Happy Face

"You're forgetting, I was in the T.A.'s"

BBC 4 had the Planet Earth episode on last night which had loads of stuff about trees. Apart from that it was canny though.

Meat eating trees? Are there omnivorous trees too? You also seem to have difficulty remembering the difference between Coniferous and Carniverous. I should be invited into dictionary corner with the quality of my punnery. That lass with the camera pen would get it.

Meat eating trees? Are there omnivorous trees too?

I can't remember which is which tbh. Pine type = Conifer Oak, Chestnut etc = deciduous. Ah yes, I always preferred a good honest British deciduous tree. Seems to me, them conifers are snide things.

I can't remember which is which tbh.

Perhaps due to being a gangly legged freak, I always go down steps 2 at a time. Other wise I end up looking like that trumpet playing, cancer bloke tap dancing down a record number of steps. When I was younger I always tried to get down the stairs at home in 2 steps. I don't want to have to be the one to break this to you, but I can guarantee you look uncool doing that. I used to go down stairs two at a time two until I worked somewhere that had a mirror at the bottom of the stairs and I caught a glimpse of myself. I looked like a frigging daddy long legs. There's no point smoking to look cool and then coming down the stairs like John Cleese. That was just you in general man, Nowt to do with your stair technique.

Perhaps due to being a gangly legged freak, I always go down steps 2 at a time. Other wise I end up looking like that trumpet playing, cancer bloke tap dancing down a record number of steps. When I was younger I always tried to get down the stairs at home in 2 steps.

Prpblem solved guess who's back Hurrah! We can look forward to gerlden threads such as "What do you prefer deciduous trees or conifers?" and "Have you ever went down the stairs 3 at a time?"

Syriana I'm happy to be lost after the first act of a film as long as I feel comfortable that the film knows where it's going, if theres still no discernable plot after the second act it needs to pull something special out of the bag (something Usual Suspects esque). This didn't. I don't like it when a film is so incoherent you have to watch it twice, it should give you at least the chance to follow what's going on the first time. If you weren't bored an hour into it, you're either cleverer than me or a bigger sucker.

I know it's frowned upon to suggest a book about films on here and I'll get shit for it for ever more, but far from being unchallenged Stone got a whole heap of shit for making that film as he did. So much so that he released an annotated screenplay where he justifies and attributes every claim made in the film. http://www.amazon.co.uk/JFK-Book-Film-Appl...TF8&s=books If the claims in the film are true or not is down to the opriginal people making them, more than the director presenting them. Aye, well, you are setting yourself up ridicule like. Without reading a whole frigging book about the sceenplay, I know for a fact that many of the claims were false. Stone presented them in such a way as to make them seem like fact though. Is this harmless? I don't think so judging by the amount of people who believe in the conspiracy theory surrounding JFK's death, and similarly, the amount of American citizens who still believe Iraq was to blame for 9/11. Whatever the truth of the matter, I think the barrage of conspiracy theories he presents is reprasentative of the distrust felt by many from long before the film came out, not as a result of the film, similarly the belief of some Americans that there is a link between 9/11 and Iraq is one that already existed. The difference is, Stone supports the notion in JFK, in WTC he leans neither way whatsoever.

I know it's frowned upon to suggest a book about films on here and I'll get shit for it for ever more, but far from being unchallenged Stone got a whole heap of shit for making that film as he did. So much so that he released an annotated screenplay where he justifies and attributes every claim made in the film. http://www.amazon.co.uk/JFK-Book-Film-Appl...TF8&s=books If the claims in the film are true or not is down to the opriginal people making them, more than the director presenting them.

Good use of the word "clearly" from someone who hasn't seen the film. If you're going to have an opinion on a film make it your own rather than regurgitating someone else's point of view. I've been to read the whole review and he talks crap throughout. He says Stone has been grinded down by the studio system, which is bollocks. Stone has only made 2 studio film in 7 years now, all his other time has been spent on controversial independent films about Castro, he still has a passion for telling his stories his way. The review also states that the film makes an "explicit link" between 9/11 and Iraq. That's just a lie. A title card saying what happened to one of the rescuers is not a justification of what resulted.

Having read this and some other reviews now, I'll think I'll wait 'til DVD, if at all. It's not fiction you know. This happened. Every main character has a title card to let us know how they're doing these days. The bloke that found the survivors was a marine who later went to Iraq, why should that be left out?

Brick A 21st century Bugsy Malone. I thought it was shit.

I think WTC is a fantastic dig at George Bush and his administration. But I seem to be a dissenting voice. Well is the bit about Iraq true or not, because if you say it isn't I can direct to a review which directly contradicts you? Also, I think you'll find that the far right of America were more than happy with Stone's efforts. As far as I recollect, I don't think Iraq or Hussain were mentioned. That specific character does say they'll need to get revenge, but that doesn't make it Stone's opinion. You wouldn't have a gun toting, kick ass, patriotic marine saying "Let's get the diplomatic talks started". Although the right do love it and I do too, for a lot of the same reasons (how the horror of it is depicted, the tribute it pays to the emergency services of NY, the message of hope, we will not be defeated etc.) I was most impressed at how Stone recognises that this event is above him, George Bush, Saddam Hussain, the election...whatever. If anyone makes films with political context in mind, it's Stone, but this film doesn't have any - on the surface. Perhaps if George Bush could make a political speech without resorting to whipping up 9/11 hysteria this film wouldn't reflect so badly upon him in my opinion.

I think WTC is a fantastic dig at George Bush and his administration. But I seem to be a dissenting voice.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2392694.html

Do you know females? Kudos Since time is getting on and I'm feeling irritable, I shall be blunt: Fuck off.

Well done and congratulations. Make sure your best man is your worst enemy, it's a job I wouldn't inflict on Saddam Hussain.

Do you know females? Kudos

I just watched Inside man and thoroghly enjoyed it. I'm just confused as to what happened though and would appreciate some clarification. I don't know if it was suggesting more than it contained, or if I couldn't comprehend the whole. Spoilers may be imminent. So, Clive Owen was robbing the bank, he knew (somehow (unexplained)) that Chris Plummer was a Nazi War criminal/conspirator with shady dealings during the war that allowed him to get rich. All he was after was a few diamonds that Plummer didn't care about as long as his good name was protected. Plummer would pay the price to keep his good name, Foster got paid to protect his name, Washington tried but failed to find those responsible. He knew why and how but not who and still got paid. The moral being that they all get rich (or die trying ). I feel this is far too simplistic and expect more of Spike Lee, but if that's all there is to it am quite happy that it entertainerd me for 2 hours. Can anyone tell me if I missed anything that gave the film more gravitas.

If you're asking do I always use words from the dictionary, then yes, I'm afraid I do.

....and about 250 gigs a year on the road.

Allowance? Tell you what, I've already given Elton a shot, get hold of Blood on the Tracks and give me a review, then I'll dig deeper into the John back catalogue and give you an honest assessment. I'm not arsed if you like Elton John or not, I don't myself since the late 70's .... but to say he is what you said earlier - I can't be arsed to look either - is as wrong as saying that Bob Dylan is an opera singer. PS...I thought people who procure things had allowances I said he's a lounge act. By which I mean he does the occassional show at a cricket club in front of fat businessmen and their trophy wives who've paid £80+ for a ticket and brought along a whicker hamper and a golf umbrella for when it rains. Which he does. I don't remember Dylan ever attempting opera, but if he did it would be brilliant. PS. Procure refers to commencing a proceeding; bringing about a result; persuading, inducing, or causing a person to do a particular act; obtaining possession or control over an item; or making a person available for sexual intercourse.