| Pretty good night for Haggis [message #232500] |
Mo, 06 März 2006 05:54 |
|
He won an oscar for original screenplay and the film he directed won best
picture, which was a bit of a surprise. Let's hope he can bring some of his
talent to CR. Overall, Crash won 3 Academy Awards.
|
|
|
| Re: Pretty good night for Haggis [message #232501 ] |
Mo, 06 März 2006 06:22 |
|
At 11:54pm -0500, 03/05/06, willt65 [at] comcast.net wrote:
>He won an oscar for original screenplay and the film he directed won best
>picture, which was a bit of a surprise. Let's hope he can bring some of
>his talent to CR. Overall, Crash won 3 Academy Awards.
Haggis was also co-producer.
This certainly raises my expectations for what I expect from the CR
screenplay.
Over the years, Haggis has been involved in any number of prematurely
cancelled tv series that I was rather fond of. I wonder if this will
improve the chance of survival of his future tv series.
|
|
|
| Re: Pretty good night for Haggis [message #232529 ] |
Mo, 06 März 2006 22:08 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Pretty good night for Haggis [message #232544 ] |
Di, 07 März 2006 01:27 |
|
doublegrub wrote:
> wasnt there another recent (and very bizarre) film, also called Crash
> ? surprised no copyright problems, regarding the name...
You're thinking of Cronenberg's 1996 film.
Nah, it happens all the time, witness yet another RUNNING SCARED
recently.
Was it really the best film of the five...?
--
--Mac
"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of
a Nick Park comedy bow-tie on Oscar night."
|
|
|
| Re: Pretty good night for Haggis [message #232546 ] |
Di, 07 März 2006 01:47 |
|
Mac wrote:
> You're thinking of Cronenberg's 1996 film.
Wasn't there a straight-to-video thriller of the same title at almost
exactly the same time? (No IMDB cheating here, I just recall seeing it
on the shelves.)
> Was it really the best film of the five...?
Nah, but Barbzilla probably bribed the Academy :-)
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Pretty good night for Haggis [message #232548 ] |
Di, 07 März 2006 02:04 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>> You're thinking of Cronenberg's 1996 film.
>
> Wasn't there a straight-to-video thriller of the same title at almost
> exactly the same time? (No IMDB cheating here, I just recall seeing
> it on the shelves.)
Yeah, right. You rented it! Was it a Lorenzo Lamas epic?
You can tell me. No-one will laugh...
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas is trying to save Tokyo from a 1000ft rampaging
female producer armed with de-creative rights."
|
|
|
| Re: Pretty good night for Haggis [message #233055 ] |
Mi, 08 März 2006 00:00 |
|
"Pretty good night for Haggis"
As opposed to Burns night, yes....
=
J
|
|
|
| Re: Pretty good night for Haggis [message #233060 ] |
Mi, 08 März 2006 01:07 |
|
Me, Mac:
> > Wasn't there a straight-to-video thriller of the same title at almost
> > exactly the same time? (No IMDB cheating here, I just recall seeing
> > it on the shelves.)
>
> Yeah, right. You rented it! Was it a Lorenzo Lamas epic?
>
> You can tell me. No-one will laugh...
Nah - looked at the box, saw the words 'Nudity: Infrequent, Mild', and
decided it wasn't for me. If you're going to take a chance on a dodgy
B-thriller, you want to be assured that there'll be some compensation
even if the rest of the film's useless.
I think this is it anyway - the box promised something Tarantino-esque,
and this is about the right era:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112732/
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Pretty good night for Haggis [message #233061 ] |
Mi, 08 März 2006 01:13 |
|
"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1141776428.576862.83430 [at] p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Me, Mac:
>
>> > Wasn't there a straight-to-video thriller of the same title at almost
>> > exactly the same time? (No IMDB cheating here, I just recall seeing
>> > it on the shelves.)
>>
>> Yeah, right. You rented it! Was it a Lorenzo Lamas epic?
>>
>> You can tell me. No-one will laugh...
>
> Nah - looked at the box, saw the words 'Nudity: Infrequent, Mild', and
> decided it wasn't for me. If you're going to take a chance on a dodgy
> B-thriller, you want to be assured that there'll be some compensation
> even if the rest of the film's useless.
>
> I think this is it anyway - the box promised something Tarantino-esque,
> and this is about the right era:
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112732/
Can't be all bad, it features Mac's favorite actor, Ed Lauter.
Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that ubiquity is everywhere these days..."
|
|
|
| Re: Pretty good night for Haggis [message #233066 ] |
Mi, 08 März 2006 01:33 |
|
Tom wrote:
> Can't be all bad, it features Mac's favorite actor, Ed Lauter.
Doesn't everything? :-)
Best
Phil
> "...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
> particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
> ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
> delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
> that ubiquity is everywhere these days..."
(Ubiquity (n): see 'Lauter, Ed')
|
|
|
| Re: Pretty good night for Haggis [message #233141 ] |
Do, 09 März 2006 09:11 |
|
Don't know where else to put this -- check out this Brokeback parody:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfODSPIYwpQ
|
|
|
