 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:35:48 -0000, Chambers
<ben### [at] pacificwebguy com> did spake, saying:
> gregjohn wrote:
>> Episode Three is a fascinating study in fascism and indoctrination of
>> the
>> political and religious stripe.
>
> If by "fascinating study" you mean "fairly obvious and shallow".
>
> Ooh, let's show a dictator curbing civil rights! That must make it a
> deep movie, right?
Well it was an American film. If they'd made it subtler the intended
audience wouldn't get it, and if they made it more overt Fox would be
trying to have it banned :-P
--
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 wrote:
>> Aliens was from 1986. Alien was the earlier one.
>
> Well, yes, there were several films, but I thought they were *all* from
> about the same time...
Rather, *all* the movies from the Alien series are quite far apart:
1979, 1986, 1992, 1997.
I won't bother listing the Alien vs Predator ones.
--
DOS means never having to live hand-to-mouse
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> And was anyone else bothered by the Raptor in "Live Free or Die Hard"?
>
> It wasn't a Raptor, but a F-35B Lightning II. It's described here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II#F-35B
>
Wow, that's... actually pretty cool, if it works the way it was shown in
the movie. Unfortunately, I'll have to see it to believe it (or, at
least see more film of it).
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> Well it was an American film. If they'd made it subtler the intended
> audience wouldn't get it
Good point. Sometimes I hate living in America :(
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:52:03 -0000, Chambers
<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> Well it was an American film. If they'd made it subtler the intended
>> audience wouldn't get it
>
> Good point. Sometimes I hate living in America :(
Oops sorry forgot where you were; I'll use shorter words next time :-P
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:55:54 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> For me, Shrek 2 had its moments, but not good enough for me to
>> want to
>> watch the 3rd.
>
> You should watch the third for the graphics. They are cool.
I'd agree with that - the rendering in 3 is really impressive.
Especially if you go back again and watch 1 and compare.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
