|
|
Post by london777 on Apr 29, 2017 21:30:21 GMT
The place has been going downhill ever since that thread about the CARRY ON films. A thread that is merely a cunningly veiled punt for the upcoming reboot. Why anyone on God's earth could possibly want to remake the CARRY ON flicks is beyond me. What's next? A remake of the CONFESSIONS OF films - with Timothy Askwith cameoing as randy old penshioner and blink and you'll miss 'em appearances by Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson? I suppose in the age of Trump and Brexit re-making films aimed at the lowest common denominator makes sense. Jeffersoncody, if you were not a raging drug fiend you would be a man after my own heart.
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Apr 29, 2017 21:44:53 GMT
The place has been going downhill ever since that thread about the CARRY ON films. A thread that is merely a cunningly veiled punt for the upcoming reboot. Why anyone on God's earth could possibly want to remake the CARRY ON flicks is beyond me. What's next? A remake of the CONFESSIONS OF films - with Timothy Askwith cameoing as randy old penshioner and blink and you'll miss 'em appearances by Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson? I suppose in the age of Trump and Brexit re-making films aimed at the lowest common denominator makes sense. Jeffersoncody, if you were not a raging drug fiend you would be a man after my own heart. Funny, guys, because I was of the opinion that this place has been going downhill ever since two posters in particular started being nasty to nice, friendly posters like petrolino just because those two happened to disagree with him on a series of movies--and then going into needless political rants just to satisfy their own egos.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Apr 30, 2017 5:42:49 GMT
The place has been going downhill ever since that thread about the CARRY ON films. A thread that is merely a cunningly veiled punt for the upcoming reboot. Why anyone on God's earth could possibly want to remake the CARRY ON flicks is beyond me. What's next? A remake of the CONFESSIONS OF films - with Timothy Askwith cameoing as randy old penshioner and blink and you'll miss 'em appearances by Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson? I suppose in the age of Trump and Brexit re-making films aimed at the lowest common denominator makes sense. Jeffersoncody, if you were not a raging drug fiend you would be a man after my own heart. * There was an element of satire about of my approval of cocaine as a recreational drug london. While I wouldn't turn down a line at a party, I haven't bought coke for years. Fact is I smoke a little weed and I enjoy the odd glass of red wine on occasion, but I am, for the most part, an extremely sober, focused and serious individual - with a sense of humor. I am not a big fan of of the moral majority, but I am a humanist and an open minded individual with plenty of empathy and compassion. * While the cocaine comment in a previous post was certainly a veiled snipe at that aforementioned moral majority, the place it comes from is the thoughless negativity on this thread (mainly from arch conservative Pinky) towards Brian De Palma's scintillating and sizzling neon-tinged, technically breathtaking 1983 version of SCARFACE. I have seen and enjoyed both the Howard Hawks-directed, Paul Muni-starring 1932 version of SCARFACE (my rating: 9/10) and De Palma's Al Pacino-starring 1983 flick (8/10). Both are excellent films which have stood the test of time. On one thread I see a series of crude, hideously dated and utterly mediocre lowbrow comedies being celebrated simply because they were made during the so-called classic era, and on this thread I see a particularly fine and fascinating 1983 film made by one of the best American directors of the post World War 11 era being dissed by a poster (who may not even have watched the film) who lacks the ability to see beyond the film's profanity and explicit bloodshed and look into its brutally honest and perceptive core. Sorry, I'm human and sometimes my heart gets in the way of my head, so I reacted. The 1932 version of SCARFACE may lack the visible blood, the gruesome detail and the near constant profanity of the 1983 version, but it is an equally vicious and shockingly violent film. And anyone who cannot see that was wearing rose tinted spectacles and not paying attention when they watched it. PS. I realize you calling me "a raging drug fiend" was humorous and tongue-in-cheek, but many posters here do - as they did on the IMDB's notoriously conservative and old-fashioned, now defunct, Classic Board - see me as one. I guess it helps them cope with someone who doesn't fit into any of boxes they understand. In the classic 1969 film about the counterculture, EASY RIDER, Jack Nicholson's George Hanson tells Dennis Hopper's Billy that Wyatt and Billy represent "freedom" to the moral majority. Billy replies by asking "what the hell is wrong with freedom" because "that's what it's all about." And George says: "Oh, yeah, that's right. That's what's it's all about, all right. But talkin' about it and bein' it, that's two different things. I mean, it's real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. Of course, don't ever tell anybody that they're not free, 'cause then they're gonna get real busy killin' and maimin' to prove to you that they are. Oh, yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em." In the age of Trump and Brexit what has really changed?
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Apr 30, 2017 6:07:13 GMT
Jeffersoncody, if you were not a raging drug fiend you would be a man after my own heart. Funny, guys, because I was of the opinion that this place has been going downhill ever since two posters in particular started being nasty to nice, friendly posters like petrolino just because those two happened to disagree with him on a series of movies--and then going into needless political rants just to satisfy their own egos. Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one. 
|
|