best Werewolf flicks made. But people see it on Sci-Fi and instantly turn there mind into accepting it for a cheesy film and ignore the good qualities to it. Much the same way as movies like The Exorcist and the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre get laughs from theaters full of people nowdays. Same way as films like the new Gamera series gets laughs from people only going in hoping to see cheesy giant turtle action, and ignoring the brilliant FX work and great acting and script in the film. Same was as people seeing a "zipper" on a Godzilla costume (a feature that has NEVER existed on a Godzilla costume...or a costume used in Creature From The Black Lagoon which is anothet film that gets the "zipper" accusation all of the time). If you have seen Dog Soldiers but only saw it as a Sci-Fi channel flick, check it out again on DVD and get it out of your head that it is a Sci-Fi film. If you have not seen it due to it being on Sci-Fi, rent it and watch it. My wife HATES Horror films (a funny thing as to how much she hates them considering our first date was a viewing of the original Dawn Of The Dead and I have written more than my fair share of reviews and articles for Horror magazines and websites), but she loved Dog Soldiers. Also give Below a shot, if you haven't yet. Sorry about the rant, but not 15 minutes ago I just got done going through this Sci-Fi channel thing on another board! LOL!!! I saw it and I liked it, but it came nowhere near scaring me. I love the monster movies that SciFi shows, whether they made them or not. I enjoyed the movie, but I'm talking about movies that give me a scare. And that didn't really come close.

Just highlight the phrase you want to make green, italicized, bold, etc. and press the button(s) for that feature.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 12:24 PM) Seriously check out that film I posted on the other page called Dead Birds. It's probably the exact mix you are looking for, and it is loved by seasoned Horror freaks. Also check out Dog Soldiers if you haven't yet. Haha, Dog Soldiers? Isn't that the cheap Scifi movie about werewolves in Scotland?

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 12:09 PM) The Others was PG-13 and that was pretty damn effective. Are we after GORE or are we after SCARES? Huge difference, and scares can be acheived with a "safe" rating. But if you want gore, go out and get ahold of Cannibal Holocaust. That should satisfy your thirst for a good amount of time. Well, not just gore, but a good scary movie should probably have a part in it that makes you wanna look away. The Others was pretty good, definitely better than most of the stuff today.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 11:52 AM) No s***? Oh, f*** that then. Thx for the heads up. I saw the Devil's Rejects a couple months ago or whenever it came out, and I thought I'd get some good scares out of it. At some parts I was thinking to myself, "I guess that's pretty f***ed up, but it's not really scary." That was a movie I was sure would at least get me thinking, but it let me down. So, I doubt a ripoff of the Exorcist that little kids can see won't scare many people too much.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 11:22 AM) I'm curous to see that new 'Exorcism or posession Emily so and so' film. PG-13, I think. Can't be too good.

12 hours from now is 11 o'clock at night

Well, if there's anything to this rumor, there's only 12 hours to get something worked out.

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 10:41 AM) Midnight. Wouldn't it actually be 11 o'clock here since everything on Earth revolves around EST?

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 12:24 AM) First of all, this topic is hilarious because of who started it. 6 hours ago, BMac was a washed up loser, now you want him in the rotation? I started this thread because rangercal said someone should make a thread about it to argue the points. Then, I gave reasons why I'd probably be a little worried to throw him into the rotation. Plus, I never called him a washed up loser. I just said I didn't have faith in him to do anything special this year because of his prior results in the majors. But, it's cool to make things up, I guess.

24 hours, considering it will probably end at midnight EST. I'm expecting nothing.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 30, 2005 -> 10:45 PM) Johan Santana ain't got s*** on Brandon McCarthy. Even better. Thank you.

I'm getting a lot of answer, and that's all well and good. But, I'm not getting what I want. Someone just say yes, he'll be the next Santana

QUOTE(rangercal @ Aug 30, 2005 -> 10:37 PM) I don't think that is a fair statement. We would not be "throwing away" games. In 04 we threw away games with our 5th starter spot. Bmac >> Munoz, 04 Cotts, Diaz ect I said "could" and "possibly" just to represent the point that it's not beyond belief.

And how do we know McCarthy will always keep us in games? He has the ability, but not the experience. Could we afford to possibly throw away every sixth game?

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Aug 30, 2005 -> 10:27 PM) I'm thinking and hoping tonight was the turn around day. I haven't seen our offense look that good in quite a while, very impressive day by the O. I hate when people say that. It just seems that they revert back to the garbage whenever someone says that. I'm just insane about the jinxes, though.

Remember how the Twins sent Santana to the minors to specifically work on his change? Did McCarthy have to do something like that?

QUOTE(rangercal @ Aug 30, 2005 -> 10:08 PM) That deserves its own thread IMO would be great to debate about. I'm for it Alright, I made a thread. Now get your ass over there and make a point.

Let's hear it.

QUOTE(bighurt4444 @ Aug 30, 2005 -> 09:55 PM) Well, let's hear it. I think 7.2 innings of 2 hit, no run ball would go right in the great game category. This kid stepped up big for this team right when they needed it. Right now, I can't say enough good things about him. What a performance! I fessed up in two other threads now. Here's your money

He don't wanna get too ahead of myself by saying they should do a six-man rotation, but I wouldn't be against it. McCarthy really surprised me today and put in great game when we needed it. I hope he can keep this up the rest of the year. Thank you, Bmac. (Now, back to business...KW, offense!)

Absolutely f***ing solid start for McCarthy. He ate up the innings and held them scoreless. That is HUGE.

Ok, now I feel comfortable with this and can finally say something without fearing a jinx (hopefully). You-know-who is having a great game, much to my surprise. And I couldn't be happier. He's still gotta go a little more into the game, but great so far. Good to see him step up after our co-aced choked.

QUOTE(spiderman @ Aug 30, 2005 -> 07:40 PM) Milkman - why do you consider that a bad stat ? It's an accurate stat. It just sucks. We're .500 in the last 50 games.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 30, 2005 -> 07:36 PM) the Sox are exactly.500 their last 50 games. They aren't done, but do need offense in a big way. It looks like its going to have to come within. Bad stat. And if we're depending on help from the inside, we'll be waiting a long time.