Recently watched

Orpheus said:
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Spartan</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>OMFG. Put spoilers in black font you f**king retard. You don't have to ruin a movie for everyone else just because your pissed off. Your just as much of a retard as the people on planet Half Life that kept giving away HL2's ending.

Are you forgetting exactly who you are talking to when you type? or is this just a brain fart?

sighs

I didn't type anything that was not publicly posted elsewhere. its not as if i saw the movie already and posted any secret parts. :rolleyes:

I'll let it slide this once, but only this once. :/

</div></div>

I didn't even bother looking at who wrote it. I was pissed that the author of the post was giving away spoilers. Even it was you that wrote it I'm still just as pissed that you would post that.

Spartan said:
I didn't even bother looking at who wrote it. I was pissed that the author of the post was giving away spoilers. Even it was you that wrote it I'm still just as pissed that you would post that.

Be pissed, but be constructive in doing so.

Crono said the exact same thing you did, in blue text.. or at least his message was conveyed in such a manner as to be... taken differently than yours.

Remember this though, I was upset, but not pissed at your reply.. I could have responded in kind. :/

I still don't understand why you gave away spoilers?

P.S. I think I've lost snark marks. Why do I only have 190 when other people have around 1000?

Spartan said:
I still don't understand why you gave away spoilers?

P.S. I think I've lost snark marks. Why do I only have 190 when other people have around 1000?

because i was under the impression that spoilers are things no one has heard of yet, not already posted information. how would you have avoided this info on other sites?

and i promise you, i nor my posts about movies are nearly important enough to cost you snarkmarks.

the snarkmark system was revamped to only give you credit for maps that have 2 or more ratings. if you want, i can rate yours if you would please rate mine.

I saw Thirteen a couple of nights ago. Pretty realistic but gets boring after awhile. True story that is written AND acted by one of the two main characters. Features a couple of make out scenes between the girls, young girls wearing thongs and similar if you're into that sort of thing. Meh....wasn't too much to the movie...plus it was overlong. The mothers did a good job of acting

I wish I could remember the title of the movie, but it was a true story based on the life of a woman tormented by a ghost. this ghost sexually assaults her frequently, and no matter where she moves the spirit follows.

they have so called "documented" film of the ghost messaging her boobs and genitalia.

it was a couple decades ago when i saw it.. :/

i recommend the movie if it ever aires again.

another good older movie was one called "Manitu" i think it was spelled, and from the 70's

That was called "The Entity"

Dark Tree said:
I saw Thirteen a couple of nights ago. Pretty realistic but gets boring after awhile. True story that is written AND acted by one of the two main characters. Features a couple of make out scenes between the girls, young girls wearing thongs and similar if you're into that sort of thing. Meh....wasn't too much to the movie...plus it was overlong. The mothers did a good job of acting

You should've never mentioned the makeout seen. With as many teenage boys (including myself) on this site I'm sure there will be a few more rentals of the movie.

Yar.

Juim said:
That was called "The Entity"

YES!! thats the one. cool flick.

French Toast said:
The writing sucked, and Jar Jar Binks made me go on a killing spree.

How many bars of soap did you have to pick up in order to get internet privileges? :wink:

LOL , I think your clever and subtle sense of humour is wasted on so many here Adam.

Dirty double post.

Saw Hitchhiker's Guide last night- I haven't read the books for a long long time, but the humous is my type. It was really funny in some places, but there were too many utterly non-funny parts- people were laughing in the cinema whenever Marvin would say anything, even if it was just "Oh no I hate myself" for the 100th time, and it felt like someone had tacked on canned laughter- and about 2/3rds of the way through it really hit a dull lull. Good Vogon CGI/etc., the President character was quite funny although it's been done better before (makes me think of Sideways or Eddie Murphy?!) and the Trillian/Arthur parts were just cringeworthy and predictable. I'd give it 6/10.

Saw Lemony Snickets

It was... Lemony :/

You will have to watch it and decide for yourself to appreciate it. :smile:

I kinda liked Lemony Snickets, never read the books though.

i like all films but what really caught my attention were 'bowling for columbine','farenheit 9/11' and 'supersize me'
they really opened my eyes about american culture but since the US way of life has such huge influence over the rest of the world it reflects on the rest of the world as well. the documentaries were made from americans who knew best. if some super-biased frenchman had made it the films true meaning would be smothered in biased views. if its made by americans about americans we get a truer documentary

Those films you named were very biased. Michael Moore makes no attempt to give an unbiased view of the events, and I would hardly call his movies documentaries.

They are documentaries. Documentary doesn't mean "facts", by the way, it means a film built using facts incorporated with a point of view in this reality (basically).
The US has made "documentaries" for years that were very biased (John Ford's, The Battle of Midway probably tops the list in my opinion.)

I like some of the things Moore has to say, but to claim he isn't biased is flat out ignorant. However, it is also very pompous to say that his films are "garbage" or whatever word you wish to use, because he's expressing his views on the matter. Isn't that what making movies is all about past entertaining people? To make a point. To try to get people to see things differently? He has every right to these things. The only difference between what he does and what most other filmmakers do is that his stuff is to the point. Movies with an underlying reflection on the events at hand never really get "understood" until it's too late, either that, or no one cares (Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, for example, is reflecting on the watts riot)

So, whatever. Films are biased or not, who cares? Everyone is biased no matter how impartial they claim to be.

Yeah, Moore has facts in his films, except they just don't support the conclusions he makes. If Moore made films about math, they would go something like this: (1) 2+2 = 4, and 3*3 = 9. (2) therefore Fermat's last theorem is true.

It doesn't matter, it's his opinion and he has the right to express it. It's also not his fault that other people agree with him or disagree with him for that matter.

On another note, I saw The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy last night and, well, frankly, I disagree with Lep 100%. I think having read the book will improve your experience while watching the film (general comment). Oh well.

The one thing I wish they did more like the book was when Arthur and Ford first experience the improbability drive.

By the way, none of the Vogons are CGI. (except the large gathering arial shots)

I almost rented the original movie of hitchhikers guide.. is it any good?

Orph, I didn't think there was an older movie for Hitchhikers. There was a BBC TV series a while back, which I have on DVD and is actually really good - despite the Dr. Who knock-off sets etc. :smile:

Adam Hawkins said:
Orph, I didn't think there was an older movie for Hitchhikers. There was a BBC TV series a while back, which I have on DVD and is actually really good - despite the Dr. Who knock-off sets etc. :smile:

did you not see the link i posted? it shows the VCR tape for rent here in jonesboro. its quite old looking.

I just watched Hitchhikers, the new one, I really like the vogons. But I thought they pronounced Zaphod wrong... ohwell, I still really liked it.

the bbc series and the film for rent in jonsboro are one and the same

Saw Lemony Snickets
It was... Lemony :/

You will have to watch it and decide for yourself to appreciate it. :smile:

I thought it was OK, but lacked the exitement, maybe I was just in the mood for a thriller.

Adam Hawkins said:
Orph,
I didn't think there was an older movie for Hitchhikers. There was a
BBC TV series a while back, which I have on DVD and is actually really
good - despite the Dr. Who knock-off sets etc. :smile:

did you not see the link i posted? it shows the VCR tape for rent here in jonesboro. its quite old looking.

In the title it says "mini", meaning mini-series (6 episodes).

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting mazemaster</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Those films you named were very biased. Michael Moore makes no attempt to give an unbiased view of the events, and I would hardly call his movies documentaries. </DIV></DIV>

what i meant is that alot of people not from the US have a wrong and negative look on american culture and views but since its made by americans you dont get really get these
maybe i shouldnt have used the word 'biased' before :rolleyes:

i just read the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy and a few of its sequels and would always reccommend to the read the book before you see the movie in any case

Just watched The Ladykillers last night for the 2nd time. Love that movie.

Watched Mr. 3000

It was predictably entertaining. You had the plot figured out in the opening credits, but it was still worth watching at least once. :smile:

There is no such thing as American culture.

There is no spoon

You think that's air you're breathing?

Saw Hitchhikers the other day. I agree 95% with Lep.

The parts they took from the book are great, especially the Guide
entries. The Vogons and the special effects all rock as well. But the
tacked-on love story, staleness of Marvin, and some of the added-on
parts really messed the movie up in my opinion. Oh, and I really hate
the casting for Trillian - I think Marvin had more enthusiasm in his
voice than her. They kind of exaggerated some aspects too much (i.e.
Marvin's depressed, Vogon's have a vast bureaucracy) and then didn't
really explain some others (why a towel is important). But still,
reasonably good, better than I expected anyway. 7/10

Oh, and I saw Kung Fu Hustle too. Great mindless fun. Not nearly enough dancing though. 9/10.

Does this movie have subtitles the whole way through? I don't mind them so much but it is a comedy........how do the subtitles work for the movie....

Saw Hitchhikers the other day. I agree 95% with Lep.

The parts they took from the book are great, especially the Guide
entries. The Vogons and the special effects all rock as well. But the
tacked-on love story, staleness of Marvin, and some of the added-on
parts really messed the movie up in my opinion. Oh, and I really hate
the casting for Trillian - I think Marvin had more enthusiasm in his
voice than her. They kind of exaggerated some aspects too much (i.e.
Marvin's depressed, Vogon's have a vast bureaucracy) and then didn't
really explain some others (why a towel is important). But still,
reasonably good, better than I expected anyway. 7/10

I'd give Hitchhikers a 7.5/10 I agree with everything you said, only
the movie gets +.5 for casting mos def. I thought he was great.

[edit] ya know what, I'm bumping it down to 6/10 I feel like it really
missed the book some how. I read very old copy of the first book
and I really felt that it would have a more... old fasion space
look. Also, I think the movie would have been very hard to
understand with out knolage of the book. Overall I liked it, but
felt like it missed something.

DrGlass, I expected it to be more DR. Who and not so pretty.. I like pretty, but your right if it had that more DR. WHO like appearance it would of been a much better movie.

Speaking of anyone seen this new DR WHO show yet?

Typical.. People who read a book THEN watch a movie always complain and/or cry. Tis sad really, but almost always happens. A book has so much more opportunity to deliver a story line cause it can be almost any size necessary to do so, but a movie is almost always restricted to 2 hours. If any movie ventures above the 2 hour mark, people will bitch about that as well.

I usually try to watch a movie then read the book. Tis why I am postponing the new SW Sith book, I want to see it on the screen first so I have no disillusions as to its quality shortfalls.

I fully expect everyone whom is currently crying about the new Hitchhiker movie to say "f**k off Orph" but I am betting money that ONLY the people who read the book first will cry about the movie. Any takers?

I have only one question. Can the movie be watched without reading the book and still make sense?

all the lord of the rings were three hours or just about and look how many oscars they won

rival said:
all the lord of the rings were three hours or just about and look how many oscars they won

Thats almost funny. Of the million or so movies out there.. Yes, the 10 commandments was long and prolly won more still. :biggrin:

There are always exceptions, but as good as the hitchhiker movie may be, i doubt its in league with those movies

but a movie is almost always restricted to 2 hours

almost always. key words here. :razz:

Orpheus said:
There are always exceptions, but as good as the hitchhiker movie may be, i doubt its in league with those movies

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>but a movie is almost always restricted to 2 hours

almost always. key words here. :razz:

</div></div>

i agree with you on the hitchikers its plot just isnt epic eonough

oh and my apologies i missed out those 'keywords'

but still: gone with the wind, ben hur, gladiator they and many other classics have been over two hours!!!

Orpheus said:
about the new Hitchhiker movie to say "f**k off Orph" but I am betting money that ONLY the people who read the book first will cry about the movie. Any takers?

FUHH, FUHH, FUHH.. Ahh I just cant do it.. I liked the film.. I just expected it to be more DR Whoish than all sparkley pretty, high tech and all that jazz.

And just so you know this FILM is a remake there was one before this. Made by the BBC I think. ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/ ) Yepp there is a link to it. This was what I was compairing the current film too.. I know that a book will always be better, well almost.. thats because with a book you draw the pictures and the movie plays in your head...

Orpheus said:
about
the new Hitchhiker movie to say "f**k off Orph" but I am betting money
that ONLY the people who read the book first will cry about the movie.
Any takers?

FUHH, FUHH, FUHH.. Ahh I just cant do it.. I liked the film.. I just
expected it to be more DR Whoish than all sparkley pretty, high tech
and all that jazz.

And just so you know this FILM is a remake there was one before this. Made by the BBC I think. ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/
) Yepp there is a link to it. This was what I was compairing the
current film too.. I know that a book will always be better, well
almost.. thats because with a book you draw the pictures and the movie
plays in your head...

Once again...it wasn't a film, it was a mini-series.

Uhm Ok.. Well I sw it then.. and if I recall it was a movie they turned into a mini-series.. but im just some dumb yankey.. what do I know?

Kage_Prototype said:
Once again...it wasn't a film, it was a mini-series.

I haven't seen any version yet. but sometimes the "mini" part doesn't make it over here Kage.

Is the old BBC Mini any good? would it be worth renting? Would it ruin the new one?

and MS, I posted the link a page or two back. :smile:

Typical.. People who read a book THEN watch a movie always complain and/or cry.

I dont see any one crying over the film. I think that it could
have been much better, and I would say that if you didn't read the book
then the movie will be worse.

I think the movie was flawed becuase it followed the book so close that
it didn't work becuase it left out small details that would have
otherwise put the movie in perspective.

If it had been a loose book to film like Jurassic park (the movie shared maybe 10 minutes with the second
book, didn't follow the first book at all) then it would have worked
out better. hitch hikers wasn't able to capture the essance of
the book, and thats where it really failed. It wasn't bad, but it
also wasn't what most people were expecting.

I use crying in a general way. I am not picturing people throwing themselves on their beds at night and sobbing themselves to sleep if thats what you thought.

still, i understand what you mean to a point, but i also feel that if its not possible to watch the movie and understand it without reading the book first, then whats the point of making the film?

I cannot imagine that everyone has read the book already. its just not statistically possible so they made a movie thats destined to flop?

somehow i doubt it. i honestly feel your judgment is impaired because of the book. i am not saying its impossible, but in my experience, reading the book first always ruins the movie. you just simply set your expectations way to high.

these bits and bobs they left out, maybe they didn't make the final cut, and some asswipe decided to remove them. who knows.

i like sci-fi and comedy, probably more than any other genre, but the BBC series was just silly. the book was a little better, but nothing that would get me exited at the prospect of seeing it made into a movie.

and with the cult following that hitchhikers has, i don't think it could be a complete flop anyway. much the same reasoning that gives crappy boy-bands #1 hits by releasing a cover of a classic track.

still, i understand what you mean to a point, but i also feel that
if its not possible to watch the movie and understand it without
reading the book first, then whats the point of making the film?

Its just so non-sensical that with out the in-depth-ness of the book as
a base alot of things wont make sence, I'm not saying it isn't
watchable, but if you've read the book you'll walk away with a diffrent
veiw of the film than a person who had never read the book.

bottom line, go see it, its good... but it wont blow your socks off.

Jurassic Park 1 is fairly close to the book, actually (Not to mention who cares? It's another interpretation by Crichton on his own book. Same thing with Hitchhiker's Guide). Obviously there are things missing, but, as a coherent story that tells the story of these characters, it does a really nice job. Let's face it, if Jurassic Park was made exactly like the book, not only would it be boring (read the book if you want to read the book), but it would be like 15 hours long. There's too much going on.

The same thing happens with Hitchhiker's Guide, I mean, come on. The entire 2 hours could be used to narrate the entire guide and still not finish everything it talks about in the book. But, if you didn't notice, they also incorporated parts of the other books into the movie to flesh it out.
And you can watch the movie just fine and dandy without reading the book. They do explain all the stuff that they show. But, whatever.

Oh and Orph, go ahead and read Revenge of the Sith, you have to realize things like that are different. They're novelizations. They are the movie adapted to book. So, nothing is "missing" in the movie that's in the book. I believe authors do them to pay the bills because they take no effort intellectually or creatively.

But, obviously, like always, no one will agree with me, so, ignore everything you just read.