Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Sci-fi actioner "Overturn: Awakening of the Warrior"
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Ivan D
May 23, 2012, 1:41:06 PM5/23/12
to
Watched a trailer and this one looks very promising and very
mysterious. This one is definitely with spiritual and new age
subtexts. Have been expecting this kind of film for a long time.
Check'em out here http://www.overturnmovie.com and let me know what
you think.
mysterious. This one is definitely with spiritual and new age
subtexts. Have been expecting this kind of film for a long time.
Check'em out here http://www.overturnmovie.com and let me know what
you think.
RichA
May 24, 2012, 9:30:01 PM5/24/12
to
On May 23, 1:41 pm, Ivan D <ivandk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Watched a trailer and this one looks very promising and very
> mysterious. This one is definitely with spiritual and new age
> subtexts. Have been expecting this kind of film for a long time.
> Check'em out herehttp://www.overturnmovie.comand let me know what
> Watched a trailer and this one looks very promising and very
> mysterious. This one is definitely with spiritual and new age
> subtexts. Have been expecting this kind of film for a long time.
> you think.
F--- off shill.
reilloc
May 25, 2012, 12:03:43 PM5/25/12
to
much money.
LNC
moviePig
May 25, 2012, 12:20:54 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 12:03 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/23/2012 12:41 PM, Ivan D wrote:
>
> > Watched a trailer and this one looks very promising and very
> > mysterious. This one is definitely with spiritual and new age
> > subtexts. Have been expecting this kind of film for a long time.
> > Check'em out herehttp://www.overturnmovie.comand let me know what
> On 5/23/2012 12:41 PM, Ivan D wrote:
>
> > Watched a trailer and this one looks very promising and very
> > mysterious. This one is definitely with spiritual and new age
> > subtexts. Have been expecting this kind of film for a long time.
> > you think.
>
> My, but this looks genuinely terrible. I hope you guys don't lose too
> much money.
Well, I checked, and IMDb had nothing bad to say about it...
>
> My, but this looks genuinely terrible. I hope you guys don't lose too
> much money.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
wlah...@gmail.com
May 25, 2012, 1:16:10 PM5/25/12
to
On Friday, May 25, 2012 12:20:54 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>
> Well, I checked, and IMDb had nothing bad to say about it...
>
Did you actually see the trailer? If that's the good news, I don't want to see the rest . . .
>
> Well, I checked, and IMDb had nothing bad to say about it...
>
Obveeus
May 25, 2012, 3:07:40 PM5/25/12
to
"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>On May 25, 12:03 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/23/2012 12:41 PM, Ivan D wrote:
>>
>> > Watched a trailer and this one looks very promising and very
>> > mysterious. This one is definitely with spiritual and new age
>> > subtexts. Have been expecting this kind of film for a long time.
>> > Check'em out herehttp://www.overturnmovie.comand let me know what
>> > you think.
>>
>> My, but this looks genuinely terrible. I hope you guys don't lose too
>> much money.
>
>Well, I checked, and IMDb had nothing bad to say about it...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1933130/
moviePig
May 25, 2012, 3:05:57 PM5/25/12
to
for not registering on IMDb's radar ...*or* for frankly soliciting
viewers and buzz here. But (paraphrasing RichA) the transparent shill-
work atop this thread hints at how bright an audience the "sci-fi
actioner" aspires to.
Obveeus
May 25, 2012, 3:26:10 PM5/25/12
to
"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>On May 25, 1:16 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Did you actually see the trailer? If that's the good news, I don't want
>> to see the rest . . .
>
>No, I didn't. And, it's not that I'd diss a grass-roots indie merely
>for not registering on IMDb's radar ...*or* for frankly soliciting
>viewers and buzz here. But (paraphrasing RichA) the transparent shill-
>work atop this thread hints at how bright an audience the "sci-fi
>actioner" aspires to.
shilling.
moviePig
May 25, 2012, 3:37:17 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 3:07 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
runtime is an alien artifact unto itself...)
> "moviePig" <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >On May 25, 12:03 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2012 12:41 PM, Ivan D wrote:
>
> >> > Watched a trailer and this one looks very promising and very
> >> > mysterious. This one is definitely with spiritual and new age
> >> > subtexts. Have been expecting this kind of film for a long time.
> >> > Check'em out herehttp://www.overturnmovie.comandlet me know what
> >On May 25, 12:03 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2012 12:41 PM, Ivan D wrote:
>
> >> > Watched a trailer and this one looks very promising and very
> >> > mysterious. This one is definitely with spiritual and new age
> >> > subtexts. Have been expecting this kind of film for a long time.
> >> > you think.
>
> >> My, but this looks genuinely terrible. I hope you guys don't lose too
> >> much money.
>
> >Well, I checked, and IMDb had nothing bad to say about it...
>
> Is 6.5 out of 10 good enough for your IMDB radar?http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1933130/
Absolutely. Is this somehow that? (A "TV series" with a 5-minute
>
> >> My, but this looks genuinely terrible. I hope you guys don't lose too
> >> much money.
>
> >Well, I checked, and IMDb had nothing bad to say about it...
>
> Is 6.5 out of 10 good enough for your IMDB radar?http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1933130/
runtime is an alien artifact unto itself...)
Obveeus
May 25, 2012, 3:50:21 PM5/25/12
to
"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote in message
news:caf6f586-edd7-4bf2...@b21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
the episodes together and call it a movie?
Some web series are quite good: http://watchtheguild.com for example.
Some stuff is a real mixed bag of tricks: the debut YouTube series 'Jan',
for example: www.youtube.com/wigs
wlah...@gmail.com
May 25, 2012, 4:05:46 PM5/25/12
to
On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:05:57 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
> No, I didn't. And, it's not that I'd diss a grass-roots indie merely
> for not registering on IMDb's radar ...*or* for frankly soliciting
> viewers and buzz here. But (paraphrasing RichA) the transparent shill-
> work atop this thread hints at how bright an audience the "sci-fi
> actioner" aspires to.
>
Having seen "Birdemic" and the Japanese film "Zombie Army" -- among many other IMDB low-rated films -- I'll give any flick a chance. I saw "Monster From Crater Lake" just the other day. Then again, based on the trailer, this flick isn't bad-enough-to-good (a distinction that I find watchable for about 15 minutes), it's bad. Period. I wish more indie films would shill here and although we can't encourage it, it would be nice to have them seek us out instead of the other way around.
> No, I didn't. And, it's not that I'd diss a grass-roots indie merely
> for not registering on IMDb's radar ...*or* for frankly soliciting
> viewers and buzz here. But (paraphrasing RichA) the transparent shill-
> work atop this thread hints at how bright an audience the "sci-fi
> actioner" aspires to.
>
moviePig
May 25, 2012, 4:48:36 PM5/25/12
to
Hollywood guild bureaucracy. (Btw, though I don't mean to twist a
knife in your gut until you drop to your knees gasping for sweet
mercy, Friedkin also says he's watched CITIZEN KANE upward of 200
times...)
wlah...@gmail.com
May 25, 2012, 5:12:16 PM5/25/12
to
On Friday, May 25, 2012 4:48:36 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
> William Friedkin says it's a welcome and valid way to shortcut the
> Hollywood guild bureaucracy. (Btw, though I don't mean to twist a
> knife in your gut until you drop to your knees gasping for sweet
> mercy, Friedkin also says he's watched CITIZEN KANE upward of 200
> times...)
>
I've only seen "Citizen Kane" about 50 times. It was constantly on TV when I was a kid. It's a pretty good film -- never said it wasn't -- what galls me is the blind cultists who insist it's the greatest movie ever made. A statement that is ridiculous on its face. Welles was a genius when it came to creating scenes but he couldn't make a movie to save his life and then always had some lame excuse for why he didn't finish it. It's an interesting phenomena that film "mavericks" are so enamored -- Nic Ray, Sam Fuller, et al -- and yet their maverick-ness still exists inside the hooray-for-Hollywood mentality. Essentially, "Citizen Cane" is a B-movie with brilliant technique and that's what makes it so appealing. It's dazzling but unchallenging. It attempts to make mise-en-scene into content and never realizing that the content never lives up to the hype. Plus, it taps into that American fairytale about childhood that moviegoers slurp up with their watered-down cokes and feel so much better about themselves. "Citizen Kane" is a Faberegé egg filled with Cheez Whiz.
> William Friedkin says it's a welcome and valid way to shortcut the
> Hollywood guild bureaucracy. (Btw, though I don't mean to twist a
> knife in your gut until you drop to your knees gasping for sweet
> mercy, Friedkin also says he's watched CITIZEN KANE upward of 200
> times...)
>
moviePig
May 25, 2012, 5:21:15 PM5/25/12
to
most. His main disagreement with your analysis might be merely that
you'd dare append a 'but' -- of any sort -- to 'brilliant technique'.
nick
May 25, 2012, 5:44:59 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 3:07 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> "moviePig" <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >On May 25, 12:03 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2012 12:41 PM, Ivan D wrote:
>
> >> > Watched a trailer and this one looks very promising and very
> >> > mysterious. This one is definitely with spiritual and new age
> >> > subtexts. Have been expecting this kind of film for a long time.
> >> > Check'em out herehttp://www.overturnmovie.comandlet me know what
> >On May 25, 12:03 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2012 12:41 PM, Ivan D wrote:
>
> >> > Watched a trailer and this one looks very promising and very
> >> > mysterious. This one is definitely with spiritual and new age
> >> > subtexts. Have been expecting this kind of film for a long time.
> >> > you think.
>
> >> My, but this looks genuinely terrible. I hope you guys don't lose too
> >> much money.
>
> >Well, I checked, and IMDb had nothing bad to say about it...
>
> Is 6.5 out of 10 good enough for your IMDB radar?http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1933130/
6.5 from 8 IMDb users, so assuming the number's been pumped up by
>
> >> My, but this looks genuinely terrible. I hope you guys don't lose too
> >> much money.
>
> >Well, I checked, and IMDb had nothing bad to say about it...
>
> Is 6.5 out of 10 good enough for your IMDB radar?http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1933130/
family and friends of the production company, that 6.5 really isn't
too good.
wlah...@gmail.com
May 25, 2012, 5:39:35 PM5/25/12
to
On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:21:15 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
> Iirc, "KANE" was Friedkin's answer to what movie had guided him the
> most. His main disagreement with your analysis might be merely that
> you'd dare append a 'but' -- of any sort -- to 'brilliant technique'.
>
Then how come so many of Friedkin's films are so good? Like I said, there's a whole cult mentality to "Citizen Kane" (and Hitchcock, while we're at it) that is so deluded and misguided in terms of what I think movies should be and do. Welles at least was brilliant in creating scenes and Hitchcock pretty much made the same shit over and over. And when he didn't, the result usually was laughable. Than again, I've moved on from all this nonsense and just remember that it was you that went under the porch and poked the darkness with a stick.
> Iirc, "KANE" was Friedkin's answer to what movie had guided him the
> most. His main disagreement with your analysis might be merely that
> you'd dare append a 'but' -- of any sort -- to 'brilliant technique'.
>
nick
May 25, 2012, 5:49:38 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 4:05 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/7y56xns
http://io9.com/5907431/the-christian-horror-movie-harmless-features-a-possessed-box-of-porn-no-really
wlah...@gmail.com
May 25, 2012, 6:01:35 PM5/25/12
to
On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:49:38 PM UTC-4, nick wrote:
>
> This indie's worth a shill or two:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7y56xns
>
> http://io9.com/5907431/the-christian-horror-movie-harmless-features-a-possessed-box-of-porn-no-really
That has the potential to be hysterically funny. A new spin on the term Christian camp. OMG, I'm turning into mPig . . .
>
> This indie's worth a shill or two:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7y56xns
>
> http://io9.com/5907431/the-christian-horror-movie-harmless-features-a-possessed-box-of-porn-no-really
Tom
May 25, 2012, 6:35:04 PM5/25/12
to
So many jokes, so few electrons...
Still, I'll watch anything, so thanks for the heads up.
Tom
Tom
May 25, 2012, 6:34:10 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 5:01 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:49:38 PM UTC-4, nick wrote:
>
> > This indie's worth a shill or two:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/7y56xns
>
> >http://io9.com/5907431/the-christian-horror-movie-harmless-features-a...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:49:38 PM UTC-4, nick wrote:
>
> > This indie's worth a shill or two:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/7y56xns
>
>
> That has the potential to be hysterically funny. A new spin on the term Christian camp. OMG, I'm turning into mPig . . .
I'll save you...
> That has the potential to be hysterically funny. A new spin on the term Christian camp. OMG, I'm turning into mPig . . .
Tom
moviePig
May 25, 2012, 11:12:57 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 6:01 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:49:38 PM UTC-4, nick wrote:
>
> > This indie's worth a shill or two:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/7y56xns
>
> >http://io9.com/5907431/the-christian-horror-movie-harmless-features-a...
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:49:38 PM UTC-4, nick wrote:
>
> > This indie's worth a shill or two:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/7y56xns
>
>
> That has the potential to be hysterically funny. A new spin on the term Christian camp. OMG, I'm turning into mPig . . .
I'm thinking it might be rated 'PG-45'...
> That has the potential to be hysterically funny. A new spin on the term Christian camp. OMG, I'm turning into mPig . . .
Tom
May 25, 2012, 11:19:35 PM5/25/12
to
my brain says this will be bad while my heart says they deserve an A
for effort. Who among us has the guts to make a movie?
Tom
moviePig
May 25, 2012, 11:45:25 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 11:19 pm, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 10:12 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 25, 6:01 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:49:38 PM UTC-4, nick wrote:
>
> > > > This indie's worth a shill or two:
>
> > > >http://tinyurl.com/7y56xns
>
> > > >http://io9.com/5907431/the-christian-horror-movie-harmless-features-a...
>
> > > That has the potential to be hysterically funny. A new spin on the term Christian camp. OMG, I'm turning into mPig . . .
>
> > I'm thinking it might be rated 'PG-45'...
>
> On May 25, 10:12 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 25, 6:01 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:49:38 PM UTC-4, nick wrote:
>
> > > > This indie's worth a shill or two:
>
> > > >http://tinyurl.com/7y56xns
>
> > > >http://io9.com/5907431/the-christian-horror-movie-harmless-features-a...
>
> > > That has the potential to be hysterically funny. A new spin on the term Christian camp. OMG, I'm turning into mPig . . .
>
> > I'm thinking it might be rated 'PG-45'...
>
> I'm smirking at this movie and feeling a bit guilty about doing so...
> my brain says this will be bad while my heart says they deserve an A
> for effort. Who among us has the guts to make a movie?
There are two movies on the table, here, and I'm smirking at Nick's.
> my brain says this will be bad while my heart says they deserve an A
> for effort. Who among us has the guts to make a movie?
I'm sure I'd smirk at the 'sci-fi actioner', too, but I was all
smirked-out by the invitation to it. Sure, some gutsy dreams should
be followed, but some of those should be overtaken and euthanized.
Tom
May 26, 2012, 12:08:25 AM5/26/12
to
last time I was behind of and in front of a camera was 40-something
years ago in high school film class.
As bad as both are likely to be, I still admire their passion.
Tom
moviePig
May 26, 2012, 12:28:13 AM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 12:08 am, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 10:45 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 25, 11:19 pm, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 25, 10:12 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 25, 6:01 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:49:38 PM UTC-4, nick wrote:
>
> > > > > > This indie's worth a shill or two:
>
> > > > > >http://tinyurl.com/7y56xns
>
> > > > > >http://io9.com/5907431/the-christian-horror-movie-harmless-features-a...
>
> > > > > That has the potential to be hysterically funny. A new spin on the term Christian camp. OMG, I'm turning into mPig . . .
>
> > > > I'm thinking it might be rated 'PG-45'...
>
> > > I'm smirking at this movie and feeling a bit guilty about doing so...
> > > my brain says this will be bad while my heart says they deserve an A
> > > for effort. Who among us has the guts to make a movie?
>
> > There are two movies on the table, here, and I'm smirking at Nick's.
> > I'm sure I'd smirk at the 'sci-fi actioner', too, but I was all
> > smirked-out by the invitation to it. Sure, some gutsy dreams should
> > be followed, but some of those should be overtaken and euthanized.
>
> On May 25, 10:45 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 25, 11:19 pm, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 25, 10:12 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 25, 6:01 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Friday, May 25, 2012 5:49:38 PM UTC-4, nick wrote:
>
> > > > > > This indie's worth a shill or two:
>
> > > > > >http://tinyurl.com/7y56xns
>
> > > > > >http://io9.com/5907431/the-christian-horror-movie-harmless-features-a...
>
> > > > > That has the potential to be hysterically funny. A new spin on the term Christian camp. OMG, I'm turning into mPig . . .
>
> > > > I'm thinking it might be rated 'PG-45'...
>
> > > I'm smirking at this movie and feeling a bit guilty about doing so...
> > > my brain says this will be bad while my heart says they deserve an A
> > > for effort. Who among us has the guts to make a movie?
>
> > There are two movies on the table, here, and I'm smirking at Nick's.
> > I'm sure I'd smirk at the 'sci-fi actioner', too, but I was all
> > smirked-out by the invitation to it. Sure, some gutsy dreams should
> > be followed, but some of those should be overtaken and euthanized.
>
> I dunno... I guess I was referring to both movies on the table. The
> last time I was behind of and in front of a camera was 40-something
> years ago in high school film class.
>
> As bad as both are likely to be, I still admire their passion.
Well, I suppose that Alfonso Cuaron, long before he made two of my
> last time I was behind of and in front of a camera was 40-something
> years ago in high school film class.
>
> As bad as both are likely to be, I still admire their passion.
biggest recent favorites Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN and CHILDREN OF MEN, turned
out the astonishingly hapless comedy. LOVE IN THE TIME OF HYSTERIA.
So, sure, judge not lest ye be overturned on appeal...
Obveeus
May 26, 2012, 6:31:32 AM5/26/12
to
also admit to asking moviepig if the score was high enough hoping that he
would retort along the lines of 'I will not consider it must see unless the
score is over 8'....just so we could see if the film's backers had a few
more friends that could weigh in to the IMDB voting and pump up the score
accordingly.
nick
May 26, 2012, 7:20:30 AM5/26/12
to
On May 25, 11:19 pm, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
will have to conform to both the family friendly nature of the film's
marketed audience as well as being disgusting enough to serve its
cautionary duties.
Obveeus
May 26, 2012, 7:28:51 AM5/26/12
to
"nick" <nickmacp...@AOL.com> wrote:
>I want to see the fake porn they devise for the film, fake porn that
>will have to conform to both the family friendly nature of the film's
>marketed audience as well as being disgusting enough to serve its
>cautionary duties.
Obveeus
May 26, 2012, 7:36:32 AM5/26/12
to
"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> There are two movies on the table, here, and I'm smirking at Nick's.
nick
May 26, 2012, 7:41:27 AM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 7:36 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
drive of porn.
> "moviePig" <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > There are two movies on the table, here, and I'm smirking at Nick's.
>
> I'm wondering how these people fit all their porn into just one box.
This is 2012. I don't have a box of porn. I have an external hard
> > There are two movies on the table, here, and I'm smirking at Nick's.
>
> I'm wondering how these people fit all their porn into just one box.
drive of porn.
moviePig
May 26, 2012, 9:02:04 AM5/26/12
to
moviePig
May 26, 2012, 9:15:30 AM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 6:31 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
equivalent of Borat's "Not so much." And, of course, there's always
*some* kind of ballot-stuffing...
> "nick" <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
>
> On May 25, 3:07 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> "moviePig" <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 25, 12:03 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 5/23/2012 12:41 PM, Ivan D wrote:
>
> >> >> > Watched a trailer and this one looks very promising and very
> >> >> > mysterious. This one is definitely with spiritual and new age
> >> >> > subtexts. Have been expecting this kind of film for a long time.
> >> >> > Check'em out herehttp://www.overturnmovie.comandletme know what
>
> On May 25, 3:07 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> "moviePig" <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 25, 12:03 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 5/23/2012 12:41 PM, Ivan D wrote:
>
> >> >> > Watched a trailer and this one looks very promising and very
> >> >> > mysterious. This one is definitely with spiritual and new age
> >> >> > subtexts. Have been expecting this kind of film for a long time.
> >> >> > you think.
>
> >> >> My, but this looks genuinely terrible. I hope you guys don't lose too
> >> >> much money.
>
> >> >Well, I checked, and IMDb had nothing bad to say about it...
>
> >> Is 6.5 out of 10 good enough for your IMDB
> >> radar?http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1933130/
> >6.5 from 8 IMDb users, so assuming the number's been pumped up by
> >family and friends of the production company, that 6.5 really isn't
> >too good.
>
> I admit to seeing the 4 'perfect 10s' and thinking it a bit suspicious. I
> also admit to asking moviepig if the score was high enough hoping that he
> would retort along the lines of 'I will not consider it must see unless the
> score is over 8'....just so we could see if the film's backers had a few
> more friends that could weigh in to the IMDB voting and pump up the score
> accordingly.
Empirically, fwiw, the magic number is 7, with 6 being the numerical
>
> >> >> My, but this looks genuinely terrible. I hope you guys don't lose too
> >> >> much money.
>
> >> >Well, I checked, and IMDb had nothing bad to say about it...
>
> >> Is 6.5 out of 10 good enough for your IMDB
> >> radar?http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1933130/
> >6.5 from 8 IMDb users, so assuming the number's been pumped up by
> >family and friends of the production company, that 6.5 really isn't
> >too good.
>
> I admit to seeing the 4 'perfect 10s' and thinking it a bit suspicious. I
> also admit to asking moviepig if the score was high enough hoping that he
> would retort along the lines of 'I will not consider it must see unless the
> score is over 8'....just so we could see if the film's backers had a few
> more friends that could weigh in to the IMDB voting and pump up the score
> accordingly.
equivalent of Borat's "Not so much." And, of course, there's always
*some* kind of ballot-stuffing...
Obveeus
May 26, 2012, 11:07:49 AM5/26/12
to
then watch the stuffing process match accordingly? Alas, it seems that the
shill was not paying as close attention to this newsgroup as would have been
needed for this to have played out accordingly.
Tom
May 26, 2012, 12:02:28 PM5/26/12
to
required to turn water into wine.
Tom
Tom
May 26, 2012, 12:00:57 PM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 5:31 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
Tom
> "nick" <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
>
> On May 25, 3:07 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> "moviePig" <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 25, 12:03 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 5/23/2012 12:41 PM, Ivan D wrote:
>
> >> >> > Watched a trailer and this one looks very promising and very
> >> >> > mysterious. This one is definitely with spiritual and new age
> >> >> > subtexts. Have been expecting this kind of film for a long time.
> >> >> > Check'em out herehttp://www.overturnmovie.comandletme know what
>
> On May 25, 3:07 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> "moviePig" <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 25, 12:03 pm, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 5/23/2012 12:41 PM, Ivan D wrote:
>
> >> >> > Watched a trailer and this one looks very promising and very
> >> >> > mysterious. This one is definitely with spiritual and new age
> >> >> > subtexts. Have been expecting this kind of film for a long time.
> >> >> > you think.
>
> >> >> My, but this looks genuinely terrible. I hope you guys don't lose too
> >> >> much money.
>
> >> >Well, I checked, and IMDb had nothing bad to say about it...
>
> >> Is 6.5 out of 10 good enough for your IMDB
> >> radar?http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1933130/
> >6.5 from 8 IMDb users, so assuming the number's been pumped up by
> >family and friends of the production company, that 6.5 really isn't
> >too good.
>
> I admit to seeing the 4 'perfect 10s' and thinking it a bit suspicious.
Ballot stuffing by the true-believers, perhaps?
>
> >> >> My, but this looks genuinely terrible. I hope you guys don't lose too
> >> >> much money.
>
> >> >Well, I checked, and IMDb had nothing bad to say about it...
>
> >> Is 6.5 out of 10 good enough for your IMDB
> >> radar?http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1933130/
> >6.5 from 8 IMDb users, so assuming the number's been pumped up by
> >family and friends of the production company, that 6.5 really isn't
> >too good.
>
> I admit to seeing the 4 'perfect 10s' and thinking it a bit suspicious.
Tom
trotsky
May 26, 2012, 2:30:07 PM5/26/12
to
Ivan D
May 31, 2012, 1:40:58 AM5/31/12
to
On May 26, 9:30 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> On 5/26/12 11:00 AM, Tom wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 5:31 am, "Obveeus"<Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> "nick"<nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
>
> >> On May 25, 3:07 pm, "Obveeus"<Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> "moviePig"<pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On May 25, 12:03 pm, reilloc<reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/23/2012 12:41 PM, Ivan D wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Watched a trailer and this one looks very promising and very
> >>>>>>> mysterious. This one is definitely with spiritual and new age
> >>>>>>> subtexts. Have been expecting this kind of film for a long time.
> >>>>>>> Check'em out herehttp://www.overturnmovie.comandletmeknow what
> On 5/26/12 11:00 AM, Tom wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 5:31 am, "Obveeus"<Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> "nick"<nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
>
> >> On May 25, 3:07 pm, "Obveeus"<Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> "moviePig"<pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On May 25, 12:03 pm, reilloc<reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/23/2012 12:41 PM, Ivan D wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Watched a trailer and this one looks very promising and very
> >>>>>>> mysterious. This one is definitely with spiritual and new age
> >>>>>>> subtexts. Have been expecting this kind of film for a long time.
> >>>>>>> you think.
>
> >>>>>> My, but this looks genuinely terrible. I hope you guys don't lose too
> >>>>>> much money.
>
> >>>>> Well, I checked, and IMDb had nothing bad to say about it...
>
> >>>> Is 6.5 out of 10 good enough for your IMDB
> >>>> radar?http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1933130/
> >>> 6.5 from 8 IMDb users, so assuming the number's been pumped up by
> >>> family and friends of the production company, that 6.5 really isn't
> >>> too good.
>
> >> I admit to seeing the 4 'perfect 10s' and thinking it a bit suspicious.
>
> > Ballot stuffing by the true-believers, perhaps?
>
> I'd be more worried about the imperfect 10s.
Going back to the original flick we discussed. I agree that
>
> >>>>>> My, but this looks genuinely terrible. I hope you guys don't lose too
> >>>>>> much money.
>
> >>>>> Well, I checked, and IMDb had nothing bad to say about it...
>
> >>>> Is 6.5 out of 10 good enough for your IMDB
> >>>> radar?http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1933130/
> >>> 6.5 from 8 IMDb users, so assuming the number's been pumped up by
> >>> family and friends of the production company, that 6.5 really isn't
> >>> too good.
>
> >> I admit to seeing the 4 'perfect 10s' and thinking it a bit suspicious.
>
> > Ballot stuffing by the true-believers, perhaps?
>
> I'd be more worried about the imperfect 10s.
technically it does not look like the best film in the worlds, and it
can't with such a small budget. But a budget can't get you a good
story, and I think these guys have a decent story. IMHO. By the way,
you should go on IMDB and check out Tom Hanks, or any other star. You
will see many films you have not even heard about. Those film were
real losers. But you still know Tom Hanks, right? I'm sure these guys
will get better in time, and one day we will see them making multi-
million-dollar blockbusters.
nick
May 31, 2012, 8:43:00 AM5/31/12
to
Alone, a slasher movie, and Dungeons and Dragons, a TV movie. Both
these movies still have novelty value and people still watch them.
Hanks' third movie is Splash and from then on he's a huge movie
star. That's not even mentioning his TV work. It's an apples and
oranges comparison anyway because Hanks started work in the pre-
digital era so not many people had the DIY option regarding
filmmaking. If people want to get a camera and make a movie, fine,
but it's likely it won't have the production values of even He Knows
Your Alone or Dungeons and Dragons.
0 new messages