 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > but that it failed to meet fan expectations.
> That, and the acting sucked.
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?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Me? I find only a handful of movies that are worth watching more than
> once in the theatre, and many more that are worth watching many times at
> home (especially while doing something else, perhaps).
Here movie theatres are way too expensive to go and watch a movie more
than once (if at all). If it wasn't for that I might perhaps go more often.
As far as I remember, there has been only one movie which I have seen
twice in a movie theater (and I paid the ticket myself both times), but
I'm too ashamed to tell which... :P
(No, it's nothing pornographic or the like.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
4783710e$1@news.povray.org...
> [Altough there seems to be almost universal agreement that Star Wars III
> sucks beyond belief...]
Where did you see that? Of the 3 movies of the new trilogy it was the one
that had the best reviews (see the Wikipedia article and the IMDB and
RottenTomatoes ratings for instance).
In any case Warp is right, the problem with these movies were not that they
sucked: the whole Star Wars franchise is a tribute to the cheesy serials
from Lucas' childhood after all, so the suckage was built-in, from Darth
Vader to Jar-Jar. It was that the fans expectations were impossible to meet.
The material was cheesy from the very start, but it didn't look that way
when the fans were little kids in the 80s. The new movies are cheesy too,
but the fans grew up...
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> but that it failed to meet fan expectations.
>
> That, and the acting sucked. Which is hard to blame on the actors, given
> how it was filmed.
>
> In the later parts of 2 and 3, you wind up meeting every major character
> from 4, 5, and 6, which felt jammed in. Some fans have retconned it to
> make sense, implying that (for example) Chewbacca was using Solo as
> cover for spying, rather than just being the first mate of the ship.
I don't know about bad acting - most of the acting was fairly
reasonable. However, the editing leaves much to be desired. Character
says 3 lines. Cut to fantastical shot. Cut to another character.
Character says a few words. Cut to another impossible landscape. Cut to
something happening in space. Cut. Cut. Cut.
If you watch the originals, there are whole scenes where nothing
"really" happens much. Like some people walk around, and it's kinda
spooky, and they mutter a few words to each other, and you're not really
sure what's going to happen next... The new films don't appear to
contain anything like that.
Also the story is pretty weak. But hey.
I actually quite enjoyed Star Wars I. I still watch it from time to
time. But once you've watched it once, there's not a huge amount to
watch again. I would say it's the best of the new batch. The other two
just seem to offer nothing. [Unless you just want to enjoy the -
admittedly cutting edge - visuals.]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> [Altough there seems to be almost universal agreement that Star Wars III
>> sucks beyond belief...]
>
> Where did you see that? Of the 3 movies of the new trilogy it was the one
> that had the best reviews (see the Wikipedia article and the IMDB and
> RottenTomatoes ratings for instance).
Hmm, OK. The false concencus effect then, perhaps?
> In any case Warp is right, the problem with these movies were not that they
> sucked: the whole Star Wars franchise is a tribute to the cheesy serials
> from Lucas' childhood after all, so the suckage was built-in, from Darth
> Vader to Jar-Jar. It was that the fans expectations were impossible to meet.
> The material was cheesy from the very start, but it didn't look that way
> when the fans were little kids in the 80s. The new movies are cheesy too,
> but the fans grew up...
I wouldn't say there's anything "cheesy" about any of the films in the
series - old or new. The problem is that the new films are an endless
cascade of fantastical over-the-top visuals linked by little or no
story, never mind dialog or character interaction. But there we are...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" wrote:
> As far as I remember, there has been only one movie which I have seen
> twice in a movie theater (and I paid the ticket myself both times), but
> I'm too ashamed to tell which... :P
It was Titanic!
Everyone went crazy going and seeing that move in the movie theatre again
and again...
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I have seen movies with truely bad acting,
Yes. Most anything with Drew Carrey, for example. :-)
I just found the actors to be (for the most part) wooden. The more
central the character, the more unemotional the acting was. Anakin
should be way more broken up over his conflicts, but instead the most
emotive acting comes when he wears his mask.
Contrast with, for example, Luke leaning back in bed after Lea kisses
him, with Solo rolling his eyes. Nothing like that anywhere in the
I/II/III movies. The most emotive characters in the prequels were the
special effects ("It's a trap!")
--
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:
> Here movie theatres are way too expensive to go and watch a movie more
> than once (if at all). If it wasn't for that I might perhaps go more often.
I can remember two myself:
Galaxy Quest
Joe vs the Volcano.
I think there was one other, but I don't remember 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:46:15 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> #3 Island of the Twelve Monkeys
Do you just mean "12 Monkeys", the Terry Gilliam movie? That one was
pretty hard to follow, but Gilliam tends to be very surreal.
> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
It's Kubrick - almost gotta expect that.
> #1 Dune.
It's a classic Messiah story; the David Lynch movie was abbreviated far
too much compared to the book, I found the miniseries on SciFi to be
better...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 06:52:03 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Does it 'star' Adam Sandler? > Yes > Go to next movie Does it 'star'
>> Vince Vaugn? > Yes > Go to next movie
>
> You don't seem to like cheesy comedies too much.
A comedy should make one laugh; I don't know about you, but Sandler
doesn't make me laugh. Nor does Vaughan.
>> Does it 'star' a singer who has decided to spread her talents into the
>> medium of film? > Yes > Go to next movie
>
> I thought 'Enough' was surprisingly good, much better than I expected.
First time I saw it, I thought it was OK. The second time I saw it, I
didn't like it - seemed to send the message that violence is OK. I know
it's more complicated than that, but still.
>> Does the director/producer's wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend have a
>> prominent starring role > Yes > Go to next movie
>
> I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps even
> deserve a second watching at some point.
Never saw it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
He managed to get the key elements of the story in that needed to be
there, but like I said elsewhere, the new trilogy had no 'soul' compared
to the first one.
It isn't about fan expectations - I went in with no expectations, and
still I was disappointed.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:17:25 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> I don't know about bad acting - most of the acting was fairly
> reasonable.
Were you watching the Amidala/Padme character at all? She was simply
awful, especially in ep 1.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 15:10:01 -0800, Chambers wrote:
> 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.
Agreed; I didn't know the twist at the end before seeing it, but I have
been increasingly disappointed in Shamalan's movies since then. Sixth
Sense was IMO the best of them.
I've seen all of them except for Lady in the Water, and a few of them
more than once. Unbreakable wasn't bad, but it wasn't overly good
either. It's one you watch because it's got Bruce Willis and Samuel L.
Jackson in it (and more for the latter than the former IMO).
Signs was just a confusing mess IMO. I followed the story OK, but by the
time that one came out, you came to expect that there would be a twist,
so the thing that made that one interesting was trying to figure out what
the twist would be.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:39:16 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Twelve Monkeys is one of the best movies I have seen. If I remember
> correctly, I have seen it 4 times, and each time I have got something
> new from it.
I thought it was a very good movie as well; Gilliam's movies tend to be
quite good. I also really liked The Fisher King.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 15:14:01 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> > Invisible wrote:
>> >> I suspect it's actually *not* about maths, but about some theory
>> >> that
>> >
>> > Of course not. A movie about maths would be boring.
>>
>> I find it a little sad that so many people think this...
>
> yes, I remember an old Disney cartoon where Donald meets the greek Plato
> and other philosophers and discovers math and music. It was pretty fun
> for a movie involving geometric figures and tone division... ;)
I actually quite liked Flatland myself...But I can't remember which
version it was I saw.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:30:29 +0200, Gail Shaw wrote:
> Try reading the book. The first sequel's also good, not sure about the
> other 2.
There were other sequels? I only knew about 2010 (which I quite liked).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 15:10:01 -0800, Chambers wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Agreed; I didn't know the twist at the end before seeing it, but I have
> been increasingly disappointed in Shamalan's movies since then. Sixth
> Sense was IMO the best of them.
>
> I've seen all of them except for Lady in the Water, and a few of them
> more than once. Unbreakable wasn't bad, but it wasn't overly good
> either. It's one you watch because it's got Bruce Willis and Samuel L.
> Jackson in it (and more for the latter than the former IMO).
>
> Signs was just a confusing mess IMO. I followed the story OK, but by the
> time that one came out, you came to expect that there would be a twist,
> so the thing that made that one interesting was trying to figure out what
> the twist would be.
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.
He focuses much more on the emotions of his characters than the events.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> [Altough there seems to be almost universal agreement that Star Wars III
>> sucks beyond belief...]
>
> The problem with SW3 (and the previous two) is not that it was bad (it
> was quite good from all points of view, IMO)
We have differing opinions of "good" then.
Writing: Bad.
Acting: Bad.
SFX: Excellent.
Directing / Editing: Excellent (how else can you justify such horrible
movies being so much fun to watch?)
I'm still willing to watch the original trilogy every now and then, but
the new ones... It's painful to sit still through anything other than
the action scenes (which are, mercifully, plentiful).
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Joe vs the Volcano.
Now THAT was a good movie! I totally didn't appreciate it the first
time I saw it, but seeing it again (I think it was about a year ago) I
loved it!
I think I just wasn't mature enough the first time :)
The last movie I went to see twice in the theatre was actually Harry
Potter and the Order of the Pheonix :) Of the movies, I'd say it's 2nd
to Prisoner of Azkaban, but I'm willing to bet the "hardcore" fans
disagree with me.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> 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?
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:30:29 +0200, Gail Shaw wrote:
>
>> Try reading the book. The first sequel's also good, not sure about the
>> other 2.
>
> There were other sequels? I only knew about 2010 (which I quite liked).
>
> Jim
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?).
It just seemed like preachy atheist propoganda written for 5 year olds.
Mind you, that was only the first two chapters - I never read the rest :)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:477e0067$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
>
> http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/
I don't get the appeal most of these pictures. I mean, the pictures are
cute, and I understand what they're "trying" to say, but I feel like my
IQ drops about 10 points every time I look at comedy that tries to be as
uneducated as possible.
Tom Lehrer, in one of his songs, mentions the unfortunate fact that many
people equate illiteracy with charm. To me, this is one of the most
disturbing facts about our culture today.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> 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.
--
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:
> I just found the actors to be (for the most part) wooden.
Or, to describe it a different way:
Luke: Impetuous, eager, noble.
Leia: Concerned, good hearted, Will do what it takes.
Solo: Good bluffer, soft inside.
Vadar: Brutal, uncaring.
Emperor: Sneaky, cruel.
Now, describe three major characters from the prequels in the same way.
Aniken: Teen angst. (And that only when he's a teen. No personality in
the first movie at all.)
That's about all I can come up with. Nobody in the first movie had
enough personality I could care what happened to them.
I mean, hell, Jabba the hut had more personality than Queen Amanda.
--
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:
> I think there was one other, but I don't remember what it was. :-)
Oh. Duh. I did go back and see 2001 when it came out 20 years later. :-)
Probably one or two more in there somewhere. Surely less than 8 or 10 in
my whole life.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
>> news:477e0067$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
>>
>> http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/
>
> I don't get the appeal most of these pictures. I mean, the pictures are
> cute, and I understand what they're "trying" to say, but I feel like my
> IQ drops about 10 points every time I look at comedy that tries to be as
> uneducated as possible.
>
The problem is if you visit internet sites where this meme is
propagated. After accidentally stumbling into a thread and seeing 5 or 6
of these pictures at once, your IQ has suffered such a distorting blow
that, after that point in time, you now find the pictures to be funny.
> Tom Lehrer, in one of his songs, mentions the unfortunate fact that many
> people equate illiteracy with charm. To me, this is one of the most
> disturbing facts about our culture today.
>
You think cats would be literate? In English, mind you, not in their own
language.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> You think cats would be literate? In English, mind you, not in their own
> language.
My cats act as if I am so irredeemably beneath their intellect that it's
not worth their time to even contemplate speaking to me :)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Gilliam's movies tend to be quite good.
Tideland was weird, though.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
If you want depth in a movie, you need to spend time with your characters.
You can see lack of depth in most hollywood blockbusters. They are too short,
they don't develop their characters, it's just fast food, not a delicate
cuisine.
(One relatively recent prime example of this was IMO the first Fantastic4
movie: It was *way* too short, it didn't develop its characters *at all*,
and in the end it felt completely hollow. Like a cheap fast food ration.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
> "Warp" wrote:
> > As far as I remember, there has been only one movie which I have seen
> > twice in a movie theater (and I paid the ticket myself both times), but
> > I'm too ashamed to tell which... :P
> It was Titanic!
Nope. I own that movie on DVD. No shame in that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> (One relatively recent prime example of this was IMO the first Fantastic4
> movie: It was *way* too short, it didn't develop its characters *at all*,
> and in the end it felt completely hollow. Like a cheap fast food ration.)
Funny, that's exactly what the preview made it look like, and the reason
I didn't see it.
Now, if someone had told me that the characters had some depth to them,
I would have been interested. But I don't need anymore celluloid Big
Macs, thank you very much.
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...
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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"?-)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> My cats act as if I am so irredeemably beneath their intellect that it's
> not worth their time to even contemplate speaking to me :)
Yes. That's what cats do.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Interesting. Of all his movies, I think The Village and Lady In The
Water are my favourites! Although I think Unbreakable is excellent too.
I think his movies are often maligned somewhat unfairly, either by
people who spend half the film looking for the twist and then saying it
was crap because they spotted it (boasting), or people who spend half
the film looking for the twist and then saying they didn't spot it
because it was a crap twist (defensive). Both categories entirely fail
to get anything from the movie as a result. Poor fools. This is one
reason I like Lady In The Water particularly, because it's entirely
without a twist.
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.
This way, I get maximum enjoyment from it (twists are supposed to be
unexpected, after all).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> 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 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.
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Rune <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
>> "Warp" wrote:
>>> As far as I remember, there has been only one movie which I have seen
>>> twice in a movie theater (and I paid the ticket myself both times), but
>>> I'm too ashamed to tell which... :P
>
>> It was Titanic!
If there's shame in that, then I share it, cos I saw that three times in
the cinema. I went with different people, but enjoyed it each time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> Gail Shaw wrote:
>>> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> but that it failed to meet fan expectations.
>
>> That, and the acting sucked.
>
> 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?
I won't get into arguing about Star Wars too much, because while I
liked the original trilogy, it was only because I was quite young. I'm
sure if I saw them originally as an adult, I'd enjoy them, and forget
about them quickly.
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.
Friend of mine tried to insist good acting was, "They acted the way
real people would in that situation". He wasn't consistent with that
definition. He liked the acting in a lot of action movies, where almost
no one acts as they would in real life. I don't like that definition
(but hey, if someone really cares about realism...).
--
Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
