"Now Showing"
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
Daniel Bill Kent
Mega Poster
I really want to see 'Shutter Island' looks pretty intense, any one seen it and think it's worth a watch?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYVrHkYoY80[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYVrHkYoY80[/youtube]
Neal said:
I have, and I didn't.
I'm not sure whether or not you're being sarcastic. I can only assume, since you're referencing a Disney adaptation as the height of cultural superiority, that you must be, and that, in fact, you must have realised what a pile of dripping gash the film actually was.
Off with your head!
nealbie
CF Legend
The poem was the basis of the argument.
Also, as much as I love you Gavin, you completely missed the point with Depp's accent. He's the Mad Hatter - he goes uber Scottish when angry/pissed off/mad/mental, etc; then his normal accent is just upperclass nonsense as per. So I can't listen to your opinion
Still love you though
Also, as much as I love you Gavin, you completely missed the point with Depp's accent. He's the Mad Hatter - he goes uber Scottish when angry/pissed off/mad/mental, etc; then his normal accent is just upperclass nonsense as per. So I can't listen to your opinion
Still love you though
LiveForTheLaunch
CF Legend
Yes, it's worth a watch, and the majority of people I have spoken too think the same. It's pretty exciting, has an interesting twist, Leonardo DiCaprio and the other actors are actually decent, and I dunno, I just liked it!
Philistines was my word of the day in English today, so I know what it means, yayyyy!
But I am not a philistine, and I didn't hate it, but I can see why some people did, and why some were immensely disappointed.
Slayed
Hyper Poster
Yep, yep, and nope!Neal said:
Nah. It got so many bad reviews because it's rubbish. Expensive rubbish, but still rubbish, to add to the ever growing pile of rubbish Mr Burton is starting to stockpile. At this rate he's going to need his own landfill (which pains me, as I used to rate him highly).Neal said:
An appallingly written script undermines everything, but aside from that Burton is just interested in wackiness and individual scenes. There is no cohesion and little charm in what rapidly becomes a pointless and vapid film which, in my non-philistinic opinion, does Charles Dodgson no justice. Wasteful.
Oh, and HBC completely ripped-off Miranda Richardson's Liz 1st from Blackadder. Tsk!
nealbie
CF Legend
The last point - YES! And I despised her for it.
But you've completely backed up my point of view without meaning to. So thank you!
It's pure nonsense. The Jabberwocky itself was written in order to showcase how a poem ought not to be written, this is a showcase of how a film ought not to be produced. It does it perfectly, and for that, it's wacky and bizarre genius!
But you've completely backed up my point of view without meaning to. So thank you!
It's pure nonsense. The Jabberwocky itself was written in order to showcase how a poem ought not to be written, this is a showcase of how a film ought not to be produced. It does it perfectly, and for that, it's wacky and bizarre genius!
CMonster
Giga Poster
I saw Alice in Wonderland in 3D as well, and thought it was pretty good. Not amazing or something, but did what it was made to do well. I agree with Neal above, that the movie is supposed to be complete nonsense and stuff. So, probably 8.5/10.
Oh, the 3D was cool. And it didn't give me a headache, so...
amazing or something, but did what it was made to do well. I agree with Neal above, that the movie is supposed to be complete nonsense and stuff. So, probably 8.5/10.Oh, the 3D was cool. And it didn't give me a headache, so...
ciallkennett
Strata Poster
Went to see I Love You Phillip Morris last night. I know what you are all thinking..."Gay" Ciall goes to watch gay film with gay people...No, it looked funny, I love Jim Carrey.
It was actually very amusing and I felt a real connection to the characters. I loved the little twist that deceived me within the film, and I actually left glad that I'd seen the gay sex scene with Jim Carrey shouting "Do you want me to cum in your ass?!".
Don't let that put you off, it was a very nice film.
7.5/10
It was actually very amusing and I felt a real connection to the characters. I loved the little twist that deceived me within the film, and I actually left glad that I'd seen the gay sex scene with Jim Carrey shouting "Do you want me to cum in your ass?!".
Don't let that put you off, it was a very nice film.
7.5/10
Neal said:
Ummmmm...No, it wasn't. The words themselves are nonsense, but the structure follows many conventions of classic English poetry; the sentence structures are accurate, it contains a number of poetic forms and there's a story to follow.
Neal said:
Ugh, I wish I could even remember my GCSEs. Christ knows what I actually had to write about.
Ok, so I don't know Carroll's intention in writing the poem. However, if it was to show how not to write a poem, it fails, as it actually follows an extremely regular pattern and can be (and often is) used to teach conventions of poetry.
Despite the language, it's actually incredibly easy to read and/or memorise, specifically because the rhyme and rhythm are so conventional. I think Alice herself mentions something about how it gets into her head, even though she doesn't understand it, and that's all because of how conventional the form is.
Anyway, even if it was Carroll's intention to demonstrate "bad" poetry, I think it's really stretching it to suggest that Burton deliberately made a bad film to echo those ideas.
I actually wish I could look at the film with no knowledge of the books, and I might get more from it; however, I can't, so I don't.
nealbie
CF Legend
I can see where you've confused the issue, so will be nice
It is kind of the point that it follows conventional forms. Yet despite it being 'standard' poetry, he can place in nonsensical words in order to fit the pattern. Showcasing his point that using such a boring and simple form as the basis of ALL poetry (as it was considered back then, if it didn't rhyme, it wasn't poetry), means that anyone could write about anything and it'd still be classed as poetry and ranked alongside real greats of true merit.
Hopefully you understand now
It is kind of the point that it follows conventional forms. Yet despite it being 'standard' poetry, he can place in nonsensical words in order to fit the pattern. Showcasing his point that using such a boring and simple form as the basis of ALL poetry (as it was considered back then, if it didn't rhyme, it wasn't poetry), means that anyone could write about anything and it'd still be classed as poetry and ranked alongside real greats of true merit.
Hopefully you understand now
Slayed
Hyper Poster
^Lol, carry on with your telling an English teacher how to understand English Neal, 'tis amusing :lol:.
I just watched I Love You Phillip Morris too Ciall! It must be the gayest film I've ever seen, kudos to Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor for going for it!
I don't think it manages to achieve what it's going for: the tone tends to go all over the place, Carrey's character is too insincere and they undersold the story, which is quite astonishing really! McGregor is absolutely superb in it though.
Kick-Ass tomorrow! Oooh yes.
I just watched I Love You Phillip Morris too Ciall! It must be the gayest film I've ever seen, kudos to Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor for going for it!
I don't think it manages to achieve what it's going for: the tone tends to go all over the place, Carrey's character is too insincere and they undersold the story, which is quite astonishing really! McGregor is absolutely superb in it though.
Kick-Ass tomorrow! Oooh yes
.
^^^Yes, I see the point, but it's all down to whether you're looking at structure or creativity. It is written in a structurally "boring" way, yes.
You could get your "A" for arguing that point, and I can see why you did. Someone else could get their "A" by arguing that the structure is so grammatically/poetically perfect so as to make complete sense of invented words, thus the nonsensical words aren't actually nonsensical at all, as the structure gives them meaning.
Either way, it's **** ing brilliant; Burton's Alice is not.
You could get your "A" for arguing that point, and I can see why you did. Someone else could get their "A" by arguing that the structure is so grammatically/poetically perfect so as to make complete sense of invented words, thus the nonsensical words aren't actually nonsensical at all, as the structure gives them meaning.
Either way, it's **** ing brilliant; Burton's Alice is not.