Bullets 'n' Babes

It's on limited release in the UK and because of this NONE, that's right fucking NONE of the cinemas in my area are showing it.

It's been in my top 10 since I saw the trailer months back. Terrence Malick is a fantastic director and the subject matter (colonial power) has interested me for years.

I've been looking every week since release but as yet NO cinema is showing it. What do the dumbass distributors expect when they won't even show films people want to see.

I'm now being forced to wait for the import DVD (I'm not supposed to own a multi-region player) or download a bootleg (which I'm not supposed to do). Seeing as the bootleg will probably be atrocious quality it looks like I'm waiting

Sure it's had mixed reviews (it looks like a love or hate it film) but I want to see it DAM it!



p.s - So is it any good?

He's a great director who has the habbit to disappear for 20 years everytime he makes a good movie, lol.

I'm watching this. It's getting a wide release over here and I've always wanted to see what Pocahontas looked like in the real world.

Aye I'm well pissed off. By that I mean like I could kick someone's ass. But I won't because I'd probably most likely get mine kicked.

It's showing in Glasgow but not in Aberdeen. Instead I have to watch films such as Aeon Flux and/or Chicken Shit Little. It is ridiculous how some titles are just blatantly ignored in Aberdeen.

Supposedly, if you want to watch movies, it's best to live in Nottingham. I know one dude, and tells me that Nottingham is like UK's equivalent of Hollywood. I'm tempted to move to Notts tbh.

Nope its not in any cinema within hundreds of miles of me, in fact I cannot see it released in any place in the UK at all. pratts.

Agreed.

It must be shown somewhere as DVD Times have a review up but outside of London who knows.

I can't work out why mind you???

BiscLimpkit wrote:Supposedly, if you want to watch movies, it's best to live in Nottingham. I know one dude, and tells me that Nottingham is like UK's equivalent of Hollywood. I'm tempted to move to Notts tbh.

It's also the gun capital of the UK, no thanks.

bradavon wrote:Agreed.

It must be shown somewhere as DVD Times have a review up but outside of London who knows.

I can't work out why mind you???

BiscLimpkit wrote:Supposedly, if you want to watch movies, it's best to live in Nottingham. I know one dude, and tells me that Nottingham is like UK's equivalent of Hollywood. I'm tempted to move to Notts tbh.

It's also the gun capital of the UK, no thanks.

eh? do you live in a utopian crime free zone then brad

I have looked forward to this film for well over a year looks like i will never see a Terrence Malleck film on the big screen I am sure its ownt be as good as The Thin Red Line, but still I am very interested in it, but no way I will be seeing it in the cinema they would rather have crap on every screen locally

saltysam wrote:eh? do you live in a utopian crime free zone then brad

Actually (mostly) yes. Wiltshire where I live is the second safest county in the UK. I've not managed to find out what's number one.

I work for the police I should know . Gun crime simply (virtually) never happens here, thank god.

We do have the odd murder but because they're relatively rare a whole case is opened unlike the States (or Nottingham) where I imagine it's common place.

p.s - It's true Nottingham is a (much more) dangerous place to live.

romerojpg wrote:I have looked forward to this film for well over a year looks like i will never see a Terrence Malleck film on the big screen I am sure its ownt be as good as The Thin Red Line, but still I am very interested in it, but no way I will be seeing it in the cinema they would rather have crap on every screen locally

Agreed.

I can't work out why TTRL showed theatrically on a wider scale and did well. Badlands is revered as a major classic.

They have tried to bury The New World from the word go, and it looks like they have suceeded its a bit of a joke that they treat the film like this, I wish another company had made it and tretaed it with respect and shown some balls and got it into cinemas at least! Looks like the dvd will be the only way not fair

Yep we're going to have to wait for the DVD.

I'd love an explanation as it could've easily made money. I really don't understand why it was not given a chance. It's not like it's in another language or similar.

I really don't understand. It's getting a mass release over here and they advertised for it since like September 2005 over here, too.

thelostdragon wrote:I'm watching this. It's getting a wide release over here and I've always wanted to see what Pocahontas looked like in the real world.

Well, she was certainly young enough, being only 14 when it was filmed. I'm not sure how realistic this will be, though. I have heard that they created a new language for this film to try to re-create the lost Native American language of the Virginia tribes. Here's the young actress, Q'Orianka Kilcher, who is of Peruvian and Alaskan descent, not Eastern Native American.



edit: Weird, as I uploaded that successfully to BnB images, but all I'm getting in the post is an X'd box. Hmmm. . .

The Disney-version was better.

thelostdragon wrote:The Disney-version was better.

The Disney version of Pocahontas? Her chest was too buxom and her character too flat.

And don't even get me started on Mel Gibson singing love songs. . . .



Thanks for fixing the pic for me, LD.

the68monkey wrote:edit: Weird, as I uploaded that successfully to BnB images, but all I'm getting in the post is an X'd box. Hmmm. . .

Your link was wrong it was: Q%27Orianka.jpg
When it should've been: Q%2527Orianka.jpg

Consider it fixed.

the68monkey wrote:I have heard that they created a new language for this film to try to re-create the lost Native American language of the Virginia tribes.

I assume the language they actually spoke has been completely wiped out?

the68monkey wrote: Here's the young actress, Q'Orianka Kilcher, who is of Peruvian and Alaskan descent, not Eastern Native American.

That's better than if they'd picked a white person (as happens to often)! Besides I'd think it would be hard to find someone from the actual correct heritage.

thelostdragon wrote:The Disney-version was better.

Care to expand please?

Brad, its like the language used in Dances With Wolves - AFAIK that Native American language appears to be dead - no native speaker could be found to act as adviser to the crew.
How did they have an ancient language in films like Passion of The Christ and The Mummy (1999) then? Did they work out how it "must" have sounded?

the68monkey wrote:

thelostdragon wrote:The Disney-version was better.

Her chest was too buxom and her character too flat.

Exactly! He he he! The way she needs to be. 8)

LD she's 14, that's kinda worrying.

grim_tales wrote:Brad, its like the language used in Dances With Wolves - AFAIK that Native American language appears to be dead - no native speaker could be found to act as adviser to the crew.

I heard that. Except in that case they did find people who could speak it, just that most of the Native American cast couldn't speak it originally. Very sad but true.

The same has happened in New Zealand but luckily not in Australia.

grim_tales wrote:How did they have an ancient language in films like Passion of The Christ and The Mummy (1999) then? Did they work out how it "must" have sounded?

Not all Ancient languages are extinct.

The Passion of the Christ featured various languages spoken by many and was also spoken by intellectuals so it's likely it would've been written down or something similar.

The Mummy who knows it's tosh.

bradavon wrote:LD she's 14, that's kinda worrying.

Disney's Pocahontas doesn't look like she is even meant to be 14. Besides, there are countries in this world where it is common that people marry at the age of 12. So what is there to worry about. Sheesh. You take every comment far too serious which is the only thing that is actually worrying.

Okay then

Besides, there are countries in this world where it is common that people marry at the age of 12.

I agree such is life but it doesn't make it right.

bradavon wrote:LD she's 14, that's kinda worrying.

grim_tales wrote:Brad, its like the language used in Dances With Wolves - AFAIK that Native American language appears to be dead - no native speaker could be found to act as adviser to the crew.

I heard that. Except in that case they did find people who could speak it, just that most of the Native American cast couldn't speak it originally. Very sad but true.

The same has happened in New Zealand but luckily not in Australia.

grim_tales wrote:How did they have an ancient language in films like Passion of The Christ and The Mummy (1999) then? Did they work out how it "must" have sounded?

Not all Ancient languages are extinct.

The Passion of the Christ featured various languages spoken by many and was also spoken by intellectuals so it's likely it would've been written down or something similar.

The Mummy who knows it's tosh.

Of course The Mummy is tosh - but I heard on the commentary that there was an Egyptologist (?) working with the crew to work out how Ancient Egyptian must have sounded

bradavon wrote:Okay then

Besides, there are countries in this world where it is common that people marry at the age of 12.

I agree such is life but it doesn't make it right.

So all YOUR standards are right which has to apply to everybody else on this planet?

I see.

Huh?

I think the character of Pokeyerhighness is supposed to be 12.

I guess that girl is good casting because she looks young - but not TOO young so that it's creepy or TOO old that it's unrealistic. Tricky to pull off (no pun intended) without being accused of child exploitation.

Dominique Swain was similarly 14 when she played Lolita.

Good point there Mark it is tricky.

grim_tales wrote:Huh?

Exactly I never said or alluded to what LD said; do I have to add IMO every time to keep people happy?

Anyway it's not important moving on . . .