View Profile
View Forum Posts
Visit Homepage
Reply With QuoteMy thread title becomes all the more appropriate itt
edit: you forgot you saw and commented on it already tBM?
I just saw a trailer for "Sherlock Holmes" with Downey Jr. I won't waste my money going to the movies.
Another juvenile rewrite with gratutious sex and potty humour.
Definitely a thumbs down on this one.
My thread title becomes all the more appropriate itt
edit: you forgot you saw and commented on it already tBM?
Outrage! They'll never get my eight bucks to watch their trailer, thanks for the warning.
(yeah, ok; the thought of Guy Ritchie doing speed ramped boxing Sherlock doesn't fill me with hope either. But the Downey & Law combo is potentially pretty cool.)
i find the title of this thread insulting, demeaning and offensive and demand both a retraction and an apology
We're sorry that you're hormonally deprived. Or was that depraved?
You'll receive nothing save the back of my hand, sir!
No. Not forgotten. At the time of your post it was a future event and not a reality. Having seen the trailer (actually a couple) it just reinforces my first reaction and gave me more reasons than I already had for skipping this travesty.Originally Posted by Scots Taffer
Well, it's a good to know you don't feel the need to see a movie before universally decrying it.
I'll keep you in mind if I ever need a review of any Tyler Perry films.
Save yourself the trouble. I don't even know, or care, who Tyler Perry is. And my disinterest is such I won't even check IMDB or other sources to find out.
That's exactly the kind of insightful film critique I was hoping for!
You are welcome. If I critique a film the film gets centerstage. Not the hyped up star, unless the star has actually earned the title STAR. Such as Meyrl Streep, Sally Fields, Robert Diniro, Dustin Hoffman, Al Pacino. You get the idea.
Sadly most movies today are loaded with non-essential scatological humour, gratuitous sex and innuendo that have little, or less than nothing to do with the plot or to add to the film.
But then, in order to attract the limited attention of the mental midgets that todays society is producing, the movie production companies have no choice. God forbid that they make a movie that actually required the viewer to pay attention to and think during the process. They'd go broke, as many of them are close to doing anyway.
Actually, I nearly forgot. He, RDJr., did a outstanding job as Charlie Chaplin. But the both the Sherlock movies are crap (a sequel is in production), whether Downey is in them or not.
Last edited by theBlackman; 6th Dec 2009 at 04:57.
Also we're having a discussion one forum down about how irritating and unnecessary it is (partly from an etiquette point of view but mostly just bitching) for people to quote the entirety of the post immediately preceding their reply. I realise not everyone frequents the Website board, but now one of the topics currently under discussion has been revealed. And you did exactly that twice just now. I'm just sayin'.
ps there can be only on onjonbob
A one line quote doesn't seem to be in excess, and as your post re my edit shows, a post in between one you are commenting on or responding to can confuse the issue.
However, if even a one liner is out of line, although I doubt that was the issue that Subjective was discussing. I'll be certain to not quote an entire post, even if it's one to 5 words or a sentence.
Both? Which both are we talking about?
(haha, my Goldacre gif has a million uses)
He's talking about the one that comes out on Christmas and the sequel that is currently in development.
I'm still trying to figure out how you can possibly know that the next movie is horrible without even seeing a second of it.
I, for one, am looking forward to seeing the new Sherlock Holmes movie, although I do hope that there's more Sherlock Holmes-ish mystery solving than the trailer would have us believe.
I do not expect the Sherlock Holmes movie to be in any way comparable to the work of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
On the other hand, I do expect it to be an entertaining movie.
Looks pretty ass to me. I'm trying to imagine a justification for that boxing scene being part of the story and I really can't think of one.
But hey, popular re-imaginings are the nature of public domain work. Likely this will lead a bunch of people to go and read the original stories.
Really?That would be both amazing and funny.
"hey a movie exists, i'm not going to watch it"
thanks for another fucking fantastic thread tbm
hey I just figured out that the Island of Sodor isn't a real place
you sir are a liar
Plus, Mark Strong is usually good fun, and I quite like Rachel MacAdams as well. The casting's pretty damn solid. It's a real pity it's Ritchie behind the helm, otherwise I might even be looking forward to it.
Well, Holmes was a boxer, but other than that you're probably right; I doubt it's plot-critical.
I nominate this thread title for the most tasteless joke at the expense of a TTLG member (if it's still there and not fallen off yet) award.
Really, tBM. For shame.
IMHO, GR hasn't done anything worth squat after Snatch, but, what the Hell, I'll go watch it for the lulz and the popcorn fun which I'm sure I'll have.
tBm - c'mon, less oldman sourpuss, more lulz viewing
On the other hand this is Sherlock Holmes, a character who has been portrayed and re-imagined countless times- of any character that should be remade and reimagined he's certainly the most eligible and reasonable.
Posting Permissions
