Slueth (1972)

[soccerfan777]

We saw this movie yesterday. Only 2 characters in the entire movie. It
was still a good fun movie and a good psychological thriller.
Excellent acting by Laurence Olivier and Michael Cane.

There was a hindi suspense movie called 'Kaun?'. That was very good as
well. And I think there is one Ingrid Bergman TV movie (The Human
Voice) which I haven't seen which has only *her*

Are there any more movies like this. Only 1-3 actors in the entire
movie?

[jdeluise]

On 29-Apr-2013, soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Are there any more movies like this. Only 1-3 actors in the entire
> movie?

Yes

[guypers]

Saw the play in London, different cast, great show!

[soccerfan777]

On Apr 29, 3:27 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 29-Apr-2013, soccerfan777 <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Are there any more movies like this. Only 1-3 actors in the entire
> > movie?
>
> Yes

good answer. lol. Can you list them?

[Scott]

.

[Court_1]

On Apr 29, 4:20 pm, soccerfan777 <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:

I did not see the original with Caine and Olivier but I saw the 2007
remake with Caine and Jude Law. It was good until the last 20 minutes
or so until it became silly and it ended abruptly. Those who saw both
movies say the original Sleuth was much better than the remake. Now
that you remind me about this movie, I must watch the original since I
love Olivier. I totally forgot about the original film.

Other movies driven by two characters are:

Dead Calm with Nicole Kidman--two or three characters on a sailboat
the whole time.
The Strangers--with Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman. They play a young
couple in an isolated home who are terrorized by strangers.
Open Water--About a couple on a scuba diving trip who are stranded in
the ocean accidentally by their tour boat. This one was terrifying and
based on a true story!
Death and the Maiden--Roman Polanski film with Ben Kingsley and
Sigourney Weaver. Saw it a long time ago but I remember it was
basically these two actors throughout the movie.
Misery--based on the Stephen King novel and is centered around two
characters played by Kathy Bates and James Caan.

I am sure there are many more but that is all I can think of off the
top of my head.

[Scott]

On Apr 29, 9:11 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 4:20 pm, soccerfan777 <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > We saw this movie yesterday. Only 2 characters in the entire movie. It
> > was still a good fun movie and a good psychological thriller.
> > Excellent acting by Laurence Olivier and Michael Cane.
>
> > There was a hindi suspense movie called 'Kaun?'. That was very good as
> > well. And I think there is one Ingrid Bergman TV movie (The Human
> > Voice) which I haven't seen which has only *her*
>
> > Are there any more movies like this. Only 1-3 actors in the entire
> > movie?
>
> I did not see the original with Caine and Olivier but I saw the 2007
> remake with Caine and Jude Law. It was good until the last 20 minutes
> or so until it became silly and it ended abruptly. Those who saw both
> movies say the original Sleuth was much better than the remake. Now
> that you remind me about this movie, I must watch the original since I
> love Olivier. I totally forgot about the original film.
>

When has there ever been a good remake? (Besides His Girl Friday or
Maltese Falcon).

[Court_1]

You have a point. Most remakes are terrible. Dracula is an exception.
I have not seen all of the versions but the 1979 version with Frank
Langella and Laurence Olivier was good and so was the 1992 Francis
Ford Coppola version with Gary Oldman.

The movie Cape Fear is a case where BOTH the original and the remake
were terrible IMO.

[Scott]

The original Cape Fear with Mitchum is a noir classic.

[guypers]

Lol, both mitchum and De Niro were brilliant!

[Court_1]

Nope, can't agree with you there. I saw the remake long before I saw
the original and I figured that the original must be great and much
better than that terrible remake but it was not the case. The acting
in the original is awful even by Gregory Peck and Robert Mitchum. The
actress who played the daughter gave one of the worst acting
performances I have ever seen. All the acting performances were hammy
beyond belief. In addition, the hammy music was unbearable.

I do think in most cases the original movie is 10 times better than
the remake but Cape Fear is an exception.

[Court_1]

They were both horrible imo. Hammy beyond belief.

[ahonkan]

On Apr 30, 1:20 am, soccerfan777 <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Are there any more movies like this. Only 1-3 actors in the entire
> movie?

Yes, the original 'Sleuth' is wonderful.
I'd highly recommend Stephen Spielberg's debut film,
'The Duel'. The only characters of note are the hero,
Dennis Weaver & the villain is an 18-wheeler truck.
You hardly ever see the driver of the truck. Brilliant
direction, crisp editing, an edge-of-the-seat thriller.

[Scott]

The Duel is Spielberg's best, but his peak isn't very high.

[Whisper]

Including masturbation videos?

[Whisper]

Yes, I saw that a couple months ago. Great atmosphere.

[Whisper]

I only saw the original Cape Fear recently & thought it was brilliant.
Can't imagine the remake would be better, but will try & catch it 1 day.

[bob]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:19:56 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

the remake wasn't bad, deniro, nolte and i believe it was juliette
lewis played the daughter. mitchum had a cameo. but in no way near as
good as the original.

bob

[Court_1]

No, I don't suggest you watch the remake, it was bad. What I said
above was that this is one of those rare cases where the original was
just as bad as the remake or close to it. I think the original had so
much potential but the hammy acting ruined it for me and I was
expecting so much more.

[Court_1]

On Apr 30, 6:44 am, bob <b...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:19:56 +1000, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com>

I disliked both the original and the remake.

[Raja The Great]

Court1, misery is awesome but has many characters

[Court_1]

The atmosphere was great, perfect for a thriller but the acting and
the overdone music throughout turned me off.

[Court_1]

On Apr 30, 7:10 am, Raja The Great <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Court1, misery is awesome but has many characters

Yes, it has more characters but it is essentially driven by two
characters throughout.

Watch Open Water if you want to scare yourself silly and watch two
people stranded out in the ocean for days! What could be worse than
being stranded out in the dark shark-infested waters? That personally
creeps me out especially since it is based on a true story.

[Whisper]

I found Mitchum's performance mesmerizing in CF - he had an overpowering
presence & made everyone else disappear. The bad guys are always more
complex & interesting. It's one of those rare films I'd watch a 2nd
time. Maybe I had low expectations & it seemed better than what it was?
Dunno, but it was good enough for me to want to see it again.

[Whisper]

Maybe you had high expectations or were having a bad day? That can
affect perceptions. I really enjoyed it, mainly due to Mitchum's character.

[Raja The Great]

Scott, Gaslight with Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman is an excellent and is considered better than the British original which was made only three years earlier

[Raja The Great]

I will watch open water. My wife and I like horror movies. But to tell you the truth 99% of them are really bad

[soccerfan777]

On Apr 29, 8:11 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 4:20 pm, soccerfan777 <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > We saw this movie yesterday. Only 2 characters in the entire movie. It
> > was still a good fun movie and a good psychological thriller.
> > Excellent acting by Laurence Olivier and Michael Cane.
>
> > There was a hindi suspense movie called 'Kaun?'. That was very good as
> > well. And I think there is one Ingrid Bergman TV movie (The Human
> > Voice) which I haven't seen which has only *her*
>
> > Are there any more movies like this. Only 1-3 actors in the entire
> > movie?
>
> I did not see the original with Caine and Olivier but I saw the 2007
> remake with Caine and Jude Law. It was good until the last 20 minutes
> or so until it became silly and it ended abruptly. Those who saw both
> movies say the original Sleuth was much better than the remake. Now
> that you remind me about this movie, I must watch the original since I
> love Olivier. I totally forgot about the original film.
>
> Other movies driven by two characters are:
>
> Dead Calm with Nicole Kidman--two or three characters on a sailboat
> the whole time.

I saw Dead Calm. It was a pretty good movie. The only problem with the
movie was Sam Neil seems relatively calm (and emotionaless) for
someone who is about to lose his life and wife. I thought Nicole
Kidman acted well. And Billy Zane was overracting as usual.

> The Strangers--with Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman. They play a young
> couple in an isolated home who are terrorized by strangers.

I saw this and was very much annoyed. One of the worst horror movies I
have seen. It was so bad, I don't even remember it.

> Open Water--About a couple on a scuba diving trip who are stranded in
> the ocean accidentally by their tour boat. This one was terrifying and
> based on a true story!
> Death and the Maiden--Roman Polanski film with Ben Kingsley and
> Sigourney Weaver. Saw it a long time ago but I remember it was
> basically these two actors throughout the movie.

Great movie. Sigourney Weaver is an underrated actress. Same with Ben
Kingsley. The movie manages to deeply disturb you even though it
really has only 3 characters.

> Misery--based on the Stephen King novel and is centered around two
> characters played by Kathy Bates and James Caan.

One of the best horror movies of all time. I really love the story.

[soccerfan777]

> They were both horrible imo. Hammy beyond belief.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I haven't seen the original Cape Fear. But the remake was not good. I
can't buy Robert De Niro in a southern accent. And on top of it, it
seems to be a movie built on shock value and general nonsense. If
there was a stalker like this, wont you get a restraining order... and
a GUN like Dave would?

[soccerfan777]

Schindler's List was a good movie. Spielberg made a lot of junk (AI
for example) but he made some decent movies as well.

[Whisper]

His very 1st movie is his best? Wow - start at the top & all down hill
from there eh?

[Court_1]

What are you talking about? Munich was good, Catch Me If You Can was
good, The Color Purple was good, Saving Private Ryan was pretty good,
and Schindler's List was a masterpiece. Even Jaws and Jurassic Park
were good for the masses type of movies and ahead of their time in
terms of special effects, etc. After Jaws to this day I am not keen to
swim in the ocean.

[Court_1]

On Apr 30, 8:10 am, Raja The Great <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I will watch open water. My wife and I like horror movies. But to tell you the truth 99% of them are really bad

It is not some slasher type of horror movie. It is a slow building
thriller about two people stranded out in the middle of the ocean. It
is more of a survival movie. There was also a sequel done but it was
not as good as the first imo.

[soccerfan777]

not all horror movies are slasher movies. We like slow paced creepy
horror movies. One of my favorite horrrors is Alien. I think Se7en and
Silence Of the Lambs are two other good horrors I have seen.

[Dave Hazelwood]

i tried and tried to watch schindlers list 3x and never could get
through it no matter how hard i tried as it was just SOOOOOOO
FUCKING BORING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[soccerfan777]

> FUCKING BORING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't think it was boring at all. WW2 movies can be, but this movie
was not boring at all. I really felt for the poor woman and
appreciated what Schindler did for her.

[drew]

On 30 Apr, 08:10, Raja The Great <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I will watch open water. My wife and I like horror movies. But to tell you the truth 99% of them are really bad

It's unfortunate that the Horror genre is the home of the worst movies
ever made...so many degenerate to camp
and unfunny, unhorrific bloody messes.

I suspect that they start out with the intention of making a horror
film but allow themselves to get lazy and shoot
bad comedy. Or maybe it's just the obvious genre for a low budget
hack director.

[soccerfan777]

Nowadays horror movies are chip thrills. Not much thought goes into
creating a good horror movie. Some sudden sound effects here and
there, a creepy face appearing out of nowhere, thats all. There is no
story... its just ridiculous. The Asian horror movies are kinda okay,
but seem to have the same standard stuff like a girl walking with back
arched, looking creepily with long hair covering the face, or some
creepy kid.

And whats with all horror movies having one female survivor at the
end? Are all the ghosts/monsters/serial killers sexist? I think Jodie
Foster in Silence Of the Lambs and Sigourney Weaver in Alien deserved
to survive, but the female survivors in other movies are just too dumb
and deserve to be killed off.

[grif]

The Japanese "Ring" was good. The American remake with Naomi Watts was
surprisingly good. The lady that combs her hair in the mirror is really
creepy.

The sequels (Japanese and American ones) were not so good.

[bob]

that's your right, but the original was a very good thriller.

bob

[bob]

open water was fabulous.

bob

[bob]

open water is a low budget, low key. just watch it.

bob

[drew]

On 30 Apr, 10:25, soccerfan777 <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And whats with all horror movies having one female survivor at the
> end? Are all the ghosts/monsters/serial killers sexist? I think Jodie
> Foster in Silence Of the Lambs and Sigourney Weaver in Alien deserved
> to survive, but the female survivors in other movies are just too dumb
> and deserve to be killed off.

LOL. One of the biggest failures of modern film, at least to these
jaded eyes, is
getting the audience to give a shit about the protagonist. I am more
likely to empathize
with the monster than the guy trying to kill it.

That's about the only fun in these modern adventure/thriller/horror
flicks...trying to figure out
in the first 5 minutes who will survive at the end and the order in
which the characters will die....
if there's a lawyer, you know full well that asshole will be the first
to get whacked.

[Scott]

On Apr 30, 12:50 pm, bob <b...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:51 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777
>

will look for it.

[Scott]

Schindler's List was awful and mostly propaganda.

[jdeluise]

On 30-Apr-2013, Scott <scot...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Schindler's List was awful and mostly propaganda.

It was a shocking and very memorable film but not really a great one.

[Scott]

On Apr 30, 5:30 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 30-Apr-2013, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Schindler's List was awful and mostly propaganda.
>
> It was a shocking and very memorable film but not really a great one.

it isn't even close to being one of the best of that canon, regardless
of what you think about a 6 million holocaust.

[Court_1]

What do you mean regardless of what you think about a 6 million
holocaust? Is that some kind of religious slur?

I disagree, Schindler's List was a great movie.

[Court_1]

I guess I was expecting a lot more after seeing the remake first and
was disappointed. The atmosphere was creepy but I found the acting
awful and cheesy. There are a lot of better thrillers out there imo
both old and newer.

[Court_1]

Yes, most horror or thriller movies are awful. I watched a movie
called Cold Prey not too long ago and it was pretty good for the
Horror genre. It is a Norwegian film about a group of five friends who
go snowboarding in an isolated area and one breaks his leg. They find
an abandoned hotel and break into it in order to keep the guy with the
broken leg warm until they can get help. They find out they are not
alone in the hotel. The atmosphere was really creepy in this movie.
This was a sleeper hit. They made two sequels but both sequels were
not as good as the original.

[Scott]

On Apr 30, 7:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> On 30/04/2013 9:12 PM, Court_1 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 6:18 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:

> >> On 30/04/2013 11:43 AM, Scott wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 29, 9:30 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 29, 9:15 pm, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> You have a point. Most remakes are terrible. Dracula is an exception.
> >>>> I have not seen all of the versions but the 1979  version with Frank
> >>>> Langella and Laurence Olivier was good and so was the 1992 Francis
> >>>> Ford Coppola version with Gary Oldman.
>
> >>>> The movie Cape Fear is a case where BOTH the original and the remake
> >>>> were terrible IMO.
>
> >>> The original Cape Fear with Mitchum is a noir classic.
>

> >> Yes, I saw that a couple months ago.  Great atmosphere.
>
> > The atmosphere was great, perfect for a thriller but the acting and
> > the overdone music throughout turned me off.
>
> Maybe you had high expectations or were having a bad day?  That can
> affect perceptions.  I really enjoyed it, mainly due to Mitchum's character.

Yeah, Mitchum played it to the hilt.

[Court_1]

Mitchum went beyond the hilt with his acting in this one. I think
Mitchum was good in a lot of things but not this movie. HAM city.

[Court_1]

On Apr 30, 7:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> On 30/04/2013 9:12 PM, Court_1 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 6:18 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> >> On 30/04/2013 11:43 AM, Scott wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 29, 9:30 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 29, 9:15 pm, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> You have a point. Most remakes are terrible. Dracula is an exception.
> >>>> I have not seen all of the versions but the 1979  version with Frank
> >>>> Langella and Laurence Olivier was good and so was the 1992 Francis
> >>>> Ford Coppola version with Gary Oldman.
>
> >>>> The movie Cape Fear is a case where BOTH the original and the remake
> >>>> were terrible IMO.
>
> >>> The original Cape Fear with Mitchum is a noir classic.
>
> >> Yes, I saw that a couple months ago.  Great atmosphere.
>
> > The atmosphere was great, perfect for a thriller but the acting and
> > the overdone music throughout turned me off.
>
> Maybe you had high expectations or were having a bad day?  That can
> affect perceptions.  I really enjoyed it, mainly due to Mitchum's character.

No, I really thought it was campy and the acting was terrible. I was
expecting much more. It was not a terrible movie but not GREAT and
definitely overrated. There are much better thrillers out there imo.

[guypers]

Courtly not knowledgeable about movies, TT is lot better even tho a Rafa fan!

[Court_1]

On the contrary,I'm very knowledgeable about movies and like the
thriller genre and have watched a lot of them over the years, and the
original Cape Fear is not one of the very best imo. The acting is
second rate. The girl who played the daughter in that movie was beyond
awful in terms of acting. Polly Bergen was awful and miscast as
Gregory Peck's wife. I found it too hokey overall. We can't all like
the same things, that is what makes the world go around. I am not
going to say I thought something was great when I did not.

[Dave Hazelwood]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:15:09 -0700 (PDT), drew <dr...@technologist.com>
wrote:

i don't like the genre at all. too overdone imho.

[Dave Hazelwood]

it was terrible. usually i can sit through most garbage flics but I
tried twice with Shindlers list and found it impossible.

[DavidW]

soccerfan777 wrote:
> We saw this movie yesterday. Only 2 characters in the entire movie. It
> was still a good fun movie and a good psychological thriller.
> Excellent acting by Laurence Olivier and Michael Cane.

Yep. That's a good one. I especially liked Caine's detective character.
Fantastic. Unfortunately it was a bit ruined for me because I'd been told there
were only two cast members. All those names in the credits are BS.

[DavidW]

Scott wrote:
> On Apr 30, 5:00 am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 1:20 am, soccerfan777 <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>>> Are there any more movies like this. Only 1-3 actors in the entire
>>> movie?
>>

>> Yes, the original 'Sleuth' is wonderful.
>> I'd highly recommend Stephen Spielberg's debut film,
>> 'The Duel'. The only characters of note are the hero,
>> Dennis Weaver & the villain is an 18-wheeler truck.
>> You hardly ever see the driver of the truck. Brilliant
>> direction, crisp editing, an edge-of-the-seat thriller.
>
> The Duel is Spielberg's best, but his peak isn't very high.

He says that he re-watches Duel regularly to remind himself how to do things
right.

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:44:56 AM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:19:56 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 30/04/2013 11:51 AM, Court_1 wrote:

>
> >> On Apr 29, 9:43 pm, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 29, 9:30 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>

> >>>> On Apr 29, 9:15 pm, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>>> On Apr 29, 9:11 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>
>

> >>>>>> On Apr 29, 4:20 pm, soccerfan777 <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>>>>> We saw this movie yesterday. Only 2 characters in the entire movie. It
>
> >>>>>>> was still a good fun movie and a good psychological thriller.
>
> >>>>>>> Excellent acting by Laurence Olivier and Michael Cane.
>
> >>>
>

> >>>>>>> There was a hindi suspense movie called 'Kaun?'. That was very good as
>
> >>>>>>> well. And I think there is one Ingrid Bergman TV movie (The Human
>
> >>>>>>> Voice) which I haven't seen which has only *her*
>
> >>>
>

> >>>>>>> Are there any more movies like this. Only 1-3 actors in the entire
>
> >>>>>>> movie?
>
> >>>
>

> >>>>>> I did not see the original with Caine and Olivier but I saw the 2007
>
> >>>>>> remake with Caine and Jude Law. It was good until the last 20 minutes
>
> >>>>>> or so until it became silly and it ended abruptly. Those who saw both
>
> >>>>>> movies say the original Sleuth was much better than the remake. Now
>
> >>>>>> that you remind me about this movie, I must watch the original since I
>
> >>>>>> love Olivier. I totally forgot about the original film.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>>> When has there ever been a good remake? (Besides His Girl Friday or
>
> >>>>> Maltese Falcon).
>
> >>>
>

> >>>> You have a point. Most remakes are terrible. Dracula is an exception.
>
> >>>> I have not seen all of the versions but the 1979 version with Frank
>
> >>>> Langella and Laurence Olivier was good and so was the 1992 Francis
>
> >>>> Ford Coppola version with Gary Oldman.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> The movie Cape Fear is a case where BOTH the original and the remake
>
> >>>> were terrible IMO.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> The original Cape Fear with Mitchum is a noir classic.
>
> >>
>

> >> Nope, can't agree with you there. I saw the remake long before I saw
>
> >> the original and I figured that the original must be great and much
>
> >> better than that terrible remake but it was not the case. The acting
>
> >> in the original is awful even by Gregory Peck and Robert Mitchum. The
>
> >> actress who played the daughter gave one of the worst acting
>
> >> performances I have ever seen. All the acting performances were hammy
>
> >> beyond belief. In addition, the hammy music was unbearable.
>
> >>
>
> >> I do think in most cases the original movie is 10 times better than
>
> >> the remake but Cape Fear is an exception.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >I only saw the original Cape Fear recently & thought it was brilliant.
>
> >Can't imagine the remake would be better, but will try & catch it 1 day.
>
>
>
> the remake wasn't bad, deniro, nolte and i believe it was juliette
>

> lewis played the daughter. mitchum had a cameo. but in no way near as
>
> good as the original.
>
>
>
> bob

Peck and Mitch just awesome in original... who would scare you more to be shadowed by Robert Mitchum or Robert DeNiro... :))))

Mitchum would break DeNiro in half...

P

[Scott]

Not a slur, unless you regard six million murdered a new religion.

How many people could be killed by the ovens that we were informed
about? Not millions for sure. The number would be in the thousands,
well under 100K.

[bob]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:43:03 -0700 (PDT), Court_1

schindler's list was a good, not great, movie, at best. overrated, but
PC. wasn't bad.

bob

[Court_1]

????

Is your name Vlado? I am not even going to begin to get into this
argument with you about the six million and MORE killed in the
Holocaust on a meaningless tennis newsgroup. Let's just leave it at
that and say I vehemently disagree with your above statement.

[Court_1]

For me Schinder's List was excellent, not overrated one bit.

[Dave Hazelwood]

For me it SUCKED. As bad or better than you I do not know until you
show me?

[drew]

On 1 May, 06:25, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> How many people could be killed by the ovens that we were informed
> about?  Not millions for sure.  The number would be in the thousands,
> well under 100K

If your family members die in conflict does it matter to you if they
took a bullet or a bayonet?

If you are questioning the accuracy of the numbers, the techniques or
who suffered more, the Jews,
the Russians or the Armenians, I think you are missing the point.

As the saying goes, the first casualty of war is the truth....I think
we have an approximate idea of what
happened to the Jews during the Second World War in Europe. If you
want to argue numbers and techniques
then I think you should consider yourself a lucky bystander to the
main event....and you should thank your
lucky stars that you can allow yourself such moral distancing when
evaluating tragic events such as these.



But of course, I'm a paid disinfo agent....why would you want to pay
attention to me?

[Iceberg]

problem is even the Auschwitz plaque had to be revised cos the figures
are somewhat dubious.

[Iceberg]

the thing is you should be allowed to debate if the numbers are
suspect, which it looks like they are. What you're saying is we could
report that a million people died in 911 and nobody should question
that cos we're just lucky to be morally distant from it. Got no
problem with nuking the perps of such events, but also no probs with
people debating the stats.

[bob]

well you and i have disagreed on occasion. ;-)

bob

[soccerfan777]

> For me Schinder's List was excellent, not overrated one bit.- Hide quoted text -
>
I agree. It is better than the preachy Saving Ryan's Private for
sure.

[drew]

On 1 May, 12:13, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:

> the thing is you should be allowed to debate if the numbers are
> suspect, which it looks like they are. What you're saying is we could
> report that a million people died in 911 and nobody should question
> that cos we're just lucky to be morally distant from it.

I'm not aware of the numbers that 'they' claimed were killed during
WW2 in the camps. I know
that the total of 6 million has long been considered an inflated
number overall.

The further away these events slip into the past, the less likely the
full truth will be known. Would it
make that much difference in the final analysis if the total number
was 3 million Jews? Would it make
the genocide justifiable?

If you want to debate an issue, your example of 911 is a great
one....let's start by having a fresh investigation
into what took down WTC7...this is only 12 years ago and the bullshit
still stinks to high heaven. Lets settle
things in the recent past with clear video evidence of lies and
criminal behavior substituting for investigation.

[Scott]

You probably don't want to get into any argument that you don't have a
chance to win at. Also, my record here on "conspiracy stuff" might
also persuade you to abstain. So, good move hiding.

[Dave Hazelwood]

i'm with you bob

[Court_1]

Nope, I just don't want to argue about something as meaningful and
deep as the number of victims of the Holocaust. It is a moral and
religious debate that I do not want to delve into on a tennis forum.
I know I can get very emotional about the subject so it is not worth
it. As for your "conspiracy" theories about the Holocaust, just bottle
it, I don't want to hear about that nonsense Vlado! ;)

[Vlado]

On May 1, 7:39 am, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:

of course you don't want to talk about the religion of holocaust.
But you do want to talk about lots of phony conspiracies.

[Vlado]

No wonder. Of course you have to be completelly lost of senses
to watch that movie. Spielberg of course didn't want to put his foot
forward by actually showing how "6 million jews got gassed" . He
showed some old people going underground implying they were
going to be gassed. What kind of a gas chamber is built underground?
Especially reusable and for mass killings? Wouldn't HCN/CO stick
around
and kill everyone else? You can believe that hollywood non sense or
you can believe that there exists bomb shelters.

[Vlado]

Apparently it does matter. Most of my mother's familly got killed
fighting invading german and other armies but you don't see them going
around, preaching telling tall tales, demanding reparation , making
movies,
putting themselves on a moral pedestal, justifying wars. The fact is
we
don't even know on which side the jews were on then just like we
don't
know it now but of course they are only on their side always.

"Holocaust" is all about numbers like 6 million which is a cult number
in judaism and then of course "reparations" where Jews are sucking
billions and billions every year by extortion from Europe and America,
not to mention promoting wars and even homosexual marriage.
Preponderence of numbers is to hide the role of the Jews in the wars
and transfers of wealth and power

There is no way to understand anything happening today
if one doesn't understand who is behind it and what is it based on.
Well
for one , the Jews have imposed this religious view on the rest of us
and
the holocaust and the so called "jewish victimhood" is at the very
center
base of it.

[Vlado]

Debating holocaust is like debating any other man made religion.
Some see it for what it is while others have their entire life
strapped
to it mostly for self serving purposes. Now if your life is strapped
on to
something , you don't want to talk about it.Too bad you don't take
your own
advice while promoting tennis conspiracies and whatever else.

[drew]

On 2 May, 08:33, Vlado <vlado2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Apparently it does matter. Most of my mother's familly got killed
> fighting invading german and other armies but you don't see them going
> around, preaching telling tall tales, demanding reparation , making
> movies,
> putting themselves on a moral pedestal, justifying wars.

You are right. The reparation demands are odious. As is the
Wiesenthal Institute,
hunting down these old Nazis close to death who were just soldiers.
Everybody does
nasty shit in wars.

One thing the Germans learned and that is not to fuck with Jews.
You'll pay.

> not to mention promoting wars and even homosexual marriage.

Not sure how you connect the promotion of wars to the support of
homosexual
marriage. You were making sense up until then.

the Jews have imposed this religious view on the rest of us
> and
> the holocaust and the so called "jewish victimhood" is at the very
> center

> base of it.-

Well, it has worked...you popularize your plight and you attempt to
hold somebody
responsible...then extract money from them. The Jews aren't the only
ones doing this.
Look at the North American Indians....look at victims of sexual
exploitation and how they are
extracting funds from the church. And then we have the American
negro.

Everybody is seeking damages, it seems.

I think the whole thing has come around to haunt Israel because of
their treatment of Palestinians.
The oppressed have become the oppressors.

I think you are underestimating the capacity of the general population
if you think everybody is sold
on the idea that you can forever claim to be a victim....WW2 is
becoming ancient history.

Rather than pay attention to old grievances, I think every sovereign
state ought to consider their CURRENT
practices....make sure that everybody is getting a fair shake
NOW....this idea of trying to pay financial reparations
for old wounds has got to end...

[drew]

On 2 May, 08:37, Vlado <vlado2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Debating holocaust is like debating any other man made religion.
> Some see it for what it is while others have their entire life
> strapped
> to it mostly for self serving purposes. Now if your life is strapped
> on to
> something , you don't want to talk about it.

I would say you DO want to talk about it but you will be intolerant to
opposing
points of view.....to the point where any opposing point of view is
met with
accusations of RACISM, SEXISM, and so on. The trump card or the
hammer to
be used to suppress freedom of speech.

So if you want to blame somebody for promotion of same sex
marriage....something that
I take it ou are opposed to....you have to be prepared to allow for
debate about whether it
is in fact a BAD or GOOD thing....once again you have to play by the
same rules that you
advocate. Arguments based upon gut reaction instead of reason are not
going to hold water.
You can argue against same sex marriage because it offends your
sensitivities but this is
not a strong enough argument. Somebody has to be harmed by allowing
same sex marriage for
you to launch an effective argument against it. You might as well
argue against body piercing
and tattoes.

[Iceberg]

except same sex marriage is just trendy bullshit, it has big legal
holes with which go against my straight human rights, I'm not legally
allowed to have a civil partnership with my girlfriend, adultery is
not grounds for same sex divorice etc.

[drew]

On 2 May, 09:53, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:

> except same sex marriage is just trendy bullshit,

Even if this would be true, so what? Hardly a valid argument for
disallowing it.

it has big legal
> holes with which go against my straight human rights,

How so?

I'm not legally
> allowed to have a civil partnership with my girlfriend, adultery is
> not grounds for same sex divorice etc

You're not allowed to co-habitate with your girlfriend in England?
Here it is
very common. In the province of Quebec, I believe recent statistics
have shown
more common law marriages than state sanctioned marriages.

Adultery hasn't been grounds for divorce in Canada for many years and
this has
nothing to with same sex marriage...predates it by many years....what
do you mean
by this? Are the laws so different in the UK from the laws here in
Canada?

[Iceberg]

Evidently. I'm not allowed to have a legal civil partnership with my
girlfriend here, whereas gay people are allowed.

[drew]

On 2 May, 10:09, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Evidently. I'm not allowed to have a legal civil partnership with my
> girlfriend here, whereas gay people are allowed.

OK...so what DON"T you get that a gay couple would get...if you co-
habitate...
here, if anything you are better tax-wise if you don't marry...at
least if you don't have
children...at least that's my understanding...I have children so for
me it probably would
not be advantageous having a common-law arrangement....I always
thought England was
where 'common law' originated...that laws were based upon common
practice not written
code....but then I'm not a lawyer (heaven forbid) so I don't claim to
know much about it, except
that there are a hell of a lot of people in this country nowadays who
aren't married yet co-habitate
and apparently their relationships have legal standing of a sort.

[Iceberg]

the only reason stated over here for allowing gay marriage was that of
human rights and equality, as I said this was bullshit, as straights
aren't legally allowed civil partnerships. It not to do with what
people want, but equality.

[Vlado]

On May 2, 9:22 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
> On 2 May, 08:33, Vlado <vlado2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Apparently it does matter. Most of my mother's familly got killed
> > fighting invading german and other armies but you don't see them going
> > around, preaching telling tall tales, demanding reparation , making
> > movies,
> > putting themselves on a moral pedestal, justifying wars.
>
> You are right.  The reparation demands are odious.  As is the
> Wiesenthal Institute,
> hunting down these old Nazis close to death who were just soldiers.
> Everybody does
> nasty shit in wars.
>
> One thing the Germans learned and that is not to fuck with Jews.
> You'll pay.
>
> > not to mention promoting wars and even homosexual marriage.
>
> Not sure how you connect the promotion of wars to the support of
> homosexual
> marriage.  You were making sense up until then.

And you were hiding your jewish morality well until now.
Promotion of wars and leading for homosexual marriage is
absolutelly connected since it's done by the same people.
Homo marriage is more of a distraction, which overall works
to promote division of society and promotion of self rightous
minorities which help the most organized minority of them all
to rule over us with impunity.

>
>  the Jews have imposed this religious view on the rest of us
>
> > and
> > the holocaust and the so called "jewish victimhood" is at the very
> > center
> > base of it.-
>
> Well, it has worked...you popularize your plight and you attempt to
> hold somebody
> responsible...then extract money from them.   The Jews aren't the only
> ones doing this.
> Look at the North American Indians....look at victims of sexual
> exploitation and how they are
> extracting funds from the church.  And then we have the American
> negro.

I am sure it has worked and for you as well. What you call "plight" is
a scam by a small but organized minority. I mean if you are a small
minority bent on ruling the majority, the only thing one can do is cry
proverbial wolf and demand special protection and reparations. The
problem
is the people who believe you and your people, you are just doing
only thing you know how to do. Other people may have sought
reparations
but only under jewish lead and because jews believe that they need to
promote minorities which just solidifies jewish rule over all of us.
I don't see any palestinians seeking let alone getting any
reparations
and that's no wonder for me.

>
> Everybody is seeking damages, it seems.
>
> I think the whole thing has come around to haunt Israel because of
> their treatment of Palestinians.
> The oppressed have become the oppressors.
>

So you symphatize with palestinians but you will not give them
compensation?
What are you , are you some kind of a jew?

> I think you are underestimating the capacity of the general population
> if you think everybody is sold
> on the idea that you can forever claim to be a victim....WW2 is
> becoming ancient history.
>

Wishful thinking. I mean Holocaust is the one event which becomes
bigger as the time passes and WW2 has become a footnote to the
Holocaust. In legal terms in Europe/USA, one can deny WW2 but
can not deny holocaust.

> Rather than pay attention to old grievances, I think every sovereign
> state ought to consider their CURRENT
> practices....make sure that everybody is getting a fair shake
> NOW....this idea of trying to pay financial reparations
> for old wounds has got to end...

Isn't that nice and moralizing?
You think Jewish "holocaust" is real and the jews have a right
to exploit us but no one else does or exempt some minorities
that jews deem worthy?
And please can you spare us your notion of fairness and just live
your life?

[Vlado]

On May 2, 9:32 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
> On 2 May, 08:37, Vlado <vlado2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Debating holocaust is like debating any other man made religion.
> > Some see it for what it is while others have their entire life
> > strapped
> > to it mostly for self serving purposes. Now if your life is strapped
> > on to
> > something , you don't want to talk about it.
>
> I would say you DO want to talk about it but you will be intolerant to
> opposing
> points of view.....to the point where any opposing point of view is
> met with
> accusations of RACISM,  SEXISM, and so on.  The trump card or the
> hammer to
> be used to suppress freedom of speech.

I am not calling you "sexist" "racist" or whatever stuff you made up
which
maybe you calling others but I am calling you "Jewish" with everything
that entails.
You do not want to talk about holocaust but claim to be for freedom of
speech?
You claim to be against wars or homo marriage but just want to talk?
Well talking about it doesn't help especially in the media or the
government.
Not when one gets called by the pro jewish media anti semite, biggot,
neo nazi, terrorist, homophobe etc...

> So if you want to blame somebody for promotion of same sex
> marriage....something that
> I take it ou are opposed to....you have to be prepared to allow for
> debate about whether it
> is in fact a BAD or GOOD thing....once again you have to play by the
> same rules that you
> advocate.  Arguments based upon gut reaction instead of reason are not
> going to hold water.
> You can argue against same sex marriage because it offends your
> sensitivities but this is
> not a strong enough argument.  Somebody has to be harmed by allowing
> same sex marriage for
> you to launch an effective argument against it.  You might as well
> argue against body piercing
> and tattoes.

Since we don't have debates about holocaust, wars, taxes for Israel,
jewish overrepresentation in media, government and other levers of
power
but you want to talk about homo marriage which has never been present
in any society ever? No discussion about who gets harmed by this?
Who gets harmed by homo marriage ?
Children and family and all the traditional people.
There is a reason that they call it equality as the one
who gets equal usually takes over or corrupts the other
equal side.
Thank you but my gut reaction is always right and my reason follows
that not
the other way around yet you claim to be all reasonable.

[jdeluise]

On 2-May-2013, Vlado wrote:

> There is no way to understand anything happening today
> if one doesn't understand who is behind it and what is it based on.
> Well

> for one , the Jews have imposed this religious view on the rest of us

> and
> the holocaust and the so called "jewish victimhood" is at the very
> center
> base of it.

Yet every post of yours on the subject says "I'm a victim... I'm a victim...
I'm a victim".

[Vlado]

Are you making stuff up to try to debate me?
I never demand reparations, equality, talks and negotiations that lead
nowhere.
That's what Drew and his people always advocate until they gain an
upper hand

[TT]

29.4.2013 23:20, soccerfan777 kirjoitti:
> We saw this movie yesterday. Only 2 characters in the entire movie. It
> was still a good fun movie and a good psychological thriller.
> Excellent acting by Laurence Olivier and Michael Cane.
>
> There was a hindi suspense movie called 'Kaun?'. That was very good as
> well. And I think there is one Ingrid Bergman TV movie (The Human
> Voice) which I haven't seen which has only *her*
>
> Are there any more movies like this. Only 1-3 actors in the entire
> movie?
>

Duel, Hell in the pacific... Hard Candy, Moon... also Crusoe themed as
Cast Away etc...

Sleuth is a classic... and if you want to watch a very similar (but
inferior) film... try "Deathtrap" with Christopher Reeve.

[TT]

30.4.2013 4:11, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> I did not see the original with Caine and Olivier but I saw the 2007
> remake with Caine and Jude Law. It was good until the last 20 minutes
> or so until it became silly and it ended abruptly. Those who saw both
> movies say the original Sleuth was much better than the remake.

Original is definitely better but the remake wasn't that bad either...

[TT]

1.5.2013 1:24, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Apr 30, 10:25 am, soccerfan777 <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 9:15 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 30 Apr, 08:10, Raja The Great <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I will watch open water. My wife and I like horror movies. But to tell you the truth 99% of them are really bad
>>
>>> It's unfortunate that the Horror genre is the home of the worst movies
>>> ever made...so many degenerate to camp
>>> and unfunny, unhorrific bloody messes.
>>
>>> I suspect that they start out with the intention of making a horror
>>> film but allow themselves to get lazy and shoot
>>> bad comedy. Or maybe it's just the obvious genre for a low budget
>>> hack director.
>>
>> Nowadays horror movies are chip thrills. Not much thought goes into
>> creating a good horror movie. Some sudden sound effects here and
>> there, a creepy face appearing out of nowhere, thats all. There is no
>> story... its just ridiculous. The Asian horror movies are kinda okay,
>> but seem to have the same standard stuff like a girl walking with back
>> arched, looking creepily with long hair covering the face, or some
>> creepy kid.
>>
>> And whats with all horror movies having one female survivor at the
>> end? Are all the ghosts/monsters/serial killers sexist? I think Jodie
>> Foster in Silence Of the Lambs and Sigourney Weaver in Alien deserved
>> to survive, but the female survivors in other movies are just too dumb
>> and deserve to be killed off.
>
> Yes, most horror or thriller movies are awful. I watched a movie
> called Cold Prey not too long ago and it was pretty good for the
> Horror genre. It is a Norwegian film about a group of five friends who
> go snowboarding in an isolated area and one breaks his leg. They find
> an abandoned hotel and break into it in order to keep the guy with the
> broken leg warm until they can get help. They find out they are not
> alone in the hotel. The atmosphere was really creepy in this movie.
> This was a sleeper hit. They made two sequels but both sequels were
> not as good as the original.
>

Watched this 2013 film called "Mama"... I thought it was pretty creepy
for first half of the film, then when they showed Mama it sort of got
less scary... You fear what you don't see... I think they used that well
in first Alien, not overexposing viewer to the monster.

It's a rare horror film that truly horrifies...

[TT]

30.4.2013 15:25, soccerfan777 kirjoitti:
> Great movie.

Yes. Very memorable.

> Sigourney Weaver is an underrated actress. Same with Ben
> Kingsley.

Yes...wait...what?!?

Kingley got an Oscar and Weaver got nominations...

[TT]

30.4.2013 15:51, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Apr 30, 5:36 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 5:00 am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>> On Apr 30, 1:20 am, soccerfan777 <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Are there any more movies like this. Only 1-3 actors in the entire
>>>> movie?
>>

>>> Yes, the original 'Sleuth' is wonderful.
>>> I'd highly recommend Stephen Spielberg's debut film,
>>> 'The Duel'. The only characters of note are the hero,
>>> Dennis Weaver & the villain is an 18-wheeler truck.
>>> You hardly ever see the driver of the truck. Brilliant
>>> direction, crisp editing, an edge-of-the-seat thriller.
>>
>> The Duel is Spielberg's best, but his peak isn't very high.

It may be the best, but I think you mean his "prime". :-P

>
> What are you talking about? Munich was good, Catch Me If You Can was
> good, The Color Purple was good, Saving Private Ryan was pretty good,
> and Schindler's List was a masterpiece. Even Jaws and Jurassic Park
> were good for the masses type of movies and ahead of their time in
> terms of special effects, etc. After Jaws to this day I am not keen to
> swim in the ocean.
>

Spielberg has made loads of classic cinema...

http://blogs.democratandchronicle.com/520/files/2011/05/et.jpg

[Court_1]

I saw that because I like good creepy thrillers and some of the
reviews were good. It was really good for about an hour but the ending
was terrible and ruined the film imo. A better supernatural thriller
that I saw not too long ago was The Pact (2012.) That was a clever
thriller (a rare thing) imo if you like good supernatural thrillers.

[Court_1]

Why does it say above "Discussion subject changed to Slueth (1972) by
Court_1? I did not change a thing!

[Vlado]

Spielberg's best movie and the one he got the oscar for is the "the
last days"
It's about a jewish women who in the midst of the war digests and
craps diamonds
and eats them again only to hide them from those anti semitic nazis
and because
diamonds were so vital to the nazi war effort. There is a summary
about it on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80GgRWuXcO8

[Dave Hazelwood]

the people want public stoning of queers as the bible teaches us.

[ahonkan]

On May 3, 7:39 am, Dave Hazelwood <fedna...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> the people want public stoning of queers as the bible teaches us.

Dave, Congratulations on joining the Taliban!
They specialize in stoning and you'll fit right in!

[bob]

true, but i'm thinking that the civil partnership is the version of
marriage, which you are allowed. too bad they didn't ban *that*
sucker.

like i always say, allow gays to marry so they can be as miserable as
teh rest of us.

bob