 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> 2053 was decent when I read it (I think I was 15 at the time). I
> couldn't stomach more than a chapter or two of 3001, however (17yo when
> I tried to read it?).
I must have missed out on 2053. I read 2061...
--
Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> But anyway, I get amused with comments about "bad acting". What exactly
> is bad acting? Can't seem to come up with an objective criterion.
Bad acting is where they act like actors instead of like the characters
they're supposed to be. It includes body language, for example. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> 2053 was decent when I read it (I think I was 15 at the time). I
>> couldn't stomach more than a chapter or two of 3001, however (17yo when
>> I tried to read it?).
>
> I must have missed out on 2053. I read 2061...
>
That was probably it (how am I supposed to remember a random number
close to fifteen years later?)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 03:19:25 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Gilliam's movies tend to be quite good.
>
> Tideland was weird, though.
I haven't seen that one, going to have to add it to my netflix queue. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:58:19 +0000, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:09:03 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> That, and the acting sucked. Which is hard to blame on the actors,
>>> given how it was filmed.
>>
>> And the fact that the scripts generally sucked. There wasn't a lot for
>> the actors to work with, since most of the budget was blown on the
>> effects.
>
> I think the actors tried hard, but the script, as you say, was sub-par.
> Additionally, Lucas wasn't interested in honing dialogue or shooting
> any re-takes at all (except for completely fluffed lines, sets falling
> over etc). Consequently, the action and effects are awesome but the
> actual character interaction feels really fake and unbelievable.
Oh, I do think that the actors tried hard and didn't have a lot to work
with, absolutely. Agreed 100%.
>> It isn't about fan expectations - I went in with no expectations, and
>> still I was disappointed.
>
> I went in with mixed feelings, but I was pleasantly surprised. That
> suggests I was expecting to be disappointed...!
I guess it's fair to say that going into ep1 I had no expectations, but
then I was confronted with Jar Jar, and I just wanted to hit something
Lucas-like.
I had low expectations for 2 & 3, and as I think I said elsewhere, 3 I
actually kinda liked because it went to where it inevitably needed to go
and ended with a pretty dark ending (just like ESB, for that matter). I
generally prefer films where the end doesn't wrap everything up all nice
and neat and everyone lives happily ever after.
I really liked the uncut version of Blade Runner better than the
theatrical release specifically for this matter; RS was told he needed a
"clean" ending with no uncertainty, but his original vision was far, far
better because you just didn't know how things ended up.
> I like all the Star Wars films, but I'll be the first to admit that
> they're all seriously flawed in one way or another. Except maybe ESB.
ESB was definitely the best of the bunch - I really liked that one.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:02:00 +0000, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps even
>>> deserve a second watching at some point.
>>
>> Never saw it.
>
> It's a good laugh. Good action, pleasantly trivial story, and some
> cracking dialogue from Sam Jackson.
I'll have to add that to my list as well, then. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:33:55 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps
>>>> even
>>>> deserve a second watching at some point.
>>>
>>> Never saw it.
>>
>> It's a good laugh. Good action, pleasantly trivial story, and some
>> cracking dialogue from Sam Jackson.
>
> Samuel Jackson more or less made the movie. It's good
entertainment
> overall, but his character just kept cracking me up.
I think that's one of the things about films he's in that make me want to
see them - you don't expect him to be funny, but he is. Same for Robert
DeNiro - I loved "Analyze This", because I just never thought of him as a
comedian.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:02:24 -0800, Chambers wrote:
> I actually like all of his movies, though The Village and Lady in the
> Water aren't his best. Personally, Unbreakable and Signs are my
> favorites.
Ah, yes, I didn't see The Village either.
> He focuses much more on the emotions of his characters than the events.
That's true, and that's what made Sixth Sense work for me.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:33:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Far too much of the popular stuff is like
> that.
Agreed.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:19:38 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Sense was IMO the best of them.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> 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.
Agreed, now that you mention it - that was the problem with it for me the
second time I watched it; I couldn't remember enough from the first time,
and it's because the story was too drawn out.
Drawing a story out can be done well (think LOTR books), but it's
something that takes a great degree of skill. For me the LOTR books
demonstrated that because I just kept reading and didn't realize how much
I was reading.
>> Signs was just a confusing mess IMO.
>
> It wasn't too confusing to me. It was trying to be scary or something,
> or suspenseful, but it failed that too. The only good bit of acting was
> when the brother or whoever it was was watching the TV and saw the
> creature and jumped back. *That* was convincing acting.
Yeah, that's what I meant - it was confusing not in plot or story, but in
what it was trying to be. But you're right, that jump was very
convincing.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
