Torchwood S4E04 Miracle Day
Agamemnon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So the Silence is behind it all then. Or is it the Silurians, or how about
one of the many unnamed alien races inhabiting Earth that Jack has pissed
off that no one has ever mentioned, because RTD has only just invented them.
I was hoping for Daleks given that Steven Moffat has said he's resting them
from Doctor Who, but I bet they'll turn up in the last finale, so maybe not.
How about the aliens that screwed up Jack's brother but, technically that's
not happened yet?
Way too predictable so I'll have to mark it down by 1. It was obvious the
blonde CIA bird was going to visit her sister and give everyone away from
the moment she mentioned she has a sister in the previous episode. On top of
that the arch-villain's, henchman's, henchman is just about to tell us who
the bad guys are and what they intend to do with mankind and he gets shot in
the throat. Oh, but Torchwood have lip reading contact lenses. They could
have still extracted the answer from him. Oh, but RTD conveniently forgot
about all that, despite the fact Gwen was wearing them throughout the entire
scene while looking at him and the blonde CIA bird was looking at what they
were seeing on the screen.
Wasn't Jack supposed to have been in the Torchwood deeps freeze since about
1890, and buried in a roman grave since 440 ADish or was it earlier, so how
come he remembers seeing the Pacific ocean 70 years ago?
Has RTD conveniently forgot about the whole of Series 2 also?
The plot is still going nowhere for way too long and is way too predictable.
This entire story could have been done in just 2 episodes if they just cut
out the dithering around with husbands, sisters and non-lesbian sex, and the
whole Oswald Danes sub-plot which is totally implausible and idiotic. Then
they could have done something a whole lot more interesting with the other 8
episodes.
Well at least it's watchable so 9/10.
The Doctor
I say 7/10 . This one at least resolves some issues
and gets us ready for the fight.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
IT is done! http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.drwho/about
Charles E Hardwidge
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:_-edncgwRtn6KanT...@eclipse.net.uk...
> The plot is still going nowhere for way too long and is way too
> predictable. This entire story could have been done in just 2 episodes if
> they just cut out the dithering around with husbands, sisters and
> non-lesbian sex, and the whole Oswald Danes sub-plot which is totally
> implausible and idiotic. Then they could have done something a whole lot
> more interesting with the other 8 episodes.
The first 10 minutes came over like some straight to DVD movie. About half
the episode was flabby and meandering. A similar plot goal in Terminator:
The Sarah Connor Chronicles was set up in the first 10 minutes and pretty
much done by the time Torchwood got going.
Continuity error: Captain Jack is supposed to be an omnisexual as opposed
to a pansexual or the merely average Chardonnay swilling gay. (And those red
braces don't hide the fact he looks like he still needs a poo.)
Someone tell the director not to overdo the parallax. I get the pouty Welsh
spit fountain is supposed to by a thrusting dynamic, okay? And what's with
that editing and floaty camera thing?
Weak and off-beam acting.
WTF was that incidental music?
But all that pales in comparison to the fact this wasn't a Jane Espenson
episode so by default acquires a place on Mount Olympus. (Inflation's a
bitch.)
--
Charles E Hardwidge
gerard.morvan
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> a �crit dans le message de news:
_-edncgwRtn6KanT...@eclipse.net.uk...
> Wasn't Jack supposed to have been in the Torchwood deeps freeze since
> about 1890, and buried in a roman grave since 440 ADish or was it earlier,
> so how come he remembers seeing the Pacific ocean 70 years ago?
>
All right, this is going to be very complicated.
In the last episode of Season 2, Jack is buried in the roman grave in 440
ADish. He is unearthed by the Torchwood team in 1900ish, said team being
surprised to see him there, because he's supposed to be away on some
mission. Jack is then sent in the cryogenic chamber in ordder to be awaken
in the 2000s, after he has been unearthed. So, from the moment he is in the
chamber and the moment he is awaken, there are two Jacks around, on working
for Torchwood, the other asleep in the Hub.
Then, in the forties, we have three Jacks: the first two, plus the one who
will meet the Ninth Doctor.
So, either Jack has seen the Pacific while he was establishing the con which
would lead him to meet the Doctor for the first time (remember that at the
time, he was supposed to be american), or while on a mission for Torchwood.
Either works for me.
"Temporal paradoxes, can't live with them... Pass the beernuts"
G�rard Morvan
"Kentoc'h Mervel!"
The Doctor
john smith
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:_-edncgwRtn6KanT...@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
>
> So the Silence is behind it all then. Or is it the Silurians, or how about
> one of the many unnamed alien races inhabiting Earth that Jack has pissed
> off that no one has ever mentioned, because RTD has only just invented
> them.
You're not watching "Doctor Who" - you're watching a revamped US/UK version
of "Torchwood". Of *course* it won't feature any established "Doctor Who"
villains! Why the hell *would* it?
Yep - Aggy. Still as stupid as ever!
Your scoring system is PATHETIC!
The Doctor
Light the China Blue Touch Paper <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <j13gro$p1v$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
>
That Torchwood has to answer to.
The Doctor
So how does john rate it?
Ryan P.
> <spoiler space>
>
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
>
> Wasn't Jack supposed to have been in the Torchwood deeps freeze since about
> 1890, and buried in a roman grave since 440 ADish or was it earlier, so how
> come he remembers seeing the Pacific ocean 70 years ago?
>
> Has RTD conveniently forgot about the whole of Series 2 also?
As an officer during World War II (which we have seen him there) that
would have been just about exactly 70 years ago.
I think the better question is did RTD forgot his entire time writing
for Doctor Who.
The Doctor
Agamemnon
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:_-edncgwRtn6KanT...@eclipse.net.uk...
So it looks from next week's trailer like everyone is being harvested so
that some sort of space vampires can feed on them?
This is increasingly looking and sounding like RTD has copied the entire
plot of "V".
Expect people in high places to start pealing off their skins and revealing
that they're lizards. Oh, and someone to have a baby by one of them
probably.
Soze
not sure I care enough to try and catch a repeat.
Stephen Wilson
"Soze" <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9a0iar...@mid.individual.net...
> Just realised I completely forgot to watch this tonight. And what's more
> I'm not sure I care enough to try and catch a repeat.
Don't you have On Demand or the BBC iPlayer? These days you can watch a TV
show at your convenience, whether you've recorded it or not...
john smith
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
You're talking out of your arse again. Have you ever seen "V"?
If your shitty 'space vampires' speculation is near the mark, then it's more
like the plot of "Children of Earth". (Or, more accurately, the Colin
Wilson novel "The Space Vampires", filmed as the execrable "Lifeforce".)
You're not very science fiction literate, are you, Aggy?
>
> Expect people in high places to start pealing off their skins and
> revealing that they're lizards. Oh, and someone to have a baby by one of
> them probably.
>
>
>
You're not very funny, either.
Agamemnon
"john smith" <the_jo...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:r4G_p.102060$_r1....@newsfe06.ams2...
Obviously you haven't.
The Visitors in V cured all human illnesses with some sort of super-drugs,
but they only did all that just so they could harvest the humans for food.
>
> If your shitty 'space vampires' speculation is near the mark, then it's
> more like the plot of "Children of Earth". (Or, more accurately, the
> Colin
Trust RTD to repeat himself.
> Wilson novel "The Space Vampires", filmed as the execrable "Lifeforce".)
>
Nope. Saw that film. Not what I was thinking of.
> You're not very science fiction literate, are you, Aggy?
>
You seem to be having delusions.
I was thinking of V. When the series nears it's end you see all the humans
who are supposed to have been cured all hung up like meat in the Visitors
space ship's 'freezer'.
>
>>
>> Expect people in high places to start pealing off their skins and
>> revealing that they're lizards. Oh, and someone to have a baby by one of
>> them probably.
>>
Who grows up super fast, is kind of telepathic and turns out to be the real
saviour.
Wasn't the Face of Boe telepathic too?
>>
>>
>
> You're not very funny, either.
That only goes to show that you are even less funny.
The Doctor
The Doctor
Soze <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Just realised I completely forgot to watch this tonight. And what's more I'm
>not sure I care enough to try and catch a repeat.
>
All right. I concur.
solar penguin
> "Soze" <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9a0iar...@mid.individual.net...
>> Just realised I completely forgot to watch this tonight. And what's
>> more I'm not sure I care enough to try and catch a repeat.
>
> Don't you have On Demand or the BBC iPlayer?
I think he covered that with "I'm not sure I care enough to try and catch
a repeat." What difference does it make if the repeat just happens to be
on a computer instead of a television?
> These days you can watch a
> TV show at your convenience, whether you've recorded it or not...
But it never feels the same as watching the actual broadcast. You're
always too aware that you're just watching a recording or a repeat, so
you can't suspend disbelief enough to get into the fictional world with
the characters.
john smith
"solar penguin" <solar....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:j1g8ah$b49$1...@dont-email.me...
That doesn't make sense at all. It's not like you're watching a live event
or news-as-it-happens, is it? I suppose you don't watch films either, then,
if you're "aware that you're just watching a recording"?
solar penguin
> Just realised I completely forgot to watch this tonight.
Same here.
> And what's more
> I'm not sure I care enough to try and catch a repeat.
Same here again. I don't like conspiracy thrillers at the best of
times. They're always so predictable. And so far, this one wasn't more
interesting than any other, despite the immortality gimmick.
If they'd dropped the conspiracy angle, and just done a simple soap about
how ordinary people reacted to the changes in their daily lives, it
would've been a lot more satisfying.
As it is, I probably won't bother to catch up with this episode, and just
hope the story has moved on from the conspiracy to something else by next
week.
Stephen Wilson
>
>> "Soze" <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:9a0iar...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Just realised I completely forgot to watch this tonight. And what's
>>> more I'm not sure I care enough to try and catch a repeat.
>>
>> Don't you have On Demand or the BBC iPlayer?
>
> I think he covered that with "I'm not sure I care enough to try and catch
> a repeat." What difference does it make if the repeat just happens to be
> on a computer instead of a television?
The difference is that with On Demand/iPlayer you can watch the programme at
any time. To catch a repeat, you have to know which station is airing it,
have access to it, and tune in on the correct day and time.
>> These days you can watch a
>> TV show at your convenience, whether you've recorded it or not...
>
> But it never feels the same as watching the actual broadcast. You're
> always too aware that you're just watching a recording or a repeat, so
> you can't suspend disbelief enough to get into the fictional world with
> the characters.
Ah, so now I know what everyone's doing wrong. Wait a minute though - the
broadcast of Torchwood on the BBC is a repeat no matter when you see it as
each episode originally airs in America a few days earlier. So that's ruined
the rest of the series for me. Curse you!
solar penguin
> "solar penguin" <solar....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:j1g8ah$b49$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 00:03:01 +0100, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> "Soze" <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:9a0iar...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Just realised I completely forgot to watch this tonight. And what's
>>>> more I'm not sure I care enough to try and catch a repeat.
>>>
>>> Don't you have On Demand or the BBC iPlayer?
>>
>> I think he covered that with "I'm not sure I care enough to try and
>> catch a repeat." What difference does it make if the repeat just
>> happens to be on a computer instead of a television?
>>
>>> These days you can watch a
>>> TV show at your convenience, whether you've recorded it or not...
>>
>> But it never feels the same as watching the actual broadcast. You're
>> always too aware that you're just watching a recording or a repeat, so
>> you can't suspend disbelief enough to get into the fictional world with
>> the characters.
>>
>>
>
> That doesn't make sense at all.
Real feelings never do.
> It's not like you're watching a live
> event or news-as-it-happens, is it?
Well, it can _feel_ like you are, if the events are outside your control
(i.e. you know you can't pause or rewind) and you have no idea what's
happening next.
But you're right, once either of those is broken, it's impossible to feel
like the drama is unfolding there as you watch it, and it's only of dry
academic interest.
> I suppose you don't watch films
> either, then, if you're "aware that you're just watching a recording"?
Well, I rarely re-watch films I've seen before because knowing what's
going to happen does make it harder to suspend disbelief. (The same as
if you've seen or heard spoilers.) So, obviously I have to wait until
I've forgotten most of the details before I can watch them again.
Otherwise, what's the point?
OTOH I don't watch modern films anyway, but that's just because I don't
like modern film and TV drama styles.
solar penguin
> "solar penguin" <solar....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:j1g8ah$b49$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 00:03:01 +0100, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> "Soze" <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:9a0iar...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Just realised I completely forgot to watch this tonight. And what's
>>>> more I'm not sure I care enough to try and catch a repeat.
>>>
>>> Don't you have On Demand or the BBC iPlayer?
>>
>> I think he covered that with "I'm not sure I care enough to try and
>> catch a repeat." What difference does it make if the repeat just
>> happens to be on a computer instead of a television?
>
> The difference is that with On Demand/iPlayer you can watch the
> programme at any time. To catch a repeat, you have to know which station
> is airing it, have access to it, and tune in on the correct day and
> time.
>
But if we don't care enough to watch it when it's already being broadcast
anyway, then obviously we're not going to care enough to go out of our
way to "Demand" it on a computer.
Either way, if we don't care enough watch it anyway, what's the
difference?
>>> These days you can watch a
>>> TV show at your convenience, whether you've recorded it or not...
>>
>> But it never feels the same as watching the actual broadcast. You're
>> always too aware that you're just watching a recording or a repeat, so
>> you can't suspend disbelief enough to get into the fictional world with
>> the characters.
>
> Ah, so now I know what everyone's doing wrong. Wait a minute though -
> the broadcast of Torchwood on the BBC is a repeat no matter when you see
> it as each episode originally airs in America a few days earlier. So
> that's ruined the rest of the series for me. Curse you!
No, it's the first time the episode was broadcast to Britain, so it's not
a repeat here. As long as you've avoided spoilers (and that includes
downloads, since they're the ultimate spoiler) you can still suspend
disbelief in it.
solar penguin
> In article <j1g8nb$b49$2...@dont-email.me>,
> solar penguin <solar....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Same here again. I don't like conspiracy thrillers at the best of
>> times. They're always so predictable. And so far, this one wasn't
>> more interesting than any other, despite the immortality gimmick.
>
> Yes, I can see why Day of the Children was better than this. It wasn't
> another dreary story about a braindead and heartless English
> bureacractic conspiracy.
What's "Day of the Children"?
If you mean "Children of Earth", I thought that went downhill once the
conspiracy elements took over too much of the story.
The Doctor
We are talking SP.
The Doctor
solar penguin <solar....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 01:37:53 -0700, China Blue Tip Wrench wrote:
>
>> In article <j1g8nb$b49$2...@dont-email.me>,
>> solar penguin <solar....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Same here again. I don't like conspiracy thrillers at the best of
>>> times. They're always so predictable. And so far, this one wasn't
>>> more interesting than any other, despite the immortality gimmick.
>>
>> Yes, I can see why Day of the Children was better than this. It wasn't
>> another dreary story about a braindead and heartless English
>> bureacractic conspiracy.
>
>What's "Day of the Children"?
>
>If you mean "Children of Earth", I thought that went downhill once the
>conspiracy elements took over too much of the story.
Sounds like typical RTD Torchwood.
Soze
"Stephen Wilson" wrote in message
news:8xF_p.107644$Sr.5...@newsfe12.ams2...
No, only if I sit in front of the computer and watch it. I could download it
and stream it through the xbox but I was so bored by the first 3 episodes
I'm not sure I can be bothered.
john smith
No shit! Really?
(The same as
> if you've seen or heard spoilers.) So, obviously I have to wait until
> I've forgotten most of the details before I can watch them again.
> Otherwise, what's the point?
>
Because some films are more rewarding on successive viewing? I must've seen
"The Wicker Man" and "The Last Wave" and "Donnie Darko" loads of times, and
each time I get something else out of them...
> OTOH I don't watch modern films anyway, but that's just because I don't
> like modern film and TV drama styles.
>
Yeah, like all "modern" films and dramas are the same. Forget the formulaic
American crap (I paid good money to see the new "Transformers" film
recently - silly me - and it was migraine-inducing tripe) and watch some
modern French or German or Spanish films, all countries with very healthy
film industries producing some really interesting and out-there work...
john smith
Oh, go on! It may be another "Game of Thrones" (or, indeed, "True Blood")
where it takes three or four episodes to get into its stride. Let's face
it: it can't really get much worse, can it?
Charles E. Hardwidge
>
> Yeah, like all "modern" films and dramas are the same. Forget the
> formulaic American crap (I paid good money to see the new "Transformers"
> film recently - silly me - and it was migraine-inducing tripe) and watch
> some modern French or German or Spanish films, all countries with very
> healthy film industries producing some really interesting and out-there
> work...
Thailand and South Korea produce some very good movies.
Iraq had the largest movie industry (and freest secular press) in the Middle
East until American foreign policy worked its magic.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Soze
"john smith" wrote in message news:Ws__p.37013$VZ6....@newsfe18.ams2...
GoT had a boring episode and a half before becoming absolutely brilliant...I
pretty much liked TB from the off ( although didn't *love* it till about
half way through the first series ). Misfits was another that I was unsure
about after the first eps, liked after the second and adored by the third.
Babylon 5, aside from a few episodes, took an entire series to ignite my
interest.
But TW...really, I've given it a lot of my time. Almost all of the first 2
series were rubbish, the third was surprisingly strong and now it's probably
worse than ever again. I stuck with it for the first couple of years out of
some nerdish loyalty to it being a Dr Who spin off but ah....I don't think I
can bother with it anymore.
Soze
"john smith" wrote in message news:ep__p.151036$fQ4.1...@newsfe16.ams2...
(The same as
> if you've seen or heard spoilers.) So, obviously I have to wait until
> I've forgotten most of the details before I can watch them again.
> Otherwise, what's the point?
>
>Because some films are more rewarding on successive viewing? I must've
>seen "The Wicker Man" and "The Last Wave" and "Donnie Darko" loads of
>times, and each time I get something else out of them...
I've seen the first and last of those probably half a dozen times each but
never even heard of the one in the middle. I'll take that as a
recommendation.
> OTOH I don't watch modern films anyway, but that's just because I don't
> like modern film and TV drama styles.
>
>Yeah, like all "modern" films and dramas are the same. Forget the
>formulaic American crap (I paid good money to see the new "Transformers"
>film recently - silly me - and it was migraine-inducing tripe) and watch
>some modern French or German or Spanish films, all countries with very
>healthy film industries producing some really interesting and out-there
>work...
I'm something of a film philistine. I regularly go back and check out some
of the esteemed old classics and a good deal of them disappoint me and few
really impress. I've sat and watched the likes of Rear Window, Sunset
Boulevard, On the Waterfront, North By Northwest and Singin' in the Rain for
the first time this year and have no interest in watching any of them again
( skipped through half of SitR as I hate films that burst into jolly songs
every 10 minutes ). I also dislike the glaring, OTT musical scores that
films from the 40's and 50's have. The music in On the Waterfront irritated
the hell out of me. Although there are plenty of old films I love...It's a
Wonderful Life, Day the Earth Stood Still, A Matter of Life and Death, Some
Like It Hot...but I'd say the overwhelming majority of my favourite films
are from the mid 60's onwards.
I haven't seen any of the Transformers films and have no desire to. I'm a
sucker for comic book superhero movies though, a guilty pleasure of mine. I
put it down to my child hood love for the characters, invariably find it a
blast seeing them all brought to life. But putting aside popcorn fodder I
find Solar's hatred of everything modern strange...try stuff like Mulholland
Drive, Eternal Sunshine, There Will Be Blood, Being John Malkovich, Twelve
Monkeys, Downfall, City of God or In Bruges...some of my all time
favourites.
Charles E. Hardwidge
>
> But TW...really, I've given it a lot of my time. Almost all of the first 2
> series were rubbish, the third was surprisingly strong and now it's
> probably worse than ever again. I stuck with it for the first couple of
> years out of some nerdish loyalty to it being a Dr Who spin off but
> ah....I don't think I can bother with it anymore.
I binned TW during series one. The new TW only has my interest in the same
way roadcrashes get my attention. The roadcrash isn't important but the
mechanics behind everything is.
Can't even say I'm even trying to follow the story (or lack thereof). It's
just interesting spotting camera moves that I've seen before or lazily
thinking through how would I recraft the scene if I was shooting it.
I almost feel pity for the people involved. They're either being paid and
have to do it now whether they like it or not, or so clueless they're not
even aware they're fucking up. Hey, it happens.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
john smith
>
>
> "john smith" wrote in message
> news:ep__p.151036$fQ4.1...@newsfe16.ams2...
>
>
>
> (The same as
>> if you've seen or heard spoilers.) So, obviously I have to wait until
>> I've forgotten most of the details before I can watch them again.
>> Otherwise, what's the point?
>>
>
>
>>Because some films are more rewarding on successive viewing? I must've
>>seen "The Wicker Man" and "The Last Wave" and "Donnie Darko" loads of
>>times, and each time I get something else out of them...
>
> I've seen the first and last of those probably half a dozen times each but
> never even heard of the one in the middle. I'll take that as a
> recommendation.
Definitely. It's an Ozzie film - which are usually pretty out there -
directed by Peter Weir ("Picnic at Hanging Rock", "The Truman Show") in
which a Syndney lawyer (Richard Chamberlain) becomes involved in a murder
case involving Aborginal magic. It's very portentous and loaded with water
symbolism (the clue's in the title). Sort of 'magical realism' on the
screen...
>
>> OTOH I don't watch modern films anyway, but that's just because I don't
>> like modern film and TV drama styles.
>>
>
>
>>Yeah, like all "modern" films and dramas are the same. Forget the
>>formulaic American crap (I paid good money to see the new "Transformers"
>>film recently - silly me - and it was migraine-inducing tripe) and watch
>>some modern French or German or Spanish films, all countries with very
>>healthy film industries producing some really interesting and out-there
>>work...
>
> I'm something of a film philistine. I regularly go back and check out some
> of the esteemed old classics and a good deal of them disappoint me and few
> really impress. I've sat and watched the likes of Rear Window, Sunset
> Boulevard, On the Waterfront, North By Northwest and Singin' in the Rain
> for the first time this year and have no interest in watching any of them
> again ( skipped through half of SitR as I hate films that burst into jolly
> songs every 10 minutes ).
Watch Lars von Trier's musical, "Dancer in the Dark", starring Bjork as a
mother who's going blind. It's the most depressing musical ever made, but
has some great songs in it. And there's also a narrative reason WHY they
all break into song...
Here's my favourite from the film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9zFt6M_GLo
I also dislike the glaring, OTT musical scores that
> films from the 40's and 50's have. The music in On the Waterfront
> irritated the hell out of me. Although there are plenty of old films I
> love...It's a Wonderful Life, Day the Earth Stood Still, A Matter of Life
> and Death, Some Like It Hot...but I'd say the overwhelming majority of my
> favourite films are from the mid 60's onwards.
>
Mind tend to be around that period too - especially love '70s films. Have
you read "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls"? It covers all that period of cinema,
up to the introduction of "Jaws" and the big summer Hollywood blockbuster,
which effectively hobbled the homegrown USA indie film...
> I haven't seen any of the Transformers films and have no desire to. I'm a
> sucker for comic book superhero movies though, a guilty pleasure of mine.
I've never really understood why people have "guilty pleasures". If you
like something, you like it, eh? Why feel guilty about it? (It's not like
you're into auto-erotic asphyxiation - like Charlie! - or shoving small
mammals up your arse, is it?)
I
> put it down to my child hood love for the characters, invariably find it a
> blast seeing them all brought to life. But putting aside popcorn fodder I
> find Solar's hatred of everything modern strange...try stuff like
> Mulholland Drive, Eternal Sunshine, There Will Be Blood,
An utterly fantastic film! Paul Thomas Anderson is a fucking genius and
true auteur...
>Being John Malkovich,
Meh. I loved the idea and execution, but it's a pretty daft film...
Twelve
> Monkeys, Downfall, City of God or In Bruges...some of my all time
> favourites.
They're all top class movies. Have you seen the Ozzie gangster film "Animal
Kingdom"? It's pretty generic story-wise (well, it *is* a gangster film)
but the framing device, of having it told from the POV of this kid thrust
into the middle of a feud between his estranged family (of bank robbers) and
the police. There's a really creepy psycho guy in it who'd give Scorsese's
worst baddies a run for their money...
>
>
Charles E. Hardwidge
>> I'm something of a film philistine. I regularly go back and check out
The 1970's was the last really experimental decade and was in many ways more
tolerant than the later PC years. People often write off the 1970's but if
you ask them to name all the great music, TV, and movies a big chunk is from
that decade.
I have this theory that we don't get better or more tolerant than our
capacity. We just shift our skills and tolerances around. (Can't remember
who but some journo wrote the same thing a few weeks back.)
My media library has a lot of stuff in it. That includes some lesbian
auto-erotic asphyxiation porn. No gerbils. Some of the Japanese stuff is
really artful but can get a bit... odd.
Oh, yeah. And thanks to whoever sent a transexual hooker around to my place
as a joke. Hah, hah. Very funny. Next time send TWO and make sure they bring
their own stash you clueless idiot.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge