Originally posted by Devil King
It isn't even the money, it's the grimey, nasty, sitting on top of someone else, listening to them all chew on their food like a herd of cattle in an amphitheater part. Movie theaters are just nasty places. On top of the fact that if I don't want to see it, I just fall asleep, which is the same thing I do to make long car trips tolerable.
S'why independant cinemas have plush red velvet seats and enough middle class people to build a bureacratic empire out of.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Nah, didn't even mention the film back there. Course, as a connisseur of all, I was mentioning this notorious chip you got there, buckled to your head fast, like so much cotton wool. You ain't very good at this kinda stuff and I'm not sure I get why you can't just pack up and bugger off.You must obviously realise you are caught in a bit of a hole here; I understand, you said some petty things, things you said in haste before considering the full weight of what you were implying. Your proud, but really? Iis it neccesary to carry on this charade? Even when you make yourself look so foolish? I hope it ain't.
Bottomline is, I've seen the film, twice, and enjoyed it thoroughly both times, perhaps more the first, cheaper the second time (£2.75 in fact). I'm glad I've seen such a great film. Doesn't have to go further than that.
On the other hand, you ain't even seen the bloody film and have to simply gutball your way to it on the recommendations of others. Fair enough, probably good recommendations, but simply no need to dig your own hole there.
Course, in conclusion, I'd like to allow you a moment to swallow your own arsehole, as clearly you can't make distinction between them as it is.
Oh look, more of the same rubbish, except now you've seen it twice, go-connoisseur-go! Let me guess, this goes another page and you'll have seen it three times?
There is no "other hand", I already told you 3-4 times now I haven't seen it, yet will be seeing it tomorrow , because from what I read, it does look good. Let me guess, a connoisseur such as yourself only watches films people don't recommend or comment on?
I'm sorry to have kicked that soapbox from under your big red shoes, but your constant posturings are rather ridiculous.
Can't make a distinction between my ******* and what? Did you miss a tidbit while pounding out your typical ass-hattery, yet again?
Exanda, your attitude is becoming absolutely appalling lately. I'm giving you a formal warning for your aggressive attitude. That's two strikes you are on now; a third is a ban.
Calm down and play nice.
And yes, you should have used spoiler tags. Don't do that again either.
And Robtard- best to stay clear of him.
Please kiddo, let it lie, you're being incredibly petty about the whole situation, plus you've just fulfilled the long lost purpose of my wandering, dangling, entanglish last sentence. Typical knee-jerk reaction again. What you gotta do is let that shizzle fizzle out. Relax. Now pay attention!
For ze record: I had not said how many times I had seen Atonement. Twice, two times, one-two is the number of times I have seen ze film. Of course, I did say I didn't need to validate myself further, but I guess you really are proud. Did I mention petty?
Seconly, yeah, I know you haven't seen the film. I believe this has been mentioned. However, the fact you ain't seen it does seem to be lending itself to this giant chippe on ze shouldergh. Fair enough. Again, accept that I thought this film was great because I seen the effer. What you think of my taste is another story, but that's your opinion.
Thirdly, the soapbox is welded to my feet! It just ain't coming off. In an almost marginally related link, you appear to have soap bubbles frothing from ze mouth! That's right! You simply aren't reading the situation well enough and, although my scientific knowledge lessens over the years, this is causing you to spout all kinds of irrelevant, for lack of a better word points (although I don't like to invite the comparison between my solid factual information and your points).
That should settle it. I seen film. You ain't (but will (apparently?)).
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Exanda, your attitude is becoming absolutely appalling lately. I'm giving you a formal warning for your aggressive attitude. That's two strikes you are on now; a third is a ban.Calm down and play nice.
And yes, you should have used spoiler tags. Don't do that again either.
And Robtard- best to stay clear of him.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Ushmeister.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Please kiddo, let it lie, you're being incredibly petty about the whole situation, plus you've just fulfilled the long lost purpose of my wandering, dangling, entanglish last sentence. Typical knee-jerk reaction again. What you gotta do is let that shizzle fizzle out. Relax. Now pay attention!For ze record: I had not said how many times I had seen Atonement. Twice, two times, one-two is the number of times I have seen ze film. Of course, I did say I didn't need to validate myself further, but I guess you really are proud. Did I mention petty?
Seconly, yeah, I know you haven't seen the film. I believe this has been mentioned. However, the fact you ain't seen it does seem to be lending itself to this giant chippe on ze shouldergh. Fair enough. Again, accept that I thought this film was great because I seen the effer. What you think of my taste is another story, but that's your opinion.
Thirdly, the soapbox is welded to my feet! It just ain't coming off. In an almost marginally related link, you appear to have soap bubbles frothing from ze mouth! That's right! You simply aren't reading the situation well enough and, although my scientific knowledge lessens over the years, this is causing you to spout all kinds of irrelevant, for lack of a better word points (although I don't like to invite the comparison between my solid factual information and your points).
That should settle it. I seen film. You ain't (but will (apparently?)).
You have not said how many times you've seen the film, yet you've seen it twice? Fail.
The rest is just more of the typical posturing self-indulgent garbage, which can be seen in any and all of your post; it gets old.
Ohkay, ohkay, not really geting the situation are we Padfooty? Clarification before accusation is a nice ground rule, not in your case, but each to his own. Twice, two times and finally two effin times the film has been seen by my very eyes. Let me indulge myself, more than anyone.
First time.
Went on the recommendation of the woman, with the woman so to speak, who likes Pride and Prejudice (and all the bloody effin TV adaptions that have gone on over the years) to see the next film by Mr.Wright, not Ian, sadly (Btw, she likes the Colin Firth one better, but James whatisname was good in Spooks and that Dougray Scott film, Enigma).
Second timeth!
Last night, hence the rousing of a much deserved (did I mention it was good?) Atonement thread, I watched it for a second time; UEA campus , 7:30pm, crap seats an' that.
Hit me Tard!
Not surprising, with all your babbling and twisting, while patting your own back, you've cornered yourself, yet again.
Exhibit A:
Originally posted by exanda kane
Bottomline is, I've seen the film, twice, and enjoyed it thoroughly both times, perhaps more the first, cheaper the second time (£2.75 in fact). I'm glad I've seen such a great film. Doesn't have to go further than that.
Originally posted by exanda kane
For ze record: I had not said how many times I had seen Atonement. Twice, two times, one-two is the number of times I have seen ze film. Of course, I did say I didn't need to validate myself further, but I guess you really are proud. Did I mention petty?
A+B= You're a moron. But please don't let that stop your self-indulgent blubbering, continue.
Easy now lad, A+B would generally equal little sleep and a posting time somewhere around the 1am mark, plus alot of the old Leffe.
I'm not as proud as you, therefore, sure, "you got me pardner", that was unconsistent; I hold me 'ands up, I am guilty of little sleep and fatigue.
Cornered though? Come on, you can't be that optimistic surely? Only one up you have had is one of little relevance to the overall point of yours.
Which brings us, 3,2,1, back into the room.
Yes, what was your argument again? I hadn't seen the film I made a thread about, celebrating it? Wrong on all accounts.
You were right about my little error though, I'll give you that. How scrutinous of you, no doubt you were as soon as you realised you had little to stand on. Really, in conclusion, one little game won, you've lost the whole effin war.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Easy now lad, A+B would generally equal little sleep and a posting time somewhere around the 1am mark, plus alot of the old Leffe.I'm not as proud as you, therefore, sure, "you got me pardner", that was unconsistent; I hold me 'ands up, I am guilty of little sleep and fatigue.
Cornered though? Come on, you can't be that optimistic surely? Only one up you have had is one of little relevance to the overall point of yours.
Which brings us, 3,2,1, back into the room.
Yes, what was your argument again? I hadn't seen the film I made a thread about, celebrating it? Wrong on all accounts.
You were right about my little error though, I'll give you that. How scrutinous of you, no doubt you were as soon as you realised you had little to stand on. Really, in conclusion, one little game won, you've lost the whole effin war.
Oh, the "I was tired" excuse, how quaint. Please just STFU, you can continue your charade of being better than others tomorrow.
That's it?
On a serious note: Y'know mate, it is 1:18am here in Mother Britain, take that into consideration, especially when you think of the truck drivers stuck in the snow drifts, the paddies trying to get em out before Countdown comes on, the small dog, wandering, wandering, wandering, leaving impressions upon the snow. Think of the child, without a daddy, who Santa Claus forgot.
Course, no one likes to listen to reason (albeit illogical reason) when they are too proud and more importantly, wrong. But I'd have thought with such an endearing camarade as yourself, you'd at least indulge me some more.
I studied the book for A level English literature and it completely ruined it for me. The whole having to go through it and annotate every single sentence made me never want to read a McEwan novel again, I'll wait till this is out on dvd. Even then, I'll have essay questions rolling around in my mind, such as 'Was the atonement in the novel for Briony or Lola' and all that shit.
I saw the movie, very well made, fine performances, but a bit boring, I'm glad I didn't read the book. I was very disappointed with the outcome of the story . . .
Spoiler:
The fact that the whole second half of the story was fabricated for her book was a cop out ending. She may have well just waken up and said . . . "It was all just a dream." Lame. Very well made movie, but dissappointing. It was bad enough I had gone to see a chick flick, then they pull that???