Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue mebaggs wrote:
i tend to ignore 90% of what you post and even then it's not enough.phishsux wrote:
ye, bf2s users also hand out 10/10 to films like transformers, i tend to ignore 90% of the ratings herejord wrote:
I liked it but fuck me bf2s users have a boner over it more than any other group of people for some reason.
i do in fact love you ig.phishsux wrote:
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue mebaggs wrote:
i tend to ignore 90% of what you post and even then it's not enough.phishsux wrote:
ye, bf2s users also hand out 10/10 to films like transformers, i tend to ignore 90% of the ratings here
The Shawshank Redemption (1994) currently holds the top spot on the Internet Movie Database's list of the top 250 films. It was voted the best film not to have won an Academy Award in a 2004 Radio Times poll and again in 2008. In January 2006 Empire magazine readers named it the best film ever. It also holds the #8 spot at Yahoo! Movies as of 16 September 2009 (2009 -09-16). It is currently ranked #1 on FilmCrave.com's top 100 movies list.
also, in the same practice that king took with the intellectual-property rights of all his short stories, it was licensed to the film's creators for $0.01.burnzz wrote:
there were no 'supernatural' events in shawshank, making it unique among king's works. . .Uzique wrote:
green mile and shawshank are both stephen king prison stories
they're good, yes.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I'm not trying to put myself on an elite pedestal above the rest of the users, its just that one film seems to get such oddly high ratings from this community.phishsux wrote:
ye, bf2s users also hand out 10/10 to films like transformers, i tend to ignore 90% of the ratings herejord wrote:
I liked it but fuck me bf2s users have a boner over it more than any other group of people for some reason.
Like some kind of borderline conspiracy/group troll.
i love you morebaggs wrote:
i do in fact love you ig.phishsux wrote:
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue mebaggs wrote:
i tend to ignore 90% of what you post and even then it's not enough.
i think shawshank is overrated by the people who think it is the messiah diguised as a film which has decended from heaven so that people can say the phrase "Oh my god, you havent seen shawshank????"KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
overrated by who? I don't really read reviews of movies I've seen before but I'm interested in who you think overrates it.Miggle wrote:
Shawshank Redemption was really good, but waaaay overrated.
It's a great film, great actors, great story, good transcription from the book.
that said it is a very very good film, but people put it on a pedestal higher than what i think a film can ever achieve
they obviously havnt read your bookjord wrote:
I'm not trying to put myself on an elite pedestal above the rest of the users, its just that one film seems to get such oddly high ratings from this community.phishsux wrote:
ye, bf2s users also hand out 10/10 to films like transformers, i tend to ignore 90% of the ratings herejord wrote:
I liked it but fuck me bf2s users have a boner over it more than any other group of people for some reason.
Like some kind of borderline conspiracy/group troll.
can it not just mean it's liked more than its disliked?jord wrote:
I'm not trying to put myself on an elite pedestal above the rest of the users, its just that one film seems to get such oddly high ratings from this community.phishsux wrote:
ye, bf2s users also hand out 10/10 to films like transformers, i tend to ignore 90% of the ratings herejord wrote:
I liked it but fuck me bf2s users have a boner over it more than any other group of people for some reason.
Like some kind of borderline conspiracy/group troll.
things like that can happen, opinion doesnt always have to be divided, contrary to what it says in your book.
Another good King film: Misery.
Fuck I cringed at the cobbling scene.
Fuck I cringed at the cobbling scene.
I'm saying in real life and on the internet there is no community that thinks so highly of that film. Not even fight club fan forums.baggs wrote:
can it not just mean it's liked more than its disliked?jord wrote:
I'm not trying to put myself on an elite pedestal above the rest of the users, its just that one film seems to get such oddly high ratings from this community.phishsux wrote:
ye, bf2s users also hand out 10/10 to films like transformers, i tend to ignore 90% of the ratings here
Like some kind of borderline conspiracy/group troll.
things like that can happen, opinion doesnt always have to be divided, contrary to what it says in your book.
well Boondock saints has a huge internet cult or number of fans who consider it a classic... word of mouth turned this quiet release into a cult classic.jord wrote:
I'm saying in real life and on the internet there is no community that thinks so highly of that film. Not even fight club fan forums.baggs wrote:
can it not just mean it's liked more than its disliked?jord wrote:
I'm not trying to put myself on an elite pedestal above the rest of the users, its just that one film seems to get such oddly high ratings from this community.
Like some kind of borderline conspiracy/group troll.
things like that can happen, opinion doesnt always have to be divided, contrary to what it says in your book.
Yeah Shawshank Redemption was fucking amazing.
That's the reaction I get when I say I haven't seen LOTR. I thought the movie was better than the book, and I read the book before I saw the film.mkxiii wrote:
i think shawshank is overrated by the people who think it is the messiah diguised as a film which has decended from heaven so that people can say the phrase "Oh my god, you havent seen shawshank????"KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
overrated by who? I don't really read reviews of movies I've seen before but I'm interested in who you think overrates it.Miggle wrote:
Shawshank Redemption was really good, but waaaay overrated.
It's a great film, great actors, great story, good transcription from the book.
that said it is a very very good film, but people put it on a pedestal higher than what i think a film can ever achieve
It's in my top 5.
i tried reading the books when i was a lot younger than i possibly should have been and my childlike attention span meant that i was too bored by page 100 to carry on, there was just too much mundane adjectives that i found unnecessary. I think the films are ok, id say as a whole 7/10 (i fell asleep in the cinema during return of the king), but compared to the books, the concise nature of films is very much an improvementKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
That's the reaction I get when I say I haven't seen LOTR. I thought the movie was better than the book, and I read the book before I saw the film.mkxiii wrote:
i think shawshank is overrated by the people who think it is the messiah diguised as a film which has decended from heaven so that people can say the phrase "Oh my god, you havent seen shawshank????"KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
overrated by who? I don't really read reviews of movies I've seen before but I'm interested in who you think overrates it.
It's a great film, great actors, great story, good transcription from the book.
that said it is a very very good film, but people put it on a pedestal higher than what i think a film can ever achieve
It's in my top 5.
I love the books and the films. I was getting restless at the end of Return of the King though. Read the books when I was about 13, loved them. A person in my class actually said the same thing about getting maybe 100 pages in and got bored. Haven't read since. Going to watch the lotr trilogy this weekend, will reratemkxiii wrote:
i tried reading the books when i was a lot younger than i possibly should have been and my childlike attention span meant that i was too bored by page 100 to carry on, there was just too much mundane adjectives that i found unnecessary. I think the films are ok, id say as a whole 7/10 (i fell asleep in the cinema during return of the king), but compared to the books, the concise nature of films is very much an improvementKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
That's the reaction I get when I say I haven't seen LOTR. I thought the movie was better than the book, and I read the book before I saw the film.mkxiii wrote:
i think shawshank is overrated by the people who think it is the messiah diguised as a film which has decended from heaven so that people can say the phrase "Oh my god, you havent seen shawshank????"
that said it is a very very good film, but people put it on a pedestal higher than what i think a film can ever achieve
It's in my top 5.
atm I am in love with the movies..
'mundane adjective'
lol at the concept
lol at the concept
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I was talking about Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption. Part of Different Seasons, book of short stories by King.
i am pretty sure it was the LOTR series, but everything was described to such a depth that it became tiresome, as though it was trying to cover up the lack of actual substance (so much so that you could have probably done away with the last book and just put it all in 2) and all the descriptions seemed to be of such bland things.Uzique wrote:
'mundane adjective'
lol at the concept
i guess this is just looking at it the wrong was as obviously those descriptions were needing to be that particular way to properly project the way that the author saw this in his head.
Terminator Salvation
8/10
Arnie
8/10
Arnie
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
tolkien was one of the world's greatest medievalists and, more importantly, philologists. he understood language and words like nothing you can imagine- the history, root of them, the connotation, the sound, the metonymy and metaphor associations. i can guarantee that no description, no noun, no character or place name, and no relation of lore in LOTR is 'unnecessary'- yet alone fucking 'mundane'. a poor author would insert 100 words where one can be used. tolkien could write 100,000 words on each single one that he used. he was adept at constructing mythologies and giving the sense of a vividly imagined, fully-realized fantasy world, of which you were only being related a small, special tale (i.e. the quest of the fellowship). you can criticize his prose, style and themes for many things... but his language is pretty much untouchable. he was the stephen hawking of philology, basically.mkxiii wrote:
i am pretty sure it was the LOTR series, but everything was described to such a depth that it became tiresome, as though it was trying to cover up the lack of actual substance (so much so that you could have probably done away with the last book and just put it all in 2) and all the descriptions seemed to be of such bland things.Uzique wrote:
'mundane adjective'
lol at the concept
i guess this is just looking at it the wrong was as obviously those descriptions were needing to be that particular way to properly project the way that the author saw this in his head.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Avatar 5/10
reminded me of ME conflicts tbh
reminded me of ME conflicts tbh
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
i think that was the extremely-thinly-and-not-very-subtly-or-artfully veiled point
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Its probably my lack of expertise in this subject that meant i couldnt appreciate how good it was, what appears as one thing to me, obviously appears correctly as something different to someone better schooled in the fieldUzique wrote:
tolkien was one of the world's greatest medievalists and, more importantly, philologists. he understood language and words like nothing you can imagine- the history, root of them, the connotation, the sound, the metonymy and metaphor associations. i can guarantee that no description, no noun, no character or place name, and no relation of lore in LOTR is 'unnecessary'- yet alone fucking 'mundane'. a poor author would insert 100 words where one can be used. tolkien could write 100,000 words on each single one that he used. he was adept at constructing mythologies and giving the sense of a vividly imagined, fully-realized fantasy world, of which you were only being related a small, special tale (i.e. the quest of the fellowship). you can criticize his prose, style and themes for many things... but his language is pretty much untouchable. he was the stephen hawking of philology, basically.mkxiii wrote:
i am pretty sure it was the LOTR series, but everything was described to such a depth that it became tiresome, as though it was trying to cover up the lack of actual substance (so much so that you could have probably done away with the last book and just put it all in 2) and all the descriptions seemed to be of such bland things.Uzique wrote:
'mundane adjective'
lol at the concept
i guess this is just looking at it the wrong was as obviously those descriptions were needing to be that particular way to properly project the way that the author saw this in his head.
The Guardian - 8/10
I cried watching it and I don't care what you guys think about me for doing so,
I cried watching it and I don't care what you guys think about me for doing so,