Bullets 'n' Babes

See. I told you Romero's opinion was very different . How exactly is 2001 bile? Meaning: ill temper, peevishness.

p.s - Obviously he's so wrong but that's a given.

Bile does not mean ill temper, peevishness.

Its the yellow runny semi made shit that comes from your arse


2001 is Bile becuase its a stupid arty wankfest, like ignorant self deluding art it should not be respected, it should be burned.

Romero will be next week's special guest on Newsnight's Late Review.

Over The Top (1987): 2/5

One or two touching moments in the film doesnt hide the fact that overall the screenplay is sentimental cheese - a story about a truck driver (Sly Stallone) trying to bond with the son he hasn't seen since birth, and win an arm wrestling championship. I found the kid annoying TBH, at one point Sly says he is a "spoilt rich brat who has everything done for him". I could understand resentment towards his dad but it seemed cold calling him "Sir" all the time. He has a name you know.

Difficult to get excited about a film on arm wrestling.

Rollerball (2002) 1/5

Bad script, editing and directing. How did they make the sport of Rollerball seem so dull. It was also diffilcult to sympathize with the obnoxious main star. The acting wasn't bad and there were some good action scenes but overall it seemed like a waste of time. Was the orignal any better?

4/5
The first Danny Boyle film that I've seen that didn't suffer from the 'Sunk by a bad third act' syndrome that's plagued the rest the likes of The Beach, 28 Days Later and Sunshine. A beautifully told fable with top notch editing and cinematography.

To be honest, I was never sold on Dev Patel's performance. His dopey facial expressions killed it for me. He was easily outshone by supporting actors, such as the ever dependable Irrfan Khan. The slimy, big ego'ed, game show host, played Anil Kapoor, would steal every scene that he was in.

I fully agree with Mark Kermode that the advertising campaign that this film received, especially the posters, was entirely inappropriate and highly misleading.

V for Vendetta (USA etc, 2005) – 3,5/5
Unexpectedly good, appart from explaining everything three times. Liked Natalie Portman's voice.

Watchmen (USA, 2009) – 3,5/5
Not having read the comic book, it would seem like most of the strengths originate from the original story. Zack Snyder's direction doesn't manage to equal the amazing opening credits sequence again later in the movie. Nevertheless, very interesting film.

I thought V for Vendetta was very derivative and frankly very poor indeed. It passed the time and not a disaster but 3.5 out of 5 by anyone scale is being very kind. 5 out of 10 for me. Natalie Portman was good but then she always is.

Watchmen looks average at best. I've not been interested in it since I saw the trailer and the first thing I thought was "cheesy costumes", which is also what Kermode said.

bradavon wrote: Watchmen looks average at best. I've not been interested in it since I saw the trailer and the first thing I thought was "cheesy costumes", which is also what Kermode said.

lol, that's the whole idea. It's a parody of superhero comics, among other things.

Slight spoilers ahead

It's about superheroes that have no superpowers (appart from one). Actually they are no longer even heroes, because some of them are dead, others locked up or in psychiatric treatment, and the rest retired. Until someone kills a former ”superhero” (who also happens to be a rapist and child killer) and possibly plans to target more costume heroes.

Yes, not your typical superhero fare.

I just watched the trailer and it's quite misleading. No surprise really. As said before, this isn't the kind of bland mainstream pleaser as the other superhero films. I can only imagine how confused teens will be after this movie.

Oh, and pretty nice soundtrack, too. Bob Dylan, Simon & Garfunkel... and Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah during the superhero sex scene...

Brad, the thing about the original graphic novel of Watchmen is that it's considered the pinnacle of the comic medium as far as writing is concerned. It's a multi-faceted piece that encompasses complex character studies and also comments on political issues from the time of publication (1985), most notably the growing paranoia over the Cold War heating up during the Reagan era.

It also parodies many Superhero comic conventions. Eg character archetypes such as Batman (a rich kid using his vast coffers to play masked vigilante) and the Punisher (a complete sociopath vigilante, whom completely lacks any restraints that say a Batman may have.). Contrasts between the Golden Age, Silver Age and contemporary era of comics, etc.

Hung's thoughts on the film mirror my own. I'm rather eager to see the reportedly significantly longer Director's Cut once it hits Blu-ray. A lot of what was in the comic (which I've yet to read) had been excised to fit the 2hr 45min running time reportedly. Although the script of the Theatrical Cut totally held together, so there's nothing to be worried about there.

I don't think Watchmen is seriously considered the pinnacle of the (western) comic medium as far as writing is concerned nowadays! Back in 1985 definitely, but the industry has moved on since then and much of Watchmen's dialogue is extremely clunky, with the plot bogged down in places by heavy contrivances.

As a work of graphic design though it's still as potent today as it's ever been, all the recurring motifs and how Moore and Gibbons draw parallels between moments in the story through the artwork demonstrates an astonishingly complex artistic vision.

bradavon wrote: which is also what Kermode said.

and what he says is gods word
The mans a fuck, everything he says is bullshit, no wonder you listen to him still.

" Looks Average at best" yes if you say so.



Watchmen is fucking great, the best of the year so far.

Thanks Eva.

Have you listened to Kermode's review of this? He loved the comic as a kid but hated this. Saying Snyder wasn't able to handle the greater themes of the comic. He went on to say it goes from being very ponderous (without the intelligence to back it up) to being very flashy (but boring).

Kermode also said just because it's "long" it doesn't mean it's got anything worthwhile to say. The running time certainly worries me, almost 3 hours long is ridiculous but then I've not seen it so will withhold judgement on that one to an extent.

It doesn't interest me in the slightest however. There are a lot better looking films out there that have been getting a lot less showing times.

bradavon wrote:Thanks Eva.

Have you listened to Kermode's review of this? He loved the comic as a kid but hated this. Saying Snyder wasn't able to handle the greater themes of the comic. He went on to say it goes from being very ponderous (without the intelligence to back it up) to being very flashy (but boring).

Kermode also said just because it's "long" it doesn't mean it's got anything worthwhile to say. The running time certainly worries me, almost 3 hours long is ridiculous but then I've not seen it so will withhold judgement on that one to an extent.

It doesn't interest me in the slightest however. There are a lot better looking films out there that have been getting a lot less showing times.

Spoken like a true Kermode Sheep not one word of truth in the whole review.


Funny that nearly everyone else loves the film.

Funny I was only giving Kermode's opinion, not mine, you twit. Clearly you missed the part where I said "I've not seen it".

Wow, two Kermode rants in a matter of posts, you are on a roll. I don't believe you've even listened to his review, why would you spend 20 minutes listening to someone you clearly cannot stand?

romerojpg wrote:Watchmen is fucking great, the best of the year so far.

Coming from the man who thinks Starship Troopers is a masterpiece. I've learnt to not bother taking your opinion on movies into account.

Maybe it is great. I just said it doesn't interest me.

Funny that nearly everyone else loves the film.

And that detracts from someone who doesn't, how exactly? Nearly everyone loves Pirates of the Carribean 1. It doesn't stop it being incredibly average for me.

romerojpg wrote:Funny that nearly everyone else loves the film.

What bollocks, the mainstream populace, from what I gather, hated Watchmen. These viewers were expecting another Dark Knight from watching the trailers, so they went in expecting a lot action, but received very little. They were bored to shit by all of Watchmen's "talky bits". They were also offended by all of the big blue dong shots, being the big homophobes that they are.

bradavon wrote:Have you listened to Kermode's review of this? He loved the comic as a kid but hated this.

Yes I have. He read the comic in his 20's, BTW.

EvaUnit02 wrote: They were also offended by all of the big blue dong shots, being the big homophobes that they are.

Well Brads in luck, he loves The Cock, so any film with a chance to see another one makes any films better to him

Well, that depends whose cock we're talking about . . .

EvaUnit02 wrote:They were also offended by all of the big blue dong shots, being the big homophobes that they are.

Lycra does that you you, or so I hear.

EvaUnit02 wrote:Yes I have. He read the comic in his 20's, BTW.

What did you think? Agree/disagree/something else.

For those who want to check out the 13 minute Kermode video review, here it is:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/ ... ekl_7.html

WATCHMEN has received a mixed reception from critics on both sides of the atlantic. I've read some reviews from critics who really liked it but none who "loved" it. As someone who couldn't give a toss for comics or graphic novels (pretentious comics) I could watch this without baggage - and on DVD may do so. One recurring criticism - not mentioned here - is for the excessive violence.

I won't watch this in the cinema. Trailer looks promiing, haven't read the book, but I'll just wait for the 'extended' cut.

Violence wasn't excessive - but the darker tones of the film clash with the flimsy teeny feel of the rest - which made for hard viewing.

I agree with everything Kermode hade to say - just not to the degree he pushed that the films no good because of his viewpoints.

It's a solid 4/5 film if you stick with it despite the enormous running time versus little depth ratio, even though I admit it took a while for me to get into (mainly I think due to the hurt caused by the '300' factor - nice trailer, nothing more given in the film). One I enjoyed but wouldn't want to revisit for a long time - definitely not a keeper for me.

I think Kermodes main hangup with the film was for the subject matter, it wanted to be better - and I certainly agree with that. But then how many films really do live up to the literary counterparts?

Watchmen opening credits:
http://www.trailersland.com/index.php?o ... &Itemid=80

I would save that for cinema, but maybe someone else wants to see it now. Or rewatch it after seeing the film in cinema.

bradavon wrote: Coming from the man who thinks Starship Troopers is a masterpiece.

That's pretty close to truth.

bradavon wrote: Pirates of the Carribean 1. It doesn't stop it being incredibly average for me.

Average at best.

luckystars wrote:Violence wasn't excessive - but the darker tones of the film clash with the flimsy teeny feel of the rest - which made for hard viewing.

True. Was there more than just one scene (the prison part) with very graphic violence in the entrire film.

What's great about Watchmen is that it finds a balance between parody and seriousness. It's not on or off, but often both at the same time. Similar to many 70's exploitation films. This is the reason why I said that many "teens" will be confused.

HungFist wrote:

luckystars wrote:Violence wasn't excessive - but the darker tones of the film clash with the flimsy teeny feel of the rest - which made for hard viewing.

True. Was there more than just one scene (the prison part) with very graphic violence in the entrire film.

The prison stuff involving Rorschach was lifted verbatim from the comic, from what I understand.

Ms. Jupiter and Dan being cornered in the alleyway by the goons definitely was excessively upped a notch though.

It's 18 rated, very hard to get in The UK nowadays. That must account for something, if not gratuitous.

bradavon wrote:It's 18 rated, very hard to get in The UK nowadays. That must account for something, if not gratuitous.

Well you read about it and talk about it and extract parts from others reviews like you know what you are on about.

Some of us acctually watch films, and dont gobshite about them as if they do.




I saw it again last night in the cinema, still the best film of the year and better second time around as there is soo much packed into it you never see first time around, pretty dense stuff, so much is well placed out of main frame or just things you would never know about until you see it a second time round.

Pisses on Batmam films thats for sure.