| THE MOVIE WAS GREAT [message #23541] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 08:37 |
|
I just got back from Seeing the movie.
IT WAS GREAT!!!!
--
Thank you,
TC
Please reply to the newsgroup so we can all learn from others.
The obvious fake address is not meant to offend.
Rather it is for protection. I have been using Usenet for appox. 15 year and
have had some undesirable outcomes.
Please post all replies to the News Group.
Thank you.
|
|
|
| Re: THE MOVIE WAS GREAT [message #23551 ] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 10:10 |
|
TC wrote:
> I just got back from Seeing the movie.
>
> IT WAS GREAT!!!!
>
I'm loving all these completely polarised reviews! Everyone either
loves the movie or hates it - there is no "just OK", as predicted.
And the best thing is, everyone is right. There is no such thing as a
good movie or a bad movie, it's all subjective.
Going to see it tonight, and hoping that I'm in the "it was great" camp!
--
Gaz
|
|
|
| Re: THE MOVIE WAS GREAT [message #23553 ] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 10:24 |
|
Gaz wrote:
> TC wrote:
>
>> I just got back from Seeing the movie.
>>
>> IT WAS GREAT!!!!
>>
>
> I'm loving all these completely polarised reviews! Everyone either
> loves the movie or hates it - there is no "just OK", as predicted.
>
> And the best thing is, everyone is right. There is no such thing as a
> good movie or a bad movie, it's all subjective.
>
> Going to see it tonight, and hoping that I'm in the "it was great" camp!
>
I hope you're in the 'it was great' camp too. I so wish I was! *sigh*
Nancy.
|
|
|
| Re: THE MOVIE WAS GREAT [message #23555 ] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 11:02 |
|
Just went to see it here in the USA. There were about 50 people at the
12.01am showing. Only three went to see the new XXX movie !. I loved
the movie. I can tell they cut bits out of it, which was a pity, just
need to wait for the DVD. Did anyone see the original Marvin cameo ? I
thought that was special. It is also obvious that the movie has been
left open for sequels.......
|
|
|
| Re: THE MOVIE WAS GREAT [message #23558 ] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 11:40 |
|
TC, go back to work , your slavemasters at the mouse house think you
are doing a great job. We on the other hand think you either haven't
seen the movie, or left just after the adverts at the beginning of the
movie?
Which one?
|
|
|
| Re: THE MOVIE WAS GREAT [message #23562 ] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 11:54 |
|
grantkemp [at] gmail.com wrote:
> TC, go back to work , your slavemasters at the mouse house think you
> are doing a great job. We on the other hand think you either haven't
> seen the movie, or left just after the adverts at the beginning of the
> movie?
>
> Which one?
>
Why can't you accept that some people will love the movie and some
people will hate it? It's called personal taste. Nobody is wrong or right.
You hated it, and nobody can argue with your personal taste.
He liked it, so why not allow him the same freedom of choice?
--
Gaz
|
|
|
| Re: THE MOVIE WAS GREAT [message #23563 ] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 13:15 |
|
In article <1114765368.310240.132350 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
maclokey [at] msn.com (ScotsmanInAmerica) wrote:
SPOILER SPACE
> Did anyone see the original Marvin cameo ? I
> thought that was special.
Initially it was special. Then they cut back to him in case you'd missed
it - OK, I can live with that. Then they cut back to him for no apparent
reason and what could have been a lovely light touch for the diehards
ended up looking like something sledgehammered in by someone who doesn't
understand that the whole thing about Adams' writing, particularly on
radio, is that it all sounds so effortless. Making it look so laboured was
a big mistake in my view.
Regards
Guy
|
|
|
| Re: THE MOVIE WAS GREAT [message #23568 ] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 14:20 |
|
<gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rbSdnfxYMI_5iu_fRVnytQ [at] pipex.net...
> In article <1114765368.310240.132350 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> maclokey [at] msn.com (ScotsmanInAmerica) wrote:
>
> SPOILER SPACE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Did anyone see the original Marvin cameo ? I
>> thought that was special.
>
> Initially it was special. Then they cut back to him in case you'd missed
> it - OK, I can live with that. Then they cut back to him for no apparent
> reason and what could have been a lovely light touch for the diehards
> ended up looking like something sledgehammered in by someone who doesn't
> understand that the whole thing about Adams' writing, particularly on
> radio, is that it all sounds so effortless. Making it look so laboured was
> a big mistake in my view.
Seriously? That's a serious point?
No offense, but if you over-analyse every shot of a film like that, I'd be
surprised if you ever found entertainment value in anything!
NSY
|
|
|
| Re: THE MOVIE WAS GREAT [message #23570 ] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 15:18 |
|
In article <427227ce_4 [at] mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
nessy76 [at] tiscali.co.uk (Andrew Ness) wrote:
> *From:* "Andrew Ness" <nessy76 [at] tiscali.co.uk>
> *Date:* Fri, 29 Apr 2005 13:20:40 +0100
>
>
> <gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:rbSdnfxYMI_5iu_fRVnytQ [at] pipex.net...
> > In article <1114765368.310240.132350 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > maclokey [at] msn.com (ScotsmanInAmerica) wrote:
> >
> > SPOILER SPACE
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Did anyone see the original Marvin cameo ? I
> >> thought that was special.
> >
> > Initially it was special. Then they cut back to him in case you'd
> > missed
> > it - OK, I can live with that. Then they cut back to him for no
> > apparent
> > reason and what could have been a lovely light touch for the diehards
> > ended up looking like something sledgehammered in by someone who
> > doesn't
> > understand that the whole thing about Adams' writing, particularly on
> > radio, is that it all sounds so effortless. Making it look so
> > laboured was
> > a big mistake in my view.
>
> Seriously? That's a serious point?
> No offense, but if you over-analyse every shot of a film like that, I'd
> be surprised if you ever found entertainment value in anything!
I wasn't analysing, I just found by the third shot of Marvin I was
thinking 'OK, you've done the clever shot and overdone it then done it
again...'
No analysis required. Just yawning at an over-egged shot.
|
|
|
| Re: THE MOVIE WAS GREAT [message #23574 ] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 18:26 |
|
In the two thousand and fifth year of Bob, Gaz's voice said the following,
in wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels so low as to
make a man weep:
> grantkemp [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
>> TC, go back to work , your slavemasters at the mouse house think you
>> are doing a great job. We on the other hand think you either haven't
>> seen the movie, or left just after the adverts at the beginning of the
>> movie?
>> Which one?
>
> Why can't you accept that some people will love the movie and some
> people will hate it? It's called personal taste. Nobody is wrong or
> right.
>
> You hated it, and nobody can argue with your personal taste.
> He liked it, so why not allow him the same freedom of choice?
Uhm, I've already killfiled him, he's not really arguing any fair points and
his posts don't contribute much...
--
John Coxon
"I’m not worried at all. Hitchhiker’s is going to have Lucas quaking in his
boots! (Does George Lucas wear boots? He should. Big, red, thigh-high boots
with spurs and golden toe caps. And a fez. Don’t you agree?)" - Garth
Jennings (director, 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy')
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: THE MOVIE WAS GREAT [message #23576 ] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 18:57 |
|
Gaz wrote:
> TC wrote:
>
>> I just got back from Seeing the movie.
>>
>> IT WAS GREAT!!!!
>>
>
> I'm loving all these completely polarised reviews! Everyone either
> loves the movie or hates it - there is no "just OK", as predicted.
>
> And the best thing is, everyone is right. There is no such thing as a
> good movie or a bad movie, it's all subjective.
This is off topic but I have to disagree with the point that there is no
such thing as a good movie or a bad movie. Catwoman was definitely a bad
movie.
> Going to see it tonight, and hoping that I'm in the "it was great" camp!
>
|
|
|
| Re: THE MOVIE WAS GREAT [message #23580 ] |
Sa, 30 April 2005 01:23 |
|
I laughed when I saw the orginal Marvin. I got weird looks which to me said
they weren't real fans :) j/k
Speaking for orginal's does anyone know if any of the voices where orginal
from either the Series or from the Radio Play? Some of the voices sounded
VERY close.
TC
"ScotsmanInAmerica" <maclokey [at] msn.com> wrote in message
news:1114765368.310240.132350 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Just went to see it here in the USA. There were about 50 people at the
> 12.01am showing. Only three went to see the new XXX movie !. I loved
> the movie. I can tell they cut bits out of it, which was a pity, just
> need to wait for the DVD. Did anyone see the original Marvin cameo ? I
> thought that was special. It is also obvious that the movie has been
> left open for sequels.......
>
|
|
|
| Re: THE MOVIE WAS GREAT [message #23589 ] |
Sa, 30 April 2005 07:32 |
|
gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <1114765368.310240.132350 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> maclokey [at] msn.com (ScotsmanInAmerica) wrote:
>
> SPOILER SPACE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Did anyone see the original Marvin cameo ? I
>>thought that was special.
>
>
> Initially it was special. Then they cut back to him in case you'd missed
> it - OK, I can live with that. Then they cut back to him for no apparent
> reason and what could have been a lovely light touch for the diehards
> ended up looking like something sledgehammered in by someone who doesn't
> understand that the whole thing about Adams' writing, particularly on
> radio, is that it all sounds so effortless. Making it look so laboured was
> a big mistake in my view.
>
It may have been sledghammered from your point of view, but I managed to
miss it anyway. :-( I saw lots of weird creatures in that que, some of
which I would love to have taken a better look at. Marvin just didn't
grab my eye the way the big white guy did. But then, I've not seen the
TV version...
--
Tian
Lately Bush has been offering to solve the problem of higher gas
prices by "building more oil refineries." I'm missing the logic of that.
Since when does building cookie factories cure a grain shortage?
http://tian.greens.org
|
|
|
| Re: THE MOVIE WAS GREAT [message #23595 ] |
Sa, 30 April 2005 09:09 |
|
nacey wrote:
>
>
> Gaz wrote:
>
>> TC wrote:
>>
>>> I just got back from Seeing the movie.
>>>
>>> IT WAS GREAT!!!!
>>>
>>
>> I'm loving all these completely polarised reviews! Everyone either
>> loves the movie or hates it - there is no "just OK", as predicted.
>>
>> And the best thing is, everyone is right. There is no such thing as a
>> good movie or a bad movie, it's all subjective.
>>
>> Going to see it tonight, and hoping that I'm in the "it was great" camp!
>>
> I hope you're in the 'it was great' camp too. I so wish I was! *sigh*
>
> Nancy.
Saw it. Loved it. That's all!
--
Gaz
|
|
|
| Re: THE MOVIE WAS GREAT [message #27545 ] |
Di, 03 Mai 2005 15:28 |
|
Andrew Ness wrote:
> <gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:rbSdnfxYMI_5iu_fRVnytQ [at] pipex.net...
>
>>In article <1114765368.310240.132350 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>maclokey [at] msn.com (ScotsmanInAmerica) wrote:
>>
>>SPOILER SPACE
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Did anyone see the original Marvin cameo ? I
>>>thought that was special.
>>
>>Initially it was special. Then they cut back to him in case you'd missed
>>it - OK, I can live with that. Then they cut back to him for no apparent
>>reason and what could have been a lovely light touch for the diehards
>>ended up looking like something sledgehammered in by someone who doesn't
>>understand that the whole thing about Adams' writing, particularly on
>>radio, is that it all sounds so effortless. Making it look so laboured was
>>a big mistake in my view.
>
>
> Seriously? That's a serious point?
> No offense, but if you over-analyse every shot of a film like that, I'd be
> surprised if you ever found entertainment value in anything!
But it wasn't just that point that was like that. The WHOLE THING was
like that. The movie was about as subtle as a kick in the head. And
great comedy has some subtlety!
Nancy.
|
|
|
| Re: THE MOVIE WAS GREAT [message #29266 ] |
Mi, 04 Mai 2005 13:18 |
|
"Andrew Ness" <nessy76 [at] tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
news:427227ce_4 [at] mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com:
>
> <gclapperton [at] cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:rbSdnfxYMI_5iu_fRVnytQ [at] pipex.net...
>> In article
>> <1114765368.310240.132350 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> maclokey [at] msn.com (ScotsmanInAmerica) wrote:
>>
>> SPOILER SPACE
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Did anyone see the original Marvin cameo ? I
>>> thought that was special.
>>
>> Initially it was special. Then they cut back to him in case you'd
>> missed it - OK, I can live with that. Then they cut back to him
>> for no apparent reason and what could have been a lovely light
>> touch for the diehards ended up looking like something
>> sledgehammered in by someone who doesn't understand that the
>> whole thing about Adams' writing, particularly on radio, is that
>> it all sounds so effortless. Making it look so laboured was a big
>> mistake in my view.
>
> Seriously? That's a serious point?
> No offense, but if you over-analyse every shot of a film like
> that, I'd be surprised if you ever found entertainment value in
> anything!
>
> NSY
>
Yes, you'd have to resort to work of the quality of, say, the
hitchhiker's guide series.
What they needed to do was give DNA a bunch of actors, an unlimited
budget, a big bathtub and 10years or so. We would have gotten a
polished movie then, even if at the 10year mark they had to tell him
to just finish the scene he was working on and give it to them.
Unfortunantly the necromancy sounds like the easy bit of getting that
together.
peter
|
|
|
