h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"I think I'm glad to say that I know not this movie. Is as bad as Cthulhu Mansion?"

Is said film based on the works of H P Lovecraft?

Based is a very loose term isn't itt. I think one of the producers had once seen the names 'Lovecraft' and 'Cthulhu' in a copy of a magazine his wife had left in the toilet.

Nobody involved had ever ever actually *read* any Lovecraft, that's for sure...

Mores gthe pity, you could make a great horror film based on his works.

that's a great shame.


but, however, manos, is worse, for one because the idea popped into someone's head entirely on it's own.

it was made by an el paso farmer in his spare time.

"I think the big difference between Alien and Titanic"

I was referring to Aliens, Cameron's sequel, not Ridley Scott's original. And it was John Hurt, not Willam Hurt.

I stand corrected. I always get them mixed up.

I haven't watched Aliens terribly much; it's nowhere near as good as the original.

And I still maintain that - aside from cinematic 'set-pieces' - there's very little that Cameron does particularly well.

B

Aliens is a fantastic film. So much better than Scott's ludicrously illogical original that they hardly bear comparison.

I don't think logic ever played a huge part in Ridley Scott's plans. He created a superbly taut little thriller, throwing in an assortment of references to melodramatic custom, and showing his directorial flair at probably its best. OK, so the whole project would have worked better on stage, and it doesn't bear up too well when you see it a second time, but it's still an excellent film.

Aliens is just an ordinary sci-fi action film. Unfortunately I seem to be one of the only people that realise this.

B

No, you are one of the few people to believe that to be the case. Your view, like eveyone else's, is subjective.

Frankly, I found Alien to be wrecked by the lapses of logic. And most of the crew of the ship are so stupid that I was willing the damned Alien to kill them. Not a good start. If not for Giger's nightmarish visions, I suspect the movie would have sunk without trace.

Nahh,

I think both Alien and Aliens were class films just very different.

While we're talking about bad films that were hyped I've gotta mentioned the biggest let-down ever- Star Wars Episode 1 The Phantom Menace. Sooo hyped and then utterly awful.

"Aliens is just an ordinary sci-fi action film. Unfortunately I seem to be one of the only people that realise this."

That should give you a clue.

Aliens is an almost perfect film, the pinnacle of action film-making. You could use it as a master-class in how to make an action movie.

The reason some people prefer Alien to Aliens is the same reason some people prefer Poltergeist to Saving Private Ryan - they are two totally different genres (Haunted House and War Movie) and obviously, your reaction to them will be coloured by your preferences. I was bitterly disappointed with Alien3, for example, but I might have been slightly less disappointed if it had come immediately after Alien, and not Aliens. Only slightly, though.

"The pinnacle of action film-making."

You think? It doesn't really stand up to Die Hard, for me.

I've never really been one for sorting films (or much else, for that matter) into genres. It creates a lot of pointless arguments, and doesn't tend to represent the art form as a whole, which is really how it should be done. As an illustration, the most popular Western film ever. Not Red River, nor Fistful of Dollars, not The Good The Bad and The Ugly, in fact nothing starring either John Wayne or Clint Eastwood. No, it is of course Blazing Saddles, which doesn't exactly tell us a lot about the Western movie tradition.

That for me was conclusive proof that this wildly over-used term of 'genre' was in fact, utter cobblers.

Sorry, rant over.

B

i've never seen any of the alien movies.

oh well.

i still hold that manos the hands of fate is the worst movie ever. anyone seen it?

The term Genre may be a blunt tool, but a useful one nevertheless.

When people who do not read specialist film magazines like Empire go to the cinema or the vid shop they often do not have any real idea as to what type of film they are going to see. Genre classification alows people to make a rough judgement as to whether or not film x islikely to be the kind of film they liked in the past. This is helpful when you have not read any reviews or heard word of mouth stuff about the film.

I dissapear for a few hours and miss a chance too defend two of Robin William's best films IMHO

As long as you don't take them seriously they're great. Popeye (occationaly shown on C4 in the UK is fun and creates a good atmoshere that adds more to the fanatsy created by the cartoon. Given the state of some of the more modern cartoon to live action films at much higher budgests, they did really well.

Toys is one of my favorite films. Scenery and imargry is fantastic, acting slightly hammy from some people (micheal gambon manyly) but as an escapist whimical (word always has to be mentioned with respect to Toys) film it is supurb.

AI on the other hand is a really bad film. Don't know if it the worst film ever, cause I got bored after I lost track of the plot, fell asleep, woke up and it seemed to be a totaly differnent yet worse film starting the same kid.

The worst film I've ever seen was "Final Fantasy". Computer-animated, it was. Fantastic to look at, but utterly boring. People obviously spent incredible amounts on the visual part but next to nothing on coming up with a good plot.

That C4 was meant to be channel 4, not an infernal link

What does IMHO mean?

Sorry if I am being really thick!

IMHO - In My Humble Opinion
HTH

(Hope This Helps)