Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: What Did You Watch? 2024-04-16 (Tuesday)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 16:21:13 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <iob02j1i3m2q2ca9mek0nut9nso0apipdo@4ax.com>
References: <UBI20240417@dont-email.me> <uvofbt$1jj8r$1@dont-email.me> <uvolvq$1l3q6$2@dont-email.me> <uvorg1$1majl$1@dont-email.me> <uvp3c4$1o1em$1@dont-email.me> <1364574923.735071829.906605.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com> <k2702j5m41c9jjg2219no0ar99l3v8n896@4ax.com> <uvp8jl$1p7ev$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 22:21:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f4542a5ef28613ce74da0af609217cc4";
	logging-data="1891856"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+VCfP8Mqg3gKwCR1uJORqHKu0e+0mBHrA="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5d1P4F+t+RaTDOTW48cLMV2EtnI=
Bytes: 2691

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:40:36 -0700, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball@mac.invalid>
wrote:

>On 4/17/24 12:01 PM, shawn wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 11:39:21 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/24 8:56 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
 snipped text

>>>>>> Although there were many opportunities in the screenplay, the Wilhelm
>>>>>> Scream was not used in this film for a falling or injured character.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pretend you heard it from me when you mentioned the number of effects
>>>>> shots. How many are there in a Jackie Chan movie fight scene? That would
>>>>> be none whatsoever. What's the point in learning how to fight in so many
>>>>> styles when it's just going to be a special effect?
>>>>>
>>>>> You almost tempted me.
>>>>
>>>> I thought it was just OK.
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, I was actually more engrossed by "Eternals", which may actually be
>>>> slightly underrated by this point.
>>>
>>> No. No, it’s not. It’s a lousy movie is the best that can be said for it.
>>> And a few are at all familiar with the source material. It’s a dreadful
>>> movie.
>> 
>> Agreed. I don't know how anyone can think the ETERNALS is anything
>> other than bad. Sure, there were some interesting ideas behind the
>> movie but it never came together.
>
>It's still more entertaining than "Shang-Chi".

Congratulations on continuing to be wrong. ;)