Jump to content
NEurope

Jack

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    526

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jack

  1. Posted

    Ok i just noticed something that seems really inconsistant to me.

     

    On my channels menu i got "Super Mario Bros." and "Super Mario Bros 2(:The Lost Levels) next to each other.... i was meaning to select SMB2 but hit SMB by mistake, so i just press "plus" to get to where i want to be.

     

    Then i noticed the year of release on both seems weird (you know it's displayed top left corner).

     

    According to what i see here, Nintendo released Super Mario Bros in 1987 but they released Super Mario Bros 2(Lost Levels) in 1986.... how does a sequel come out before the first game? (ignoring prequels and Star Wars and such of course)

     

    The '87 date is for when SMB was released in Europe. Lost Levels' date is from the Japanese release, as it was never released in Europe.

  5. Posted

    i agree, its stupid not to expect at least passable acting, its like getting in a taxi, having the driver drive horribly, and sayign "you shouldent expect great driving" or going to the bakers and buying a burnt loaf of bread and saying "you shouldent expect good baking"

     

    its their job and they should be good at it.

     

    im not going to say any more on the subject of transformers, by this time weve pretty much all either decided it was good or bad, and ive mentioned what i will on how disserpointing i found it.

     

    last film i saw: dusk till dawn.

     

    a decent flick really, had loads of great scenes and the acting was at least acceptable though out. it was cheese, plain and simple, but it was a b movie type of film, it was ment to be. the dialouge was actualy excelent, many tarentino esq conversations that don't pass the plot along, just happen. the special effects were a bit dated but i won't complain, and the film had some good ideas, condoms filled with holy water was a neat trick.

     

    plot was thin but made the point, a reall balls out guy film.

     

    7/10 a good little time passer but nothing ground breaking.

     

    Aw man, the change to vampire horror in that film is immense. I love showing the film to people who haven't seen it and not letting on about the second half of the film. Plus it's got that amazing table dance with Salma Hayek in it.

  7. Posted

    it is really that good though.

     

    Yes of course there is better.

     

    It would have been good if they'd given it to someone who knows how to direct action films where you can actually see what's going on. As it is, Michael "More fast cuts! Shake the camera more!" Bay shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a camera.

  10. Posted

    But Why go into a blockbuster hoping for great dialouge, when the film is directed by Michael Bay or why go into a emotional drama expecting heads cut off, when the film is directed by Sofia Coppola?

     

    You should rate a film by its own boundaries and merit, otherwise you will go into every film you see with your mind already made up.

     

    Why go into a blockbuster expecting great dialogue? Because blockbuster films can have great dialogue. I don't know why people think that it's OK to say "Well, it's a blockbuster" to try and cover for bad cinema. What about Star Wars? Die Hard? Jurassic Park? There's three blockbuster films off the top of my head which don't treat the audience like idiots.

  11. Posted

    Not to moan, but who really cares about product placement? Does it matter if they use something we use in real life? Surely it makes it that much more realistic interms of living. Or am I alone on that thought?

     

    You cannot say the effects in any way were bad. The were amazing, they were intergrated seamlessly into the movie. They looked almost, if not real.

    The humour in it had most my cinema laughing, so there you are in a minority.

     

    I watch films to be entertained, not to have brand names flashed up on screen constantly. I wouldn't have minded if they just said "We tracked you down using the Internet", but to keep shouting "THE TRANSFORMERS FIND HIM FROM EBAY" is just tiresome. It's Transformers, for Christ's sake! I doubt there's a person alive in this generation who hasn't heard of it. It doesn't need to have advert money pumped into it.

     

    And read what I said about the effects again. I said I hated the design of the Transformers - they look like spindly Meccano kits. Horrible to look at. And I hated the humour. I don't think wanking and pissing jokes really go well with Transformers. I don't care if I'm "in a minority" on that, I'm not going to change my opinion because other people think differently. That would be stupid.

     

    Omg, comon' so now you won't go see a movie just because he's in it? He was hardly bad in this movie was he? He also got great reviews in a guide to recognising your saints and other stuff too.

     

    He was hardly amazing. He looked like he was reading his lines off a card most of the time. I lost count of the number of times that he shouted "Nonononononono!" or "Blockemblockemblockemblockem!".

  12. Posted

    Armageddon and Bad Boys 2 are both good films. Sure they aint narrative masterpieces, but there good flicks with likeable characters where alot of shit gets blown up... I liked both of them films, but yeah more often then not Bay sucks ass.

     

    Just outta interest were you a really big Transformers fan before seeing the film Jack?

     

    I like good films where lots of shit gets blown up, like Commando or Predator. Michael Bay doesn't do good films where lots of shit gets blown up, he does shit films where my faith in cinema gets blown up. And yeah, I was a fan, but not an amazingly hardcore one. I had a few of the toys and watched the old cartoon a lot.

     

    Wait.....you think Shia cant act?

     

    Hahaha.

     

    Nothing in this film led me to believe that Shia is a good actor. I've heard he's in Disturbia as well, so there's a good reason to avoid that.

  13. Posted

    You appear to be in a minority with that opinion, I'm afraid...

     

    Four questions: Yeah? And? So? What?

     

    There's so much wrong with that film, I'm amazed it was even made. Terrible childish "humour" - Ohoho! "Seamen" sounds like "semen"! And his mum thinks he was having a wank! Incredible. Endless shots of Michael Bay's American Army Porn where we have lots of pans around Jeeps, tanks and guys standing around with guns. A lead actor who can't act, and spends half the film shouting "Nonononono!". Awful graphic design - the Transformers themselves look like they're held together with kitchen cutlery and paper clips. The Citroen C4 advert had better looking Transformers than this piece of shit. Speaking of the Transformers, bit part characters got more development and screen time than most of the robots! And then there's the battle scenes where the camera's so shaky, it's apparently being held by a caffeine-bombed Parkinsons sufferer. If you're going to spend millions of dollars creating intricate CG models, have the decency to actually let us watch what's going on.

     

    Not to mention product placement that's so blatant it's offensive: IPODS! HP COMPUTERS! XBOX 360! PANASONIC! EBAY! EBAY! EBAY! EBAY! EVERY FIVE FUCKING MINUTES! It took the Hollywood product whoring crown from I, Robot within the first half hour. I've been a fan of Transformers for a while, but I don't remember the one that turns into a Mountain Dew machine. Seriously, why do people keep giving Michael Bay money? He's never made a good film in his life.

  19. Posted

    I liked the episode, and I thought John Simm was fantastic ("Because of the gas!"), but what the hell were they thinking with that music? They've blatantly lifted that concept from the last series of Battlestar Galactica, but they totally missed the mark. A shame, cause it spoiled a nice scene.

  21. Posted

    ;480002"]Yes. Much like the blood organisation (forget what they're called if they are not indeed called the blood organisation) will not accept blood off a man who has had anal or oral sex with another man.

     

    I knew there was something I forgot to mention.

  22. Posted

    The most obvious thing is the way the Tardis disappears. Same noise, same basic fade out, no flashing lights or CGI there.

     

    That's something called "consistency". Why change the way it teleports? It's the same machine all the time.

  23. Posted

    Nobody "doesn't" have an accent. Otherwise you don't have a sound that happens when you use your vocal chords. Me, I lived in Somerset for the first few years of my life, so I started out with a West Country accent, but it's become more North Eastern, as I've lived up here for the last eighteen years or so. My dandy voice makes the most anti choice granny's panties moist.

  24. Posted

    So, you didn't think it was obvious from the start that the professor character was a timelord, that he was the Master, that Captain Jacks indestructability would be made trivial use of, and that the Doctor leaves his TARDIS unlocked far too often?

     

    I only knew about most of that because a combination of the desire of those numb fucks at The Sun to openly print spoilers for TV shows and the people at work who leave the areforementioned rag open at those pages. The Doctor leaving the TARDIS unlocked was probably because (until now) he was the only Time Lord around. As far as I'm aware, only Time Lords and pre-approved passengers can operate the TARDIS, so it wouldn't matter if anyone else got inside. And be fair, the Doctor's always left the TARDIS unlocked for anyone to sneak into it. After all, that's how Zoe, Tegan and Sarah Jane became part of the crew.

×