|
|
Post by RydCook on May 14, 2007 22:20:04 GMT
I think your right i'm sure its been mentioned before that Shane is contracted to submit a running time at or below 100 minutes therefore forcing him to cut scenes he would've have kept. Good i'm glad my mind isn't playing tricks on me! I'm not saying the film would be better if it was longer, all i'm saying is i'd like to see the scenes taken out, in the film, just to see how they would have worked. For better or worse, It's just an interest. I wouldn't say i think the film was too short, but i must admit when i first saw the film, i was expecting more, and was surprised when it ended, although was extremely happy with it anyway, and i think a good film leaves you wanting to know more, and questioning stuff you don't know, the ultimate example of this is Cache (Hidden) Anyway, not worrying about whether its better or worse, I for one, would like to see a longer version. |
|
|
|
Post by Companero on May 15, 2007 8:07:36 GMT
I had an Optimum Home Entertainment schedule last Friday, and THIS IS ENGLAND wasn't on it  |
|
|
|
Post by GADGE! on May 15, 2007 10:38:42 GMT
JUST ALSONG AS SHANE DOESNT GO ALL SPEILBERG ON OUR ARSES. REPLACING THE PAINT SPRAYS WITH LASERS AND ME WITH A JABBA THE HUT TYPE MONSTER WE'LL BE KOOL!
GADGE!
|
|
|
|
Post by straygoatreturns on May 15, 2007 12:25:22 GMT
Why wasn't This is England released into multiplexes? I know loads of people that were hoping to see it at the cinema but can't for one reason or another. Personally, I object to paying nearly £8 a ticket to sit in an incredibly uncomfortable seat with a load of arty hooray henries. I'm not a huge fan of multiplexes, but at least the seats allow room for people over 5ft tall.
When I looked at the crap that was showing at my local cinema last weekend, I just couldn't believe This is England is trapped in arthouse cinemas. What the hell is going on?
|
|
Fintan
Junior Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by Fintan on May 15, 2007 12:48:03 GMT
As usual with no subtiles *sigh* so 9 million deaf and hard of hearing people in the UK won't be watching it then |
|
|
|
Post by billywizz on May 15, 2007 13:28:25 GMT
That was an excellent post that my stray goat friend.....I can just imagine your utter contempt standing in the queue for a quorn burger at the local arthouse cinema....while in front of you tarquin and his chums dissect the contextual paradoxes of the latest offering from the south guatamalan ballet collective...
I'm thinking Paul Calf when he gets a job in that cinema to impress some bird and ends up setting himself up with a false opposition....
however, all may not be lost.....after originally spurning This is England in favour of a duel screening of Mr Bean's Holiday, my local Cineworld has now decided to screen it - so I will be getting a second chance to watch the film amongst the tracksuits, hooped earrings and acne of south manchesters finest.....my advice is check your local cinema to see if they have done likewise....
|
|
|
|
Post by Companero on May 15, 2007 13:36:26 GMT
THIS IS ENGLAND seems to have a very curious yet innovative distribution - it's playing the multiplexes, but seems to do a week before mving to another site - this could bode very well in the long run and I'll be interested to check the figures on IMDB Pro tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashpointharry on May 15, 2007 14:19:02 GMT
It's playing down my way - equal billing alongside Spider-Man 3 (which was cack). Took a week to filter down here, though, so I ended up taking the missus up to London so she could see it nearer the release date. True love never dies etc. Holding my breath for the DVD. Now that the film's got some more exposure (i.e. been properly[ish] released), a few comments have sprung up on the site I reviewed it for back in November ( Plug Ahoy). I was reading through it the other day and thought this snippet would look good as a soundbite for the DVD case: Gritty as the tread on an Eddie Stobart lorry with a heart big enough to match the engine.Sweet dreams, eh?  |
|
|
|
Post by Kezz on May 15, 2007 15:35:47 GMT
I'll be interested to check the figures on IMDB Pro tomorrow. So you have IMDB Pro then, How do you go about getting it? Does it cost? Is it worth getting on my part? kieran. |
|
|
|
Post by anonlytwin on May 15, 2007 15:48:04 GMT
i'd like to see uniterrupted coverage of a cast and crew five-aside match... thomas turgoose grabs me as a pretty mean striker
|
|
|
|
Post by Companero on May 15, 2007 15:48:05 GMT
So you have IMDB Pro then, How do you go about getting it? Does it cost? Is it worth getting on my part? kieran. Kezz – it’s some nominal fee like £8 a month – I prefer the layout now, as I used to use it in a previous job. I would certainly say it’s worth your while, Kezz, as there’s all manner of contact details for production companies, studios, agents, directors, producers, etc To be honest, I never use it for that – I tend to use it too look at the UK box office info. But like I said, I prefer the layout – much easier to navigate, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Kezz on May 15, 2007 16:42:48 GMT
alright cheers, I'v been meaning to get round to putting a photo on my profile for like the last 2-3 years!
|
|
|
|
Post by Companero on May 15, 2007 17:21:04 GMT
I'v been meaning to get round to putting a photo on my profile for like the last 2-3 years! You must have had that IMDB page since you were five, mate ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Dave on May 15, 2007 18:35:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by StrayGoat on May 16, 2007 12:33:24 GMT
BillyWizz, yep you are more or less spot on with that Paul Calf description. I ain't got the 'tauche or hair (chance would be a fine thing) but the attitude is the same! Even when I was a student myself, I couldn't abide them. It says something when I'd rather put up with giggling teenage girls f**king about with mobile phones and skinny little t**ts with their trackie bottoms tucked into their socks that sit in an art cinema.
I'll keep checking my multiplex but I am sure they would rather show some s**t starring Ben Stiller or Martin Lawrence instead.
|
|
