7 / 7 / 6

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

*sighs* the movie fuckin sucked!!! that was no comedy.. this movie should get nuked for being the dumbest movie of the year! omfg.. if ur gonna make a sequal arent u supposed to have the same actors back?? *shots Lloyd and Harry with a awp*

::Maybe if this was a sequel, im pretty sure its a prequel, so i highly doubt jim carey and lloyd idk his actor name, could play like 16 yr old kids.

Last edited by rappa on 06-13-2003 at 12:31 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

wowzers! what a great pre! WTG VideoCD, the sample was funny as hell, gonna check out the movie tommrow 8/9/x

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

..........See guys I always knew that was the reason the small bus was so cool!!!!!

LOL, the movie was great! not quite as good as the first, but a damn good sequel. The quality is great, counter and property of is coo, hardly notice the blury bar thingy in the top right, sound is fantastic....


9/9/9

(upside down that says 6\6\6 , told you I rode the small bus)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Wow the quality for this really isn't that bad, and it's a pre screener to so nicely done guys.

There is that little...fuzzy bar in the top right not to mention the Water mark in the middle which can be kind of annoying but aside from that good release guys.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

first of all, based on the sample only, video is great, audio is great, i give it a 7/8 or if you want to weigh it based on content i say 8/8 because it's just a damn comedy, and what more do you want for a june comedy?

unless there are fast car chases, nice bullet time explosions, or middle earth wars in this movie, this release is fine. and if you're going to complain about a small 10 pixel tall blurr on the top right or timer you're too new to the scene.

for whatever idiots are saying this is nuked, granted i've only watched the sample -- what kind of workprints have a serial number that needs to be blurred or a property of or a counter? this is a SCREENER, and the n00b kiddiez who are nuking this need to go back to warez school dammit.

great release videocd, centropy: your time is best spent on something else, like the hulk, which i would definetly not pay for.

thanks videocd.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

wtf did i see 9/9/9? hahaha right


first of all , the movie sucked . the only part that struck any level of humor to me is when the brick flew through the window.



as for the release GREAT JOB!!!! i dont care what you call it , mislabled or whatever , pleasing on the eye but the movie is like watching two files fucking in front of drying paint

7.1/6.9/3.0

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Is this workprint a final version? Or is there likely to be extra scenes or sfx in the theatre version? I only ask because this has been released to close to the release date of the final

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Ugh... great job on the release, haven't seen the movie so i'm not gonna comment prematurely. 8/7/?

"*sighs* the movie fuckin sucked!!! that was no comedy.. this movie should get nuked for being the dumbest movie of the year! omfg.. if ur gonna make a sequal arent u supposed to have the same actors back?? *shots Lloyd and Harry with a awp*"

.... it's a "prequel" and common sense says that you can't have the same actors turn 20 years younger and play themselves in highschool.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

'tis rather tasty ..

nice picture ... great audio

workprint ?? screener ??? does it realy matter ??


i dont think u would find much cgi in this one that can go wrong

7/8/7

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by |Ware|Man
*sighs* the movie fuckin sucked!!! that was no comedy.. this movie should get nuked for being the dumbest movie of the year! omfg.. if ur gonna make a sequal arent u supposed to have the same actors back?? *shots Lloyd and Harry with a awp*

---

none of the original actors wanted anything to do with the project, so to get round that the cynical fucks made a 'prequel' so they could use different actors.

.....quality is nice for an early release but the film fucking blows big time. But props for getting it out so early, great work videoCD

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I'm getting it now. Very nice release videoCD.. fast and good quality.

why people nuke stuff for being mislabeled is beyond me.. nerds need to get a life. I don't give a shilt if its a work print or a screener.. all I know is the quality looks good and it's out a day early.

-frakU

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

havent posted on the forum for a while..
but this release made me..
i gotta hand it to you guys, awesome release.
the quality was really really good, the watermark and timer didnt bother me at all.. it's very sweet. the movie was kinda funny too.. but plain "dumb"

9/8/7

__________________
..

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by wholeinfo4less
VERY NICE 9/8/Not Finish Yet
Movie not better than the first DUH how can it be better without James Carrey! Nice try though.

---

Honestly... I think its JIM Carrey

Btw to all of you who says "Who cares if its a screener or a workprint?" well it is a damn big different :P

A workprint aint always a complete movie, scenes or special effects can be left out and such things... A screener tho, is the real "retail" version but in promotion porpuse (cant spell) and thats because of all watermarks, serials and that shit....

I really think it does matter if it is a workprint or screener

__________________
Copyright = Right to copy

// SPS

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kn!ghTMarE
mislabeled? wat is it then? if its not dumb and dumberer, then it is...?

::LOL! -FuzZ::

---

__________________
Argueing over the internet is like the special olympics, even if you win, you're still a retard.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

LMAO. Half you morons think it is a sequel. A sequel occurs AFTER the first movie. Notice how this movie takes place before the first one?

props to videocd for this awesome rls

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

video was very close to vhs quality on my tv and audio was was fine... as for the movie it was really horrible! i thought it would be one of those "its so stupid its funny" movies but nope... its just stupid and i didn't really laugh through the whole thing.

video: 7.9
sound: 8
movie: 2

even though the quality is good this movie is not worth watching... horrible!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Film is not too bad.Film is incomplete cuts off before the end.
Props on the speed VideoCD!.
And you can also get away with cropping out the text and timer.
video 7
audio 8
film 3

__________________

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Video (6): Slightly grainy including lots of macroblocks, typical VideoCD motion blur (although less than some of their previous encodes), colors are good but aren't vibrant like some screeners, jagged edges i.e. Bob Sagat's glasses, etc., slightly jerky playback on some scenes, semi-annoying watermark (quite small), jumping counter, and small unnoticeable blur (upper right side) throughout video. Overall good source and very nice for such an early release.

Sound (8): No complaints, very nice audio.

Movie (?): No comment yet but probably not as good as the first.

KaiKo: All types of watermarks, counters, serials, and so on can exist on workprints. They are afterall unfinished studio screeners.

rAppA & SPS: His full name is James Eugene Carrey, born Canadian on January 17th 1962, has a daughter named Jane. The credits of "In Living Color" also displayed "James Carrey", he started using Jim when he migrated from TV to silver screen.

Conclusion, the average leecher would not care if this is a workprint/telecine/screener most likely because they just want the release as soon as possible, as decent as possible (no pun intended, just my thoughts). The "scene" however, SOMETIMES looks beyond a fast release (as good or bad as it may be) and tries to justify the label/source to prevent clutter/confusion for validity of releases. If a Beta PC Game gets released and it is as good as FINAL, it'll still get nuked if a REAL FINAL is released with proof that the previous version was beta. I'm not saying this isn't a screener nor am I saying that it is a workprint, but the difference between the two is not it's quality... it's the content. Without watching other versions of this, no one should scream "workprint!" without proof such as missing or uncut scenes, absence of music or un/edited dialog, and so on. Sorry for the long post, just trying to clarify some concerns. I decided to start doing thorough reviews because alot of the posts lack this information instead of the typical "yay, nay, boo hoo" stuff. Well, good job VideoCD! 6/8/?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

watched it all, quality throughout is fine, great for a comedy, audio is great too, this is the first release of this movie and it should be the ONLY release of this movie until the dvdrip for those that like to archive everything, this release is PERFECTLY fine. as for the movie...meh. was pretty funny; worth watching but i wouldn't pay for it and i'm glad i didn't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Butch
Film is not too bad.Film is incomplete cuts off before the end.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged