|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 22, 2008 16:20:40 GMT -5
Jim, no reason to get so uptight just 'cuz I say I knew about the other film but didn't feel like mentioning it.
And I never "pretend" anything.
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Oct 22, 2008 16:23:52 GMT -5
dumb question, why is it called Chapter 27 ? No problem. "Catcher in the Rye" has 26 chapters. Did not know this. So, after being scolded by the N.Y. Bobbsey twins for even recognizing that Chapman exists, and never ever having read Catcher in the Rye, what should I do? Skip the film and the book in support of the twins, or stick to my convictions and watch the film and read the book all in the same night?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 22, 2008 16:50:26 GMT -5
Whatever makes you happy. Just please, don't kill anybody.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 22, 2008 16:51:11 GMT -5
[ . . . what should I do? Skip the film and the book in support of the twins, or stick to my convictions and watch the film and read the book all in the same night? Actually, they are part of a set of triplets. I would do anything to piss them off. It's actually quite easy to do, though, so sometimes there is no sport in it. Good for a casual divergence. But, you know. They do have a point. I have decided never to say the word "me_t" since I am a vegetarian, and saying the word would be the same as glorifying the eating of animals. I have also decided never to ride in a Japanese car again because Totota and Nissan industries were responsible for the planes that bombed Pearl Harbor. You know, being a patriot and all.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 22, 2008 17:13:48 GMT -5
In honor of your last post mentioning meat, sayne, I think I'll order a Veal Parmiagian Hero. Be back in a sec....
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Oct 22, 2008 20:36:20 GMT -5
Jim, no reason to get so uptight just 'cuz I say I knew about the other film but didn't feel like mentioning it. And I never "pretend" anything. The use of the word "deliberately" in your earlier post makes my point that you seem to think that the three monkeys of lore (speak no, hear no, see no) are a symbol of great wisdom. And if you didn't want to bring it up in the course of the discussion, why mention that you know about it except to continue this game of magic spells? ...whispering, "I knew about it, but wanted it to be a secret for as long as possible."
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Oct 22, 2008 20:43:23 GMT -5
No problem. "Catcher in the Rye" has 26 chapters. Did not know this. So, after being scolded by the N.Y. Bobbsey twins for even recognizing that Chapman exists, and never ever having read Catcher in the Rye, what should I do? Skip the film and the book in support of the twins, or stick to my convictions and watch the film and read the book all in the same night? Definitely read The Catcher in the Rye.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Oct 22, 2008 20:45:25 GMT -5
This is just me but I have no interest in watching it. Most of these movies are bad like the Linda McCartney story and Two of Us. If the movie was as good as Backbeat I'd watch it.
and Sayne thanks for the explanation of the title..
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 22, 2008 21:46:08 GMT -5
In honor of your last post mentioning meat, sayne, I think I'll order a Veal Parmiagian Hero. Be back in a sec.... ;D
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 22, 2008 22:10:27 GMT -5
This is just me but I have no interest in watching it. Most of these movies are bad like the Linda McCartney story and Two of Us. If the movie was as good as Backbeat I'd watch it. and Sayne thanks for the explanation of the title.. You're welcome. You know, in the old board I asked the question why Beatle-connected movies are at best average and rarely great OR scarcely popular? Whether it's Sargeant Pepper, Give My Regards . . ., Caveman, the Linda McCartney Story, Two of Us, Chapter 27, The United States vs. John Lennon, the Concert for George, I Wanna Hold Your Hand, Across the Universe, Backbeat, etc they really don't stir up much. Now, the Concert for George and Across the Universe are good, but compare them to the recent Rolling Stones/Martin Scorsese movie or Mamma Mia. The former is a thrilling document and the latter is a box office hit. My impression is that very few things from tribute albums to movies to stage to screen to books to television live up to or come close to the quality or popularity of the Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Oct 22, 2008 22:41:51 GMT -5
This is just me but I have no interest in watching it. Most of these movies are bad like the Linda McCartney story and Two of Us. If the movie was as good as Backbeat I'd watch it. and Sayne thanks for the explanation of the title.. You're welcome. You know, in the old board I asked the question why Beatle-connected movies are at best average and rarely great OR scarcely popular? Whether it's Sargeant Pepper, Give My Regards . . ., Caveman, the Linda McCartney Story, Two of Us, Chapter 27, The United States vs. John Lennon, the Concert for George, I Wanna Hold Your Hand, Across the Universe, Backbeat, etc they really don't stir up much. Now, the Concert for George and Across the Universe are good, but compare them to the recent Rolling Stones/Martin Scorsese movie or Mamma Mia. The former is a thrilling document and the latter is a box office hit. My impression is that very few things from tribute albums to movies to stage to screen to books to television live up to or come close to the quality or popularity of the Beatles. True but the Doors film , the Johnny Cash film had big actors in it and were big budget hollywood films so there was alot of marketing behind them. Beatle related movies are cheap , third rate productions made for TV, so for us Beatle fans it's really a waste of time. Maybe the Beatles as people just don't evoke those strong emotions like a Jim Morrison or a Mick Jagger. Also, the Johnny Cash film was a really good movie too and I saw it even though I;m not a Johnny Cash fan. I remember U2's rattle and hum got alot of promotion and it came out at the same time as the 1988 Imagine film. I think Rattle and Hum was more successful though. But you're right ,anything that is connected to the Beatles that doesn't have the Beatles in it doesn't seem to do well. Also, GIve My Regards to BS was a bad bad movie. Yuck !!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 22, 2008 23:13:48 GMT -5
You're welcome. You know, in the old board I asked the question why Beatle-connected movies are at best average and rarely great OR scarcely popular? Whether it's Sargeant Pepper, Give My Regards . . ., Caveman, the Linda McCartney Story, Two of Us, Chapter 27, The United States vs. John Lennon, the Concert for George, I Wanna Hold Your Hand, Across the Universe, Backbeat, etc they really don't stir up much. Now, the Concert for George and Across the Universe are good, but compare them to the recent Rolling Stones/Martin Scorsese movie or Mamma Mia. The former is a thrilling document and the latter is a box office hit. My impression is that very few things from tribute albums to movies to stage to screen to books to television live up to or come close to the quality or popularity of the Beatles. True but the Doors film , the Johnny Cash film had big actors in it and were big budget hollywood films so there was alot of marketing behind them. Beatle related movies are cheap , third rate productions made for TV, so for us Beatle fans it's really a waste of time. Maybe the Beatles as people just don't evoke those strong emotions like a Jim Morrison or a Mick Jagger. Also, the Johnny Cash film was a really good movie too and I saw it even though I;m not a Johnny Cash fan. I remember U2's rattle and hum got alot of promotion and it came out at the same time as the 1988 Imagine film. I think Rattle and Hum was more successful though. But you're right ,anything that is connected to the Beatles that doesn't have the Beatles in it doesn't seem to do well. Also, GIve My Regards to BS was a bad bad movie. Yuck !! What was that truly dreadful made-for-tv movie from 1985, John and Yoko:A Love Story, or something like that. John Lennon was portrayed as the biggest "Mr. Sensitive" twit ever!
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Oct 30, 2008 3:11:01 GMT -5
What was that truly dreadful made-for-tv movie from 1985, John and Yoko:A Love Story, or something like that. John Lennon was portrayed as the biggest "Mr. Sensitive" twit ever! That film is so bad it's funny. I love the bit where John is on his Lost Weekend and Yoko is sitting at home writing songs.... I gotta watch the film in its entirety one day. It's at our local DVD shop under cult. Take a note temporary secretary...
|
|