Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 15 updates in 5 topics

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 21 10:59AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 1:42:58 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:

> If forced to watch either another Tim Burton film or another from Wes Anderson, I'd probably pick Anderson. A cruel choice either way. They're two peas from the same pretentious pod.
 
The only Wes Anderson films I've seen are The Grand Budapest Hotel (which I liked and we have discussed ad nauseam) and The Squid and the Whale which I hated. As for Tim Burton, I haven't seen all of his work but I have seen Alice in Wonderland, Big Eyes, Edward Scissorhands, Beetlejuice and Ed Wood and thought they were all interesting.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 21 09:01PM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 21.6.2017 klo 20:40:
 
>> I think Amelie is ok but waay overrated. Well you know I don't like much
>> Burtonesque quirkiness.
 
> Does Amelie have some quirkiness as well?
 
Quirky & whimsical...
 
 
> I don't think I've seen Tender Mercies? > I did see Crazy Heart(with Jeff
> Bridges) which people say is similar to Tender Mercies and I liked Crazy
> Heart.
 
Yes they're a bit similar. I'd even add Eastwood's Honkytank Man to the
mix. Tender Mercies is perhaps even more a 'small' film. But nice.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 21 09:06PM +0300

Gracchus kirjoitti 21.6.2017 klo 20:42:
>> western/country stories. Duvall won the lead Oscar from his role and he
>> was good although I'm not sure if his accent was all 'legit'.
 
> I think Duvall uses a "stock" southern accent like Tommy Lee Jones. Maybe > that's why they worked so well together in "Lonesome Dove." :)
 
Ok, I was just wondering since my accent radar is probably not the best.
 
> I liked "Tender Mercies." It's very understated and low-key without being > dull. When "Crazy Heart" came out, ten minutes in I was thinking,
> Hey...I've seen this before. But "Tender Mercies" did it so much better.
 
I think both are very good, Bridges convinced me more as a singer but
yes Tender Mercies is probably more low key and likeable.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 21 11:11AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 11:00:00 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 1:42:58 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:

> > If forced to watch either another Tim Burton film or another from Wes Anderson, I'd probably pick Anderson. A cruel choice either way. They're two peas from the same pretentious pod.
 
> The only Wes Anderson films I've seen are The Grand Budapest Hotel (which I liked and we have discussed ad nauseam)
 
Double ad nauseum for me because I had to remember it.
 
> and The Squid and the Whale which I hated. As for Tim Burton, I haven't seen all of his work but I have seen Alice in Wonderland, Big Eyes, Edward Scissorhands, Beetlejuice and Ed Wood and thought they were all interesting.
 
I thought "Beetlejuice" was fun at the time. "Alice in Wonderland" was beautiful in 3-D but contains all the "Burtonisms" I can't stand, including Johnny Depp's pansy-mincing.
grif <griffin_230@hotmail.com>: Jun 21 08:01PM +0100

On 21/06/2017 18:27, Carey wrote:
>> was good although I'm not sure if his accent was all 'legit'.
 
> Ahh, 'Tender Mercies'... I've been trying to remember the name of that so I could see it again.
> And I liked 'Amelie' quite a lot. Bought the dvd in fact.
 
Small pleasures. This is the part I always remember about Amelie. I like quirky and I like whimsy and this film has it in spades. It has a very evocative musical score by Yann Tiersen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmllotLUU38
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 21 11:51AM -0700

https://youtu.be/cFh9Rm1kpDs
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jun 21 11:00AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 1:36:07 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > > No! DDL is the last person to do hokey marketing like that. If you look up the definition of fame whore you won't see DDL's picture.
 
> > Wonder who he did have to give blowjobs to get those Oscars?
 
> If he isn't a worthy Oscar winner I don't know who is.
 
Jeff Bridges? Slips so effortlessly into his characters. None of this over-the-top method acting. I do love DDL, but I imagine he must be tiring to work with. I prefer his earlier work.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 21 07:47PM +0200


>> Wonder who he did have to give blowjobs to get those Oscars?
 
> If he isn't a worthy Oscar winner I don't know who is.
 
I had to google him to see how does guy look like. I'm familiar
with the name but nothing else much.
 
 
So he's not that famous. At least not in the Clark Gable, Humphrey
Bogart, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Leonardo DiCaprio league.

 
Everyone knows how they look at what are they famous for.
 
 
B level fame. He's Djokovic type of his profession.
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 21 11:03AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 2:00:34 PM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
 
> > > Wonder who he did have to give blowjobs to get those Oscars?
 
> > If he isn't a worthy Oscar winner I don't know who is.
 
> Jeff Bridges? Slips so effortlessly into his characters. None of this over-the-top method acting. I do love DDL, but I imagine he must be tiring to work with. I prefer his earlier work.
 
Jeff Bridges has played essentially the same character in his last bunch of films, i.e. a country hick with an accent you can hardly understand.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 21 11:10AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 2:01:03 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
> Bogart, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Leonardo DiCaprio league.
 
> Everyone knows how they look at what are they famous for.
 
> B level fame. He's Djokovic type of his profession.
 
Please go away and don't sully this thread with your usual garbage. DDL is A list all the way.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 21 11:23AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 11:03:44 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 2:00:34 PM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
 
> > Jeff Bridges? Slips so effortlessly into his characters. None of this over-the-top method acting. I do love DDL, but I imagine he must be tiring to work with. I prefer his earlier work.
 
> Jeff Bridges has played essentially the same character in his last bunch of films, i.e. a country hick with an accent you can hardly understand.
 
Yeah, in recent years he's fallen into Duvall's pattern of playing the same gravelly-voiced crusty old coot still loaded with moxie despite a failing body. To think that he was once Eastwood's young sidekick "Lightfoot," and now he sounds like Eastwood.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 21 08:15PM +0200


>> B level fame. He's Djokovic type of his profession.
 
> Please go away and don't sully this thread with your usual garbage. DDL is A list all the way.
 
So home come I haven't heard about him, or more precisely disn't
know how he looks like?
 
I thought one of the things being A celebrity is being universally
recognised even outside of your profession by virtually everyone.

 
I'm not s big movie fan, and that's precisely what makes me an
authority here.
 
Of course movie aficionados would know him.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jun 21 11:31AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 2:23:46 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > > Jeff Bridges? Slips so effortlessly into his characters. None of this over-the-top method acting. I do love DDL, but I imagine he must be tiring to work with. I prefer his earlier work.
 
> > Jeff Bridges has played essentially the same character in his last bunch of films, i.e. a country hick with an accent you can hardly understand.
 
> Yeah, in recent years he's fallen into Duvall's pattern of playing the same gravelly-voiced crusty old coot still loaded with moxie despite a failing body. To think that he was once Eastwood's young sidekick "Lightfoot," and now he sounds like Eastwood.
 
Maybe, but he is still a magical actor. I guess pickings are slim at his age.
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 21 09:52AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 9:51:16 AM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
> but this is OK, and if nothing else provides some benchmarks. Hasn't aged as badly as I thought it might.
> Also, the '79 version is much better (again IMO) than the '83. It now seems quaint that there was once
> something of a common culture... heh.
 
 
Here is a link to the best deals on it that I found:
 
http://product.half.ebay.com/The-Rolling-Stone-Record-Guide-by-Rolling-Stone-Press-Staff-1979-Paperback/2065075&tg=info
MBDunc <michaelb@dnainternet.net>: Jun 20 11:12PM -0700

keskiviikko 21. kesäkuuta 2017 1.34.22 UTC+3 bob kirjoitti:
 
> then why did he skip so many?
 
> > Borg won 11 slams and McEnroe won 7. Borg is greater than McEnroe by the measure of every proper tennis analyst. Who would put McEnroe above Borg except for stupid fanatics?
 
> kbob
 
I have read two Borg biographies (official) in both he clearly says "it was/is all about Wimbledon" *) -> 7-5-4-3 -> for Borg it was more like 10-5-3-0.
 
*) One of those those biographies was written 1979.
 
.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