| Author | Message | ||
     Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.156.233.165 |
I've just read an interview with Robert Carlyle in which he says fantasy is bullshit (we'll overlook the fact he's in Stargate). To be honest, the words he used were more 'LOTR (the films) were a bunch of cgi bullshit'. He says he'd never seen the star Wars films, so I'm presuming it is fantasy generally he's against. Anyway, it got me thinking, what DO we get from fantasy, and is it any good for us? (I'll not chip in right now as I'm meant to be doing stuff) | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 61.216.200.208 |
Robert Carlyle is a decent actor and is entitled to his opinion, but frankly I think he's full of crap on this occasion. God, if he thought LotR was rubbish, what level of regard must he have of stuff like Stargate or Star Wars? I don't see the need to justify fantasy or analyze what I get from it, Tony. It's something I've lived with and appreciated all my life. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.156.233.165 |
Oh, I'm not asking for justification, Huw; I'm just interested. I was watching the lovely (possibly one of the best cartoon series ever) Avatar and realising it's far more advanced and richer than the film of that name. I said to my wife at one point 'Sometimes made-up stuff tells the truth' and she agreed, and she's not a fantasy buff at all. It just made me realise that fantasy can create a situation that can never be and yes, tell a truth we might never otherwise have found. They're fairy tales, I suppose, and to paraphrase Angela Carter, fairy tale is distilled literature. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.162.63.33 |
>>>he words he used were more 'LOTR (the films) were a bunch of cgi bullshit' Lost out on the role to Sean Bean, did he? | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 61.216.200.208 |
I didn't mean to come off as brusque toward you there, Tony (sorry if it came out that way). It just really gets my goat sometimes when I here these stupid, ridiculing comments about films like LotR. A lot of people dismiss fantasy (including SF and horror) out of hand, as if it has no worth just because it is associated with the imagination. Bruno Bettelheim's book The Uses of Enchantment may be of interest, if you haven't read it already. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
It engages my imagination. | ||
| Giancarlo (Giancarlo) Username: Giancarlo Registered: 11-2008 Posted From: 85.116.228.3 |
Unless I am wrong, Mr Carlyle plays in "RAVENOUS", "ERAGON" and "28 WEEKS LATER", all fantasy movies, one way or another. Is he spitting into his own plate? He may be mainly meaning the CGI sort of movies but that seems haughtily opinionated to me. On the other way, it's true Imagination does not need special effects as crutches. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.77.198 |
It defamiliarizes our everyday lives, which are often perceptually sedimented and hard to see with 'fresh eyes'. I'm not saying that's all it does, but it's an important factor for me. | ||
| Nathaniel Tapley (Natt) Username: Natt Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 89.240.59.35 |
Saying 'fantasy is bullshit' and 'the LOTR films are CGI-bullshit' are very different things. It's perfectly possible to enjoy a lot of fantasy, and yet have found there to be no emotional content in the LOTR films. To find them plodding, empty CGI-vessels is not necessarily the same as dismissing a whole genre... | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
True. Still, I think they're as fine as any fantasy films I've ever seen. | ||
| Paul_finch (Paul_finch) Username: Paul_finch Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
To me, the LOTR films satisfied a deep, youthful desire to see fantasy finally done properly on screen. I loved certain earlier outings - JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS, in particular. But, as a rule, high fantasy was so rarely done well on celluloid, and yet quite often this had nothing to do with the special effects. It was more because the films lacked emotional content and thus failed to find empathy with their audience. I can't agree with anyone who levels this accusation at LOTR, though of course everyone's entitled to their opinion. Like any movie, of course, it's all about what you're looking for personally. I found the LOTR movies so eerily reminiscent of the way I imagined Middle Earth to be when first reading the book, that it was easy to believe I myself had been responsible for them. The degree of depth that Jackson brought out - creating a real, functioning world, yet a world completely drenched in the combined atmospheres of Norse legend and Arthurian myth - was astonishing IMO, and well worthy of the praise he received. I'd agree that CGI can be taken too far. I ended up thoroughly enjoying AVATAR, despite going to watch it with reservations, though it was still primarily a CGI experience, which to some is a negative. A few horror films that I can name off the top of my head - I AM LEGEND, AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN PARIS, etc - were rendered laughable by the unnecessary and painfully obvious use of CGI characters. But I certainly don't see how this accusation can be made with LOTR in mind. Perhaps in the final film, the CGI was overused during the battle scene. But that's the way of it now with epic battle scenes. CGI extras are cheaper than real extras. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 147.252.230.141 |
I agree with Robert Carlyle on the sterile and ponderous LotR films, but not about fantasy in general (I assume he's okay with zombies and James Bond too). Chuck out fantasy and you chuck out a lot of the finest achievements in western art. | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
Some fantasy (the 'responsible' kind?) can give a different perspective on the real world, enabling a reader to perceive more clearly the truth surrounding him or her... When something is too familiar it becomes almost invisible, so many of the absurdities of real life aren't really noticed until they are presented in a slightly changed form... and fantasy can do that. John Crowley is one of the best writers I've ever encountered at writing about a specific sort of hope: about how we haven't necessarily missed the boat whatever our situation or mistakes. He could achieve this effect through Realism but I wonder if he could do it quite so poignantly that way as he actually does using fantasy? For me, the best kind of fantasy utilises some form of Absurdism: it employs extended metaphor to make a real absurdity more clear. For instance, Kafka's story 'Metamorphosis' is about the anti-Semitism of the age he lived in. He could have used Realism to do this (as Jiri Weil did) but he would have had to work much harder to achieve the same effect. Utilising the conceit of a man turning into an insect (actually a 'monstrous vermin' in the original text: the same words used by the Nazis to describe the Jews) puts the point across more powerfully, in my view. That's what fantasy can do -- when it tries. As for the other, lighter kind of fantasy... Sometimes it's just good old-fashioned escapism! | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
I guess I come from the "Rod Serling School of Fantasy". I like fantasy which says something to me, which conveys a moral tale, and really means something. Since things like The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits were my first encounters with fantasy (I call them that rather than SF), this is the aspect which appeals to me. I haven't really got into the "fantasy for escapism" thing. I guess this is where LOTR comes in. I loved the book when I was in my teens, but the world Tolkein created in my head at that time is such a precious thing to me that I daren't watch the films for fear of losing the Tolkein images. I hate CGI in other things, so I fear it would spoil things for me there too. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.146.233 |
I loved the book when I was in my teens, but the world Tolkein created in my head at that time is such a precious thing to me that I daren't watch the films for fear of losing the Tolkein images. ========================== Indeed, the worst did happen with me. I watched one of these films and it literally destroyed my own Tolkien World I created in the late sxities when first reading LOTR. | ||
| Nathaniel Tapley (Natt) Username: Natt Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 89.240.59.35 |
Yes, I guess that it, as the thread title says, comes down to what fantasy is for. If fantasy is escapism and spectacle, then the LOTR films might well be appealing. I can't comment on them in depth because I haven't seen the last film and a half, in part because I never found the source material entirely to my taste. Having loved The Hobbit as a child, I found LOTR to be retreading the same ground with the humour taken out, but bombast and self-importance and hundreds of pages added to replace it. For me, good fantasy challenges our perceptions of the world in which we live, or reveals emotional or conceptual truths that lie buried in the mundane. I can imagine that when LOTR first appeared, with the Second World War being well within memory, the tale of the reluctant hobbit (or Tommy) forced to leave the green and pleasant Shire to fight the evil rising in the East was an important commentary on the fact that sometimes peaceful people are forced, by circumstance, to go to war. However, even since the LOTR films have been made I can think of a huge number of fantasy films that are aesthetically more creative, intellectually more exciting, and emotionally more affecting. The following, while some are seriously flawed, are all fantasy films from the last decade that aim higher than LOTR, and that I would more happily watch: Up, Donnie Darko, Big Fish, The Prestige (arguably SF), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (again...), Coraline, Pan's Labyrinth, The Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus. For sheer fantasy entertainment I would suggest The Emperor's New Groove, Corpse Bride, and A Series of Unfortunate Events, or even (with all of its oddities and unfortunate moments) The Brothers Grimm. I haven't seen The Curious Case of Benjamin Button or Where The Wild Things Are, but am looking forward to both. I think all of these push fantasy in a more human, more interesting direction than I felt in Fellowship Of The Ring. (Oh, and I'm eagerly awaiting the HBO adaptation of A Game Of Thrones. And, of course, the next book...) | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.156.233.165 |
I'll bring out my old trump card again (as opposed to cardigan) and let folk know that Peter Jackson himself felt he got Rings wrong, that he had envisioned a Terence Malick kind of film and watched it slip away from him as he made the one he did. Sad, that. For me fantasy is not just swords or monsters or ghosts (though I love them all) but also alternate life. At the minute I am immersed in Eric Rohmer's Paris. I will never be middle class, a student, living decades ago, but I sorely want to when watching these films. Fantasy is where our soul goes, what our soul is like - or would like to be like. Anyone else see recently that Avatar has been making people feel suicidal? That they want that world to exist? I think that's poop, that people feel that all the time about all sorts of places. We're always longing, us humans. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
According to a local branch of Waterstone, Dark Fantasy is now the exclusive domain of the vampire romance, the Twilights and the Vampire diaries and True Blood etc. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.156.233.165 |
In short then, everyone is pretentious and everything is fantasy.  | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 61.216.200.208 |
"I'll bring out my old trump card again (as opposed to cardigan) and let folk know that Peter Jackson himself felt he got Rings wrong, that he had envisioned a Terence Malick kind of film and watched it slip away from him as he made the one he did. Sad, that." Where exactly did he say he felt he got the films wrong, Tony? I've listened to the commentaries and interviews on the DVDs (and many elsewhere), and while he's honest about the parts he feels they didn't quite get right, I can't recall him (or his collaborators) ever saying that he thought the films were (artistically) unsuccessful as a whole. In fact, I came away with the opposite impression. Can you direct me to where he said this, as I must have missed it? | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.156.233.165 |
It was on the extended edition, the making of documentary. It wasn't so much he said he'd got it wrong, just that he felt sad the film he'd had in his head never really appeared. Honest, folks! | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.0.247 |
I'm, alas, more on the side of those who didn't much care for the LOTR films. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 61.216.200.208 |
Tony, Jackson says that quite a lot during the commentaries on the extended DVDs. Personally, I think it's good that he admits when certain scenes don't come off as well as he'd envisioned, as well as crediting himself when he gets it just right. Basically, while it's clear he wishes he could have done some things a bit differently (he laments not having the time to get the warg scene as good as he'd have liked, for example), and in some cases compromises had to be made, the overwhelming impression is that he and his partners think they did a good job in the end, on an incredibly long and complex shoot. I don't think it's true to say that he feels he failed with these films, as much as it is a case of not always being able to get everything quite as good as he wanted it. That's the case with most (if not all) movies, I'd say. I still consider them a towering achievement. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
The LOTR films work much better on the large screen than the small screen. The small screen sharpens the edges of the CGI and makes it stand out more. On the big screen the illusion holds so much better. I could never bring myself to get through more than the first few chapters of the book, but I love the films almost without reservation. Anyone seen Lovely Bones yet? It's on the list as my next cinema outing. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 61.216.200.208 |
I haven't seen The Lovely Bones yet, Weber, but I'm very much looking forward to it. | ||
| Giancarlo (Giancarlo) Username: Giancarlo Registered: 11-2008 Posted From: 85.116.228.3 |
It's all very simple to me. Tolkienian fundamentalism is ridiculous, sort of elfish New Age Bible. I love LoTR. I cannot say the same about Roland Emmerich's FX-pies and similar CGI feasts. Maybe Jackson failed as to "real" fantasy but, due to the hugely literary material, he certainly fell still standing on his feet. I suppose nobody could do better. His LoTR was clearly a work of love, whether a failure or not. I have an inner certainty (but that's very subjective of me) Stanley Kubrick would have approved of the movie. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.156.233.165 |
I've heard Lovely Bones has Peter Jackson glossing over the more horrible aspects of the book and concentrating on the cgi heaven. I hope it's not too true. I'm utterly in two minds about the LOTR movies. I liked the books very much but while I didn't *love* them I did appreciate them. Middle earth's strangeness was a little lost in the film, that Wicker Man feeling it had. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 62.40.55.150 |
The reviews are kinda stinky, Tony. I'm relieved as it saves me months of feeling like Donald Sutherland being pointed at the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Yes, I hate it before I've seen it. | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
I made myself "love" the 'Lord Of The Rings' movies when I first saw them in the cinema but increasingly with retrospect I find large passages clunking, the CGI effects grossly overused and the whole project a pale imitation of what remains, for me, the finest fantasy work of literature ever written. I almost made the same mistake with his adaptation of 'King Kong' until he started getting all schmaltzy in New York on us! What I've heard of 'The Lovely Bones' doesn't inspire confidence BUT I still consider myself one of Peter Jackson's biggest fans on the strength of every movie he made up until and including 'The Frighteners'. Being given an unlimited budget derailed his artistic integrity imho. Once again less is more! | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
LOTR the book/trilogy gets much better and more adult as it goes on. The first volume is blatantly aimed at a child readership, and is cosy and bland even by that standard. The second volume is his foray into fantasy world-building, and it's rather background-heavy but ambitious; it has been massively influential. The third volume is weird, heavily symbolic horror-fantasy with much to recommend it. I read the whole trilogy at the age of ten or eleven, and remember the last volume fondly – but not fondly enough to get through the whole thing once more. | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
But that's the beauty of the trilogy, Joel. The perfect age to read those three volumes is at that 'rites of passage' stage we all go through. That way the story grows up with us in ways J.K. Rowling could only ever dream of... and only Philip Pullman has ever come close to emulating. If I had children I would introduce them to the world of fantasy by reading them 'The Hobbit' as young children then giving them the 'Lord Of The Rings' at the turn of adolescence. That's how I fell in love with the genre (and first learnt to cry at a book) and is still the best introduction to serious imaginative literature that exists imo. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
Well, Stephen, I think Alan Garner is a remarkably fine example of a fantasy author whose books grow up with their young audience and become a rite of passage. | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
True, Ramsey... as everyone here should know by now I adore Alan Garner's work and would class 'The Weirdstone Of Brisingamen' as the first horror novel I ever read - it scared me witless as a nipper! His books contain so much poetry and depth they can be re-read umpteen times as a child or an adult with always something new to find. Sadly Tolkien's four books (of worth) have suffered in the popular consciousness from decades of inferior imitators and ultimately from Jackson's well meaning but flawed movie adaptations. The books' time will come again though - I have no doubt. | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
I was talking more about one story told over a series of books that grows up with the reader when read at the age of encroaching adolescence. 'The Hobbit' & 'LOTR' is the finest example in literature of that kind of story imo - for all the reasons Joel pointed out above. I sincerely believe that only Pullman has come close to pulling off the same trick with 'His Dark Materials' - to my knowledge anyway. | ||
| Tom_alaerts (Tom_alaerts) Username: Tom_alaerts Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.78.35.185 |
Joel makes a good comment about the LOTR books getting better with each volume. In contrast, I thought that Pullman's books became worse with each volume! First one: unforgettable, 2nd one: still pretty good; 3rd one: chaotic ramble. | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
I wouldn't agree with Joel when he says "better" but they certainly get more "adult". Writing intelligibly for children over a range of ages is a highly underestimated art. Tolkien got it bang to rights and, I believe, so did Pullman. I found 'Northern Lights' wonderful, 'The Subtle Knife' spellbinding and 'The Amber Spyglass' breathtaking in its vision. Exactly the same progression Tolkien achieved in his four book series. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 147.252.230.141 |
Sir Christopher Lee remembers having to wait for the next LotR book to be published! | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.71 |
I don't think there are many dead centre of the genre fantasy movies that have worked. You get your fringe, slightly tongue-in-cheek stuff like Stardust and Princess Bride, but there're very few big fantasy movies, LOTRs aside. I mean, what's left: the half decent Legend, then various Conan/Beast Master 'epics'? Fingers crossed the Solomon Kane movie perks the interest of fantasy film makers. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.7.2 |
I mean, what's left: the half decent Legend, then various Conan/Beast Master 'epics'?... Mark? It's the best of the whole lot, and it's called EXCALIBUR. | ||
| Giancarlo (Giancarlo) Username: Giancarlo Registered: 11-2008 Posted From: 85.116.228.3 |
What the FANTASY behind "fantasy" would be? | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.21.235.100 |
In the early and mid-70ies I tried several times to read The Hobbit but invariably gave up after the first few pages. From time to time I would leaf through LOTR which someone had given me (a Xmas present, no less) but never got around to reading the thing. I was well into the Lovecrafr Circle authors at that point and Tolkien just didn't fit in. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
"I mean, what's left: the half decent Legend, then various Conan/Beast Master 'epics'?" The Thief of Baghdad (Michael Powell et al). Karel Zeman's Munchausen. The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad. Jason and the Argonauts... | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
All great movies and 'The Thief Of Baghdad' is my own personal favourite fantasy movie. I'd also add 'The Tales Of Hoffmann', 'La Belle et la Bête', 'The Wizard Of Oz', 'Time Bandits', there are loads really... Of the sword & sorcery genre I have to agree with Craig that 'Excalibur' is the ultimate example - a beautiful work that gets better with every viewing. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
And Orphée! | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
My favourite work of fantasy ever is Jack Vance's Dying Earth sequence... All four books are superb but the second volume (The Eyes of the Overworld) and the third (Cugel's Saga) are masterpieces of ultra-ironic invention. A film based on Cugel's adventures -- by a good director -- is sorely needed, in my view! | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
'Throne Of Blood' I'd also rank as a dark fantasy masterpiece. I'd love to see Roman Polanski's version of 'Macbeth'. Why do I never see or hear anything about this film?! | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.60.110 |
I've seen it. Meh. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
It's remarkably violent. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.0.114.254 |
It's very good, though I like most of all the BBC version with John Hurt and Judi Dench. | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
So is it available on DVD? I've never seen it about and it's one of those big films of the 70s I've always longed to see. Kurosawa's version would take some beating for me though. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
I remember some twenty years ago, writing a quiet story about a woman who sees a supernatural woodland creature, goes home and tells her husband about it and is disbelieved, though during their conversation he is making a clay model of it. I sent it to a fantasy magazine and they rejected it on the grounds that it was horror. Nobody in the story gets as much as bruised. That made me realise that in contemporary fiction, 'fantasy' is identified by its style and its setting rather than by its content. You could never market Alan Garner's novels as fantasy now. Mind you, I'm happy to see them as weird fiction for youngsters and adults. The demarcation of fantasy from horror is a publishing artefact based on a forced audience demographic. All good fantasy is also horror and all good horror is also fantasy. So there. P.S. I'm not suggesting my story was any good. If they'd rejected it on the grounds "This is shit" I'd have been much happier. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
Behold, Stephen: http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/101576/Macbeth/Product.html | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 212.121.214.114 |
Has anyone here apart from me read Guy Kay's Fionavar Tapestry? IMHO it's the best trilogy I've ever read, and probably the best fantasy novels I've read as well. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.253.106 |
Stephen, Polanski's MACBETH to me is the finest of all Shakespeare-to-films I've yet seen, barring only Olivier's (directed) three (ranked in order of greatness: HAMLET, RICHARD III, HENRY V, though it's hard to rank those either). I can't emphasize enough, Stephen - go get that MACBETH and watch it, it's superb. | ||
| Nathaniel Tapley (Natt) Username: Natt Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 89.240.59.35 |
I really, really enjoyed Polanski's Macbeth, and agree with Craig that it's superb. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 220.138.164.43 |
We were shown Polanski's Macbeth in English literature class back around 1979-80 (I was spending way too much time drinking and following punk bands around Germany instead of studying for my O levels). I think it's very good. | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
Ramsey, you're a star! Ta very much! Can't wait to see this now...  | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
It's brilliant. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.241.203 |
To whet your appetite Stephen? The opening credits/scene, in an actually very nice print for youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae3OjyKoUu4 | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
Awesome!! I haven't been this excited since I finally got to see 'A Clockwork Orange'!!!! Life is good... |