manc-mag 1 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Way to go all you dudes giving WTC a slagging before seeing it. I don't know if that's aimed at me, but I've said I'm personally uncomfortable with the idea of watching a movie about 9/11 this soon after, I haven't critisised anyone else for doing so. How anyone could think I need to see the movie to feel that way, or even have a problem with the opinion, to be honest, I just don't fucking understand. You never really commented on the film, let alone slagged it off. DotBum spoiling for a fight tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 35838 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 The thing about Dotbum though, is he'll STILL watch people being BLATANTLY beheaded. Makes me SICK, he does! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Sorry, I had thought it was only myself and the Fish who'd commented. So thought "people" could only be referring to us two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14163 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 The thing about Dotbum though, is he'll STILL watch people being BLATANTLY beheaded. As opposed to surreptitiously? Look, over there! ....... Head? What head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 The thing about Dotbum though, is he'll STILL watch people being BLATANTLY beheaded. Makes me SICK, he does! That laugh wasn't meant for you btw. As I said; best wank I ever had. I'm getting shit cards, I also blame you for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 As opposed to surreptitiously? Look, over there! ....... Head? What head? That's exactly what life is like for the residents of Acapulco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 The thing about Dotbum though, is he'll STILL watch people being BLATANTLY beheaded. As opposed to surreptitiously? Look, over there! ....... Head? What head? To be fair to DotBum, it wasnt a live stream. I think he'd have been personally uncomfortable with the idea of watching a beheading that soon after it had taken place. I think the footage was a few days old at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 35838 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 The thing about Dotbum though, is he'll STILL watch people being BLATANTLY beheaded. Makes me SICK, he does! That laugh wasn't meant for you btw. As I said; best wank I ever had. I'm getting shit cards, I also blame you for that. I like how you had to be sure and tell me you weren't laughing at what I said. Ner ner to your shit cards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Look to mong-mag, there's an intellectual weight behind his comedy, at least comparatively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 1 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Look to mong-mag, there's an intellectual weight behind his comedy, at least comparatively. There's weight behind Gemmill's comedy as well. Mostly supplied by Gregg's mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 35838 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Look to mong-mag, there's an intellectual weight behind his comedy, at least comparatively. There's weight behind Gemmill's comedy as well. Mostly supplied by Gregg's mind. Now you see, if you're going to make a comment about someone else's comedy, you should try and make it funny. BY THE WAY! I asked about Flightplan the other night. I ended up watching it on fast forward (at 1.5x I still get sound on my DVD player, they just talk faster). It meant it only lasted one hour instead of an hour and a half. That was still an hour too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 So you basically watched the Chipmunk version? There's a square on your dvd remote, find it, use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 35838 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 So you basically watched the Chipmunk version? There's a square on your dvd remote, find it, use it. They don't speak high pitched, just quicker. And I put the subtitles on an'all in case I missed any of the wonderful dialogue. It was really shit though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 The thing about Dotbum though, is he'll STILL watch people being BLATANTLY beheaded. As opposed to surreptitiously? Look, over there! ....... Head? What head? To be fair to DotBum, it wasnt a live stream. I think he'd have been personally uncomfortable with the idea of watching a beheading that soon after it had taken place. I think the footage was a few days old at least. I'm guessing he watched some of the blanket coverage on or immediately after 9/11. Probably a few of the many documentaries, perhaps read some of the many books and articles, he'll have seen a few post 9/11 films with a highly political subtext directed at that day and subsequent events. But it's uncomfortable when someone makes a straight dramatic reconstruction that promotes the ideas of hope and heroism in the face of terrible actions. What is it about a 9/11 dramatisation played straight coming out now that so offends when compared to the wealth of other dissections that have come before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 1 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Oooh you're judging him again, he won't like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I'm guessing he watched some of the blanket coverage on or immediately after 9/11. Probably a few of the many documentaries, perhaps read some of the many books and articles, he'll have seen a few post 9/11 films with a highly political subtext directed at that day and subsequent events. But it's uncomfortable when someone makes a straight dramatic reconstruction that promotes the ideas of hope and heroism in the face of terrible actions. What is it about a 9/11 dramatisation played straight coming out now that so offends when compared to the wealth of other dissections that have come before? Would you like him to comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I'm guessing he watched some of the blanket coverage on or immediately after 9/11. Probably a few of the many documentaries, perhaps read some of the many books and articles, he'll have seen a few post 9/11 films with a highly political subtext directed at that day and subsequent events. But it's uncomfortable when someone makes a straight dramatic reconstruction that promotes the ideas of hope and heroism in the face of terrible actions. What is it about a 9/11 dramatisation played straight coming out now that so offends when compared to the wealth of other dissections that have come before? Would you like him to comment? I'd love it. But he's not been about for months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Been watching the last episode of the Sopranos series 4, absolutely quality when Benny is playing the music on the boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Awesome, I Fuckin' Shot That Ahhh, memories. Fuckin class show, apart from the lounge jazz section which is as boring on screen as it was live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 5103 Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 The Notebook: Soppy chick-flick gashness. Utterly forgetable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 Watched Inside Man last night, (trying to get away from refreshing on here every 5 seconds for a while), it's absolutely fantastic. On the surface it's a top notch heist thriller and that on its own makes it well worthwhile, but I felt there was a lot more going on under the surface. The only downside for me was that Foster's believability slipped a couple of times, but that's being picky, overall she did a very good job. I just watched Inside man and thoroghly enjoyed it. I'm just confused as to what happened though and would appreciate some clarification. I don't know if it was suggesting more than it contained, or if I couldn't comprehend the whole. Spoilers may be imminent. So, Clive Owen was robbing the bank, he knew (somehow (unexplained)) that Chris Plummer was a Nazi War criminal/conspirator with shady dealings during the war that allowed him to get rich. All he was after was a few diamonds that Plummer didn't care about as long as his good name was protected. Plummer would pay the price to keep his good name, Foster got paid to protect his name, Washington tried but failed to find those responsible. He knew why and how but not who and still got paid. The moral being that they all get rich (or die trying ). I feel this is far too simplistic and expect more of Spike Lee, but if that's all there is to it am quite happy that it entertainerd me for 2 hours. Can anyone tell me if I missed anything that gave the film more gravitas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18146 Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 I normally don't pay too much attention to reviews or personal opinions about films, but I've made an exception about World Trade Centre. Firstly, everyone I know who has seen it (which admittedly is not many) has said it is poor, and is an object lession in American triumphalism. Secondly, even some of the US reviews on Rotten Tomatoes have said this. Is it true that Stone blatently alludes to the connection with Iraq, with one of the characters getting "his revenge" by joining the army and helping to topple Hussein? Well fuck that for a game of soldiers (pun intended), I'm not paying any money to help perpetuate that particular myth. So I went to see the Departed at the Silverlink Odeon last night instead, a wise move move I think. Highly enjoyable gangster film (irish instead of italian for a change), great acting, sound if slightly far fetched plot, no sickly ending. Classic Scorsese, undoubtedly a return of form and his best effort since Goodfella. Go and see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 I normally don't pay too much attention to reviews or personal opinions about films, but I've made an exception about World Trade Centre. Firstly, everyone I know who has seen it (which admittedly is not many) has said it is poor, and is an object lession in American triumphalism. Secondly, even some of the US reviews on Rotten Tomatoes have said this. Is it true that Stone blatently alludes to the connection with Iraq, with one of the characters getting "his revenge" by joining the army and helping to topple Hussein? Well fuck that for a game of soldiers (pun intended), I'm not paying any money to help perpetuate that particular myth. I think WTC is a fantastic dig at George Bush and his administration. But I seem to be a dissenting voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18146 Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 I normally don't pay too much attention to reviews or personal opinions about films, but I've made an exception about World Trade Centre. Firstly, everyone I know who has seen it (which admittedly is not many) has said it is poor, and is an object lession in American triumphalism. Secondly, even some of the US reviews on Rotten Tomatoes have said this. Is it true that Stone blatently alludes to the connection with Iraq, with one of the characters getting "his revenge" by joining the army and helping to topple Hussein? Well fuck that for a game of soldiers (pun intended), I'm not paying any money to help perpetuate that particular myth. I think WTC is a fantastic dig at George Bush and his administration. But I seem to be a dissenting voice. Well is the bit about Iraq true or not, because if you say it isn't I can direct to a review which directly contradicts you? Also, I think you'll find that the far right of America were more than happy with Stone's efforts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 I normally don't pay too much attention to reviews or personal opinions about films, but I've made an exception about World Trade Centre. Firstly, everyone I know who has seen it (which admittedly is not many) has said it is poor, and is an object lession in American triumphalism. Secondly, even some of the US reviews on Rotten Tomatoes have said this. Is it true that Stone blatently alludes to the connection with Iraq, with one of the characters getting "his revenge" by joining the army and helping to topple Hussein? Well fuck that for a game of soldiers (pun intended), I'm not paying any money to help perpetuate that particular myth. I think WTC is a fantastic dig at George Bush and his administration. But I seem to be a dissenting voice. Well is the bit about Iraq true or not, because if you say it isn't I can direct to a review which directly contradicts you? Also, I think you'll find that the far right of America were more than happy with Stone's efforts. As far as I recollect, I don't think Iraq or Hussain were mentioned. That specific character does say they'll need to get revenge, but that doesn't make it Stone's opinion. You wouldn't have a gun toting, kick ass, patriotic marine saying "Let's get the diplomatic talks started". Although the right do love it and I do too, for a lot of the same reasons (how the horror of it is depicted, the tribute it pays to the emergency services of NY, the message of hope, we will not be defeated etc.) I was most impressed at how Stone recognises that this event is above him, George Bush, Saddam Hussain, the election...whatever. If anyone makes films with political context in mind, it's Stone, but this film doesn't have any - on the surface. Perhaps if George Bush could make a political speech without resorting to whipping up 9/11 hysteria this film wouldn't reflect so badly upon him in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now