oppinnions on these films...

[Sar]

Originally posted by Testin da Cable
I found 'Final Destination' to be the very purest shite. imo

You are not far wrong my good man. PS: I shall email you later tomorrow - bed awaits


PS: Bought Blade 2 today on DVD after only seeing a rather pish poor screener of it upon its theatrical release - still enjoyed it though, so the DVD should be a treat, especially as the extras are pretty fucking top notch to boot.

 

[Sar]

Originally posted by prime1
wel it is overrated, peopel talk about it like its the best film ever, and it isnt. Its qutie funy, its got good acting, and an interesting story line, i was entertained by it, but I didnt see what ALL the fuss was about. It was certainly unusual, and not a bad film, just not imo the classic its supposed to be.

It pioneered a new style of plot divulgance (ok, mebbe not, but I'd never seen a story told in that fashion before), carried off brilliantly.

Also used to no lesser effect in Memento, another corking film.

PS: Someone that rates (from initial appearances) Final Destination above Pulp Fiction needs a severe beating tbh.

 

[Testin da Cable]

Originally posted by Sar


I shall email you later tomorrow - bed awaits

righto

 

[prime1]

Originally posted by Sar


It pioneered a new style of plot divulgance (ok, mebbe not, but I'd never seen a story told in that fashion before), carried off brilliantly.

Also used to no lesser effect in Memento, another corking film.

PS: Someone that rates (from initial appearances) Final Destination above Pulp Fiction needs a severe beating tbh.

I didnt say i rated final destination above pulp fiction, i said if you are looking for a creepy suspense/horror type movie, final destination isnt bad, i thought it was "creepy" and it had a lot of suspense, and sum good graphic unsuspected deaths - the bus bit and the billboard bit for example.

I dont rate it as a classic, i rate it is possibly being better that The Others (for replay value!)

 

[urz]

Old.ignus

Excuse me for being pedantic, but contrary to hints from the producers as to the truthfullness of the events on which EATG is based, a leading authority on the Battle of Stalingrad, Antony Beevor, has stated that Zaitev did exist, and was in Stalingrad, the major did exist, but sadly never went anywhere near Stalingrad, nor is there any evidence of any such super sniper

But since when has Hollywood let the truth get in the way of a good story.

BTW the Stalingrad book by A. Beevor (couldn't resist that) is a damn good read

 

[prime1]

The Truth never got in the way of Hollywood, but since EATG was a European film that dosnt have a lot of relevance here (hence no Americans as heroes). There is a huge debate over what zaitsev did and didnt do, its one of those things.

Its a good story, and although it may not be accurate, at least it puts a spotlight on the fact that it wasnt just the Americans and Germans fighting in WW2.

 

[Lester]

Originally posted by Testin da Cable



the book is pretty cool, but ludlum moves so slow

Read the Bourne Identity about 10 times - there was no way they could make a great film of it - too much in it.

Ludlum lost his way years ago but another top read of his was The Matarese Circle

 

[nath]

Originally posted by oldlester
Read the Bourne Identity about 10 times - there was no way they could make a great film of it - too much in it.

But you all seemed to love LotR, there was quite a lot in that book..

 

[Lester]

Originally posted by nath


But you all seemed to love LotR, there was quite a lot in that book..

I can't comment too much coz I haven't read the book, but isn't there gonna be 3 films, and also apparently the book was heavily loaded with superfluous prose?

 

[nath]

Yes and yes.

But there were 3 books, technically. Generally, people buy the three in one, just called lord of the rings, but it is three books. And each book is big. And yes theres lots of shit songs n crap, but there's still loads there. Loads they had to skip in the film.

 

[Testin da Cable]

Originally posted by oldlester


apparently the book was heavily loaded with superfluous prose

mr tolkien must be puking in his grave :/

 

[Scooba Da Bass]

I think he'd just hate being talked about on computers, he was a very very very scary luddite.

 

[Lester]

Originally posted by Testin da Cable




mr tolkien must be puking in his grave :/

Tolkein sees, nay, senses the oppressive darkness that surrounds and engulfs him, pressing in on all sides. His chest heaving against the intolerable pressure from the invisible blackness, he turns his head, inch by inch to the left. Every movement sounds like an enourmous beast in the coffin with him, his very breath seeming to come from someone, someTHING else. He pauses for a second in his efforts and ponders his life, his past, and above all the darkness that is now his future. He knows, somehow, that even now his work is being discussed, dissected and with a final effort he turns his head one terrible inch further............





















and pukes.

 

[Testin da Cable]

exactly

 

[Xtro]

Just watched Anal A La Carte 3.

top film

 

[danger]

Originally posted by oldlester


I can't comment too much coz I haven't read the book, but isn't there gonna be 3 films, and also apparently the book was heavily loaded with superfluous prose?

Yes 3 films coz there were 3 books... they've still cut loads out... the whole Tom Bombadil saga was cut out of the first film, the whole escape from the shire saga was rushed etc

+ loads more I can't be bothered going into... I'm not saying that's a bad thing... but disproves your theory.

 

[Will]

Originally posted by ^Danger
...the whole Tom Bombadil saga was cut out of the first film..

Thank god.

 

[danger]

Made for some tedious reading, didn't it

 

[Testin da Cable]

*stabs itcheh*





edit:

*stabs danger*

 

[Will]

You really want to sit through 3 hours of elvensong?

 

[Testin da Cable]

yes

 

[Will]

There are ways to make that sort of thing enjoyable. But cinemas frown on people high on 'shrooms watching films for some reason.

 

[Testin da Cable]

I happen to know that I can react to people in a vaguely normal fashion while tripping my nuts off



NEXT!!

 

[Lester]

mmmmm .... my theory being what, exactly?

I was refering to Bourne Identity, not LOTR, someone else brought that up. My opinion was that it would be very difficult to make a decent job of Bourne Identity the movie as there was so much "mental" goings on, so many strands of story and so many characters. I agree that a decent fist has been made of LOTR, but not thaving read the book(s) I wouldn't know if fans were disapointed or happy.

There are thousands of examples of films not being as good as the book from which they were developed (The Shining for one) and some the other way too (Dolores Claiborne) - Stephen King seems to suffer particularly.

I haven't seen Sum Of All Fears, but the book was top banana and frrom what trailers I've seen bears little relation to the film.

But Anyway.......

 

[Lester]

Jesus, while I was typing that, 6 replies sneaked in under the wire, making my already nonsensical post seem even worse

 

[Testin da Cable]

*giggle*

 

[GDW]

oldlester stop filling your posts with superfluous prose otherwise someone might make a film out of them

 

[Lester]

Me? Longwinded?! Never!!


























which reminds me of a story......

 

[Sar]

Originally posted by nath
Yes and yes.

But there were 3 books, technically. Generally, people buy the three in one, just called lord of the rings, but it is three books. And each book is big. And yes theres lots of shit songs n crap, but there's still loads there. Loads they had to skip in the film.

Wrong

It's actually 1 book, but it was split up into 3 by the publishers in the 50's.

 

[danger]

Originally posted by Sar



Wrong

It's actually 1 book, but it was split up into 3 by the publishers in the 50's.

There's always one cunt who knows too much!