Viewing Thread:
"Oh dear"

http://www.apple.com/trailers/ universal/the_rundown/large.html

Stifler & The Rock.

It made me laugh in a couple of places, I'm ashamed to admit.
Stifler "You can take them, they're little people"
And fighting a baboon, upside down.
And Christopher Walken in the jungle.

A DVD rental.

Kill Bill will be lapped up by audiences. I've no doubt it'll make millions.

That's not to say I'll like it though.

And if you haven't seen any Shaw Bros/Golden Temple movies, then you'll see that and think "That's stupid".
However, familiarity with kung-fu movies outside of Bruce Lee/The Matrix means it's nothing new.
The people that are "Man on sword? That's stupid!!" are the same sort of people that watched Crouching Tiger and went "flying? That's gay!" and went back to watching Jackie Chan's USA movies.

Goatboy wrote:
> Maybe I like different things to you and possibly enjoy different
> aspects of things?

But. The. Man. On. The. Sword.

!!

Kill Bill looks ok, not sure if i will go and see it at the cinema though.

Maybe I like different things to you and possibly enjoy different aspects of things?

I have no problem with Uma Thurman.
I also like Sonny Chiba, David Carradine, Michael Madsen, Daryl Hannah, Shaw Bros movies, Tarantino's previous efforts and b-grade revenge movies.

I want to see Kill Bill, end of story

Goatboy wrote:
> Not illogical by any stretch of the imagination.
> But hey, I wish I was cool and didn't like anything.

I like lots of things. But Kill Bill? Fair enough, the script might be good - I haven't read it - but I'm amazed you think the rest does.

It has Lucy Liu in it.

And Uma Thurman.

And a man balancing on a sword.

I'll see your "Oh dear" and double it.

Looks like another bad mix & match buddy movie for Stiffler. Wonder how many more "Stiffler and the..." movies they'll make before they kill that genre off entirely? I'll start:

"Stiffler and The Darkness"

MoJoJoJo wrote:
> It had poor sound effects? Or do you mean special effects - funny,
> the explosions and squibs looked fine to me. Or do you mean visual
> effects? Again, from what I can remember they were decent, and the
> film only cost $20 million, relatively cheap these days.
---

Sorry, I forgot you're Stan Winston.
I shall fully accept your opinions over my own, bow down to your obvious knowledge and shall henceforth proclaim the greatness of a movie that limited vampire effects to blue contact lenses, werewolf transformation that was sub-Howling and had an opening shoot out that restricted to Matrix-lobby scene leftovers.

Blank wrote:
> You're so angry about being conned by Underworld, and yet lap up
> everything you see about KIll Bill. Hmm, illogical.
---

Not really.
I have thoroughly enjoyed Tarantino's efforts so far, excluding Jackie Brown but he didn't write that. I've read the script to Kill Bill and love the points of reference this film is using.
I expect to enjoy it immensely based on previous experience and from what I have read.

Underworld, however, is yet another tired attempt at the horror genre.
It ignored any and all previous Vampire lore - there's even one that cannot see in the dark.
The script sucked balls and explained nothing about who or why these creatures exist.

Not illogical by any stretch of the imagination.
But hey, I wish I was cool and didn't like anything.

MoJoJoJo wrote:
> Goatboy wrote:
> destroyed by shoddy writing, poor SFX
>
> -------
>
> It had poor sound effects? Or do you mean special effects - funny,
> the explosions and squibs looked fine to me.

--

This from a guy who thinks LotR has bad effects.