|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Mar 2nd, 2004 10:06 AM | ||
| pjalne | I remember I wanted to watch it again the minute it was over, but I told myself to fuck off and wait until it arrived at Norwegian cinemas so I could watch it on the big screen instead. I hope I'll experience the same thing you did. Not the faggy part, but the part about liking it better. | |
| Mar 2nd, 2004 09:54 AM | ||
| Royal Tenenbaum | Yeah, I loved it after the seconding viewing. It's way better because you really connect with the characters and pick up all the subtleness. I've watched it 4 times and it just gets better. | |
| Mar 2nd, 2004 03:03 AM | ||
| Jixby Phillips |
Quote:
I'm watching the cut scenes with Cameron Farris and I'm all cracking up and stuff  PS: I didn't like this movie nearly as much as I do now, after seeing it twice. I want to hug this movie 
|
|
| Feb 23rd, 2004 11:23 AM | ||
| FartinMowler | That was another brilliant piece of crap moment that could have been edited out. I think Tropical is the guy to ask about weapons. | |
| Feb 23rd, 2004 10:43 AM | ||
| PonchtheJedi |
Let's get to the meat of this issue.. I just saw this film this weekend, and I have but one question : What was up with the gun guy at the party? They are having a good time, then some guy comes out with some cool gun that shoots glow in the dark bullets, and then everybody runs off and he chases them and then throws a beer at the guy. What happened? Did I miss something? And more importantly, what kind of gun did that guy have and where can I get one? |
|
| Feb 12th, 2004 04:47 PM | ||
| Geggy | just because a person thought a movie of some sort sucked doesnt neccessarily mean he didnt understand it. just because a person didn't understand the movie shouldnt make him think the movie sucked. how would the person know if the movie sucked if he never understood it in the first place anyway? | |
| Feb 11th, 2004 04:35 PM | ||
| FartinMowler |
 Celebrity I resemble most: "A 1970s Farrah Fawcett?" 
|
|
| Feb 11th, 2004 04:20 PM | ||
| Bennett |
The only thing worth looking at in your link was the personal ad of the day: "A young Farrah Fawcett" 
|
|
| Feb 11th, 2004 04:02 PM | ||
| FartinMowler |
 Pace? OOh lip... Lip my stalkings :/ EDIT  http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues...l/1/index.html |
|
| Feb 11th, 2004 03:01 PM | ||
| Royal Tenenbaum | those parts were not garbage. they developed character and set pace. just fuck off already. | |
| Feb 11th, 2004 12:49 PM | ||
| FartinMowler |
Royal did you really get this film? Edit out all the garbage: The pool scene, going to the hospital, karoake with her friends, the exercise machine and many other scenes that "I" thought where fill and if they where edited out this would not have been a movie. The phone conversation's with Bill Murray's film wife where so fake to lull the watcher into thinking "oh, this is why he is so lonely" "Oh this is why he ends up screwing a crappy bar singer instead of a young girl 30 years his juniour" Gimme a fucking break
|
|
| Feb 11th, 2004 11:38 AM | ||
| Esuohlim |
You could say that they were going to make the movie from the book, but the whole thing was Lost in Translation
|
|
| Feb 11th, 2004 11:28 AM | ||
| FartinMowler |
PS. I knew that when I found that out yesterday when I looked up "Lost in translation book" and found a dozen books with that name... Oh, and I like Wilco so, piss off.
|
|
| Feb 11th, 2004 08:57 AM | ||
| Royal Tenenbaum | ps. the book and movie have nothing to do with each other, except the name. the film is not based on the book, you fucking moron. | |
| Feb 10th, 2004 11:01 PM | ||
| FartinMowler | It has been fun flogging this dead horse :/ | |
| Feb 10th, 2004 07:49 PM | ||
| Royal Tenenbaum |
Quote:
|
|
| Feb 10th, 2004 06:06 PM | ||
| O71394658 |
Hugh, there are always those movies which meet or stray from our personal tastes. I'm sure we all have movies in which we can't understand why other people like them. Movies that are considered "Classics" that we find boring and lame. There are also movies that everyone else seems to hate that we think are pretty good. It's a matter of taste, really. But you got a lecture from Tenenbaum and PJ because of your statement: Quote:
|
|
| Feb 10th, 2004 05:43 PM | ||
| FartinMowler |
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0385...AQ#reader-link The crappy paper back looks more interesting. Teh story is some what different :/ |
|
| Feb 10th, 2004 04:57 PM | ||
| Hugh_Bristic |
What’s with all this “you didn’t get the movie and that’s why you didn’t enjoy it” business? I got it. And admittedly, I’m a little annoyed that because I stand by my belief (that it’s not a good/great movie), you automatically – and dangerously – assume I don’t have the mental capacity to wrap my tiny brain around the concept. I realise that much, if not all, of what I say, will be disregarded (something that makes me cautious about even replying), because, let’s face it, it’s nearly impossible to talk to people who either 1.) always, always, always think they’re right or 2.) fail parlously at being objective. If you’re saying that the movie is aces because you identified with it, that’s perfectly okay. But a second viewing, a billionth viewing, won’t turn it into a good movie if it’s not. The excuse that we who didn’t think it was tops, are idiots, unable to connect the dots you cinematic reviewing geniuses seem so easily and adept to doing, is crap. The film isn’t supposed to appeal to everyone? On some level, don’t you think that truly good/great films do just that? They break and transcend barriers so that everyone can enjoy them? The crux of all this is: Be objective about things you’re so quick to call good or masterful. Analyse them, put them through scrutiny. If they fail the test, then don’t use such colourful adjectives. |
|
| Feb 10th, 2004 03:03 PM | ||
| Esuohlim |
LOL! Omisoluosism! What are we going to do with you, FartinMowler?
|
|
| Feb 10th, 2004 11:47 AM | ||
| FartinMowler |
What Bill Murry really said in her ear at the end of the film... "Youhavesomethinginyourearomisoluosism" |
|
| Feb 10th, 2004 11:45 AM | ||
| Rongi |
The reason Lost In Translation wasn't my cup of tea is because it got depressing towards the end and right now I'm going through some shit and the film kinda brought me down a lil. If I had watched this film maybe a few years ago, when I was fairly content with my life, I would have loved every minute of it. |
|
| Feb 10th, 2004 11:38 AM | ||
| Esuohlim |
I'M SORRY FARTINMOWLER, YOUR PREVIOUS POST WAS LOST IN TRANSLATION.
|
|
| Feb 10th, 2004 11:36 AM | ||
| FartinMowler |
Boston Globe, Wesley Morris "You Got Served is part soap opera and part thriller, and it has the unique characteristic of being both undeveloped and overwritten." more... C Cincinnati Enquirer, Margaret A. McGurk "Though only and hour and a half long, the movie feels like a long, hard slog when the music stops." more... C+ E! Online, "...inept..." more... C- filmcritic.com, Pete Croatto "...this is a pretty awful movie." more... :/ |
|
| Feb 10th, 2004 11:28 AM | ||
| Bennett | go see "you got served" | |
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
