Bullets 'n' Babes

saltysam wrote:Mother Of Tears 1.5/5

it's very gory and just shows how lenient the bbfc have become these days.

Are you saying that's a bad thing? It is 18 rated. I'm just wondering.

Markgway wrote:

saltysam wrote:Mother Of Tears 1.5/5

Hugely disappointing latest effort from Dario Argento ,the third in the 3 mothers trilogy. cheap looking and poorly acted, it's very gory and just shows how lenient the bbfc have become these days.

I feared as much.

I actually though that 'The Card Player' was a step in the right direction after a series of post-Trauma duds but I guess it's two steps back again.

Argento's Master's of Horror season 1 episode was pretty good. Haven't seen the second season, though.

Haven't seen MOH. I was referring only to his feature films.

bradavon wrote:as was the following fight too.

I found the fight photography to be dreadful, it suffered from all the crap that modern action films director love these days. Shaky cam, close/mid-shots, quick cuts. But I haven't seen this film since it showed theatrically, I'd imagine that it might work a lot better on the small screen.

It could've probably done with a bit more action too. I liked the fact they spent time on the drama more but for my liking it had a bit too much drama, when the drama that was given wasn't always particularly interesting.

This is why I told you to see Firefly beforehand. Then you would've actually appreciated the on-going story, established characters and their relationships. Eg Wash's and the Shepherd's deaths would've actually meant something to you.

I was surprised to see it's really a Space Drama more than your usual Scifi action. It would've almost worked not being Scifi at all.

Did you miss the point that it's literally supposed to be a Western in space then?

The actors aren't the best the world has ever seen either. Summer Glau was the best actor in it.

Oh what bollocks, you're just under that delusion because Glau is the only one of the actors that you're familiar with, from watching that Terminator TV series. Overlooking the excellent British actor Chiwetel Ejiofor, or the charming performance from Nathan Fillion and Alan Tudyk.

EvaUnit02 wrote:This is why I told you to see Firefly beforehand. Then you would've actually appreciated the on-going story, established characters and their relationships. Eg Wash's and the Shepherd's deaths would've actually meant something to you.

I know that but it doesn't mean I had any interest in watching the TV show. Buffy and Angel are rubbish and unlike most on this forum I have zero interest in watching every TV show created, just because they're American. Considering the film is "slightly" overrated I doubt I'd find the TV show that good.

Above all that, it's a film so shouldn't rely on a separate entity (TV show) to work. That should be a bonus, not compulsory. That shows poor writing on Weedon's part.

Anyway like I said I enjoyed it. Besides I had to watch it before Friday, the £2 Play voucher I have expires then. I wouldn't have watched it "right now" if it wasn't for the voucher. That was the catalyst for watching it now.

EvaUnit02 wrote:Did you miss the point that it's literally supposed to be a Western in space then?

How could I miss that? It's assumed you know it from the Series and isn't told to you in the film. It's a film that presumes you have prior knowledge of the TV show, again poor writing.

I know now though, the extras mentioned that.

EvaUnit02 wrote:Oh what bollocks, you're just under that delusion because Glau is the only one of the actors that you're familiar with, from watching that Terminator TV series.

No not at all, not in the slightest. Summer Glau was the only decent actor, except for Chiwetel Ejiofor. Good point I forgot about him. So that would be two decent actors in Serenity. The rest did a perfectly good job, but nothing at all special.

Alan Tudyk was completely forgettable and no better/worse than the other actors not being mentioned here.

bradavon wrote:Above all that, it's a film so shouldn't rely on a separate entity (TV show) to work. That should be a bonus, not compulsory. That shows poor writing on Weedon's part.

WTF are you talking about you muppet, you gave the film 6.5/10 so it obviously worked for you even though you hadn't seen Firefly. Oh and no one is championing Firefly because it's "American" why can you not talk about an American TV show without insinuating that people only rate said show becaus e of its country of origin - or that British TV is somehow superior!

bradavon wrote:Anyway like I said I enjoyed it.

Sigh, we REALLY need a "bashes head up against wall" smiley!

bradavon wrote:How could I miss that? It's assumed you know it from the Series and isn't told to you in the film. It's a film that presumes you have prior knowledge of the TV show, again poor writing.

I've never been one to rate Serenity as a flawless film, but anyone who watches it and doesn't pick up on the Western genre trappings is a monumental dimwit. Of course, we already knew that about you before you even watched the film.

Honestly, for a supposed "film fan" you know absolutely fuck all about film!

@Shingster:

: banghead :

I understand how Brad feels re: Serenity, though.
I watched it before watching Firefly and it didn't really work for me. Then I watched Firefly and it all made sense.

That wasn't nice Shing

I havent seen Firefly/Serenity either. Romero loves them doesnt he?

Yep. He's a Joss Whedon fan, like me.

bradavon wrote:unlike most on this forum I have zero interest in watching every TV show created, just because they're American.

What the hell? Stop making up crap, how the hell is their country of origin factor into the quality of a production?! There's plenty garbage and quality television produced by all sort of countries/cultures, be they American, British, Australian, Kiwi, Japanese, etc.

Above all that, it's a film so shouldn't rely on a separate entity (TV show) to work. That should be a bonus, not compulsory. That shows poor writing on Weedon's part.

Plenty of sequels/continuations aren't as effective or work at all without seeing their predecessor(s), eg Lord of the Rings 2 & 3, Bourne 2 & 3. Going by your logic then they were poorly-written films.

and the male lead while overall fine was also a poor actor.

So was his performance average/serviceable or poor? You can't have it both ways.

bradavon wrote:

saltysam wrote:Mother Of Tears 1.5/5

it's very gory and just shows how lenient the bbfc have become these days.

Are you saying that's a bad thing? It is 18 rated. I'm just wondering.

not at all-i'm saying 10 years ago this film would have had minutes,not seconds cut out,now it passes through unscathed

Shingster wrote:WTF are you talking about you muppet, you gave the film 6.5/10 so it obviously worked for you even though you hadn't seen Firefly.

It worked overall but overall but that doesn't mean a film should specifically rely on a TV show.

Shingster wrote:Oh and no one is championing Firefly because it's "American" why can you not talk about an American TV show without insinuating that people only rate said show because of its country of origin - or that British TV is somehow superior!

I'm not overall but many "online" are brainwashed to an extent about American TV shows. The amount of rave reviews they get far outweighs any other country. It's almost as if you're not allowed to say anything bad about American TV.

Just look at the Ashes to Ashes and Life on Mars threads. I bet if they were American the thread sizes on this forum would be 5 fold larger but as they're British virtually no one bothered.

Shingster wrote:I've never been one to rate Serenity as a flawless film, but anyone who watches it and doesn't pick up on the Western genre trappings is a monumental dimwit. Of course, we already knew that about you before you even watched the film.

I really wish you'd stop with the petty childish remarks everytime you disagree with me. I don't do it to you.

Shingster wrote:Honestly, for a supposed "film fan" you know absolutely fuck all about film!

That's very subjective. Being elitist (like Tigercage) isn't an admirable trait.

EvaUnit02 wrote:Plenty of sequels/continuations aren't as effective or work at all without seeing their predecessor(s), eg Lord of the Rings 2 & 3, Bourne 2 & 3. Going by your logic then they were poorly-written films.

Of course but they're different. A TV show is a separate entity.

Would you expect people to read a book before seeing a film? Many books fill in the blanks from a film but many people don't read a book first. They're two different mediums and should work separately.

EvaUnit02 wrote:So was his performance average/serviceable or poor? You can't have it both ways.

Of course you can. An acting performance can be generally fine/acceptable but still overall poor too.

tom2681 wrote:I understand how Brad feels re: Serenity, though.
I watched it before watching Firefly and it didn't really work for me. Then I watched Firefly and it all made sense.

Thanks. That is interesting to hear.

grim_tales wrote:That wasn't nice Shing

Thanks. Shingster cannot seem to help himself.

saltysam wrote:not at all-i'm saying 10 years ago this film would have had minutes,not seconds cut out,now it passes through unscathed

Fair enough. Cheers for the clarification.

Is "you're an elitist" your new catchphrase or something? Here's a clue brad, you gonna take on a new term to call everyone, at least have common sense to learn exactly what that term actually means.

There is no elitism in my original post, just me calling you a dimwit, even someone as slow as yourself should've figured out exactly what I think about your mighty intellect by now, so drop the outrage eh?

Funnily enough I looked up elitist in a dictionary before using it against Tigercage:

"The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources."

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=elitist

Yep. That sums up your opinion pretty well.

They way you've both enjoyed belittling me just because I didn't get some minor aspect of a film, acting like neither of you have ever not understood some aspect of a film and are both so superior in your film knowledge, is being an elitist.

No outrage btw either. I do get bored at your petty jabs though, especially when I don't ever belittle you. It's quite different to disagree with someone than to actively enjoy belittling them.

bradavon wrote: Just look at the Ashes to Ashes and Life on Mars threads. I bet if they were American the thread sizes on this forum would be 5 fold larger but as they're British virtually no one bothered.

Yes, the sizes would be 5 times bigger because if they were American they would actually play in other countries than just the UK, and 5 times more people would have the possibility to see them.

Most people under 30 download TV shows off the web now and much English language TV shows tend to get shown in many countries now eventually.

I take your point and thought of it while typing that but that isn't the main reason. The simple truth is American TV shows are put on a pedestal. I'm not saying much of it is rubbish (far from it) just that the ratio is skewed.

Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes were pretty poor, the former was novel for a few shows but the quality was not present.

Lourdes wrote:Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes were pretty poor, the former was novel for a few shows but the quality was not present.

Grim will hunt you down and shoot you in the face romero-style

Lourdes wrote:but the quality was not present.

I've yet to see Life on Mars. I will be any day now though but Ashes to Ashes IMO had consistently excellent writing. One minute I was in fits of laughter the next I was moved. It was so funny at times.

Fair enough though. How much of each Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes did you watch?

saltysam wrote:Grim will hunt you down and shoot you in the face romero-style

I'll be on the lookout for young men in cardigans.

Lourdes wrote:I'll be on the lookout for young men in cardigans.

saltysam wrote:

Lourdes wrote:Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes were pretty poor, the former was novel for a few shows but the quality was not present.

Grim will hunt you down and shoot you in the face romero-style

Fair enough, each to their own but it seems Lourdes is in the minority considering both the critical and audience reception of LOM, and the love and attention that went into it. I thought it was brilliant.
The consistently sharp writing, central performances of John and Phil are excellent (how they were ignored by BAFTA I dont know), and at turns its so funny, moving and gripping, enjoyable still even on rewatching. I was on the edge of my seat in its original run.

bradavon wrote:Yep. That sums up your opinion pretty well.

God you're dense. If you can find a statement from me in this thread that I belong to a intellectually superior "clique" then feel free. Note: Saying you - a singular individual - are as thick as pigshit does not mean I'm a member of the genius "elite", it means you're dumber than everyone else on these boards (which I'm pretty sure many of the regular members of these boards, who are wound up by your blind idiocy every time they log on, will agree with).

You are a cretin who makes BnB a monumental chore. I won't wish you an early death like Tigercage, but I do hope that one day you log off these boards and never return. That would be a very good day indeed.

And that's my final post on this matter, feel free to have the last ignorant word.