BBC Reviews Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy 537
An anonymous reader writes "Now that the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has made its debut in London, reviews are now beginning to trickle in. The BBC's review can be summed up in one sentence: '... somewhere in the production process the crew has lost sight of the fundamental aspect of the books - they were immensely funny."
Fun Game! (Score:5, Funny)
[Fill In Book Name Here] is not as bad as I had feared. Then again, it is not as good as I had hoped.
Choose from:
Note: Those marked with an '*' may actually, really and truly, suck.
Seriously, mixing american actors with british actors and trying to turn something that wasn't very bad as a BBC TV series into a movie would be difficult, especially with the Hollywood penchant for wanting it to end differently than the book so the audience would be surpried and trying to make britishisms translate into equally funny americanisms or vice-a-versa. Imagine the following scenario: (brace thyself) A Hollywood remake of Monty Python and the Holy Grail... que horror, eh? Imagine (told you to brace yourself, you sensitive clod!) hip-hop actors, dimbulb comedy actors from sitcoms and the utter flattening of comedic timing to accomodate dumbed down humor. Yeah. Somethings are better left alone. Better to just go see Spamalot.
I do expect Rickman's dead-pan voice to be perfect for Marvin, but that's about all.
Re:Fun Game! (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, I'd really like to go see "Oracle 8.5 The Complete Reference", especially if it was in Mandarin with subs.
Re:Fun Game! (Score:5, Funny)
Scene opens on a hilly vista, bamboo trees in the near foreground, and two men dressed in black face each other.
Man 1: You killed my triggers and erased my stored procedures. For this, you will die like a dog.
Man 2: I was seeking my rightful revenge for your destruction of my parent process. Now I will finish the job by applying pressure points to your SQL until it bleeds.
Man 1, flying through the air: Aaaiii!!!
Re:Fun Game! (Score:5, Funny)
First off, they'd ignore standard ticket buying procedure; you'd have to purchase your tickets through Ticketmaster, and you'll need a guide to find the right series of buttons to push for your particular phone and calling area in order to get tickets. Of course, if you don't do things right, and sometimes if you do, they'll accidentally send you tickets for the Lion King, and you'll need to start over.
The real oracle tickets will be made of solid lead and weigh 800 pounds each. Only powerful movie theaters will be capable of exchanging the tickets for you.
When you finally sit down to watch the movie, you find that you don't know any of the characters, but they'll act like you already know every intimate detail about them. The cinematography is well implemented, but a the expense of a very slow and cryptic plot. The show will have to be closed early because the theater will prove to not be big enough to handle all of the viewers after all.
You'll leave wishing that you had gone to see "MySQL Cookbook" or "Practical Postgresql", which were both showing at the same theater, and the tickets were free.
Two thumbs down (Score:5, Funny)
Naaah, MySQL Cookbook might be free, but they only recently decided to bother installing seats in the theater.
Re:Fun Game! (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't say this is true in general.
Perhaps I should be posting anonymously, but I, for one, was a big Three's Company fan.
Re:Fun Game! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fun Game! (Score:3, Informative)
If the show had Lizzy and B, the guards were always called screws and the prisoners were constantly getting their hands burnt by the steam iron in the laundry, then yes it was Australian.
Re:Fun Game! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fun Game! (Score:3, Funny)
Well, that's nothing like the upcoming Slashdot movie.
*** SPOILER WARNING ***
The Slashdot movie begins with citing Star Trek, of course with some errors both in pronounciation (to mimic spelling errors) and in content. That is, it begins with:
"Whitespace, the final frontier. This are the voyages oof the start script Enterprise. It's five-year emission: to explode strange new words
Re:Fun Game! (Score:3, Insightful)
Case in point: "Whose Line is it Anyway?"
It's a show that progressively got more and more American comedians, but still remained funny, in large part because the host was a balding British guy. :-) But seriously, it worked because they weren't trying to dumb down the humor for American audiences. The Drew Carey version... still funny, but I only saw about one episode of the new Whose Line that even approached the humor of the original British show.
Re:Fun Game! (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you on that one, and to me it's actually a proof of two things.
1 - The basic concept was strong enough. (Apparently a tried-and-tested improv formula anyway)
2 - Something can be less than the original but still actually work.
It felt like a very different beast in some ways, yet still taken from the same mould in others. And in a way that's possibly the best way to go about such things.
Having said that, Whose Line did have one major thing going for it. It's real strength wasn't it's Brit
Re:Fun Game! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, considering only an American company would buy the rights to a show that was a ripoff of something they themselves produced in the first place, does it really surprise you that it was bad? As for The Office, the American version is absolutely dreadful. Hey, let's toss out anything that was remotely funny about the original and turn it into complete shit. Then let's sit there sc
Re:Fun Game! (Score:3, Insightful)
But why should I have to compare it to that one to enjoy it?
Re:Fun Game! (Score:5, Interesting)
I watched the US pilot of The Office a while back, expecting it to be hell on toast (especially after what friends in the US had told me about the Coupling remake).
I thought it was really good. The acting was good, and the timing was still there. One of the things I was curious about was how some of The Office is so rooted in British culture that the references wouldn't work. A few changes were made to adapt it to American culture, but the changes were appropriate and even funny in and of themselves (e.g. the 'Gareth' character is no longer in the TA, but sombrely tells the camera that he is a Volunteer Sheriff's Deputy at weekends, which made me laugh out loud).
Most of all, the sense of awkwardness and overall feeling of futility and despair which really made The Office work seemed to be there in spades in the US version. I really didn't expect that to get carried across.
In summary: pleasantly surprised, and I have gone back to watch the pilot a couple of times - it really stands up on its own, I think.
I was hooked from very early on, with the interplay between the boss and the receptionist, when the boss commented to camera that if you thought the receptionist was pretty, you should have been here five years ago
Re:I was wondering about that... (Score:3, Insightful)
This, of course, was not the point. The comedy derives from Fawlty's failure, and bystanders' horror at the way this man run
Re:Fun Game! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: not quite true (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: not quite true (Score:2, Interesting)
Never read Fight Club. Saw the movie and thought, 'damn, not another "crazy guy" film'. Didn't read Forrest Gump, but my sister's opinion was the film was considerably better. A rarity it seems.
Re: not quite true (Score:4, Funny)
Screw the movie and the book. What I'd really like to see is a Fight Club made up of members of Slashdot.
It would be no surprise to me to see guys bring Light Sabres and those Klingon BetleHs.
To sum up. "Pure Awesomeness!"
Re: not quite true (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe the moral is that just converting a great book to a movie isn't enough to have a great movie: you still have to have a good director, good casting, and a good screenwriter. (In the case of Princess Bride
Re:Fun Game! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fun Game! (Score:5, Funny)
Neo: So what are you saying -- that I can reboot these servers remotely?
Morpheus: I'm saying when the time comes, you won't have to.
Neo: Woah.
Re:Fun Game! (Score:2)
Re:Fun Game! (Score:4, Funny)
"Oracle 9i and the Prisoner of Redwood CA" (Score:5, Funny)
I've moved onto the sequel, "Oracle 9i, The Wrath of Larry Ellison" myself.
I, Robot didn't suck. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardwired didn't suck. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, our opinion would be different if they had refrained from RAPING ASIMOV'S CORPSE!
Then again, I haven't seen it, because of what Will Smith said on Leno: "It's very faithfull to the book [...] My character is the only man on earth who doesn't trust robots, everyone else does..."
Yeah, that is the exact opposite of the book, jackass.
Asimov's estate should sue them for diffamation... if they weren't busy swimming in their giant cash-filled swimming pools from all the horrible crap they've sold labelled as "Asimov's
Re:Hardwired didn't suck. (Score:5, Funny)
I swear you could invent a new language from the typos on Slashdot.
Re:Hardwired didn't suck. (Score:3, Funny)
I swear you could invent a new language from the typos on Slashdot.
Yeah: French [google.ca].
I speak more than one language, and my typing sucks in all of them : )
Hardwired wouldn't have sucked AS BADLY. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, our opinion would be different if they had refrained from RAPING ASIMOV'S CORPSE!
That's going a little too far. While I'd agree the movie is a travesty demonstrating that Hollywood is hard pressed to produce even one new idea in almost a hundred years [imdb.com], some of the dangers the movie obsessed over were at least hinted at in Asimov's works. That there is some gold dust sprinkled on, however, does not change that what you have stepped in is primarily a turd. If they had left the original "Hardwired" title in, and yanked the attempts to exploit Asimov's name, it would merely be bad; if such had been offered on DVD free with a box of cereal, I'd have bought the box provided I wasn't allergic to the cereal. (Five brand name candidates, last I counted.)
As is... I took different measures.
Then again, I haven't seen it
Given my respect for film, I didn't want to trash the movie without seeing it. On the other hand, if it was as bad as reported, I didn't want any of my money going anywhere near the people responsible. So when the DVD came out, for my first and only time for a Hollywood release, I downloaded BitTorrent, found a pirate torrent, and tied up my DSL for two days. If it was any good, I would have bought it. After watching it, I deleted it. I have better uses for the 5GB of storage.
Having seen it, the only reason I feel that the time spent watching it was not completely wasted is that I can say with a clear concience: It is a Piece of Crap; Someone Please Buy Harlan Ellison The Movie Rights.
The HHGTTG movie sounds bad, but not that bad. I might catch a matinee... but I'll bring a towel to wrap around my head, just in case it's worse than I expect.
Re:Hardwired didn't suck. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not going to be exactly the same, no. But it should at least somewhat resemble the book. The only thing that the movie 'I, Robot' had in common with the book was the title and the names of the characters. NOTHING ELSE. They took a random sci-fi script and grafted the names onto it.
Re:I, Robot didn't suck. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, these are poor examples. My vehement dislike of I, Robot and HHGTTG is not based on being a fanboy accuracy nazi.
It's just that I:
expect a film that claims to be "inspired by the writings of Asimov" not to have the hero deal with a robot problem by shooting them with a big gun.
expect a film that claims to be "inspired by the writings of Adams" to have some bloody jokes in it.
Re:Fun Game! (Score:2)
Truth is, if you care enough about a book to "fear" its cinematization, you care too much about it to enjoy the movie. That said, the Douglas Adams books have the same issue that affects Bridget Jones' Diary, Snow Crash, Vanity Fair and other books that made underwhelming/canceled movie projects: the best part of them is the language and style of the narrative, and it's hugely difficult to get that across i
I Robot (Score:3, Insightful)
The movie wasn't a retelling of the book, but you'd be nuts to try it. The book is a string of disjoint short stories. The same characters keep poping up, but they are complete stories unto themselves. You could perhaps make a mini-series out of them, but I don't think the majority of the American public would GET IT.
The movie it self though was very true to Asimov's theme, which was basically "Given these t
Re:I Robot (Score:3, Insightful)
Strict moral rules are entirely appropriate for children, who are often protected from the subtlety of circumstance (discretion is so important in ethical decision making). But once a certain sophistication of cognitive development is reached, simple rules no longer cut it. The exceptions become t
Is it a "negative" review? I dont think so... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is it a "negative" review? I dont think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I plan on seeing it, but I also plan on going out of my way to read every last negative review and whiny Aint-It-Cool-News tirade which warns of how bad it is before seeing it.
The more I lower my expectations going in, the better the chances that I might extract a little pleasure out of watching what is bound to be a very flawed adaptation of my absolute favorite childhood novel.
Sort of a... (Score:2)
Re:Is it a "negative" review? I dont think so... (Score:3, Interesting)
You know the thing that made the books so snappy ... it was that compared to Arthur, Ford was an absolute nut. Zaphod was bombastic. Marvin was quite possibly a sorrier cha
Re:Is it a "negative" review? I dont think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know what my favorite moment in the story is?
When Arther Dent, stuck on past Earth, announces that he has decided to go mad.
Ford suddenly appears and agrees that it's a good idea.
What I like about that moment is that I didn't really care for anything which came after it. Don't get me wrong, the prose was still very funny, but all this stuff of Aurther learning to fly, a planet-wise parody of what a boring sport cricket is, the truck-driving rain god, and the destruction of all possible alternate realities... It just wasn't up to snuff with the book material spawned from the original radio plays.
So, I have decided the following:
Arthur really did go mad at that moment. Ford never showed up. Arthur never learned to fly. Mattress creatures did not flollop. The reincarnated plant did not seek out revenge against Arthur. None of it happened. It was all just the delusions of Arthur's madness.
Looking at the final three and a half books of the trilogy in this light makes them much more enjoyable for me, especially since it discards the "Goddammit! I'm not writing a sixth book ever! Fuck all you drooling fanboys who will demand that my publisher lean on me to write more!" fatalistic ending. YMMV.
For that matter, one could take this premise and craft a fairly amusing fan-fic which picks up just as Arthur recovers his sanity, still stuck among the cave men.
Don't judge a book by its cover. (Score:5, Funny)
perspective. (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting to read, and written with an easy style that said "come back and read more!" sure, but not funny.
Not to me, personally, and not speaking for anyone else.
Re:perspective. (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe you're just not a fan of british humour (IANA Englisman)?
Re:perspective. (Score:2)
Indeed, when it comes to humor, everyone is different. I have a pretty strange sense of humor.
I was recently reading the H2G2 books in bed before I went to sleep each night and was garnering complaints from my wife because my laughing and/or wanting to share bits with her were keeping her awake.
Funny the first time... (Score:4, Insightful)
I see your point. The first couple times I thought the H2G2 books (the first 3 anyway) were quite funny. The 4th was thought provoking and the 5th quite a bummer.
I did find, 10 years after reading the first three that I found them to be more cynical than I recalled, with some fairly biting sarcasm embodied by certain characters and actions I didn't really see before. Eventually I believed it was funny while taking aim at a lot of things Douglas Adams probably found frustration with, like satire. There certainly are some very visible satirical references, but it seemed to me that like much humor there is often a target which is true, though by not being familiar with it we don't get all of the joke.
Re:perspective. (Score:5, Interesting)
Jump ahead to just a few months ago, where I picked up the audiobooks of the first [amazon.com] and second [amazon.com] books in the series, unabridged and both read by Douglas Adams himself. There's just something about the way Adams reads his own work that made it so much funnier. Then again, maybe it's because I don't have an imagination and/or hate the sound of my own voice when I read the paper books, even if it is only in my head.
Re:perspective. (Score:3, Funny)
Interesting to read, and written with an easy style that said "come back and read more!" sure, but not funny.
Not to me, personally, and not speaking for anyone else.
Awww, you're just grumpy because no one replaced the diodes down your left side yet...
Now that it's debuted in the UK... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Now that it's debuted in the UK... (Score:4, Funny)
Right, then! (Score:5, Funny)
It sucks. (Score:3, Funny)
I think you all ought to know that I'm very depressed.
Movie reviews usually suck. (Score:5, Interesting)
Generally, I think that humour is in the eye of the beholder. I never think that Penny Arcade comics are funny, but often still laugh at User Friendly.
Bottom line: The movie probably doesn't suck that bad at all, but the "The book was better" fanatics are going to jump all over it.
Re:Movie reviews usually suck. (Score:2)
I never think that Penny Arcade comics are funny
Thank goodness I'm not the only one!
Re:Movie reviews usually suck. (Score:3, Insightful)
I myself was part of that culture, and now as a successful adult I can look back and recall all those childhood memories this movie brings up. The aweful clothing, the
Re:Movie reviews usually suck. (Score:2)
Then again, it was set in Idaho.. and from what I've seen, they're STILL in the 1980s.
Re:Movie reviews usually suck. (Score:3, Insightful)
This pretty much renders your opinions on comedy invalid, doesn't it?
Go ahead -- mod me 'Troll' for speaking the truth! The world will remember me!
Re:Movie reviews usually suck. (Score:5, Funny)
You've got a lot of nerve saying that out loud, but some people here might actually think you're serious. Next time you want to start a flame-war, play it a little more broadly, and maybe you'll get some people really interested. Try something like this:
"Star Trek is a waste of screen time and latex ears... but I love the revolutionary science fiction stories in Lucas' Star Wars series, especially the newer ones."
Re:Movie reviews usually suck. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but the latex ears seemed to counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor of the Humanity of the writer's compassionate soul, which contrives through the medium of the verse structure to sublimate this, transcend that, and come to terms with the fundamental dichotomies of the other, and one is left with a profound and vivid insight into whatever it was the show was about.
Re:Movie reviews usually suck. (Score:3, Funny)
I'd give you a +1 funny, except I don't have modpoints, and I don't think there's anything funny in life anyways.
I'm sorry, did I say something wrong? well excuse me for breathing which I never actually do anyway so I don't know why I bothered to say it oh god I'm so depressed.
Napoleon is in a class of it's own... (Score:4, Insightful)
Lines like:
"Pedro offers his protection", or "You gonna eat those tots?", while on there own don't sound funny, it the right context with people who know the reference can be fairly entertaining.
I'd say Napoleon is funnier after you've see it, not while you're actually watching it.
I still liked it better than "Friends", ugh, I'm glad that's over.
Sean D.
Re:Reviews and Penny Arcade (Score:4, Funny)
Dang, at least the ones we ate in the 80's had been killed before being served to us!
Funny? (Score:5, Funny)
Did the script veer too far away from the source material or tie itself in knots trying to keep faith with it?
Bizarrely, I think the answer is both.
Funny, I was almost certain it was 42
Re:Funny? (Score:4, Funny)
[obscure hhgttg reference swim]
Only one movie (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Only one movie (Score:2)
A mini-series is the best bet.
Ok, now that the movie is out of the way... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ok, now that the movie is out of the way... (Score:2)
And I am really interested in how the books intro will fit into the movie. I mean they do have to explain to those new to the genre how to get the hell off the planet, right?
Re:Ok, now that the movie is out of the way... (Score:3, Interesting)
In the case of HHGTTG, the whole thing was supposed to be a spoof, a farce. You don't dress up that with effects that are too good, or people won't be sure if you're trying to be funny or not.
Previews make it look like an action flick (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope the actual movie is better than the previews.
Re:Previews make it look like an action flick (Score:5, Informative)
Quicktime, "large" [go.com].
Other sizes/formats, go through the movie's site. [go.com]
sick (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds about right... (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, in reading the books, I've always been left feeling quite indifferent to Trillian. Almost like she's a background character with little to no importance. So it sounds like they at least got that right.
Ender-
in the minority (Score:2)
Can't say I thought the movie would be any better, so I'm not terribly disappointed by the bad review. It isn't "The Holy Grail", after all.
Max
My take on the review: (Score:5, Funny)
Deja vu (Score:2)
Did the script veer too far away from the source
material or tie itself in knots trying to keep
faith with it?
Bizarrely, I think the answer is both.
Wow, it's like Dune all over again. Gotta wonder
why sci-fi is so hard to get right. Maybe this
phenomena is not unique to the genre?
Almost, but not entirely.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Almost, but not entirely.... (Score:3, Funny)
Loved the books, but as a movie? (Score:5, Insightful)
An example from the famous babelfish passage:
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
How the heck are you supposed to film that and keep some semblance of flow to the story? You could do it as a voiceover I suppose, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the plot yet passages like this are a defining feature of an Adams book. I'll be interested to see if they attempted to put passages like this in the movie and if they can pull it off.
Compare with LOTR, or Harry Potter, or any Michael Crichton novel, which are more plot driven works and thus can translate to a visual medium like movies and still capture the spirit of the original text much better. At least IMHO
Still, I'm intent on seeing the movie and hope it retains some of the classic Adams humour...
Re:Loved the books, but as a movie? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Loved the books, but as a movie? (Score:5, Interesting)
The accompanying cheezy "computer graphic" animation adds an element of humor and keeps the voice over from being too heavy-handed.
The problem you do run into is length. Most books -- especially these days with the customer demand for thicker books for the buck -- are far too long to squeeze everything into a two-hour movie. (The rule of thumb for screenplays is that each page of the screenplay translates to a minute of film time. That rule doesn't necessarily hold for a book because of differences in writing style (description vs dialog, etc).
Michael Chrichton, of course, has written both books and screenplays, and directed movies (eg "Westworld"), so knows intimately how to write a book that will translate to a movie -- but large chunks of his books get left out of the movie version anyway. Marshall McLuhan may not have been absolutely right ("the medium is the message"), but he certainly raised a valid point about how the medium affects the message (content).
Can't read the article (Score:5, Funny)
The Hollywood Spectaculomatic (Score:3, Funny)
If I Had a Dime... (Score:4, Funny)
What will end up on the ads from the review (Score:3, Funny)
"Crammed full of witty erudition!"
"A . . . comedic romp!"
"Sam Rockwell does a great turn as Zaphod Beeblebrox!"
". .
"Outstanding production design and some fantastic visual effects!"
"Charming!"
Don't Panic! - The Review Isn't Consistent (Score:5, Insightful)
Sam Rockwell does a great turn as Zaphod Beeblebrox, the two-headed president of the galaxy; Mos Def is passable as Ford Prefect; while Zooey Deschanel is beguiling as Trillian
Then a few paragraphs down we get this:
Did I say characters? Hmmm. While Dent is a familiar cipher, audiences will be left clueless by Ford Prefect, bemused by Zaphod Beeblebrox and indifferent to Trillian.
Indifferent to Trillian? I thought the actress playing her was "beguiling"!?! How can an actress potray a character in a beguiling way that leaves the audience indifferent? That's almost as funny as some of Adams' turns of speech. :)
In brief, the reviewer liked the movie, but didn't like all of it. In fact, he called it a "charming mess". Having been a fan of Adams' work for over twenty years I had always been under the impression the same could be said of the books. And even Adams' own later sequels lacked the punchy humor and wit of the originals. It is hard to make lightening strike twice.
I recently downloaded the BBC's HG2G TV adaptation. Although some parts are brilliant, many parts drag and are truly awful. Translating Adams' writing style into a visual medium is bound to be difficult. Even the British couldn't get it all right.
The 'Book should have been treated as character... (Score:3, Interesting)
The evolution of DNA.. (Score:3, Insightful)
#1. Most of the best humor just wouldn't work in a movie format. Why? To do it well you'd need an absurd amount of time, and as well, the story would start to drag on. Really.
Now, from what I'm hearing, they're filming a TON of material for the DVD version. Meaning that all the stuff that didn't make it into the theatrical cut, may very well make it into an actual "Guide" cut, with all those little asides that make the book.
A DVD package with "Don't Panic" on the cover and given the LotR extended edition treatment? Oh yes.
#2. Like it or not, he's just not the same guy he was when he wrote the book. Hell, he wasn't the same guy when he wrote the sequals. And one thing that DNA wanted, was to update HHGG..the philosophy and feeling behind it, to get it out of his past and move it into the present. And because of that, after he died, when the production team had a doubt about the tone of any of the material, they looked up his latter stuff. To see how it would go, and work.
Maybe that's the ultimate problem. The true fans wanted the classic, but that's just not going to happen.
Re:My Verdict (Score:5, Interesting)
All the changes from the book and TV show and radio play seem to have been made for no reason and not only do they not add anything, they actually make it worse.
NONE of the books/radio shows agree with each other, so why should you expect the movie to?
You're wrong there (Score:3, Informative)
Re:My Verdict (Score:5, Insightful)
Curse you for giving away the part about Malkovich, it would have been an entertaining surprise.
Re:My Verdict (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, come on, now. Deliberatly saying something's bad just so that the downloaders can claim they're sticking it to The Man for making bad movies... that's so, well, earlier this morning.
Re:My Verdict (Score:3, Informative)
stay away from mithuro.com
Re:maths? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:maths? (Score:5, Funny)
It's British English. Sometimes they call a truck a "lorry," sometimes they call a television "the tube," other times they call elevators a "lift."
My god. This is just about the most culturally blind, obviously offensive, most idiotic thing I have ever seen on the Internets.
Re:maths? (Score:5, Funny)
American English: I wish you were as interested in math as you are in sports!
English English: I wish you were as interested in maths as you are in sport!
You can't take away an s without it popping up somewhere else.
Re:maths? (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that it seems reasonable just to refer to it as English, as the previous poster says, 'English English' seems redundant.
After all, 'British English' ought by denfinition to refer to the version of English spoken throughout the Kingdom of Scotland as well as the Kingdom of England (not to mention the Principality of Wales and the Province of Northern Ireland). However, Scottish English - aka Scottish Sta
Re:A bit picky, but, (Score:3, Insightful)
God forbid it should not be the complete title in it's entirity every single time, lest the IRA get over excited about it and decide
Nonsense. (Score:5, Insightful)
You could use it to hold popcorn, to wrap yourself in if the theatre is too cold, and if you carry a tube of cyanide stitched into the lining, you could kill yourself if it is too much to bear.
Most importantly, you could cry into it if the reviews are right
Re:way tooo geeky for me... (Score:3, Funny)
I wonder what that would do to a growing lad, expecting triple-breasted whores from Eroticon Six, and only ever managing to find the double-breasted kind... I hope he wasn't too scarred