On 03/24/2011 09:50 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu<noozguru@...> wrote:
>> On 03/24/2011 01:23 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu<noozguru@> wrote:
>>>> Yup, it is an ad for the Marine Corps. Sort of a modern day
>>>> military movie with Aaron Eckhart playing the John Wayne role.
>>> I gave up after five minutes, and start fast-forwarding
>>> to see if there was anything worth watching in the rest.
>>> Deleted the film entirely after a total of ten minutes.
>>> I agree with Roger Ebert: "To call this film science
>>> fiction is an insult to both science and fiction."
>> He also called it "the worst film of the year." Probably
>> more watchable later on but did you get the feeling you
>> were watching a remake of the "Sands of Iwo Jima"? I saw
>> the film to garner my own opinion (movie critics are
>> usually pretty bad when it comes judging science fiction
>> and horror) and compare to "Sklyline" which I had watched
>> the night before.
> You have a stronger stomach than I, sir. I would
> have gnawed my own leg off rather than watch either
> film to the end. :-)
>
>> Want a "feel good move?" I absolutely recommend "Best
>> Worst Film" as it was complete surprise. It is about the
>> "worst film ever" "Troll 2" and made by the guy who played
>> the kid in the film. The documentary centers around the
>> actor who played the dad, George Hardy, a dentist who
>> always wanted to be an actor and got the role in film
>> (the only role he ever got). This guy is one of the
>> genuinely upbeat persons I've ever seen. The people in
>> his town love him and love the film he was in.
> Dare I suggest (because now I've Been There Done
> That) that parents and people helping to raise
> small children think that home movies of them
> spitting their pablum out are great, too? :-)
Uh, this is professionally done documentary. Don't pull a Judy on me.
You'd probably like to hang out with George Hardy. ;-)
> I'm really not a fan of the horror genre any
> more, except for funny horror like "Tucker&
> Dale vs Evil." It's been so many years since
> I've seen any new ideas that I kinda gave up
> on it. Watched the first five minutes of the
> new zombie TV series and gave up on it. The
> only horror movies I'm interested in -- because
> there don't seem to be any new ideas out there
> -- are the ones that poke fun at the old ones,
> like "Zombies Of Mass Destruction" or "Shaun
> Of The Dead" or the holy grail of horror-comedy,
> "Evil Dead 2."
>
> As for scifi, two recent movies ("Never Let Me
> Go" and "The Adjustment Bureau") have reminded
> me that they don't need any CGI or special
> effects to be good; all they need is a good
> story. That's what's missing in most of them.
> One of the best I've seen in recent years,
> "Monsters," had special effects but *also*
> had a good story, and was made on a budget
> of $15,000. You could theoretically make
> 6,666 "Monsters" for the money spent on
> "Battle Los Angeles" ($100 million) and
> chances are 6,000 of them would be better. :-)
FYI to Netflixers "Monsters" is available WI:
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Monsters/70135635
You've never seen "Troll 2"? That should be an easy find. It's more a
joke than a movie. And like many people said in the documentary "I've
seen worse."
Hollyworst has lost it's moorings anyway. The TV networks and telecoms
are fuming about Netflix streaming but "it's what the public wants" (the
often stated phrase from marketing departments). Maybe Civil War 2.0
will over them the taking away Netflix WI. It certainly would be if
they took away "American Idol" or "Dancing with the Stars." :-D
