Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
_This_ is Current Movies?
44 views
Skip to first unread message
Anthony Buckland
Nov 17, 2012, 9:18:37 PM11/17/12
to
The Saturday after the release of Lincoln and the
last vampire movie, and _this_ is all people have to
say?
last vampire movie, and _this_ is all people have to
say?
wlah...@gmail.com
Nov 17, 2012, 9:32:46 PM11/17/12
to
nick
Nov 17, 2012, 9:48:18 PM11/17/12
to
girl being terrorized by thugs in a multiplex, a really big looking
multiplex. Starts out slow but goes into Sam Raimi meets Wile E.
Coyote terrority and turns into a really delirious fun movie. Most
fun I've had watching a movie in awhile but I'm not sure it's
current. It was on the Midnight Pulp channel on Roku, which has a
lot of good second tier Asian movies, along with odd little punk rock
documentaries (The Dead Boys, GG Allin, etc.), splatter/grindhouse
obscurities, etc. I'm hooked like James Woods watching Videodrome.
But that doesn't justify being so slack I haven't seen Lincoln or the
new vampire movie a day or two into their release.
wlah...@gmail.com
Nov 17, 2012, 10:06:18 PM11/17/12
to
On Saturday, November 17, 2012 9:48:18 PM UTC-5, nick wrote:
> But that doesn't justify being so slack I haven't seen Lincoln or the
> new vampire movie a day or two into their release.
To me it does. Not that that means anything but -- and I rarely endorse Thai flicks because they are so far off the wall -- why see that other nonsense when you can see a fim that people really loved making? Is there anything worse than a film that you think you "have" to see? For who? One of the reasons that I stopped writing reviews here was after mPig and Bill Anderson had written up "Fly Fishing In The Yemen" and I found myself searching the shelves at the library for the film but I wasn't going to waste a reserve slot for it and I realized, WTF are you doing? Who cares? The only obligation you have to films is the films that *mean* something to you. You have to cut some slack from the herd and in the long run, everything else is meaningless.
> But that doesn't justify being so slack I haven't seen Lincoln or the
> new vampire movie a day or two into their release.
moviePig
Nov 17, 2012, 11:00:13 PM11/17/12
to
to see to stay "current" on movies. But, while that latter category
left me willing eventually to watch the first TWILIGHT, I feel
uncompelled to watch the fifth even if it breaks all-time record$.
And, I (and likely Bill) wrote up SALMON FISHING to clue possible
viewers, not draw them.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
reilloc
Nov 17, 2012, 11:37:52 PM11/17/12
to
LNC
RichA
Nov 18, 2012, 12:37:49 AM11/18/12
to
On Nov 17, 11:00 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 10:06 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 9:48:18 PM UTC-5, nick wrote:
> > > But that doesn't justify being so slack I haven't seen Lincoln or the
> > > new vampire movie a day or two into their release.
>
> > To me it does. Not that that means anything but -- and I rarely endorse Thai flicks because they are so far off the wall -- why see that other nonsense when you can see a fim that people really loved making? Is there anything worse than a film that you think you "have" to see? For who? One of the reasons that I stopped writing reviews here was after mPig and Bill Anderson had written up "Fly Fishing In The Yemen" and I found myself searching the shelves at the library for the film but I wasn't going to waste a reserve slot for it and I realized, WTF are you doing? Who cares? The only obligation you have to films is the films that *mean* something to you. You have to cut some slack from the herd and in the long run, everything else is meaningless.
>
> I see movies that I think I'll like or, rarely, movies I think I have
> to see to stay "current" on movies. But, while that latter category
> left me willing eventually to watch the first TWILIGHT, I feel
> uncompelled to watch the fifth even if it breaks all-time record$.
And it supposedly being the only good one of the series.
> On Nov 17, 10:06 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 9:48:18 PM UTC-5, nick wrote:
> > > But that doesn't justify being so slack I haven't seen Lincoln or the
> > > new vampire movie a day or two into their release.
>
> > To me it does. Not that that means anything but -- and I rarely endorse Thai flicks because they are so far off the wall -- why see that other nonsense when you can see a fim that people really loved making? Is there anything worse than a film that you think you "have" to see? For who? One of the reasons that I stopped writing reviews here was after mPig and Bill Anderson had written up "Fly Fishing In The Yemen" and I found myself searching the shelves at the library for the film but I wasn't going to waste a reserve slot for it and I realized, WTF are you doing? Who cares? The only obligation you have to films is the films that *mean* something to you. You have to cut some slack from the herd and in the long run, everything else is meaningless.
>
> I see movies that I think I'll like or, rarely, movies I think I have
> to see to stay "current" on movies. But, while that latter category
> left me willing eventually to watch the first TWILIGHT, I feel
> uncompelled to watch the fifth even if it breaks all-time record$.
nick
Nov 18, 2012, 6:44:09 PM11/18/12
to
0 new messages