 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I couldn't really follow Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, it's
>> probably the translation thing, never was sure why that could
>> win any awards. Squatting director, hidden plot.
>
> Really? I loved it. One of the best martial arts movies I've ever seen,
> in fact.
>
> The DVD has an English language track on it; maybe watching that would
> make it easier for you. For me, seeing the actors mouths not match the
> words come out is far more jarring than reading subtitles. I'm more than
> willing to read what they're saying in order to have the spoken dialog fit
> how their mouths move.
>
She flies in one scene, and falls to her death in the next,
the whole film is contradictory... an excuse for artsy fight
scenes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguy com> wrote:
> But still, if you're lucky enough to see two or three trailers for a
> movie
... you have already seen the movie, so there's really no need to watch
it again. That's my opinion.
There aren't many things I detest more about movies than trailers.
They spoil way too much.
Just today there was a good example. I went to see a movie in the theater,
and before it they showed the trailer for the new National Treasure movie,
and it spoiled an incredible amount of the contents of the movie. And mind
you, I wasn't *watching* anything of it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> She flies in one scene, and falls to her death in the next,
> the whole film is contradictory... an excuse for artsy fight
> scenes.
She's flying by the power of her Chi. That's how you fly when you're
using your Chi to do it. (At least, that's what my chinese-born wife
tells me.)
Chinese magic isn't a whole lot like western magic.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> She flies in one scene, and falls to her death in the next,
> the whole film is contradictory... an excuse for artsy fight
> scenes.
Well, it could be argued that she didn't die at the end.
Besides, ignoring the martial arts, did you pay attention to the story
*at all*?
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> But still, if you're lucky enough to see two or three trailers for a
>> movie
>
> ... you have already seen the movie, so there's really no need to watch
> it again. That's my opinion.
>
> There aren't many things I detest more about movies than trailers.
> They spoil way too much.
>
> Just today there was a good example. I went to see a movie in the theater,
> and before it they showed the trailer for the new National Treasure movie,
> and it spoiled an incredible amount of the contents of the movie. And mind
> you, I wasn't *watching* anything of it.
>
A good movie is worth watching even if you know what's going to happen.
Or why else do people still go to see Shakespeare's plays?
"Romeo and Juliet? Why would I want to see that when I already know
they both die at the end?"
Case in point: The Sixth Sense. The ending was "spoiled" for me before
I ever saw it. Even so, I found it to be an excellent movie, and was
still able to appreciate it.
Personally, I think that if a movie is only enjoyable the first time you
watch it, then you shouldn't watch it at all.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> She flies in one scene, and falls to her death in the next,
>> the whole film is contradictory... an excuse for artsy fight
>> scenes.
>
> Well, it could be argued that she didn't die at the end.
>
> Besides, ignoring the martial arts, did you pay attention to the story *at
> all*?
What story? The one where they spy on people and
jump around on rooftops, or the one where they are
instantly in the middle of the desert?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
>> Besides, ignoring the martial arts, did you pay attention to the story *at
>> all*?
>
> What story? The one where they spy on people and
> jump around on rooftops, or the one where they are
> instantly in the middle of the desert?
I'm guessing that would be a "no", then. ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
>>> She flies in one scene, and falls to her death in the next,
>>> the whole film is contradictory... an excuse for artsy fight
>>> scenes.
>> Well, it could be argued that she didn't die at the end.
>>
>> Besides, ignoring the martial arts, did you pay attention to the story *at
>> all*?
>
> What story? The one where they spy on people and
> jump around on rooftops, or the one where they are
> instantly in the middle of the desert?
Do yourself a favor, and watch the movie again (in English, if you have
to). This time, ignore the martial arts, and pay attention to what the
characters are thinking and feeling.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Personally, I think that if a movie is only enjoyable the first time you
> watch it, then you shouldn't watch it at all.
That would rule out 99.9% of movies.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:22:40 -0000, Ross <rli### [at] speakeasynet>
did spake, saying:
> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
> news:op.t4ews0hkc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
>> And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:48:31 -0000, Gail Shaw sa dot com>
>> <"<initialsurname"@sentech> did spake, saying:
>>
>>>
>>> "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???
>>
>> Well obviously some of us are more intelligent then others, and by some
>> of
>> us I mean you and by others I mean me :-)
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Indeed. The third one does drag until Jacurutu, but the forth amused.
>>
>
> The first is great, I've read it atleast twice. I read the second twice
> as
> well, because I was planning on reading the third recently, and couldn't
> remember what happened in the second execpt for broad plotlines. I've
> heard
> that the third is better than the second, but still not as good as the
> first.
Well the second is really more an interlude linking the events between one
and three, so it would be unfair to judge it against the 'full' novels. As
Gail said though it's all down to a matter of each to their own.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
