Idol, post any more of those and I'll buy the propane tank you will use to blow yourself up in the house.
Printable View
Idol, post any more of those and I'll buy the propane tank you will use to blow yourself up in the house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmacky
I'm quite offended by that remark.
Just how many death threats have you collected in your tenure here? http://i.imgur.com/bhawC.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmacky
I'm quite offended by that remark.
That wasn't a death threat, it was me offering the aid of assisted suicide. I was just being a friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtemisJust how many death threats have you collected in your tenure here? http://i.imgur.com/bhawC.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787
So I see that the thread title's been changed. Since the abusers of this thread are either me or illiterate, I doubt it will do much good.
I saw a movie but I it was good and so I have nothing critical to say anout it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmackyThat wasn't a death threat, it was me offering the aid of assisted suicide. I was just being a friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis
So I see that the thread title's been changed. Since the abusers of this thread are either me or illiterate, I doubt it will do much good.
Oi fess up, who changed the title to the rather noncy one it now is, even Idol can't keep a straight face any more and post seriously. It's really, really :ghey:
Then come up with a better one horse boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis
Also when have I ever posted cereally?Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis
I could try.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787
How about "You'll be automatically banned if you post here with under 10 posts movie thread"
But what if someone joined FST just so they could post in the movie thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmackyI could try.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787
How about "You'll be automatically banned if you post here with under 10 posts movie thread"
Spoiler: Show
I watched Fast Five yesterday and I can say with a good degree of confidence that the vault theft scene was probably the dumbest thing I've ever witnessed on film and I've seen both Van Helsing and Howard the Duck mind you.
Also not saying that the director is a hack but who films a obviously computer generated scene (talking the car off the cliff thing) in slow motion just so everyone has a better chance to observe how phoney it is?
That and the epilogue seems to run as long as the entire rest of the movie.
I thought I had already warned you about that film Willis? And in particular the suspense of belief that really, really, really doesn't happen when the two muscle cars drag a room around behind them at speed. Hollywood lately has gone to it's own place, a place beyond reality, like the pied piper of Hamlyn, but I for one am no longer following that particular tune.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787
You know when someone tells you not to do something because it's a really stupid thing to do but then you still go do it anyway?Well that's basically how I live my life.:idunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis
Also the first 20 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6E4Oy6pFKQ
Yet you never posted your video of you ghost riding your whip, the bicycle edition.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787
This Means War
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596350/
I am normally not a RomCom kind of guy and stay away from the genre like the plague since in the last few years the genre has fallen into a very predictable formula that would leave Walt Disney reaching for the airline sickness bag in most cases. This is most definitely not one of those films and I was pleasantly surprised and thoroughly enjoyed the movie.
It is a lighthearted romp, but it isn't a sappy, poignant romantic piece of drivel, it is very cleverly done.
The storyline revolves around to C.I.A. agents who have worked together for the past 10 years, they are best friends and basically do everything together, they even have a pact that they would take a bullet for each other (awwww aint it sweet). One of the agents, Tuck (played by Tom Hardy) is divorced with a son and wants to get back into the dating game so goes onto a dating website and finds someone, his partner FDR (played by Chris Pine) meets her in a video store at the same time and by a weird set of circumstances egged on by a bad best friend of the girl Lauren (played by Reese Witherspoon) she ends up dating both of them. The two competitive gungho guys that they are they compare notes about the great girl they've just met and then show each other the picture of her.......
The hilarity of the story without going into any extended spoilers surrounds two C.I.A. agents spying on each other and doing every dirty trick in the book to prevent each other from getting close to Lauren. It's well worth the watch, and your girlfriend/wife will love it too
Took me half your post to figure out that this was the title of what you're reviewing and not a statement made in response to someone in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis
This Means War is watchable. I grabbed it while we were on vacation, and it provided us with ~90 minutes of entertainment-ish stuff on the screen.
If you look back through the fred previous posts have been formatted thus, by both me and other poasters, and I'm not that homicidal (much). :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmackyTook me half your post to figure out that this was the title of what you're reviewing and not a statement made in response to someone in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis
'Cept I keep expecting them to be imdb hyperlinked or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtemisIf you look back through the fred previous posts have been formatted thus, by both me and other poasters, and I'm not that homicidal (much). :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmacky
Awww shucks well just for you.......Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmacky'Cept I keep expecting them to be imdb hyperlinked or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis
I watched The Duellists last night, alone, in the dark and while sipping expensive dry white wine. I mention this to set the scene, I had already decided to like the film and wanted also to be in the right environment and mood to appreciate it. I didn't have an open mind going into it but this was a luxury I could afford myself given that it was set in an era I was familiar with, about a concept I'd read much about and the film itself was recommended specifically to me by someone who has watched a movie or two in their time.
The action starts right away, like right away. You have no idea how the stars of the movie can possibly survive 10 minutes, let alone eke out their existence to the end of the film. The first half hour is relentless. What struck me was the realism of the fight scenes, there was no Spartacus-esque looking to the audience and gloating or convoluted fight moves. Each duellist looked scared to fucking death, their concentration completely upon their opponent and when one of them got skewered, the fight stopped. There was no bravely battling through a severed lung - the fight was over, which is obviously as it would be.
A theme of honour ran through the film and is, of course, what the film is about - this was depicted with particular aplomb. In one of the scenes, special agent frank lundy was asked to describe honour and all he was able to come up with is that it is indescribable. Well, Ridley Scott did an excellent job of portraying its foibles and the magnificence it often inspired.
The music was horrible. I think this is why I often give up while watching old films. I don't need a harmonica, or whatever, telling me that something is going to be exciting or sad. It spoiled a lot of scenes for me and I spent too long wishing for a modern score rather than the shite that accompanied this visual masterpiece.
I watched Gone last night, with Amanda Seyfried. I first downloaded to watch her acting, and more :P but the least you see is Amanda as a woman (maybe like in that movie with Megan Fox).
It's actually a good actress in my opinion, that surprised me, although in "In Time" she played a decent role.
The movie has suspense and a little drama, nothing much. It isn't a must-see movie, but for the length (1h30m) it's a good option.
Gone is total shite,true story. Also the user reviews on IMDB have lost all legitimacy.Actual critics on RT rated it 11% positive.
Listen I like Amanda Seyfried enough to have sat though almost the entirety of Dear John and a bit of Letters to Juliet but any similarity to believable acting that she does in Gone is purely coincidental.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Quote:
Storyline
Set during the grand, sweeping Napoleonic age, an officer in the French army insults another officer and sets off a life-long enmity. The two officers, D'Hubert and Feraud, cross swords time and time again in an attempt to achieve justice and preserve their honor.
:dave:
Tell the truth it was the cross swords part that drew you in wasn't it?
Maybe but the balls didn't touch so it's not like it was gay or anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787
===
I kept thinking that Feraud is a perfect metaphor for Napoleon's military life. Ever advancing, never flinching from confrontation yet stubborn, cruel and oft erring in judgment. Keitel even looks like Napoleon. I don't know if it was intentional by the writers and was something Scott strived for, but if it was then I struggled for a while to fit an historical figure to D'Hubert. Wellington didn't fit and neither was he representative of the cowardly French monarchy.
Spoiler: ShowI decided then that I could make it fit if D'Hubert represented all of Napoleon's adversaries at the time. The French were occasionally bested, very infrequently humiliated but usually victorious until finally routed and their leader exiled. The final scene really is Feraud's Waterloo.
Spoiler above.
For a directorial first attempt, The Duellists is a tour de force, sorry for the lack of machine guns and helicopters meg, maybe when Michael Bay does the remake? It is that for the reasons manker lays out, it is a complex interplay, the battle between the two men is a metaphor for the times. Ridley Scott's next directorial foray was of course Alien which was at the time an incredible success (despite the idiotic and incessant nagging by the brandywine production team) showing both great range and flexibility and cementing his future career as one of the truly great directors.
Saw the movie( not literally Saw:The Movie)now read the book.
http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/2481/
Though I will be astounded if anyone has the patience.
Btw in similar vein I watched Battleship no I didn't and then I played the game didn't actually do that either and was amazed how complex the game was in comparison to the film. :O
The movie had a better soundtrack though.
I watched Courage Under Fire again and would probably give my thoughts on it if I for a minute thought anyone cared.It is also from the murky,mystical before time when Lou Diamond Phillips was still a bigger star than Matt Damon.
Not only do I have the patience, I converted it to a .mobi and stuck it on my kindle to read in bed later.
You should get one of those, luddite.
I'm hoping it will provide some character insights which were lacking in the film. Particularly everyone in it.
Nailed itQuote:
Originally Posted by megabyteme
Do it like Brett Blewitt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idol
===
I don't get the :dave: thing.
Truth posted above.
Doesn't help.
Perhaps it would if I hadn't seen the film :idunno:
I haven't seen the film, but I have a feeling it would detract from the interpretation. You and your linear imagination.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Best. Explanation. Evar. :happy:Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmackyhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insultQuote:
Originally Posted by manker
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/life-long
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enmity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preserve
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/honor
This plus my insinuation of linearity, I think I have turned to pure evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by megabytemeBest. Explanation. Evar. :happy:Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmacky
¿oƃ ǝuo uı spǝɯ ɹnoʎ ןןɐ ƃuıʇɹous puɐ dn ƃuıɥsɐɯ uo ʞɔɐq ʇnɔ pןnoɥs noʎ ǝqʎɐɯ
Dark Shadows
Johnny Depp as nobleman turned vampire, released after 200 years stuck in a coffin, sets out to restore his family to its former glory, and on the way there he struggles to fit into the modern world, as well as tangles with the witch who turned him vampire and put him in the grave.
I liked it.
That said, myself and everyone I watched it with agreed that while it was all right, it won't fit into anyone's top ten movies ever, ever.
I liked Depp's haughty-mentalist-meets-Jack-Sparrow performance as Barnabus Collins, as well those of other actors as several supporting characters, notably Chloë Grace Moretz as difficult teen Carolyn, Eva Green as the villain(ess) and Helena Bonham Carter as drunkard psychologist Dr Hoffman. They were all, on the surface, interesting characters. The problem was that they never really went anywhere, with regards to personal development. Now, I'm not saying people have to grow and develop just because things happen to them, and don't usually subscribe to the notion of that a round character is always better, but it was all a bit flat. The main problem, I believe, was that it all became a bit repetitive, as Barnabus kept the anachronisms coming, whilst Carolyn sneered.
I haven't watched the original show, so can't really compare it to that, but what it resembled most, to me, was something along the lines of an extended episode of the Addams Family, up until the ending. Which is to say that things happened, and they were occasionally funny, as well as dark, but they didn't leave that much of an impression. That is, it started going that way after the dust had settled from the initial arrival of the governess Maggie/Victoria and the release of Barnabus.
Another issue was that it's a bit uneven and random. There were things that were wholly unexpected and that I thought were Deus Ex Machinas, that fizzled out to nothing, as well as things so predictable I could see them coming miles away (the final few frames before the end credits were one of those).
All that said, I did enjoy it, and if you like the looks of the trailer at all, you should watch it. But do note that if you have seen the trailer, there won't be much by way of surprises.
I have learned over the last couple of years to not watch Hollywood trailers, they are basically mini-films, taking the highlights of the movie and also the key plot lines and turning them into a 3 to 4 minute extended trailers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snee
A trailer used to be a teaser, 30-60 seconds long, disjointed in both imagery and plot, to pique the interest, a driving soundtrack (not the films ) and reediting of the footage for the trailer/teaser were part of the fun. Now even that art has gone, a trailer is a lazy compact version of the film and in some cases the film is no longer a surprise after seeing the trailer.
For the image overloaded,facebook generation this maybe perfectly acceptable in their little idiot cocoons, but it is something that I find greatly irritating. Such is the state of advertising these days, your goods must be fully on view......
I decide which movie to go to based entirely on who has the best product tie-ins. Fucked if I'm going to anything that could only snag Taco Bell.
Then you'll be happy to know Dark Shadows got McDonalds.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787