|
|
Post by bittersound on Feb 2, 2007 12:16:38 GMT 1
...should be arriving in my post box soon.
I'll be honest, after the last two versions I'm:
a. Possibly a glutton for punishment
b. Not expecting a great improvement.
BUT!! My review will be as objective as I can make it. After all, we all have our opinions on what is good an bad so there's no point in going over old ground.
It certainly won't be a personal attack on who made the film and and positives or negative comments will be about "the film" and not whoever made it.
|
|
Wastedyuthe
Been Here a while!
Here hare, here.
Posts: 215
|
Post by Wastedyuthe on Feb 2, 2007 12:35:57 GMT 1
I am still confused by this 'latest version'. Is it definately a new Directors cut, and not the same Directors cut that was released before just released a second time for publicity? The description stated that Hines spent so long trimming the three hours down to this version, which suggests it is the original Directors cut. Am I wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by bittersound on Feb 2, 2007 12:43:10 GMT 1
i *think* it's a rejigged version of the 2nd version - the directors cut.
i could be wrong, however.
|
|
Wastedyuthe
Been Here a while!
Here hare, here.
Posts: 215
|
Post by Wastedyuthe on Feb 2, 2007 12:51:29 GMT 1
You'll have to keep us informed Bittersound. I would be very interested to know if it is a new version, and of course, if so what differences there are.
|
|
|
|
Post by thedonal on Feb 2, 2007 13:30:25 GMT 1
Well- I'm up for a session on this with yer Bittersound- though we may need a little 'help' with it!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by bittersound on Feb 2, 2007 16:35:28 GMT 1
I was thinking about having a b-movie on before it goes on (all wise cracks are considered very tacit)...
Any ideas?
Mind you, last time I watched, I still preferred it to the Asylum version, maybe we should watch the two back to back?
I mean the films back to back, not our sitting positions.
|
|
Wastedyuthe
Been Here a while!
Here hare, here.
Posts: 215
|
Post by Wastedyuthe on Feb 2, 2007 17:15:48 GMT 1
Yes, it makes sense that you weren't on about each others backs- That would mean that either both of you would have to turn to the side and watch the film and have a terrible neck ache (when you would be extremely grateful it wasn't the three hour version), or one could watch the film head on, but the other would not be able to unless they were watching in a mirror. Either way, back to back in that sense is not entirely ideal.
If you want my opinion, you should watch the 3 hour version as a starter, then the first Directors cut as a main dish, then the new version (if indeed it is) as a desert.
|
|
|
|
Post by thedonal on Feb 2, 2007 20:45:31 GMT 1
I think that's a plan of sheer EFFFING GENIUS PROFF- Whaddya think?
We could load up on Diamond White and Fluoxetine and do the trilogy!
Oh Joy- the future has never looked so short in my life!!!
|
|
Wastedyuthe
Been Here a while!
Here hare, here.
Posts: 215
|
Post by Wastedyuthe on Feb 2, 2007 23:28:19 GMT 1
LMAO!! Thought it was a good idea!
|
|
