Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 6 topics

Monday, June 5, 2017

TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 06 12:17AM +0300

Watched...
 
The Lady from Shanghai (1947)
Essential Noir from Welles. Stunning atmospheric noir visuals,
complicated confusing but interesting script, luminous blonded Rita
Hayworth... and finally, lol, porky Orson Welles as the hero with most
horrible Irish accent I've ever heard. Also probably the first mirror
house shooting scene? A must see for cinephiles and noir fans. 7/10
 
Funny Games (1997)
Haneke's disturbing and terrifying story about a couple young men
terrorizing a family. Simple and sick but very effective horror. I
thought the lead actor did a terrific job on portraying snobbish
monster. 8/10
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 05 03:07PM -0700

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 2:17:46 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> Hayworth... and finally, lol, porky Orson Welles as the hero with most
> horrible Irish accent I've ever heard. Also probably the first mirror
> house shooting scene? A must see for cinephiles and noir fans. 7/10
 
I loved the mirror house scene. Funny how Hayworth remained perfectly gorgeous, unsweaty, and "Gilda-like" even in the tropical sun. Was Welles really already fat in that film? I don't recall that.
 
> terrorizing a family. Simple and sick but very effective horror. I
> thought the lead actor did a terrific job on portraying snobbish
> monster. 8/10
 
So now you're a Haneke fan? What a turnaround. ;)
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 06 01:22AM +0300

Gracchus kirjoitti 6.6.2017 klo 1:07:
>> horrible Irish accent I've ever heard. Also probably the first mirror
>> house shooting scene? A must see for cinephiles and noir fans. 7/10
 
> I loved the mirror house scene. Funny how Hayworth remained perfectly gorgeous, unsweaty, and "Gilda-like" even in the tropical sun. Was Welles really already fat in that film? I don't recall that.
 
Nah, a bit roundfaced I thought. And damn Hayworth looked probably even
better than in Gilda, helped by perfect lighting etc.
 
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/49/7c/09/497c095887220b12c2ecf549d5538db6.jpg
 
>> thought the lead actor did a terrific job on portraying snobbish
>> monster. 8/10
 
> So now you're a Haneke fan? What a turnaround. ;)
 
Tomorrow Federer fan.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 05 03:37PM -0700

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 8:58:48 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> > witnessed it for a couple yrs.
 
> > bob
 
> You can not be this silly...
 
You wanna bet? It's Bob, the guy who believed Lance Armstrong was not the evil mastermind behind his team's doping because "innocent until proven guilty" and all that. *rolls eyes*
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 05 03:42PM -0700

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 5:17:46 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> Hayworth... and finally, lol, porky Orson Welles as the hero with most
> horrible Irish accent I've ever heard. Also probably the first mirror
> house shooting scene? A must see for cinephiles and noir fans. 7/10
 
What did you think about Orson's laughable Irish accent? That didn't knock the film down a bit for you? Orson wasn't fat yet in that movie but he was well on his way--bloated face.
 

> terrorizing a family. Simple and sick but very effective horror. I
> thought the lead actor did a terrific job on portraying snobbish
> monster. 8/10
 
Yes, it was an effective horror but I found it a little too disturbing and I don't remember exactly why now but it fell a bit flat for me. I think I would rate it around a 6/10.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 05 03:46PM -0700

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 9:11:27 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
 
> Actually, in this case I have not. I thought the list stopped at 100, so
> those were the 5 films out of the first 100 that I haven't seen. I
> didn't look at the other 900 films, LOL. :)
 
 
Look at the next 900 and tell us how many you've seen. No Captain Underpants on that list!
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 05 03:47PM -0700

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 6:07:42 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:

> Funny how Hayworth remained perfectly gorgeous, unsweaty, and "Gilda-like" even in the tropical sun.
 
Please don't speak in this unbecoming shallow manner! Thanks in advance. :)
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 05 04:11PM -0700

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 5:17:46 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:

> terrorizing a family. Simple and sick but very effective horror. I
> thought the lead actor did a terrific job on portraying snobbish
> monster. 8/10
 
Actually, I went to go check my notes I typed out on this film because I couldn't remember much from memory.
 
SPOILERS AHEAD but this is what I wrote at the time:
 
"This is a fast-paced thriller/horror with some disturbing images (i.e. the dead kid with blood all over the surrounding walls.) It has a lot of flaws in the story though. For example, no phone in the summer home, the husband and wife taking their time doing this and that in the house after the bad guys left for a bit instead of getting out of the house and finding help, the fact that the husband didn't call the police when he dried out the cell phone (why on earth would he call a friend first and not the police?) The wife asked him what the police phone number was. Don't they have 911 in Austria? Also, the fact that the mother just sat there staring into space when her kid was brutally shot was weird. The husband seemed awfully passive the entire time as well as these two creeps took over his home.
 
This is a home invasion movie gone terribly wrong. Another thing which was annoying was the directors use of long drawn out paused shots which seemed to last for an eternity. He would pause the camera on the characters after their son was blown to pieces as if time had stopped (I guess in a way for the parents it had.) Another annoying gimmick was the characters would talk into the camera as if talking to the audience. A violent and disturbing film with some very strange decisions made by the lead characters which IMO further put their live in jeopardy. Not a bad film and as I said fast-paced but some aspects made it questionable. I also saw the US remake with Naomi Watts and that was worse than this film. I think this film was better paced and more suspenseful." 6/10
 
TT, what say you about my comments?
 
Oh also, I did like the Haneke film better than the Naomi Watts remake. For some reason I had recalled the reverse.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 05 04:12PM -0700

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 3:48:02 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 6:07:42 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:

> > Funny how Hayworth remained perfectly gorgeous, unsweaty, and "Gilda-like" even in the tropical sun.

> Please don't speak in this unbecoming shallow manner! Thanks in advance. :)
 
Show me where I ever said that I don't recognize a beautiful woman when I see one. My point here was that she was unrealistically unsullied by the weather. It wasn't a "drooling" post. Geez.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 05 04:16PM -0700

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:13:02 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > > Funny how Hayworth remained perfectly gorgeous, unsweaty, and "Gilda-like" even in the tropical sun.
 
> > Please don't speak in this unbecoming shallow manner! Thanks in advance. :)
 
> Show me where I ever said that I don't recognize a beautiful woman when I see one. My point here was that she was unrealistically unsullied by the weather. It wasn't a "drooling" post. Geez.
 
Oh shhh. It was a partial drooling post from a man who criticizes me for judging people too much on the basis of their appearance.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 05 06:19PM -0500

On 6/5/2017 5:46 PM, Court_1 wrote:
>> those were the 5 films out of the first 100 that I haven't seen. I
>> didn't look at the other 900 films, LOL. :)
 
> Look at the next 900 and tell us how many you've seen.
 
No thanks, too many ads/videos going through all those pages. Besides,
I've done enough 'lists' around here, LOL. Mine, this one, TT's 250,
seems enough to show I top all the lists.
 
You should see Captain Underpants, fun film.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 05 02:49PM -0700

hahahaa, thanks for the recommendation RST! was very funny! 7 out of 10! though I dock it 3 points for being a bit too rude in a couple of places :) could easily write a Patrick Keyhole-like review about how it in-depthly explores the revolving interdimensional multi-ageist feeling in a relational sense between The Rock's Mitch and Zac Efron's Brandoesque Brodie and how these contrast an amazing symbiance in such a recreational setting, but I won't LOL!
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 05 03:10PM -0700

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 2:49:13 PM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
 
> hahahaa, thanks for the recommendation RST! was very funny! 7 out of 10! though I dock it 3 points for being a bit too rude in a couple of places :) could easily write a Patrick Keyhole-like review about how it in-depthly explores the revolving interdimensional multi-ageist feeling in a relational sense between The Rock's Mitch and Zac Efron's Brandoesque Brodie and how these contrast an amazing symbiance in such a recreational setting, but I won't LOL!
 
Oh please, do write that review. Don't forget the ellipses.
grif <griffin_230@hotmail.com>: Jun 05 11:21PM +0100

On 05/06/2017 22:49, The Iceberg wrote:
> hahahaa, thanks for the recommendation RST! was very funny! 7 out of 10! though I dock it 3 points for being a bit too rude in a couple of places :) could easily write a Patrick Keyhole-like review about how it in-depthly explores the revolving interdimensional multi-ageist feeling in a relational sense between The Rock's Mitch and Zac Efron's Brandoesque Brodie and how these contrast an amazing symbiance in such a recreational setting, but I won't LOL!
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS1YYtQ_LLY&t=1m3s
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jun 05 03:28PM -0700

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 5:49:13 PM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
> hahahaa, thanks for the recommendation RST! was very funny! 7 out of 10! though I dock it 3 points for being a bit too rude in a couple of places :) could easily write a Patrick Keyhole-like review about how it in-depthly explores the revolving interdimensional multi-ageist feeling in a relational sense between The Rock's Mitch and Zac Efron's Brandoesque Brodie and how these contrast an amazing symbiance in such a recreational setting, but I won't LOL!
 
You did, well done Icey!!!
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 05 04:01PM -0500

Mildly recommended. Yes, this animated movie is aimed at kids, but it
has features that many adults will like as well, namely slapstick
subversive comedy that hits its mark two out of three times, and a
best-friends relationship with some real heart to it. Middleditch and
Hart give expressive vocal performances as the two fourth grade friends
whose antics drive the action. Smart, funny, crisp, it has something for
the kid in everyone. After a dry spell that almost killed it, Dreamworks
Animation is quietly finding their marks again.
 
672/1000
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 06 12:21AM +0300

stephenJ kirjoitti 6.6.2017 klo 0:01:
> whose antics drive the action. Smart, funny, crisp, it has something for
> the kid in everyone. After a dry spell that almost killed it, Dreamworks
> Animation is quietly finding their marks again.
 
Captain Underpants?
loool. I mean thanks for the recommendation. :-D
 
 
> 672/1000
 
Is this what you got from the list Courtsie posted?
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 05 09:52PM

On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 16:01:10 -0500, stephenJ wrote:
 
> 672/1000
 
What would have tipped the movie to 673 instead of 672?
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 05 03:14PM -0700

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 2:52:49 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
 
> What would have tipped the movie to 673 instead of 672?
 
Soiled underpants?
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 06 01:22AM +0300

Gracchus kirjoitti 6.6.2017 klo 1:14:
> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 2:52:49 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
 
>> What would have tipped the movie to 673 instead of 672?
 
> Soiled underpants?
 
No underpants at all?
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 05 10:00PM +0200

>> successor is doing, or even on public events more generally.
 
> Trump is going to be THE WORST when it comes to that, I suspect, but
> you'll have no problem with it I'm sure...
 
You'll blame Trump if he doesn't keep a low profile even though it
was Obama, before him, who made a precedent?
 
Seriously?
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 05 09:51PM

On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 22:00:08 +0200, *skriptis wrote:
 
> You'll blame Trump if he doesn't keep a low profile even though it
> was Obama, before him, who made a precedent?
 
> Seriously?
 
Actually I don't have any problem with him, Obama, Bushes, Bill
commenting or being politically active after their terms are up. It was
Stephen and yourself that have a problem with it (when it's Obama). My
point was that if Trump does it (more like *when* he does it) I doubt
you'll be concerned about it. Man, Obama and Hillary really get
conservatives shaking in their boots... bizarre.
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 05 03:05PM -0700

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:51:52 PM UTC+2, jdeluise wrote:
> point was that if Trump does it (more like *when* he does it) I doubt
> you'll be concerned about it. Man, Obama and Hillary really get
> conservatives shaking in their boots... bizarre.
 
Which GOP president (including Lincoln) didn't make you crazy DemocRats NOT shake in your boots?
 
 
Max
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jun 05 02:25PM -0700

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 3:23:35 AM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
 
> That just proves my point - even an old Guga could raise his game to a
> level where it could crush Federer on clay. How many players in this
> era could do that, aside from Rafa?
 
There is no point trusting your point given your great analysis like Federer winning just 1 slam and no other final, roddick was Sampras on steroid, Tomic was Roddick on steroid. With that sort of track record why should we trust your point. Yes, Guga could raise his game but as a reigning FO champ he was crushed with 1,0 sets by a very young Federer.
MBDunc <michaelb@dnainternet.net>: Jun 05 01:29PM -0700

Of top8 seeds....1,2,3,4,6,7,8 in QFs.
 
Too bad Carreno Busta (20) beat Raonic (5) 4R in five sets...
 
Feels very unique already?
 
.mikko
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.tennis+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

0 comments:

Post a Comment