Unutterably Silly So what are you doing RIGHT NOW?

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

your brother is a tiger ??? (full disclosure : i know nothing about sports. i'm not even sure who this tiger woods guy is.)

Tiger Woods is a golfer. I completely forgot about him when I gave that hint. I was hoping someone might ask if he was Sigfried or Roy , but they're not exactly in sports!! He is actually a coach in American Football for a team whose name is a tiger and I should have said he is kind of famous in sports circles. I know alot about sports, I just don't follow much of it. I would much rather be reading!

Kaz

[Moejoe]

Currently wondering why I bothered watching Angels & Demons...why, oh why, oh why, oh why????

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Currently wondering why I bothered watching Angels & Demons...why, oh why, oh why, oh why????

Was it that bad?? I've heard only bad reviews here.

Kaz

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Currently wondering why I bothered watching Angels & Demons...why, oh why, oh why, oh why????

Because you thought it would be so bad as to be good? (That's the reason quite a few people I work with have given to explain why they want to see it... )

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Was it that bad?? I've heard only bad reviews here.

Kaz

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

Because you thought it would be so bad as to be good? (That's the reason quite a few people I work with have given to explain why they want to see it... )

It was worse than bad. I don't mind all the tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy nonesense, there's the nugget of a fun thriller in all that, but it was dull. I mean really dull. I didn't care about any of the characters, there was very little tension at all and some of the dialogue belonged to an afternoon soap opera. I have no idea why movies like this get such a big box-office. I'm hoping it's just the hype machine and that there aren't any people out there who actually think this is worth the price of a ticket.

[Greg Anos]

I have been reading Theodore Sturgeon today. I found the term "bastiche" in a 1949 story by him called "Die, Maestro, Die". Thought ya'll might want to know....

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I have been reading Theodore Sturgeon today. I found the term "bastiche" in a 1949 story by him called "Die, Maestro, Die". Thought ya'll might want to know....

Good grief - and for some reason I'd always thought it was a much more modern invention than that!

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

It was worse than bad. I don't mind all the tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy nonesense, there's the nugget of a fun thriller in all that, but it was dull. I mean really dull. I didn't care about any of the characters, there was very little tension at all and some of the dialogue belonged to an afternoon soap opera. I have no idea why movies like this get such a big box-office. I'm hoping it's just the hype machine and that there aren't any people out there who actually think this is worth the price of a ticket.

Here in the US, Tom Hanks is a big draw. There was also a lot of controversy when the original movie, DaVinci Code, came out because of the Catholic church. I think a lot of people went to see that one because of the chance to thumb there noses at the church or to see what all the talk was about. That sort of thing dies down after awhile. It certainly wasn't enough for a sequel. I think they were hoping that it would still get people into the theaters.

I should tell you that I'm Catholic and I haven't seen either movie. Not because I cared what people were saying, but because I have children and am limited to my nights out. Consequently, I have to choose very carefully what movies I can actually go see at the theater.

But I do like Tom Hanks and have seen most of his movies, usually on DVD, though.

Kaz

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Here in the US, Tom Hanks is a big draw. There was also a lot of controversy when the original movie, DaVinci Code, came out because of the Catholic church. I think a lot of people went to see that one because of the chance to thumb there noses at the church or to see what all the talk was about. That sort of thing dies down after awhile. It certainly wasn't enough for a sequel. I think they were hoping that it would still get people into the theaters.

I should tell you that I'm Catholic and I haven't seen either movie. Not because I cared what people were saying, but because I have children and am limited to my nights out. Consequently, I have to choose very carefully what movies I can actually go see at the theater.

But I do like Tom Hanks and have seen most of his movies, usually on DVD, though.

Kaz

I think Tom Hanks is a great actor, it's just a shame he's wasting his time on this middle-of-the-road movie. It's so uninspired. It's like a paint-by-numbrs thriller. They're doing all the right things, but there's no heat behind the story, no side you're cheering to win. It's just a dull, bland mess

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

The Da Vinci Code was on TV here there other night. The Yeti and I tried to watch it, just to see what it was like, and if it was any better than the book. We managed just over half an hour before realising that, for us, it had achieved the impossible and was worse than the book. (Which I've read but didn't like - unoriginal premise, unoriginally executed. In my opinion, obviously)

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

It was worse than bad. I don't mind all the tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy nonesense, there's the nugget of a fun thriller in all that, but it was dull. I mean really dull. I didn't care about any of the characters, there was very little tension at all and some of the dialogue belonged to an afternoon soap opera. I have no idea why movies like this get such a big box-office. I'm hoping it's just the hype machine and that there aren't any people out there who actually think this is worth the price of a ticket.

Well, I've read Brown's stories, they are pretty good but impossible to translate into a movie script. I was surprised that they even tried to!

There's too much "voiced thinking" in the books and they're filled with scholarly descritions that totally defy action.

I wonder if they'll try "Digital Fortress" or "Deception Point"

I'll go see "Angels and Demons" just to see how they pictured the Vatican's secret library.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

I'll go see "Angels and Demons" just to see how they pictured the Vatican's secret library.

I suppose if the sets and props are good, that could be a reason to see a movie.

I went to the Harry Potter movies pretty much exclusively to see if Alan Rickman would give away anything about what Rowling was doing with Snape. Rickman is a pretty good actor, and I knew Rowling had given him "secret information" about the character. The movies themselves were kind of... gimmicky, I guess is the word I want. Too much flying cars and triple-decker buses (and Quiddich), and not enough plot.

I don't know if I'll bother seeing the movies for the last two books, though. Well, maybe. A few things were revealed about the characters after the series ended, and it would be interesting to see if they affect the movies at all.

I don't see many movies, though, especially in theaters. If I get my last two papers done tomorrow, the Muffin Man and I may go to see the new Star Trek movie. We both like Trek, but not to the fanatical "memorize every episode" level, so we could probably enjoy it if it's got any entertainment value at all. We've heard Sulu's fencing scene is good, anyway.

I think the worst movie I've ever personally seen in a theater was Highlander II. We very nearly walked out on that one. Sean Connery was somehow entertaining enough to keep us from actually leaving until his character died, and by then we figured we might as well stay and see the last few minutes. But it says something that we both thought the He-Man movie was significantly better in all respects. (Skeletor, in particular, was simply outstanding.)

[Sparrow]

Mark Kermode's review of 'Angels and Demons' from BBC Radio5.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/entert.../kermode.shtml

[Stitchawl]

We watched Angels and Demons last night. Big mistake! While the book was fair (and I'm being kind here,) the movie fell so far short of fair as to be really, really poor. Despite Tom Hank's abilities, and Ron Howard's skills, this movie was the pits! The only reason we even continued with it was that I was curious to see how it would be resolved. There were so many important plot facets left out, so many character points ignored, and so many culturally important issues missed that this movie was more than a total failure. It was a complete and utter waste of time. (Do you get the idea that we didn't like it?)

Stitchawl

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

We watched Angels and Demons last night. Big mistake! While the book was fair (and I'm being kind here,) the movie fell so far short of fair as to be really, really poor. Despite Tom Hank's abilities, and Ron Howard's skills, this movie was the pits! The only reason we even continued with it was that I was curious to see how it would be resolved. There were so many important plot facets left out, so many character points ignored, and so many culturally important issues missed that this movie was more than a total failure. It was a complete and utter waste of time. (Do you get the idea that we didn't like it?)

Stitchawl

as far as there is one in this thread, but Stitchawl, is your avatar the guy who was the editor of the OED (Murray I think)?

I have to ask cos it'll drive me mad not knowing otherwise.