Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Congratulations! 8)
@soulie wrote:
Arcade fire – Funeral
8 out of 10
I saw them on the Jools Holland show around Xmas time and they were…
8) :shock: 8) :shock: 8)
Can’t wait to see A C*ck And Bull Story
http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2006/01/16/a_cock_and_bull_story_2006_review.shtml
And Stoned
http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2005/11/14/stoned_2005_review.shtmlFun With Dick And Jane (2006)
Jim Carrey and Tea Leoni step into the shoes of George Segal and Jane
Fonda for Dean Parisot’s remake of 1977 caper Fun With Dick And Jane.
Sadly it’s a bad fit. For two such gifted comic actors, it’s surprising how
few sparks they generate as a suburban couple using armed robbery to
fund their plasma-TV-watching, sushi-noshing lifestyle. Their lack of
conviction seems rooted in a script that, like Dick, fires in all directions
and consistently misses the mark.Carrey’s unease is clear from the outset, howling a rendition of I Believe
I Can Fly to celebrate an imminent promotion. It’s trademark Carrey
shtick, only there’s a sense he’s holding back – wanting us to believe that
Dick is someone with real hopes and feelings instead of just a cartoon
patsy. When the company folds in an Enron-type accounting scandal and
his mortgage lender threatens eviction, Carrey even (gulp) sheds a tear.
By this stage, the only man more desperate than Dick is the actor playing
him – scrabbling to find the right tone.“CHEAP LAUGHS”
Parisot does his cast no favours, switching from screwball comedy to
political satire to heist caper in frantic search of a plot. Initially there are
funny moments (like Dick being interviewed live as the company
nosedives on the stock market) but when the couple finally turns to
crime, the gags run out. Carrey and Leoni are reduced to donning silly
costumes for cheap laughs before committing a criminally dull bank
robbery in a tacked-on finale. If fun means money, this is near bankrupt.I think I’ll give it a miss. 8-[
Wot she sed! 8)
@*Sian* wrote:
Owen you have been one of the biggest contributors to the flaming/baiting so I am finding it hard to understand your standing in all of this. :?
Are you saying you are a changed man? Are you leaving this board or not?
Anyways I have had my say, I don’t really mind the fighting aslong as it has its own place.I don’t come here to flame, be flamed or read other peoples flaming.
I have responded to the figting here in the past, but I believe it is
detremental to JC.
I have created polls to give JC users a voice, and JC users have spoken.
I support, and will continue to support the users of JC! 8)The clocks are wrong here, I posted this at exactly 23.58 :twisted:
Thanks for your input people. 8)
I see that part of my post has been censored. I’d like a explenation as to
why, but I don’t anticipate I’ll receive one. :roll:@tommy-toxen wrote:
the flamings can be a good fun to read (or good fun to mock the authors), but there’s no need for them to spill over onto serious threads.
Good point ToM, after all we don’t want to see JC users leaving because
of the flaming spilling all over the boards do we?@tommy-toxen wrote:
if someone made a “my mum died of cancer” thread for example they wouldn’t want two selfish f**ks squabbling in it about some unimportant tiff carried on from some other thread.
Quite right ToM. Problem is a lot of them do this stuff, and worse. Then
they get there accounts deleted so no one can trawl up the evidence of
their past misdemeanors.@tommy-toxen wrote:
But if contained, should be encouraged! They bring in the ratings!
Got to disagree there ToM. The number of ‘views’ a thread receives is
massively inflated by just a few contributors. I may ‘view’ a thread five
times to read other peoples posts before I post myself. Then I ‘view’ the
post five times again to read other peoples responses to that post. So
there you have it. I’ve ‘viewed’ the thread twelve times and made only
two posts.
