Bullets 'n' Babes

I'm sure footage is definitely held back nowadays.

Markgway wrote:

bradavon wrote:Thanks. I always presumed it was just an Unrated cut.

Sometimes it's purely a marketing exercise, but for others it's censorship. Cynics might think that these days some companies hold back material just so they can reinsert it later and market their DVD as extended or uncut. That practice was virtually non-existant back in 1999.

I would be such a cynic. Just look at the movies that get critisized for having a rushed ending and/or being too short.
I'm pretty sure a movie like I Am Legend will get a longer cut on DVD.

It's a reason that I wont go and see a movie like that in the theatre, and ofcourse pretty soon the producers of these movies will see people not going to the overpriced, shortened theatrical releases, and will probably blame piracy or something, like they always do, cause it's never because of poor quality or overpriced tickets, as far as producers are concerned...

Rambo (USA, 2008) – 4,5/5
Stallone ages like wine, it seems. In Rambo his charisma has reached an almost inhuman level. Perfect to make John Rambo a character bigger than life. No need for backstory or big words. In fact, most of the time Stallone remains silent, and when he does opens his mouth he mumbles something about how you can’t change what you are and how killing is as easy as breathing. Brilliant. The film’s body is as fit as that of a supermodel, which is both a good and a bad thing. You gotta admire how perfectly the film is put together with no filler scenes or fat anywhere. The film reaches its finale almost too soon. But, it’s a finale that makes you happy. When Rambo grabs the big machine gun for the first time half of the audince falls off their chairs. And 10 minutes later they leave the theatre with a Jack Nicholson / The Joker smile on their face. Rambo is cinema.

bradavon wrote:

Shingster wrote:Of course I disagree, you simply cannot compare American Pie to Rambo when it comes to the MPAA, because they are and have always been much more lenient on violence than sexual content and profanity.

And my point is proven that there is something very wrong with the way the MPAA rate films.

We're talking about the rating system, not the MPAA's policies, but I can just as easily say the UK rating system you seem to hold in higher regard has problems: The BBFC allowed 30 Days of Nights an uncut 15 rating, but Bridget Jones' Diary had to be censored to achieve the exact same rating. If anything, given how tame Bridget Jones is, that's an even more extreme example than your crappy Rambo/American Pie analogy.

Seeing as you're so confident that your "perfect example" proves beyond argument that the US needs to split the R rating, I now say that the UK rating system does not work either, and seeing as your split R system would essentially be the same as the 15-18 UK system, I have now proven that your split R system would be equally as flawed! I have my own analogy, therefore i MUST be correct and will stubbornly continue to argue this case in a typically "bradavon" fashion.

(And because I know you're too dumb to understand that i'm being purposefully sarcastic here, I need to point that out now!)

bradavon wrote:I thought you said the American rating system was perfect because it puts the onus on the parent, funny how NC-17 goes against that. A Hard R would solve this problem as I already pointed out, as it would still put the onus on the parent to decide.

I never said it was a perfect system, you're the only person in this thread so arrogant in your beliefs to be using absolutes like "my example is perfect!", and surprise surprise you completely misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't saying that it leaves everything down to the adults (I never mentioned parents), but that it gives them the freedom to treat minors with a little bit of maturity and intelligence. No 14yr old would have a problem with Bridget Jones, so it would make perfect sense for a parent or older sibling to have taken them to watch it at the cinema - which they could do in the US thanks to their more practical rating system. Here in the UK, they would have had to wait until DVD.

If they split the R-rating then mainstream cinema will just get tamer than ever as studios who were happy making a straight R-rated film today would suddenly start pressuring filmmakers to get a soft R rating. It will lead to increased self censorship, and situations like the one with Live Free Or Die Hard will become more common.

You keep having cheap jabs that I'm the ignorant fuck, look at yourself in the mirror. I'm disagreeing with you but I'm not throwing personal comments your way.

You are an ignorant prat, and I can site a few examples of you being ignorant in just the last month alone! Seeing as you're telling me to "look in the mirror" I ask you to find examples where I have made ignorant claims on these forums. I might be many things, but uninformed is not one of them!

Now before you arrogantly respond to what I say here telling me to prove it, ask yourself if I'm usually bluffing when I appear confident I can back up my claims! .

The Ladykillers (2004) - 3.5/5

I haven't seen the original, and I went into watching this on Freeview with low expectations due to all of the negative reviews, but I found it quite enjoyable. If this is the worst the Coens have done/can do, then good, that's fine by me!

HungFist wrote:In Rambo his charisma has reached an almost inhumane level.

Do you mean inhumane or inhuman? I'm not dissing you (I speak no Finish) I'm seriously just wondering. I suspect you mean inhuman.

The film reaches its finale almost too soon.

I know what you mean. The film did seem to move very quickly (slick is the word) and when the machine gun fire was over I was like: "is this the end"? Works great as an action vehicle, but maybe a director's cut (with an extra 10-15m) could fill in some of the dramatic blanks and serious pretentions.

gasteropod wrote:The Ladykillers (2004) - 3.5/5 I haven't seen the original, and I went into watching this on Freeview with low expectations due to all of the negative reviews, but I found it quite enjoyable. If this is the worst the Coens have done/can do, then good, that's fine by me!

I thought about watching it... but heard that it's not as good as the original(which I liked). Basically the same story with little of its charm and a lot of 'fucks' in place. Is that wrong?

The BBFC allowed 30 Days of Nights an uncut 15 rating

Appears to have been bumped up to an '18'. Unless that's just for the commentary? Maybe some says 'cunt' a lot.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classifie ... enDocument

Might be down to the extra footage or they just wanted to boost the rating for home release. The comment that "The BBFC has placed this work in the ADDITIONAL PRODUCTION MATERIAL genre" would suggest that it was the additional material that boosted it to 18.

Markgway wrote:I thought about watching it... but heard that it's not as good as the original(which I liked). Basically the same story with little of its charm and a lot of 'fucks' in place. Is that wrong?

I was glad to see the usual Coen bros charm in it, which is different to the charm of the original, I'd imagine. Yeah I think there were a few 'fucks'.

Markgway wrote:

HungFist wrote:In Rambo his charisma has reached an almost inhumane level.

Do you mean inhumane or inhuman? I'm not dissing you (I speak no Finish) I'm seriously just wondering. I suspect you mean inhuman.

Wait, I'll check the dictionary... yeah, I think you're right. Like superman level, more than you thought would be possible for a man. Is inhuman the right word for that?

I appreciate someone pointing out when I say something that makes no sense (grammar wise). It's a bit hard to learn if no one ever tells you what you're doing wrong...

And btw, I'm Finnish, not finished

Shingster wrote: The BBFC allowed 30 Days of Nights an uncut 15 rating

That was a weird one. It was 18 in Finland, and from what I recall, for a reason.

Bridget was 11. Haven't seen the film myself, though.

Yi-Long wrote:I'm pretty sure a movie like I Am Legend will get a longer cut on DVD.

There's no longer cut. It does feature an extra alternate ending that test audiences didn't like.

Yi-Long wrote:and of course pretty soon the producers of these movies will see people not going to the overpriced, shortened theatrical releases

You're in the minority though. Most people don't give a shit. Hell most people won't even give a film a second chance if they disliked it the first time, which when you take an example such as Kingdom of Heaven is a real shame, but there you go.

Markgway wrote:but maybe a director's cut (with an extra 10-15m) could fill in some of the dramatic blanks and serious pretentions.

I've yet to see it yet (it's oddly not showing at my local multiplex this week) but isn't that the point?

To many action films have delusions of grandeur. Snappy and to the point is something to many Hollywood films are not. A brisk 90 minutes is a good thing in my book. Hopefully I'll see it next w/e.

Shingster wrote:or they just wanted to boost the rating for home release.

The BBFC don't do that.

Shingster wrote:You are an ignorant prat, and I can site a few examples of you being ignorant in just the last month alone!

Ignorant at times I maybe (who isn't?) but I don't resort to childish name calling and personal insults. You run out of articulate ways of expressing yourself so resort to: you're a prat, an ignorant fuck etc . . .

We could throw examples at each other all day. It doesn't stop the MPAA rating system from (IMO) being flawed. I never said the BBFC was perfect, it is you who insists in throwing in examples why they're not.

Ah fuck it, why do I bother. You're just as much the ignorant one for picking out parts of my comments that suit your point, while ignoring others, and before you say it is I whose the stubborn one have a look who picked the fight in the first place.

My words get picked apart more than anyone else on this forum. I say something meaning nothing by it (such as the example which got you all hot and bothered in the first place) and before I know it everything I've said is picked to shreds. Yet others do it and it's ignored.

Mark has a pop because I don't offer a capture when it's my go in the DVD Mystery game, then deliberately ignores it when someone else does exactly the same thing a day later. I get yelled at for posting a capture in the incorrect ratio (like it matters), yet others do it all the time and are ignored.

I make the slightest spelling/grammar mistake and I'm pounced on, yet Romero is incapable of stringing a sentence together if he tried. I could go on.

No doubt you'll resort to some other type of underhand remark, it's all your intelligence knows.

HungFist wrote:Wait, I'll check the dictionary... yeah, I think you're right. Like superman level, more than you thought would be possible for a man. Is inhuman the right word for that?

* Inhumane: Not humane; lacking humanity, kindness, compassion, etc. (such as brutality killing someone/something)
* Inhuman: Lacking qualities of sympathy, pity, warmth, compassion, or the like; cruel

Source: Dictionary.com

They have a similar meaning, depending on the context you meant them. Maybe Mark can explain it better I just have. I don't think you meant either. Super Human is the closest phrase I can think of that matches.

It's good to hear liked it Hung, but then your taste in films is so unusual I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing

Stop fighting you stupid prats, and tell me if it's inhuman or inhumane? Superman level, as explained before...

I guess it's inhuman since inhumane made everybody wonder... but I want to make sure.

And while we're at it, is "which is both a good and a bad thing" wrong? Should it be "which is both a good and bad thing" instead?

I wanna learn english today 8)

HungFist wrote:Stop fighting you stupid prats, and tell me if it's inhuman or inhumane? Superman level, as explained before...

I guess it's inhuman since inhumane made everybody wonder... but I want to make sure.

And while we're at it, is "which is both a good and a bad thing" wrong? Should it be "which is both a good and bad thing" instead?

I wanna learn english today 8)

I thought that 'inhuman' and 'inhumane' meant the same thing.

And for your second question, I would say the first one.

gasteropod wrote:

HungFist wrote:Stop fighting you stupid prats, and tell me if it's inhuman or inhumane? Superman level, as explained before...

I guess it's inhuman since inhumane made everybody wonder... but I want to make sure.

And while we're at it, is "which is both a good and a bad thing" wrong? Should it be "which is both a good and bad thing" instead?

I wanna learn english today 8)

I thought that 'inhuman' and 'inhumane' meant the same thing.

And for your second question, I would say the first one.

Inhumane = without regard for other people's lifes. Harsh. Mean. Evil. etc.

Inhuman = is when something is supposed to be beyond a human being's capabilities. I guess you can also say extraordinaty, or superhuman.

HungFist wrote:And while we're at it, is "which is both a good and a bad thing" wrong? Should it be "which is both a good and bad thing" instead?

Both are fine. I'd probably use the first example as the extra A doesn't add anything, but both are perfectly good English. The second one I'd say is "technically" better English as it's more precise. Don't or Do Not are both perfectly acceptable but one is better use of English.

gasteropod wrote:I thought that 'inhuman' and 'inhumane' meant the same thing.

I think they do, pretty much, but it depends on the structure of the sentence.

Neither mean Superman/Super Human though

Yi-Long wrote:Inhuman = is when something is supposed to be beyond a human being's capabilities. I guess you can also say extraordinaty, or superhuman.

Not as far as I'm aware. I am struggling to explain the differences though.

Thanks Brad.

Yi-Long wrote: Inhumane = without regard for other people's lifes. Harsh. Mean. Evil. etc.

Inhuman = is when something is supposed to be beyond a human being's capabilities. I guess you can also say extraordinaty, or superhuman.

That's what I was thinking, too. I'll drop the e. If that's not good enough, then there's something wrong with the language

Yi-Long wrote:Inhumane = without regard for other people's lifes. Harsh. Mean. Evil. etc.

Inhuman = is when something is supposed to be beyond a human being's capabilities. I guess you can also say extraordinaty, or superhuman.

Nope, I've just done some research, and the only difference between the two words, is that 'inhuman' can also mean 'monstrous' and 'not of human form'.

Brad's right, neither mean superhuman.

hey, how about unhuman? That was actually the word I intended to use, I just didn't realize it's written with 'u', not and 'i'

gasteropod wrote:

Yi-Long wrote:Inhumane = without regard for other people's lifes. Harsh. Mean. Evil. etc.

Inhuman = is when something is supposed to be beyond a human being's capabilities. I guess you can also say extraordinaty, or superhuman.

Nope, I've just done some research, and the only difference between the two words, is that 'inhuman' can also mean 'monstrous' and 'not of human form'.

Brad's right, neither mean superhuman.

http://www.google.com/search?q=inhuman+strength

...it is used often to describe a feat that's considered beyond a human's capabilities, aka superhuman.

Now, I dont know if that's the official 'right' description/meaning of the word, but I'm just saying that is how it's very often used.

ok, fuck english. I'll write my reviews in Finish from now on

bradavon wrote:The BBFC don't do that.

They have done exactly that in the past, like New Nightmare and Starship Troopers both being 15 rated on cinema release, but 18 on VHS. Both films are now back to their original 15 on DVD.

bradavon wrote:Ignorant at times I maybe (who isn't?) but I don't resort to childish name calling and personal insults. You run out of articulate ways of expressing yourself so resort to: you're a prat, an ignorant fuck etc . . .

What the fuck are you going on about you delusional fool? I may have used cheap insults in my last post, but I wrote a long post that argued my point far more articulately and relevantly than any of your posts so far. Are you seriously suggesting i'm inarticulate? What a joke!

bradavon wrote:Ah fuck it, why do I bother. You're just as much the ignorant one for picking out parts of my comments that suit your point, while ignoring others, and before you say it is I whose the stubborn one have a look who picked the fight in the first place.

Sigh, there's very little selective quoting in my last post, I pretty much quoted everything in the post you made prior to that. You don't even know what you've been writing!

bradavon wrote:No doubt you'll resort to some other type of underhand remark, it's all your intelligence knows.

Oh right, so i'm not intelligent now. Brad I was more intelligent than you'll ever be by the time I reached my 1st Birthday, every other member on these boards were! You really are an annoying, ignorant, insufferable fool, and I'm done with both you and this pointless argument now.

No worries, glad I could help. It's tricky to explain when the words only differ very slightly.

I don't think there really is a word called unhuman.

You can in theory add un or de (or even in, in some circumstances such as inappropriate) to the start of every word to reverse it's meaning but it doesn't mean people really do. For example we all except Uninstall exists as a word (or Deininstall) but I don't think Unhuman really does.

If I were to use it I'd say it's the same meaning as Inhuman, not that I would use it.

I think Mark meant, in the context you used Inhumane it didn't fit with the rest of the sentence (as opposed to being the completely wrong word) but I think it's best for Mark to explain what he meant, more so than me.

I did also think inhuman made more sense in the structure of the sentence too, but then again as you actually meant superman then super human would have been better.

This is much more fun than arguing with people

Yi-Long wrote:http://www.google.com/search?q=inhuman+strength

...it is used often to describe a feat that's considered beyond a human's capabilities, aka superhuman.

Ah well inhuman on it's own isn't the same as saying inhuman strength. That alters the meaning of what you're saying. You certainly wouldn't say inhumane strength, that is wrong. I definitely know that much.

Agreed it's bloody confusing though. I'll stop before Hung (and I) get even more confused

Shingster wrote:They have done exactly that in the past, like New Nightmare and Starship Troopers both being 15 rated on cinema release, but 18 on VHS. Both films are now back to their original 15 on DVD.

My mistake. I misread what you said. I thought you meant they did it as a marketing trick, which obviously the BBFC don't do.

Shingster wrote:and I'm done with both you and this pointless argument now.

I look forward to the next time you're in a bad mood and pick a fight with my comments

bradavon wrote:No worries, glad I could help. It's tricky to explain when the words mean much the same thing.

I don't think there really is a word called unhuman.

You can in theory add un or de (or even in, in some circumstances such as inappropriate) to the start of every word to reverse it's meaning but it doesn't mean people really do. For example we all except Uninstall exists as a word (or Deininstall) but I don't think Unhuman really does.

If I were to use it I'd say it's the same meaning as Inhuman, not that I would use it.

I think Mark meant, in the context you used Inhumane it didn't fit with the rest of the sentence (as opposed to being the completely wrong word) but I think it's best for Mark to explain what he meant, more so than me.

I did also think inhuman made more sense in the structure of the sentence too, but then again as you actually meant superman then super human would have been better.

This is much more fun than arguing with people

No it's not. I disagree. You're wrong!

Yi-Long wrote:http://www.google.com/search?q=inhuman+strength

...it is used often to describe a feat that's considered beyond a human's capabilities, aka superhuman.

Ah well inhuman on it's own isn't the same as saying inhuman strength. That alters the meaning of what you're saying. You certainly wouldn't say inhumane strength, that is wrong. I definitely know that much.

Agreed it's bloody confusing though. I'll stop before Hung (and I) get even more confused

Hey, I'm just a dumb blonde dutch boy who has his finger up a dike half the time... so I'm not 100% sure either. I just know that 'inhuman' IS used at times, and mostly in relation to 'powers' or 'strength' or whatever

I've read a LOT of comicbooks, so there's the explanation why I would know a thing like that