Invisible wrote:
> Gilles Tran wrote:

>>> 
>>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
>>
>> You didn't get the name right either.
> 
> In what way?
> 

You really deserve this one.  http://www.fuckinggoogleit.com/

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" wrote:
>  Twelve Monkeys is one of the best movies I have seen.

Wow, we have a common favorite movie, despite our often very different 
tastes. :P

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:

> I think you mean "Twelve Monkeys":
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114746/
> 
> Actually the name of the terrorist band should be "the army of the 
> twelve monkeys". It's also the French title of the movie :-)

Hmm. You could be right. Damn, where did I get "island" from...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:

> You mean 12 Monkeys. It's not supposed to make sense til the end.

It didn't make sense even at the end.

But then, the film was so unrelentingly depressing that by then I'd 
given up *trying* to understand it.

>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
> 
> Try reading the book. The first sequel's also good, not sure about the other
> 2.
> What was confusing about this anyway?

First there's some monkeys hitting a large black brick. Then there's a 
baby floating in space. Then there's something approximating a bad acid 
trip. There's also a computer who calls everybody "Dave".

Um... wuh??

>> #1 Dune.
> 
> Try reading the book. Just don't bother with any of the sequels.

It does look like the kind of film where they tried to fit a giant story 
into quite a short film - with the result that it makes almost no sense 
at all. (Unless you already know what's going to happen.)

[BTW, did you ever watch the "extended" versions of the three LotR 
films? My God, they make *so* much more sense! Although, to watch all 
three, you had better have a big bowl of popcorn... it's something 
absurd like 9 hours in total.]

> FWIW, I watched and loved all three, and had no problems understanding them
> (at the end, you're supposed to be asking questions while watching).

I was. ;-) Questions like "who is that guy?", "what just happened?", and 
"what is this film *about* anyway?"

> That said, they're not straight forward no-thought-required movies and, I
> believe, a lot of the attraction of them would be lost if they were

Thinking I don't mind so much. Not being entirely sure why something 
happened I can handle. Having no clue what on earth you're watching 
isn't so much fun...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>> It involves Bruce Willis
> 
>   The name of the movie is "Twelve Monkeys". I don't understand where
> you got the "island" part. I don't even remember the world "island"
> being even mentioned in the movie.

Seems I mis-remembered "army" as "island" somehow... weird.

>> Basically, a very bad film that barely makes sense.
> 
>   Twelve Monkeys is one of the best movies I have seen.

Figures.

Clearly you and I have very different tastes in film. ;-)

>   The very first time you see it there might be things which are difficult
> to understand (it becomes much clearer on a second viewing). However,
> I really don't understand what you mean with "incomprehensible".

I mean it was cryptic beyond my powers of comprehension. [Aside from 
being rather disturbing and generally unpleasent.]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >   The very first time you see it there might be things which are difficult
> > to understand (it becomes much clearer on a second viewing). However,
> > I really don't understand what you mean with "incomprehensible".

> I mean it was cryptic beyond my powers of comprehension.

  I could write a sarcastic and mean comment on your powers of
comprehension, but I'll skip it this time. ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:30:29 -0000, Gail Shaw sa dot com>  
<"<initialsurname"@sentech> did spake, saying:

>
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:477e0067$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
>
> Try reading the book. The first sequel's also good, not sure about the  
> other
> 2.
> What was confusing about this anyway?

'Oh yes despite not having read the book I completely understood what the  
chimps and the space baby were all about'

>> #1 Dune.
>
> Try reading the book. Just don't bother with any of the sequels.

Does that make me a heretic if I said I actually prefered Children and  
God-Emperor then :-) I just enjoyed the ways they tried to answer some of  
the paradoxes of prediction and offered some possible solutions.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:477e2f0f$1@news.povray.org...
>
> >> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
> >
> > You didn't get the name right either.
>
> In what way?

2001: A Space Odyssey

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:477e3b03$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> >> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
> >
> > Try reading the book. The first sequel's also good, not sure about the
other
> > 2.
> > What was confusing about this anyway?
>
> First there's some monkeys hitting a large black brick.

The monolith on earth, sparking tool usage in proto-humans and kick-starting
the whole human race.

> Then there's a
> baby floating in space.

OK, I don't remember that. Wait, wasn't that at the end, after Dave
sees/falls into the monolith?

> Then there's something approximating a bad acid
> trip.

You mean the space trip to IO to investigate the monolith? Or the end where
Dave's experiencing the monolith.

> There's also a computer who calls everybody "Dave".

No. It only calls Dave, Dave. But then, seeing as it's killed everyone else,
there's not really anyone else to speak to.
btw, the computer's name was HAL 9000

The whole theme of the movie/book is evolution of mankind. Natural or
forced.

> Um... wuh??

Seriously, read the book. It's by Arthur C. Clark. Read Odyssey Two as well.

There's some good comments on the movie here
http://www.bautforum.com/small-media-large/4510-meaning-2001-space-odyssey.h
tml

> It does look like the kind of film where they tried to fit a giant story
> into quite a short film - with the result that it makes almost no sense
> at all. (Unless you already know what's going to happen.)

It is quite a long book. Forget the movie version of it. it wasn't great.
See if you can find the mini series version (4 parts) That's quite good and

> [BTW, did you ever watch the "extended" versions of the three LotR
> films? My God, they make *so* much more sense!

Yes a few times, but seeing as I've read all the books more than once, they
made sense anyway.
Though there are long pieces in the movie that aren't in the books at all.

Post a reply to this message

"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
news:op.t4etagikc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
> And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:30:29 -0000, Gail Shaw sa dot com>
> <"<initialsurname"@sentech> did spake, saying:

> > What was confusing about this anyway?
>
> 'Oh yes despite not having read the book I completely understood what the
> chimps and the space baby were all about'

I did. I read the book after watching the movie. Understood if better after
the book, but the movies didn't leave me going Huh???

>
> Does that make me a heretic if I said I actually prefered Children and
> God-Emperor then :-) I just enjoyed the ways they tried to answer some of
> the paradoxes of prediction and offered some possible solutions.

Not at all. I ran out of patience on the 3rd book. I really prefered the
first one.
Each to their own.

Post a reply to this message