board77

"Artur regem" videbam heridie, vehentus Hamburgo ad coloniam ferroviariae. Iste pellis est pessima, nonullis fragmentis simpliciter adunatis cum figuribus simile simplicis vomitare causandis.

Okay, I translate it back to english: I saw "King Arthur" the other day while riding on a train from Hamburg to Cologne. It's a very bad movie, patched-together pieces with the simplest of symbols, making me puke. (end of text)

Some days before I read the legends of King Arthur, and just the previous day Marcus Junkelmann's book "The legions of Augustus", an outstanding work, and then - this! Bad actors, stupid setting, Pict cavemen operating complicated ballistas, a frigid love-scene and everything just a pretext for more scenes of hacking, slashing, burning, trampling, bwah.

I am so glad I just rented that movie. But I'm still sorry for the almost two hours I spent on the train looking that movie while I could have looked out of the window.

Have you liked Bormann's Excalibur? Have you seen it?

And in fact I hesitated to post that the only word I understood in yours was "Vomitare" - but then after all in another age I suceeded my "Grosses Latinum" and was ashamed to admit my forgetfullness.

No I haven't (seen Bormann's "Excalibur"). I'm not much into medieval knight stuff, not even the 40ies and 50ies kinds of well-shaven Launcelots and Guinevres. I do like flicks settled in the Roman era, however, though they tend to be even more stupid (setting, plot). Even "Gladiator", which I like for its splendor and visuality (and a caring love for the detail while overall neglecting history) is so inauthentic I blush every time I see it.

The "King" however, is a mixture of hastily patched fantasy, 4th-rate plot and a treatment of history that would call in the Unesco.

I'm actually kind of embarrassed to post here again. I don't know what the heck I was doing in 2004, but it sure as hell wasn't going to the movies much.

And always the same movies over and over again, hmmm?

satch wrote:

*E*, you didn't like The Grudge? I didn't think it was so bad. Not great of course, but it really wasn't so bad as horror movies go.

I was scared stupid while I was in the theatre, and to be honest I got some chills for a few nights afterwards, but it's so much like THE RING (minus an actual story and nowhere near as good or well-made) that in the end, you wonder why they even bothered. When you compare it to it's Japanese counter-part, it's as bad an idea as the PSYCHO remake of 1998. I mean, at least THE RING took elements from RINGU and added a lot more in there, but THE GRUDGE is exactly the same as JU-ON (minus one of it's scariest scenes), so I wish they had just released the original over here with subtitles. Not that the original is without flaw - it, too, suffers from a lack of plot, and bad acting.

I'd love to get a hold of DARK WATER, and I don't know what it's american remake it going to be like at all, but other than that I could do without a bunch of RING rip-offs, regardless of what country they're being produced in.

Quote:

...Hehe *E*s a dork ...

I'm renting a hotel room out of town so that I can watch movies at the cinema that'll be on video by summer... What does that tell you.

earendil81 wrote:

I saw Phantom of the Opera today so I'm not sure it enters the 2004 category but it's excellent I loved it :mrgreen:

It's a 2004 release (as was THE AVIATOR), so yeah it counts. I didn't add the movies released in 2003 that I saw in 2004, and I will end up adding to or making new lists as I see more of 2004's releases. After about September or October, my theatre stopped playing anything of interest, and only the most bottom-feeding films available, so basically all the well-received movies out there now. I am not able to see. The thing is that I rarely rent, and of those times, it is very rare for me to pick up a new release........ which is why I'm so desperate to see these things on the bigscreen. I mean, not only will I not get them on DVD, but by the time they're on video, the hype is gone and I have lost interest. I mean, I can tell you for a fact that right now I am not watching the movies that were released last summer.

I only mentioned the movies I saw in the theatre last year because those are the most memorable experiences. There are a good number of other films that I saw at home, as I found out looking through a list of what came out last year. Forgot some of these even came out in 2004. A work-in-progress, of course, but not too shabby:

The Butterfly Effect
Win a Date With Tad Hamilton!
50 First Dates
Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen
The Dreamers
Eurotrip
Miracle
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Jersey Girl
Ned Kelly
13 Going on 30
Godsend
The Punisher
The Whole Ten Yards
Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story
Fahrenheit 9/11
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Napoleon Dynamite
Garden State
Ju-On
Shaun of the Dead


Teherin and Alandriel - don't worry, kids. I'm just a movie nut and there were a lot of films I was excited about this summer. Some years are really slow, though, and some folks just don't take an interest in going to the cinema. In my town, it's not an expensive venture, and since I go fairly often I've learned how to avoid some of the things that drive people away from going to the theatre, like big crowds, expensive tickets, and rude patrons. My own parents rarely go to the theatre at all, but I think they watch about twice as many movies at home as I do. I didn't get any stinking DVDs for Christmas and they got about two dozen between them, and watched about six a day. But also, their kids are all teenagers and grown up, and I know the two of you have small children to look after. Arranging for babysitters is just as hard as bringing the kids to the cinema, so yeah, I would probably use the ol' VCR or whatever as well.

Mummpizz wrote:

Bad actors, stupid setting, Pict cavemen operating complicated ballistas, a frigid love-scene and everything just a pretext for more scenes of hacking, slashing, burning, trampling, bwah.

I agree that the love scene is pretty lame (it's even worse in the extended DVD because it's interrupted - like love scenes aren't embarrassing enough, but to be cut short...). I don't know my history, so realism didn't bother me as I had no background to go by. Now that you mention it, it does appear funny that these tree-swinging hippies would be able to own and operate weapons of war like those trebuchet things. It's a little advanced for them. I liked the battle scenes, but wow, the extended DVD has shitloads more of them, and it is sooooooooooooooooooooo much bloodier. I've seen a lot, but I was still wincing at a number of points.

Farawen wrote:

I'm actually kind of embarrassed to post here again. I don't know what the heck I was doing in 2004, but it sure as hell wasn't going to the movies much.

I'm pretty sure you were studying at your desk while being hit with the business end of a whip by your professors. S'understandable.




*E*

*E*V*E*N*S*T*A*R* wrote:

I'm pretty sure you were studying at your desk while being hit with the business end of a whip by your professors. S'understandable.

Some sad pathetic excuse of a M00b I am.

Farawen wrote:

Some sad pathetic excuse of a M00b I am.

Which reminds me, anyone knows TORN's email addy so we can invite him here?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!1111111







(In other words, once again Berhael the Fierce Archer of the Downward Year and Farawen Teh Spooked had the same idea at the same time. )

*eats chocolate quickly... which is one of the things that Teh Spooked One and Teh Archer don't share, to see if they stop reading each other's minds*

Oh, since I've been visiting - nice mental wallpaper of Eric Bana.