Mrs Steve R
Your Mum's a TERF
⭐ PLATINUM VIP ⭐
⚽ MODERATOR ⚽
🗐 200 PAGER 🗐
❽ 8 YEARS ❽
❼ WHITTINGHAM ❼
♬ CRYPTIC LYRICS ♬
🔟 PICKEM 10/10 🔟
Eyes wide shit, could have had that in the replace a word with shit in the film title thread![]()

Eyes wide shit, could have had that in the replace a word with shit in the film title thread![]()

The deer hunter
Apocalypse now
Fell asleep watching them, too long and drawn out.
Ah, perhaps this a disagreement over form then? What can work in one (literature) might not work in another (film) regardless of how faithful an adaptation it is, for me at least. My main gripes with them were that it felt episodic, they were overly long (ANY film over two hours has me questioning the writing) and the third one had about six different endings, all more sentimental than the one before. Perhaps having not read the books left me at a disadvantage in watching the film in the same way that having read War of the Worlds, I thought the Tom Cruise adaptation was a load of old tripe despite being very popular with others (and managing to clock in under two hoursCan't agree on that!
The Hobbit and LOTR were required reading when I was young and even though it took me three years to read LOTR, I loved the books. A coupe of lame attempts had been made to put the stories on the screen, but Peter Jackson's epics were true to the books in every respect and hugely enjoyable, provided that you like Tolkein.
Coincidentally, TDA Jnr gave me a box set of The Hobbit recently and I had earmarked this evening to settle down with the third installment.
![]()
).
Some of the greatest epic films of yesteryear were much, much longer than two hours. Gone With The Wind, How the West Was Won, Ben Hur, The Greatest Story Ever Told. LOTR certainly is an epic tale and knowing the books well puts a different light on things.Ah, perhaps this a disagreement over form then? What can work in one (literature) might not work in another (film) regardless of how faithful an adaptation it is, for me at least. My main gripes with them were that it felt episodic, they were overly long (ANY film over two hours has me questioning the writing) and the third one had about six different endings, all more sentimental than the one before. Perhaps having not read the books left me at a disadvantage in watching the film in the same way that having read War of the Worlds, I thought the Tom Cruise adaptation was a load of old tripe despite being very popular with others (and managing to clock in under two hours).
I realise I might be in the minority with LOTR though as Mrs Arkay went to see the first one six times at the cinema. SIX TIMES! It's any wonder I married her at all.![]()
Indeed they were and there are always exceptions but as a rule, films over two hours need to earn the right to stick around.Some of the greatest epic films of yesteryear were much, much longer than two hours. Gone With The Wind, How the West Was Won, Ben Hur, The Greatest Story Ever Told. LOTR certainly is an epic tale and knowing the books well puts a different light on things.
Couldn't agree moreIndeed they were and there are always exceptions but as a rule, films over two hours need to earn the right to stick around.
Scarface
Not films but I could never get into 24,Dexter or the one about hells angels.
Taxi Driver.
Overrated dreary shite.
Is that the sequel?Avatar. Shower of shite.
Same here. And the same with the new Keifer Sutherland thing on Netflix, Designated Survivor. A couple of episodes was enough to see it's not for me.24 really didn't do it for me either. Got about 3 episodes in before baling out.
Not films but I could never get into 24,Dexter or the one about hells angels.
Same here. And the same with the new Keifer Sutherland thing on Netflix, Designated Survivor. A couple of episodes was enough to see it's not for me.
Dexter was a good premise and even started quite well and could've been a truly great show but turned into a cartoon of itself very quickly.



