![]() |
'DEM that's got shall get..'DEM that's not shall lose..so the Bible said..!. . .reviews for 'Angels & DEMons'. . . - Printable Version +- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com) +-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3) +--- Thread: 'DEM that's got shall get..'DEM that's not shall lose..so the Bible said..!. . .reviews for 'Angels & DEMons'. . . (/showthread.php?tid=78156) |
'DEM that's got shall get..'DEM that's not shall lose..so the Bible said..!. . .reviews for 'Angels & DEMons'. . . - NewtonMP2100 - 05-15-2009 . . .only 41% at rotten tomatoes, so far. . .the few reviews that I've seen. . .were good. . .they said better than the 1st movie (which some might say is not saying much). . . ROTTEN to the core. . .? Re: 'DEM that's got shall get..'DEM that's not shall lose..so the Bible said..!. . .reviews for 'Angels & DEMons'. . . - macbeergeek - 05-15-2009 That isn't saying very much. I generally have liked Tom Hanks in most of his movies, but I thought he was totally wrong for the part of Robert Langdon, and still do. He just doesn't come off as being "scholarly" enough. Re: 'DEM that's got shall get..'DEM that's not shall lose..so the Bible said..!. . .reviews for 'Angels & DEMons'. . . - Doc - 05-15-2009 Ouch! Reviews: http://www.combustiblecelluloid.com/2009/angelsdemons.shtml http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051404062.html |