Full Grown Men (2006) IMDB rating: 7.00 Plot: Alby Cutrera (Matt McGrath) yearns for a time when life was carefree and action figures were twelve inches tall. When his wife insults him for being more of a playmate than a father to his young son, Alby heads for safety and tracks down his boyhood pal Elias (Judah Friedlander) whose memory of their younger days is considerably less rosy. They set out on a road trip to Diggityland, their favorite place as kids, but simpler times turn complicated as the two friends confront the land mines of their past. Journeying through the Oz of Central Florida, they encounter a cast of wounded roadside romantics – a disgruntled ex-theme park employee (Alan Cumming), a horny bartending clown (Amy Sedaris), and a delusional mermaid (Deborah Harry) – each one shedding light on the perils of not letting go. Full Grown Men is the bittersweet tale of a man who learns the hard way that the best years of his life may still lie ahead of him.

i find Full Grown Men DivX version and download

Actors: McGrath Matt,Friedlander Judah,Cumming Alan,Grayson Jerry,Karpf Benjamin,Fyfe Jim,Ilku David,Badalamenti II Peter Donald,Echavarria Louis,Comedy,Drama,

Is fatal frame 1 even scary?
I’ve seen videos of the game, and grown men screaming while playing it. The thing is if there is any emotion I’ve shown while watching (The non player screaming ones.Full screen, in the dark) is laughter at some points. So can someone enlighten me?

---

i heard it was realy scary and grown men screaming…now thats hialrious! lol
Thirsty Dr Acula | Feb 01, 2010

---

In my opinion, Fatal Frame 1 is less scary than the second game. I just got it this weekend. It’s pretty fun, I just don’t like playing it at night, y’know? x] You should watch the videos cloud8745 made where he plays it, it makes everything funny, haha.
MawRee | Feb 03, 2010

ExTerminators (2009) IMDB rating: 5.60 Plot: Three women who meet in an anger-management class decide to form a traditional business with very untraditional methods.

Actors: Settle Matthew,Lloyd Sam,Morshower Glenn,Robison Charlie,Cheney Gerry,Conway Michael D.,Cunningham Eric,Comedy,Drama,

Bed bug extermination – what else can I do?
I have had bed bugs for 8 months now brought in by my last roommate who came in June and left in November. The short version is, whether he knew he had the bugs or not, he was being bitten long before I was but never said anything, so when they spread to my room there were already a large amount of them in the house. I got bit, but since it was July I thought the few scattered bites I initially got were from mosquitoes. However after a few weeks there were more and more bites, and we just didn’t have THAT many mosquitoes…I started researching and by August I was sure it was bed bugs, and tried a few home tests I found online to see if this was the case, though none of these confirmed anything. It wasn’t until the end of the month though that I finally saw a few and told the landlord immediately. The exterminator has been spraying monthly ever since, and my roommate was the only one not keeping up on his end of the cleaning and eliminating clutter, so now that he’s gone I at least know that is being done, but I’m sure it hindered things at the beginning. Now, however it seems to be so close to the end of the infestation, and I went over a month w/o getting a bite in my bedroom. But in my living room I get bit from time to time. The longest period of time out in that room w/o a bite was 11 days. I don’t know what else to do, every time they spray now that there are so few bugs left, it seems like the problem is gone and then it shows back up again. I vaccuum all the rooms and go in and around the couches and bed and even as best I can down into the baseboards and still this keeps coming back. Since my roommate left I can’t even have someone else come look at the place because who would want to move into an apartment that has bed bugs? And if someone was okay w/it I really don’t think I’d want them for a roommate either, bad forshadowing. Is there anything else that anyone can suggest I do to finish off this problem once and for all? I just hate being so close to what appears to be the end and not being able to be done w/it.

---

Wimbledon (2004) IMDB rating: 6.40 Plot: In just two summer weeks, a British tennis player who was ranked 119th in the world (Bettany), and generally considered to be on his last legs as a professional player, gets his one last chance to win both the All-England Lawn Tennis Championships on the grassy courts of Wimbledon… and the heart of the rising star “bad girl of tennis” (Dunst) as well…

download Wimbledon

Actors: Bettany Paul,Hyde Kyle,Robert Lindsay,McAvoy James,Hill Bernard,Jackson Barry,Coster-Waldau Nikolaj,Neill Sam,Drama,Comedy,Romance,Sport,

Who is better? Roger Federer or Nadal?
To me it’s clearly Nadal. I mean he beat Roger at virtually every big tournament in 2008 in the finals. First at the French, which was like a joke for Nadal. Then he beat him at Wimbledon on grass in a close final. And then he also beat him at the Australian Open in the final in 2009. After that he fell victim to injury, so Federer started winning Grand Slams again and all these people start going out and saying how great he is. If he’s so great, then why does he always lose to Nadal? Doesn’t that make Nadal better?

---

Federer as beaten Sampras in 2001 when his career was almost over. But Gilles Simon is 2-0 vs Federer. Therefore Gilles Simon is a greater player than Pete Sampras.

Hope this help you figure out Nadal fan logic isn’t much of a logic.
Joelouis | Feb 03, 2010

---

The history books measure who’s the greater player by who’s got the more trophies and accolades. I mean just because someone has a good record against someone else doesn’t mean they are better than them at tennis in general. Clay is Rafa’s turf so it’s natural for him to beat Federer, and to beat him so many times. I don’t really remember, but wasn’t it something like 5 out of the 7 times they played (and Nadal beat him) was on clay? Yes, he beat Federer elsewhere too, but I really do think it was because Federer mentally slipped (as do many players in finals. After all, he is human.) Comparing all the people who have beaten Federer to all the people who have beaten Nadal, shows that when Federer loses he often loses to the same people, whereas Nadal’s game can be beaten by a variety of players at times, so Federer’s game is more consistent. When he is at his peak Federer can beat anyone anywhere anytime, which is how he keeps winning, whereas Nadal isn’t as consistent. In that game against Murray in the AO he couldn’t really match what Murray was throwing at him. You could blame it on the knee, but Murray, who was really peaking, played really well even in the first set and probably wouldn’t have had trouble beating Nadal even if he was in fine form. So IMHO I do think Federer is the better player, simply beccause he has a better game and has the trophies to prove it.
Just Call Me Silver | Feb 03, 2010

---

for me there is no question about the fact that federer is much better…. after all he is the best that existed in the comtemporary times.. nadal just came into the picture sometime back and it almost gone ….. a player is judged by his consistency …. and when he was beat by nadal in the year 2008 many times it was because he was suffering from mono and nadal was at his peak …. but still made it to the finals of two slams and even managed to win one … nadal’s game revolves around running about the court and playing defence so obviously he will get more frequently injured… federer is more fit .. he plays on and still hasent suffered a major injury .. that makes him the better player by any means … nadal shouldnt even be compared roger.. roger is a class apart… (according to me ).. and if nadal fell victim to injury it means there is something which he is doing wrong .. cause roger has stayed out of big injuries..
Doogie | Feb 03, 2010

---

if head to head is the only basis who is better player,then nadal easily reach all grandslam and win it.because federer does…
nadal has the mental edge over federer,but not the better player.
vic | Feb 03, 2010

---

Just Call Me Silver, yes that was what you are silver, 2nd place now move over, because you have got to be out of your damn mind if you really think Andy Murray can take on a healthy, 100% Nadal.
Spades and Diamonds | Feb 03, 2010

---

Nadal is a better player!… for you… but for me, definitely federer! Nadal may have a 13-7 advantage against federer but federer’s career is far from over! Federer can still rebound, but sadly Nadal wasn’t always there to make it to the finals. Now that Nadal is ranked no.4 he doesn’t need to be in the finals to face Federer, they’ll be facing each other in the quarters, then we’ll see if Federer can amend his losses.

*Davydenko, Hewitt, Blake, Nalbandian, to name just a few, has a winning record against Nadal. So would they be considered a better player than Nadal?
cleng-cleng | Feb 03, 2010

---

I personally hate federer and love nadal but i have to admit that federer is better .
Gregi | Feb 03, 2010

---

do you know what happens if you embed a formula 1 engine in a normal car? it works fine for some time.

can you see the parallel to Roger and Rafa? Rafa did and Roger didn’t!
the question remains, is it worth it to stand for some time in the spotlight?
nevie82 | Feb 03, 2010

---

Sorry to burst your bubble a little there. The problem with your reasoning is that you are looking only at a head to head comparison to make your decision. Unfortunately for your logic, there’s more to determining what constitutes a great player than the head to head numbers.

There are a handful of people that have winning records over Federer and I’m sure plenty of people that have winning records over Nadal. The measure of greatness in tennis is consistent results over a career. Federer has made some rediculous amount of semi finals along with appearing in 18 of the last 19 grand slam finals or something like that. He has won 16 grand slams over an extremely short period of time in tennis terms and has done all that while staying healthy! So why is he better than Nadal?

1. He has an incredibly long streak of making the semi finals or better at the grand slams.
2. He has won more grand slams than any other male player
3. He knows how to win AND stay healthy. Nadal had his moment in the limelight but he is sacrificing a long career by insisting on working so incredibly hard to win his matches. There’s more offensive ways to play and safer ways to move.

It takes more than head to head scores to make someone a better player my friend. While Nadal is rehabbing his knees because he has destroyed them, Federer is continuing to win as if Nadal was never there.
whtennisfan115 | Feb 03, 2010

---

Nedal
Riley | Feb 03, 2010

---

in 2008 and begining of 2009, federer was suffered from mono virus. Nadal was able to barely beat federer by epic match because federer was sick. have you ever seen nadal beaten healthy federer before 2008 in those tournaments? nope, healthy federer always beat healthy nadal all the times. who won the last match they met at madrid open when they are both healthy? federer. so No one can beat federer in his prime time.
killy gonso | Feb 03, 2010

---

The very simplistic answer is that Roger is better overall on more surfaces and has done it more consistently over a longer period of time, now this is depending on whether you take into consideration the last 12 months where Fed has won 3 of the last 4 majors. Howerver, Nadal has beaten Federer more often than not, but this is mostly because Nadal is the only player that can exploit Fed’s weakness. With the kicking lefty slice serve coupled with the big top-spin forehand, Nadal can get to Fed’s maybe only kryptonite, the high-backhand return. Roger doesn’t have a problem with his game overall (see 2008) when he loses to Nadal, he just has a problem with Rafa. That’s why he was so frustrated with Rafa beat him at FO 08, Wimb 08, and AO 09 (w/ tears). Roger can be error prone on the backhand and when he hits too many of those weak slice returns…Roger just gets frustrated, tries to press, and doesn’t win. I will say however, that on Roger’s best day against Nadal’s best day on any surface except clay, Roger would win because he plays superior offensive tennis.
Thomas | Feb 03, 2010

---

federer
leveykid95 | Feb 03, 2010

---

Head to head record does not determine who is better. Nadal has a game style that does not match up well for Federer. And most of those matches are on clay courts where Nadal is one of the greatest ever (and for the record, if there was no Nadal, I think Federer might be considered the best clay courter ever). So, maybe Federer loses to Nadal on occasion, but Federer doesn’t often lose to anyone else, especially in the majors, which seems to be all Federer focuses on now. Federer has been able to make it to 23 consecutive grand slam semifinals, Nadal has never gotten more than 5 in a row. So it might be true that head to head Nadal will beat Federer, but Federer has been able to be at the end of the tournament every time. For a couple of years, 2004-2007, if you were not named Rafael Nadal, you almost had no chance against Federer. Federer dominated the game for 4 years like no one ever had or ever will again. He had a 313-24 record for those 4 years. That is a 92.87 winning percentage for a 4 year period, that is absolutely unheard of. And his grand slam record for that period was 99-5, that is a 95.19 winning percentage. It is simply that Nadal is great and can beat Federer, but he might lose early in a tournament no one expects him too, Federer (at least for a while) would not lose a match that he shouldn’t.
Sam M | Feb 03, 2010

---

clearly, its nadal..fed has been winning most of his grandslams beating one dimensional morons like roddick, ferrero, hewitt, bagdatis, etc..if he is better than nadal, then should have won 5 times in Roland Garros and never gave Nadal a chance to whip his ass in Grandslams..

To sum it all, Federer wins Grandslams more than he deserves..
Troy SPhinx | Feb 04, 2010

---

You said it! NADAL IS!!!
Acey | Feb 04, 2010

---

u idiot how stupid r u thank god not all rafa fans r as stupid as u. ROGER FEDERER IS THE GREATEST TENNIS PLAYER IN HISTORY do you no who said that RAFA and im a massive rafa fan no your shit u fool if tennis was based on head to head ud find that mark philipousus is better than pete sampras get a life dopey
Chad | Feb 05, 2010

Neighbors (1981) IMDB rating: 5.20 Plot: One man’s quiet suburban life takes a sickening lurch for the worse when a young couple move into the deserted house next door. From the word go it is obvious these are not the quiet professional types who *should* be living in such a nice street. As more and more unbelievable events unfold, our hero starts to question his own sanity… and those of his family.

Actors: Belushi John,Aykroyd Dan,Gavon Igors,Kazurinsky Tim,Insana Tino,Brown P.L.,Baker Henry Judd,Lloyd Sherman G.,Kittel Bert,Friend J.B.,Friedman Bernie,Comedy,

Isn't it a fact that in 6000 yrs of Iran history it didn't attack a single country?
Plz if i am wrong support it with facts, and the Iraq / Iran war in the eighty’s started by Saddam and supported by U.S. dont get me wrong i hate the Iranian regime and their policies especially to women, but what i also know is that Iran has been ignored, sanctioned, and isolated by the west thus their sick mullahs are doing their worse to their country men.

And to be honest i am little skeptic of Israel intentions to world peace, because in its 60 yrs history it had wars with all its neighbors while still taking 4 million Palestinians as hostage and have 300 nuke missiles in demona, what do u think? thanx

---

Iran is really not the problem in the middle east. honestly speaking, its isreal
Gypsy Tramp & Thief | Feb 01, 2010

---

Uh, didn’t Persia invade Greece?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_T hermopylae
Reality has a Liberal Bias | Feb 01, 2010

---

Persians….the symbol of world peace into antiquity.

Yeah I’d say that 6,000 years is pretty well off.
Simo Hayha | Feb 01, 2010

---

Gee, I don’t know how you choose to define "attack" but when they took our innocent citizens as hostages for several years, it just kinda struck some of us as a tad unfriendly.

Maybe it was the equivalent of a "howdy neighbor" in Mid-East parlance, but for some of us, it seemed offensive.
Roxann Colter | Feb 01, 2010

---

Most likely not but they probably haven’t invaded or instigated a major war in that time.
My Name is Josef Stalin | Feb 01, 2010

---

First of all, Israel has been involved in wars as a defensive measure. They haven’t attacked anyone without provocation. Secondly, if you look back in history, you’ll find that Iran has attacked other countries. Don’t need to provide links, high school world history is sufficient enough.
logan | Feb 01, 2010

---

You are referring to the 6 day war of 1967 . Troops from 7 different countries attacked Israel . The Persians were in the area , but didn’t have the boundaries of Iran defined until the 20th century .

Israel isn’t something new either . The Jews were there long before the birth of Islam or Christianity .
Also Israel was declared nation before Saudi Arabia , Kuwait or Iraq . The Palestinians belong to a nomad tribe from the area that is now Jordan . They were exiled from Jordan and settled in Saudi Arabia . Later , the Saudis sponsored relocation campaigns of the Palestinians to Israel .
SOUTH LAKE | Feb 01, 2010

---

Barely a day goes by that one can avoid reading or hearing yet another Israeli, American or British warhawk regurgitate the broken record that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map," framed in the ridiculous context that Israelis are being targeted for a second holocaust. This baseless rallying call for conflict holds about as much credibility as Dick Cheney’s assertion that Saddam Hussein was planning to light up American skies with mushroom clouds.
Did Ahmadinejad really threaten to "wipe Israel off the map" or is this phrase just another jingoistic brand slogan for selling the next war in the Middle East?
The devil is in the detail, wiping Israel off the map suggests a physical genocidal assault, a literal population relocation or elimination akin to what the Nazis did. According to numerous different translations, Ahmadinejad never used the word "map," instead his statement was in the context of time and applied to the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem. Ahmadinejad was expressing his future hope that the Zionist regime in Israel would fall, not that Iran was going to physically annex the country and its population.
To claim Ahmadinejad has issued a rallying cry to ethnically cleanse Israel is akin to saying that Churchill wanted to murder all Germans when he stated his desire to crush the Nazis. This is about the demise of a corrupt occupying power, not the deaths of millions of innocent people.
The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word "map" used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.
??y?? | Feb 01, 2010

---

I believe you have to go back 2,000 years to find a country they attacked.*
firewomen | Feb 01, 2010

---

they supply others to do it for them.
nedree@verizon.net | Feb 01, 2010

---

Well things change
John | Feb 01, 2010

---

I think they invaded greece a few times in that period I mean come on there is more than one movie aobut it.
Dropkickmurphy | Feb 01, 2010

---

Iran has been supplying high-grade roadside bombs to Iraqi insurgents for some time now. If that’s not an attack on Iraq, I don’t know what is.

Iran also supported Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Again, an attack on Iraq.

Iran also openly supports and funds Hezbollah, which keeps trying to take over Lebanon by military means.

These examples are just off the top of my head. Your premise is incorrect.
Steve | Feb 01, 2010