 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> Gail Shaw wrote:
>>> "Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
>>>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
>>>
>>> Try reading the book. The first sequel's also good, not sure about
>>> the other
>>> 2.
>>
>> Why has nobody mentioned the second film?
>
> Because it was comprehensible?
Yah, good point. Ding! ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> For that matter, I don't need anymore beef Big Macs either... we're
>> trying to cut out fast food for the whole year. It's been a little more
>> than a week, and I'm having serious cravings...
>
> I assume you have seen "Big Size Me"?-)
>
No, but I've read enough articles about the subject that I get the
general gist of it.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> > I assume you have seen "Big Size Me"?-)
> No, but I've read enough articles about the subject that I get the
> general gist of it.
I really recommend it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> I never spot twists in films anyway; I long ago learnt to concentrate on
> the 'now' in a film and immerse myself without trying to think ahead.
Same here. And if I realize how the movie is going to end anyway, it's a
disppointingly trite movie. Far too much of the popular stuff is like that.
Or you get something like Vanilla Sky, where you get to the end and go
"Uh, huh??"
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> Unbreakable wasn't bad, but it wasn't overly good
>
>> Way, *way* too long. If they'd chopped out 40 minutes or so, it would
>> have been excellent.
>
> I disagree. If they had chopped 40 minutes then it would simply have
> been a regular hollywood blockbuster.
Could be. And Bruce Willis is good enough you can actually get something
out of it. I just thought the pace didn't fit the mood. I got bored
waiting for the next bit. Maybe I was anticipating a twist and hence
anxious to find out what it was.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I mean, hell, Jabba the hut had more personality than Queen Amanda.
>
> I thought it was Amidala, or something like that.
My point exactly. I watched her for three movies and I can't even
remember her name. ;-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> It's a good laugh. Good action, pleasantly trivial story, and some
> cracking dialogue from Sam Jackson.
"You're making an assumption." Classic line.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> It's a good laugh. Good action, pleasantly trivial story, and some
>> cracking dialogue from Sam Jackson.
>
> "You're making an assumption." Classic line.
Just casting my eye down the quote list on IMDB is making me laugh out
loud. I reckon every one of Jackson's lines is a classic!
Check em out:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116908/quotes
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I have seen movies with truely bad acting, and I didn't see any of that in
> the SW trilogy. I never understood what people are talking about when they
> say there's bad acting in the trilogy. Granted, perhaps not oscar-worthy
> acting, but bad?
Not so much bad acting as bad chemistry. You could really tell in
scenes with just Anakin and Amidala, they just weren't clicking, but the
second Ewan McGregor enters any scene, everybody else responds and
displays a much higher level of ability than otherwise. Kind of
interesting, really.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> Unbreakable wasn't bad, but it wasn't overly good
>>
>>> Way, *way* too long. If they'd chopped out 40 minutes or so, it would
>>> have been excellent.
>>
>> I disagree. If they had chopped 40 minutes then it would simply have
>> been a regular hollywood blockbuster.
>
> Could be. And Bruce Willis is good enough you can actually get something
> out of it. I just thought the pace didn't fit the mood. I got bored
> waiting for the next bit. Maybe I was anticipating a twist and hence
> anxious to find out what it was.
I had no complaints about Unbreakable. Of all his movies, I think this
was the most mature - he didn't seem to go for any sensationalism. I
didn't even care about the "twist". I liked it quite a bit till then anyway.
--
Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
