The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This thread has been linked to the game 'Top Gear Dare Devil'.
Dare Devil, quite possibly the most eagerly anticipated film of the year has hit the big screen like few others have in the past. I’m not saying it’s as good as the stunning Lord Of The Rings movies but not far from it. Many of you may be thinking this is just another Spider-Man movie brought to you by Marvel but you could not be farther from the truth.
As usual we have the two lives of a super hero, by day Ben Affleck plays “Matt Murdock” an attorney for the poorer yet innocent members of society however if the courts fail to do justice at night Matt Murdock becomes Dare Devil. This masked vigilante swoops over the city falling from buildings and jumping from rooftops he speeds to the guilty to deal out justice.
Now you may be thinking this is all well and good however what makes Matt so special that he thinks he can take down the criminal world? Well I’ll tell you. When Matt was a child a freak accident lead to bio hazardous chemicals flooding into his eyes. Although this took Matt’s sight he gained a lot in return. The chemicals sharpened his other four senses to perfection and although he could no longer see, he also gains a kind of radar through his now bat like ears.
Like every film worth seeing this film has a girl, Elektra (Brilliantly played by Jennifer Garner) is the woman of Dare Devil’s dreams however this damsel is not in distress. Jennifer rivals Dare Devil himself as a fighter so needless to say the fight scenes are nothing short of spectacular.
This is were the film gets interesting, now we have identified the good guys lets talk about the villains. The Kingpin of NY (Poorly played by Michael Clarke Duncan) may be wealthy and powerful like most villains in the world but he calls upon the help of his Irish assassin Bullseye (Expertly played by Collin Farrell) to murder all the people he can’t.
This is when Dare Devil truly saves the day, using his radar and other super human senses he defeats Bullseye and the Kingpin himself in two (slightly long-winded) intense fights. The best aspects of these spectacular fights are the originality, fighting to the death inside a cathedral then inside a flooding office with no way out except the window.
In conclusion this film has the tremendous aspects of originality, a superb cast (mainly), an excellent story line and scenes of true passion and intensity that will keep you on the edge of your seat the entire time. This is an experience you may never find at the cinema again (if you don’t go to Lord Of The Rings – Return Of The King) so go today or as soon as possible and enjoy the movie event you’ll be talking about for weeks.
As usual we have the two lives of a super hero, by day Ben Affleck plays “Matt Murdock” an attorney for the poorer yet innocent members of society however if the courts fail to do justice at night Matt Murdock becomes Dare Devil. This masked vigilante swoops over the city falling from buildings and jumping from rooftops he speeds to the guilty to deal out justice.
Now you may be thinking this is all well and good however what makes Matt so special that he thinks he can take down the criminal world? Well I’ll tell you. When Matt was a child a freak accident lead to bio hazardous chemicals flooding into his eyes. Although this took Matt’s sight he gained a lot in return. The chemicals sharpened his other four senses to perfection and although he could no longer see, he also gains a kind of radar through his now bat like ears.
Like every film worth seeing this film has a girl, Elektra (Brilliantly played by Jennifer Garner) is the woman of Dare Devil’s dreams however this damsel is not in distress. Jennifer rivals Dare Devil himself as a fighter so needless to say the fight scenes are nothing short of spectacular.
This is were the film gets interesting, now we have identified the good guys lets talk about the villains. The Kingpin of NY (Poorly played by Michael Clarke Duncan) may be wealthy and powerful like most villains in the world but he calls upon the help of his Irish assassin Bullseye (Expertly played by Collin Farrell) to murder all the people he can’t.
This is when Dare Devil truly saves the day, using his radar and other super human senses he defeats Bullseye and the Kingpin himself in two (slightly long-winded) intense fights. The best aspects of these spectacular fights are the originality, fighting to the death inside a cathedral then inside a flooding office with no way out except the window.
In conclusion this film has the tremendous aspects of originality, a superb cast (mainly), an excellent story line and scenes of true passion and intensity that will keep you on the edge of your seat the entire time. This is an experience you may never find at the cinema again (if you don’t go to Lord Of The Rings – Return Of The King) so go today or as soon as possible and enjoy the movie event you’ll be talking about for weeks.
Page:
El Blokey wrote:
Ok lets do this again...
> What the hell is spraffing? And don't ask me to look it up because I'm
> pretty sure it's not in the dictionary.
"Spraffing" is a colloquial term meaning too talk rubbish
> So you know 5 year olds with better typing skills and vocabularies
> than your fine self?
No but I know ones that are better than you
> Sarcasm that you can't detect is usually just a stupid comment. Or
> badly executed sarcasm.
You could have read the bit after my initial comment. If you had read that you would have put them together and realise that I was saying that when I used sarcasm it was much better than yours and you simply didn't understand and I really don't think I should dumb things down for you.
> I have consistently used more complicated words than you. I doubt you
> even know what tangent means, despite you being 'shocked' that I do.
My god do you think "Tangent" is is a complex word? Even if you put it into a truly masterfull context I'm sure a year 9 student could understand.
> My argument(s) are basically
>
> 1) The post is in the wrong forum, and there are enough people that
> visit and post in the correct one with film related subjects that it
> would be worth your while to have put this review in the appropriate
> forum.
> 2) Daredevil is the name of the film and its hero. Dare devil is a
> mistake made on your part, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge.
> 3) Daredevil was most likely only made at this time because of other
> successful comic book to film conversions.
> 4) Jennifer Garner didn't really have to do anything that hard, and so
> couldn't have pulled off a fabulous, amazing, wonderful (etc)
> performance.
> 5) Kingpin (forget his name) did not act terribly; the 'bad cigar
> placement' you refer to all too often is both not his idea, and
> actually semi-important to the character.
>
> Your points seem to be
>
> 1) You're wrong
> 2) You're wrong
> 3) You're wrong
> 4) Yes I agree but you're wrong.
>
> Without giving any reasons.
I have given reasons!!!! How many times do I have to tell you! READ THE POSTS!! Sfone can see and understand my reasons why don't you?
Ok lets do this again...
> What the hell is spraffing? And don't ask me to look it up because I'm
> pretty sure it's not in the dictionary.
"Spraffing" is a colloquial term meaning too talk rubbish
> So you know 5 year olds with better typing skills and vocabularies
> than your fine self?
No but I know ones that are better than you
> Sarcasm that you can't detect is usually just a stupid comment. Or
> badly executed sarcasm.
You could have read the bit after my initial comment. If you had read that you would have put them together and realise that I was saying that when I used sarcasm it was much better than yours and you simply didn't understand and I really don't think I should dumb things down for you.
> I have consistently used more complicated words than you. I doubt you
> even know what tangent means, despite you being 'shocked' that I do.
My god do you think "Tangent" is is a complex word? Even if you put it into a truly masterfull context I'm sure a year 9 student could understand.
> My argument(s) are basically
>
> 1) The post is in the wrong forum, and there are enough people that
> visit and post in the correct one with film related subjects that it
> would be worth your while to have put this review in the appropriate
> forum.
> 2) Daredevil is the name of the film and its hero. Dare devil is a
> mistake made on your part, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge.
> 3) Daredevil was most likely only made at this time because of other
> successful comic book to film conversions.
> 4) Jennifer Garner didn't really have to do anything that hard, and so
> couldn't have pulled off a fabulous, amazing, wonderful (etc)
> performance.
> 5) Kingpin (forget his name) did not act terribly; the 'bad cigar
> placement' you refer to all too often is both not his idea, and
> actually semi-important to the character.
>
> Your points seem to be
>
> 1) You're wrong
> 2) You're wrong
> 3) You're wrong
> 4) Yes I agree but you're wrong.
>
> Without giving any reasons.
I have given reasons!!!! How many times do I have to tell you! READ THE POSTS!! Sfone can see and understand my reasons why don't you?
El Blokey wrote:
> Because it's in the wrong forum.
Yeah, but why do you care?
> Because it's in the wrong forum.
Yeah, but why do you care?
El Blokey wrote:
> Sfone wrote:
> Irs just a minority of people who actually persecute black people in
> this day, but they are still completely different matters. Because,
> as
> you go on to say, posting this topic in FOG isn't a crime, but
> persecuting people is.
>
> It was an analogy. If they were completely the same matters, it
> wouldn't be an analogy. Basically, you were saying it's OK to do
> something if everyone else does it. Which it clearly isn't.
I made other points which you failed to answer, because you evidently cannot admit you are incorrect
> Firstly, you don't refer to people (or boars) as lacklustre. It's
> usually with regards to HOW someone/thing has done, such as 'Keane had
> a lacklustre performance'. I am expressing my views, them being things
> should be in the right forums and that Cubist's review wasn't good.
I'm saying 'ElBlokey had a lacklustre way of expressing his reviews' happy now?
> Sfone wrote:
> Irs just a minority of people who actually persecute black people in
> this day, but they are still completely different matters. Because,
> as
> you go on to say, posting this topic in FOG isn't a crime, but
> persecuting people is.
>
> It was an analogy. If they were completely the same matters, it
> wouldn't be an analogy. Basically, you were saying it's OK to do
> something if everyone else does it. Which it clearly isn't.
I made other points which you failed to answer, because you evidently cannot admit you are incorrect
> Firstly, you don't refer to people (or boars) as lacklustre. It's
> usually with regards to HOW someone/thing has done, such as 'Keane had
> a lacklustre performance'. I am expressing my views, them being things
> should be in the right forums and that Cubist's review wasn't good.
I'm saying 'ElBlokey had a lacklustre way of expressing his reviews' happy now?
gerrid wrote:
> Why exactly are you arguing?
Because it's in the wrong forum. If it was in Movies, this probably would never have happened.
> Why exactly are you arguing?
Because it's in the wrong forum. If it was in Movies, this probably would never have happened.
Sfone wrote:
> Irs just a minority of people who actually persecute black people in
> this day, but they are still completely different matters. Because, as
> you go on to say, posting this topic in FOG isn't a crime, but
> persecuting people is.
It was an analogy. If they were completely the same matters, it wouldn't be an analogy. Basically, you were saying it's OK to do something if everyone else does it. Which it clearly isn't.
> Well, I personally like a lot of feedback like Cubist obviously wants.
> I put in a lot of work into my topics and expect some decent replies
> not some nonsinsical rambling you seem to be fabricating, and this is
> what is ruining these forums, petty bickering that you have created,
> not a decent topic being posted in the wrong forum
It isn't a decent topic as I have posted. I gave him feedback, unfortunately it was negative but hey, them's the breaks.
> Well, if the staff don't care I don't see why its your job to be a
> completely lacklustre androgynous boar, I mean, take a break, these
> forums are not for people like you, but for people who are involved
> entertainment and would like to express their views, like Cubist.
Firstly, you don't refer to people (or boars) as lacklustre. It's usually with regards to HOW someone/thing has done, such as 'Keane had a lacklustre performance'. I am expressing my views, them being things should be in the right forums and that Cubist's review wasn't good.
> Irs just a minority of people who actually persecute black people in
> this day, but they are still completely different matters. Because, as
> you go on to say, posting this topic in FOG isn't a crime, but
> persecuting people is.
It was an analogy. If they were completely the same matters, it wouldn't be an analogy. Basically, you were saying it's OK to do something if everyone else does it. Which it clearly isn't.
> Well, I personally like a lot of feedback like Cubist obviously wants.
> I put in a lot of work into my topics and expect some decent replies
> not some nonsinsical rambling you seem to be fabricating, and this is
> what is ruining these forums, petty bickering that you have created,
> not a decent topic being posted in the wrong forum
It isn't a decent topic as I have posted. I gave him feedback, unfortunately it was negative but hey, them's the breaks.
> Well, if the staff don't care I don't see why its your job to be a
> completely lacklustre androgynous boar, I mean, take a break, these
> forums are not for people like you, but for people who are involved
> entertainment and would like to express their views, like Cubist.
Firstly, you don't refer to people (or boars) as lacklustre. It's usually with regards to HOW someone/thing has done, such as 'Keane had a lacklustre performance'. I am expressing my views, them being things should be in the right forums and that Cubist's review wasn't good.
gerrid wrote:
> Why exactly are you arguing?
I have lost track because they keep digging deeper and deeper
> Why exactly are you arguing?
I have lost track because they keep digging deeper and deeper
Why exactly are you arguing?
Cubist wrote:
> Normally I reply quoting your message and go through it point by point
> with you but you are just plainly spraffing now!
What the hell is spraffing? And don't ask me to look it up because I'm pretty sure it's not in the dictionary.
> I have seen 5 year
> olds make better arguments than you
So you know 5 year olds with better typing skills and vocabularies than your fine self?
> I mean for example you say your sarcasm is
> obvious and thus better? HAH!
Sarcasm that you can't detect is usually just a stupid comment. Or badly executed sarcasm.
> I'm not going to dumb down things I say
> so beasts like you can understand!
I have consistently used more complicated words than you. I doubt you even know what tangent means, despite you being 'shocked' that I do.
> As my last point I will just say if
> you actually read my posts and maybe look up some words you could
> understand what I say and make half decent come backs. Seriously you
> have no life and no argument!
My argument(s) are basically
1) The post is in the wrong forum, and there are enough people that visit and post in the correct one with film related subjects that it would be worth your while to have put this review in the appropriate forum.
2) Daredevil is the name of the film and its hero. Dare devil is a mistake made on your part, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge.
3) Daredevil was most likely only made at this time because of other successful comic book to film conversions.
4) Jennifer Garner didn't really have to do anything that hard, and so couldn't have pulled off a fabulous, amazing, wonderful (etc) performance.
5) Kingpin (forget his name) did not act terribly; the 'bad cigar placement' you refer to all too often is both not his idea, and actually semi-important to the character.
Your points seem to be
1) You're wrong
2) You're wrong
3) You're wrong
4) Yes I agree but you're wrong.
Without giving any reasons.
> Normally I reply quoting your message and go through it point by point
> with you but you are just plainly spraffing now!
What the hell is spraffing? And don't ask me to look it up because I'm pretty sure it's not in the dictionary.
> I have seen 5 year
> olds make better arguments than you
So you know 5 year olds with better typing skills and vocabularies than your fine self?
> I mean for example you say your sarcasm is
> obvious and thus better? HAH!
Sarcasm that you can't detect is usually just a stupid comment. Or badly executed sarcasm.
> I'm not going to dumb down things I say
> so beasts like you can understand!
I have consistently used more complicated words than you. I doubt you even know what tangent means, despite you being 'shocked' that I do.
> As my last point I will just say if
> you actually read my posts and maybe look up some words you could
> understand what I say and make half decent come backs. Seriously you
> have no life and no argument!
My argument(s) are basically
1) The post is in the wrong forum, and there are enough people that visit and post in the correct one with film related subjects that it would be worth your while to have put this review in the appropriate forum.
2) Daredevil is the name of the film and its hero. Dare devil is a mistake made on your part, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge.
3) Daredevil was most likely only made at this time because of other successful comic book to film conversions.
4) Jennifer Garner didn't really have to do anything that hard, and so couldn't have pulled off a fabulous, amazing, wonderful (etc) performance.
5) Kingpin (forget his name) did not act terribly; the 'bad cigar placement' you refer to all too often is both not his idea, and actually semi-important to the character.
Your points seem to be
1) You're wrong
2) You're wrong
3) You're wrong
4) Yes I agree but you're wrong.
Without giving any reasons.
El Blokey wrote:
>
> It was an analogy. Ever heard of them? If it's OK to post in the wrong
> forum if everyone else does it, is it OK to persecute black people
> just because everybody else does it?
Irs just a minority of people who actually persecute black people in this day, but they are still completely different matters. Because, as you go on to say, posting this topic in FOG isn't a crime, but persecuting people is.
>
> So if there was nothing left in Chat, you may as well go in Movies.
> It's pretty much a void point on your part.
No, I would then visit the Nintendo or Xbox forum, if nothing good, I would go. They're the only forums I visit, and if i find nothing interesting, I will simply leave
>
> It's not a 'crime', but when there is a MOVIES forum and he posts a
> MOVIE review in Fog Chat, he doesn't come off looking very good. It's
> not a 'choice' putting it in here, it's an act of idiocy purely for
> his own gain to get more replies, despite the fact it's got less
> because of it.
Well, I personally like a lot of feedback like Cubist obviously wants. I put in a lot of work into my topics and expect some decent replies not some nonsinsical rambling you seem to be fabricating, and this is what is ruining these forums, petty bickering that you have created, not a decent topic being posted in the wrong forum
>
>
> It isn't sound, it's contributing to Chat's rubbishness. Which I'm
> trying to clear up, as the staff don't seem too fussed about letting
> the particular forum degenerate.
Well, if the staff don't care I don't see why its your job to be a completely lacklustre androgynous boar, I mean, take a break, these forums are not for people like you, but for people who are involved entertainment and would like to express their views, like Cubist.
>
> It was an analogy. Ever heard of them? If it's OK to post in the wrong
> forum if everyone else does it, is it OK to persecute black people
> just because everybody else does it?
Irs just a minority of people who actually persecute black people in this day, but they are still completely different matters. Because, as you go on to say, posting this topic in FOG isn't a crime, but persecuting people is.
>
> So if there was nothing left in Chat, you may as well go in Movies.
> It's pretty much a void point on your part.
No, I would then visit the Nintendo or Xbox forum, if nothing good, I would go. They're the only forums I visit, and if i find nothing interesting, I will simply leave
>
> It's not a 'crime', but when there is a MOVIES forum and he posts a
> MOVIE review in Fog Chat, he doesn't come off looking very good. It's
> not a 'choice' putting it in here, it's an act of idiocy purely for
> his own gain to get more replies, despite the fact it's got less
> because of it.
Well, I personally like a lot of feedback like Cubist obviously wants. I put in a lot of work into my topics and expect some decent replies not some nonsinsical rambling you seem to be fabricating, and this is what is ruining these forums, petty bickering that you have created, not a decent topic being posted in the wrong forum
>
>
> It isn't sound, it's contributing to Chat's rubbishness. Which I'm
> trying to clear up, as the staff don't seem too fussed about letting
> the particular forum degenerate.
Well, if the staff don't care I don't see why its your job to be a completely lacklustre androgynous boar, I mean, take a break, these forums are not for people like you, but for people who are involved entertainment and would like to express their views, like Cubist.
El Blokey I really think you have issues and you don't have to dumb down things for people like me and Sfone ( Yes we know what an analogy is). You just don't know how to make an analogy. You think you are so smart but you're not your ignorance actually amuses me!
Page: