Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The Social Network
- Thread starter Uncle Spielberg
- Start date
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #22
How ridiculous. His comments were entirely personal to make me look like some sort of braindead moron who only got excited with CGI and I guess shallow films. It was hardly open to any other interpretation.
Whats this then. Scotch mist ?
A little red cross. Sadly.
No, he was countering your assertion that the film was WANK, by suggesting in a fairly amusing way, that it simply wasn't to your tastes.
Sorry mate, I was only mucking around. Nothing personal whatsoever.
I genuinely don't think for a split second that you are a "braindead moron".
HseagullsH
NSC's tipster
Good one. Tell us that one again about how the Coen Brothers are shit too.
He didn't say that did he?
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
Why did they choose to make a film about Facebook instead of NSC 
¤DãŃn¥ §êãGüLL¤
Banned
He didn't say that did he?
Film 2011
Yes, the people who directed Fargo, The Big Lebowski, No Country For Old Men, and Miller's Crossing are apparantly SHIT.
I didn't question it on that thread though, because I know Gareth would consider it a personal attack and flounce off.
Mental Lental
Well-known member
I think the problem with Uncle Spielberg is that he seems to have set himself up as the resident film pundit here.......
And then displayed a spectacular inability to actually review any movie from anything but his own taste/point of view.
It is a simple rule of writing a movie review that you ask yourself who the target audience is and whether or not THE TARGET AUDIENCE would enjoy the film (as opposed to whether or not YOU enjoyed it.)
And then displayed a spectacular inability to actually review any movie from anything but his own taste/point of view.
It is a simple rule of writing a movie review that you ask yourself who the target audience is and whether or not THE TARGET AUDIENCE would enjoy the film (as opposed to whether or not YOU enjoyed it.)
Not sure what the point ofthis comment is. Either it is to provoke a reaction (which it did) or it was meant to be helpful to those considering seeing the film (that includes me) which it wasn't.
But a very exact score - so I assume there must be more depth to the criticism that helped determine it was 5.2 and not 5.3 or 5.1.
Digweeds Trousers
New member
Indeed - there does appear to be an assumption on the part of US that he is the resident film guru.....some of his choices as 'great films' are not really my cup of tea. For instance I dont believe I have ever sat through a bigger wankfest than Avatar - I thought it was one of the most one-dimensional, predicatable pieces of crud I have ever watched.
But US loved it.......each to their own I guess.
But US loved it.......each to their own I guess.
I quite enjoyed it. I watched it last sunday after watching four other films and it was probably my favourite of the five, having said that I'm a fan of Aaron Sorkin's writing and have been since The West Wing. He has a certain rhythm to his writing that I enjoy.
The characters are not particualrly pleasant, but it's about real people, and it's the story of a real event, if those real people are arses isn't it wrong to dress them up as likeable heroes?
The characters are not particualrly pleasant, but it's about real people, and it's the story of a real event, if those real people are arses isn't it wrong to dress them up as likeable heroes?
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
You say that, but Mark Kermode gets away with being just as (if not more) opinionated that US!
I think the problem with a lot of the more pompous movie reviewers (and by that I mean people professionally employed to review films, whose opinions are often given weight) is that they don't do that. Nor do they consider what the film set out to do (was it made to tell a story or to raise an issue, was it motivated by art or by entertainment). Is it really fair to judge, say, Spiceworld: The Movie by the same standards as The Life of David Gale for example?
Last edited:
SittingbourneSeagull
Well-known member
I saw it last weekend, and have to say I am glad I waited for the DVD rather then wasting money at the cinema. It was IMHO at best boring. Maybe its an age thing but was just expecting a bit more.
Did you not wear the glasses?
Tyrone Biggums
Well-known member
Thought it was a terrible film about a terrible subject.
Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
whose were they then
Dick Knights Mumm
Take me Home Falmer Road
It has all the elements to make a great film for me. It was an amazing story from the world changing internet - the sort of story that would be deemed science fiction if it has not actually happened. The acting was completely believable. The dialogue was excellent. And to cap it all - there was a rowing sub-plot with some superb shots of the Henley course. I was engrossed from start to finish. I almost created a Facebook account for myself it was that good. A story of our times.
As an aside - I am not sure it is a good idea to review films unless you see them at the cinema. It flattens the experience I think.
As an aside - I am not sure it is a good idea to review films unless you see them at the cinema. It flattens the experience I think.