Close
End of the line for the British comedy movie?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Griff said:
Discuss.
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,2278596,00.html
(All I have to say on this subject is that I thought Magicians was much better than Hot Fuzz, which probably puts me in a minority of one.)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, monkeybeard said:
I haven't seen Magicians so I couldn't really say which was better but I loved Hot Fuzz like crazy.
I can't really reply to your comment without having seen both films. I think you are wrong but I have no way of knowing without having seen Magicians.
So I'm off to go and see Magicians before I talk any further
Shouldn't have posted really, sorry 
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Griff said:
Oh don't worry I'm expecting an absolute battering for holding that heretical view.
But on the subject of "the death of Britcom movies", I didn't see Borat mentioned in the article anywhere, which was both completely fab and very successful.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Being slightly snobbish about my own country, but I always think Britcoms have a very bleak stylised look to them (probably reflecting the damp and drizzle of ole Blighty) but whatever it is, it puts me off.
I'm not saying they should replicate American films and turn the colour setting up to full and make everything look like a cartoon. But British films, even comedies always look bleak and depressing. It's like they use some sort of filter on the lens.
Now funny is funny, whether or not the colour is high or not but the general point I'm trying to get across is British films, especially the independent ones just have a grainy horrible look.
I'm waffling, didn't even read the article but I'm in the mood to talk bollocks so I'll continue... yeah, so British films...
I like Shaun of the Dead, mainly because I love the cast and would instantly like it anyway based just on that. But I thought it was a good film because it knew what it was and wasn't afraid to push itself and it just went out to be a 'cool, fun film'.
Other recent efforts in the past 10 years or so try too hard, either by being pushed by the American studios or doing the opposite and trying to hard to be exclusively "British" with their Apples and Pears and no American leads (which is a good thing I suppose) but yeah, most films reek of too much effort in the wrong direction.
A lot of them are just weak ideas, again trying to hard with a stupid plot. "He's the best lawn-mower in the land but can he get the girl?"
Yeah "lol" he's a crappy lawn-mower for crappy England, whereas Hollywood has Bruce Willis as a astronaut. Yeah England is crap and small, very hilarious. *shakes head*
Also, why are all characters in Britflicks 'pricks'? Except for the Hugh Grants who embody the whole prick thing in a totally different way. But this always bothers me, Shaun of the Dead always bothers me, because in Spaced Mike is great lovable little crazy man but in Shaun of the Dead he acts like a right cunt, maybe that's more like Nick? I dunno but I didn't like it and I'm sure the same 'prickiness' appears in many other movies, which makes it very hard to sympathise with the characters, along with the bleak grainy film look and the weak plot line, it leaves me thinking very turned off from home grown movies.
Ramble over.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, manchester's trendy chorlton said:
The article is pretty much spot on. Ricky Gervais is 100% correct in his views also.
I'm pretty certain that Borat isn't a British film in the areas that count - funding, production and distribution.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Griff said:
Quote: manchester's trendy chorlton @ May 9 2008, 1:35 PM BSTI'm pretty certain that Borat isn't a British film in the areas that count - funding, production and distribution.
View original
I guess the article is mostly talking about "Britcoms" in terms of films built around British talent who have moved into film after TV success.
So I suppose Borat is a bit debatable, as Sacha Baron Cohen had already been very successful in the States by the time it was made. And the film he did make immediately after his small-screen success, Ali G Indahouse, was nowhere near as successful either artistically or commercially.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Pleeeease use proper quotes Griff!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, manchester's trendy chorlton said:
Good point there Griff - the AliG movie was horrendous, truly horrendous; and very much a brit-film - both in terms of it's lack of artistic ambition, integrity, and tacky delivery. The contrast with Borat couldn't be any bigger.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Phill said:
I bloody hope it's not the end of the line for the Britcom, since I've got one shooting at the moment.
With regards to 'Three and Out' - the marketing was dire. I thought Mackenzie Crook was fantastic in 'The Office' but I haven't thought much of him in anything else. That's not to say he's been bad in anything, he just hasn't struck me as someone I would go and see a film because of. Same as Martin Freeman - good enough actor, but I wouldn't go out of my way to see a film purely because he was the star.
Since Three and Out's marketing campaing seemed to consist solely of Mackenzie Crook's face - why would I want to watch it? I didn't even find out what it was about until after it had been and gone at the cinema. Films live or die on their marketing and this one seemed to get it completely wrong.
Having said that, it's not over yet. Cinema isn't the point of a film anymore; it's all about the DVD sales. Cinema is just an expensive advert for the DVD, so maybe 'Three and Out' will claw back some money there.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ShoePie said:
But haven't we always been rubbish at making films!? I reckon it's probably the start of a good period for British comedies now Simon Pegg and co. have led the way.
In the past we'd get one good movie every 4 or 5 years, then all the leading actors (and probably crews) from that film would go and make mega bucks in Hollywood and the momentum would wane.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Oliver said:
Quote: Griff @ May 9 2008, 1:08 PM BSTDiscuss.
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,2278596,00.html
(All I have to say on this subject is that I thought Magicians was much better than Hot Fuzz, which probably puts me in a minority of one.)
View original
i agree
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
I enjoyed Magicians too.
I preferred Hot Fuzz, but not by all that much.
Shaun of the Dead though, is one of the best British films ever made.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, manchester's trendy chorlton said:
Magicians was another blow to the credibility of Mitchell & Webb. I understand that the fan-boy demogrpahic would dig it, but from a considered point of view, it was dire.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
British films/TV is always just so miserable. It may fly on TV but when you go to the movies you want a bit of glam.
Growing up i always wondered why we watched Corrie and the US had Dallas.
Something odd about us that makes us like to see poor struggling people over those with some success.....and its reflected in our grey films.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, manchester's trendy chorlton said:
Tory.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
I'm not much of a film fan although I loved the old St Trinians, Carry Ons and even Ealing comedies. It's not because I'm old - they just all worked so much better.
I have seen Shaun of the Dead which was good but was a bit overlong.
It's just that British comedy has changed. Not necessarily for the better although Benidorm, Gavin & Stacey and Visiting Time (???) are good in places but there is just something lacking. If I could my finger on it I'd be a succesful writer.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Wow. I largely agree with David! 
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, graham said:
I find British comedy movies simply embarrassing. SotD and HF were good; Magicians was rubbish.
And then Russell Brand gets onto our screeens! How? Why?!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Curt said:
Quote: Leevil @ May 9 2008, 1:33 PM BST
I'm not saying they should replicate American films and turn the colour setting up to full and make everything look like a cartoon. But British films, even comedies always look bleak and depressing. It's like they use some sort of filter on the lens.
View original
yea what's up with that? Even when I'm watching BBC news the camera always looks cloudy or the picture just looks slightly washed out? Weeeeeeeird. It must be a conspiracy of some sort by the graphic designers in your country. Too cheap to use full colour spreads so they demand everyone use washed out colours.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Retinend said:
I remember people pouring scorn on Gervais for his anti-British Film Industry remarks, but they make a lot more sense in context of the Crook film (stuff like 'The Calcium Kid' also springs to mind). The Wright-Pegg partnership is a rare exception, I wish I could say why.
Although having said that the American film industry isn't much better, STILL after 5 years churning out barrel-scraping shitty summer sequels and YET more fucking superhero films, either that or studio films marketed as indie films. The 90's were a bloody good decade for films, in retrospect.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Curt @ May 10 2008, 12:12 AM BSTyea what's up with that? Even when I'm watching BBC news the camera always looks cloudy or the picture just looks slightly washed out? Weeeeeeeird. It must be a conspiracy of some sort by the graphic designers in your country. Too cheap to use full colour spreads so they demand everyone use washed out colours.
View original
That's because people in your country are too lazy and/or stupid to convert between the different TV systems. If we just took one of your shows and transmitted it straight, without any treatment, everyone would resemble Oompa Loompas in skin colour:
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Retinend said:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=A5m_nL8jas4 < Three and Out Trailer
I knew nothing about this film apart from Mackenzie Crook's ugly face (which I was treated to on every bus stop and double decker I passed on the bike ride to school) and this thread intrigued me to take a look at the trailer - it's pretty thin grounds to base your feature-length comedy film on, I can tell you that.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Retinend @ May 10 2008, 12:47 AM BSTit's pretty thin grounds to base your feature-length comedy film on, I can tell you that.
View original
You say that like it's a new development within the film world?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Curt said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 10 2008, 12:37 AM BSTThat's because people in your country are too lazy and/or stupid to convert between the different TV systems. If we just took one of your shows and transmitted it straight, without any treatment, everyone would resemble Oompa Loompas in skin colour:
View original
What are you talking about Aaron? Why not use the best when you got it? NTSC, SECAM, PAL it all sucks in comparison to digital television. If you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen...or keep fiddling with your crappy picture or even better keep whining about why no one outside Britain is watching Britcom.
Woh....that was pretty nasty...sorry man some douche bag outside my window woke me up by honking his horn for a minute straight then yelled at me for telling him "hey retard how about you stop honking that fucking horn". Woh...I really don't handle confrontation well.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, catskillz said:
Quote: Leevil @ May 9 2008, 1:33 PM BSTBeing slightly snobbish about my own country, but I always think Britcoms have a very bleak stylised look to them (probably reflecting the damp and drizzle of ole Blighty) but whatever it is, it puts me off.
I'm not saying they should replicate American films and turn the colour setting up to full and make everything look like a cartoon. But British films, even comedies always look bleak and depressing. It's like they use some sort of filter on the lens.
Now funny is funny, whether or not the colour is high or not but the general point I'm trying to get across is British films, especially the independent ones just have a grainy horrible look.
I'm waffling, didn't even read the article but I'm in the mood to talk bollocks so I'll continue... yeah, so British films...
I like Shaun of the Dead, mainly because I love the cast and would instantly like it anyway based just on that. But I thought it was a good film because it knew what it was and wasn't afraid to push itself and it just went out to be a 'cool, fun film'.
Other recent efforts in the past 10 years or so try too hard, either by being pushed by the American studios or doing the opposite and trying to hard to be exclusively "British" with their Apples and Pears and no American leads (which is a good thing I suppose) but yeah, most films reek of too much effort in the wrong direction.
A lot of them are just weak ideas, again trying to hard with a stupid plot. "He's the best lawn-mower in the land but can he get the girl?"
Yeah "lol" he's a crappy lawn-mower for crappy England, whereas Hollywood has Bruce Willis as a astronaut. Yeah England is crap and small, very hilarious. *shakes head*
Also, why are all characters in Britflicks 'pricks'? Except for the Hugh Grants who embody the whole prick thing in a totally different way. But this always bothers me, Shaun of the Dead always bothers me, because in Spaced Mike is great lovable little crazy man but in Shaun of the Dead he acts like a right cunt, maybe that's more like Nick? I dunno but I didn't like it and I'm sure the same 'prickiness' appears in many other movies, which makes it very hard to sympathise with the characters, along with the bleak grainy film look and the weak plot line, it leaves me thinking very turned off from home grown movies.
Ramble over.
View original
This is exactly how I feel about the situation as well. There seems to be a rule, that all British films have to have really dull storylines, e.g. that film that was out recently, starring that fat Iranian comedian, about people on an allotment; or that Hugh Grant film about the people in some village, trying to get a local hill recognised as a mountain, by making it a few feet taller; or that film starring Pete Posselthwaite, as a bloke who painted Pylons; or the one about all those middle-aged women, getting their tits out, to pose for a calendar.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, dingo said:
Quote: Griff @ May 9 2008, 1:08 PM BSTDiscuss.
(All I have to say on this subject is that I thought Magicians was much better than Hot Fuzz, which probably puts me in a minority of one.)
View original
My problem with Magicians was that there was plenty of Mitchell and plenty of Webb, but not much Mitchell and Webb. Does that make any sense? Hope so.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Curt @ May 10 2008, 1:04 AM BSTWhat are you talking about Aaron? Why not use the best when you got it? NTSC, SECAM, PAL it all sucks in comparison to digital television. If you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen...or keep fiddling with your crappy picture or even better keep whining about why no one outside Britain is watching Britcom.
Woh....that was pretty nasty...sorry man some douche bag outside my window woke me up by honking his horn for a minute straight then yelled at me for telling him "hey retard how about you stop honking that fucking horn". Woh...I really don't handle confrontation well.
View original
LOL. Best rethink those teacher plans then, eh?
Anyway, digital TV still needs a format to broadcast in!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
Quote: dingo @ May 10 2008, 4:26 AM BSTMy problem with Magicians was that there was plenty of Mitchell and plenty of Webb, but not much Mitchell and Webb. Does that make any sense? Hope so.
View original
It does!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, dingo said:
Thanks Leevil, I almost confused myself.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Sooo I'm guessing that Magicians isn't worth watching then.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, dingo said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 10 2008, 11:40 AM BSTSooo I'm guessing that Magicians isn't worth watching then.
View original
There is one joke that made me LOL..but I am a Star Wars fanatic.
EDIT: The prequels never happened!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
I liked it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Leevil said:
I didn't.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ShoePie said:
It was very good I thought, it just didn't feel like a proper movie. More of an ITV Christmas day special....except funny.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: catskillz @ May 10 2008, 1:46 AM BSTThere seems to be a rule, that all British films have to have really dull storylines
View original
Because people have been raised on Eastenders....theres no aspiration in this country. Hot Fuzz did so well because it pulled on Americanism for its high points. It may have parodied US stuff but even a US parody is more fun than a normal UK attempt.
Doent matter what you watch - Apprentice, Big Brother, etc, etc the US stuff is just 100 times more fun/bigger/sexier.....and movies need that.
Someone said earlier about "more fucking superhero films" - i saw Iron man last week...thousand times better as a cinema experience than anything we could turn out.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Curt said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 10 2008, 8:49 AM BSTAnyway, digital TV still needs a format to broadcast in!
View original
They do it's called HD and I'm watching "Metal: A Headbanger's Journey" on it right now and it's awesome!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Digital TV is not the same as HD. And HD still needs a format to be broadcast in. 
Quote: M Lewis @ May 10 2008, 1:28 PM BSTI saw Iron man last week...thousand times better as a cinema experience than anything we could turn out.
View original
I just find the whole of modern cinema to be so fucking self-indulgent. Very rarely is there a film of any worth. It's just having your wallet raped to sit through 90-120 minutes of something which probably won't have any continuation.
That's why I love sitcoms.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Curt said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 10 2008, 4:24 PM BSTDigital TV is not the same as HD. And HD still needs a format to be broadcast in.
View original
HD is a form of digital tv and I was actually watching that film on the movie network, hence I was watching it on cable television. I'm now watching CNN HD.
Quote:I just find the whole of modern cinema to be so fucking self-indulgent. Very rarely is there a film of any worth. It's just having your wallet raped to sit through 90-120 minutes of something which probably won't have any continuation.
That's why I love sitcoms.
You can be sure there will be a continuation of Iron Man. Anyone watch after the credits when Sam Jackson shows up as Nick Fury agent of SHIELD? Awwwesome I cheered in the theater with a bunch of other nerds.
But yes I see what you're saying Aaron I like Sitcoms and dramas because they are continuous stories but what I don't like about a lot of them is that they often do not have a planed ending.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Curt @ May 10 2008, 4:55 PM BSTHD is a form of digital tv and I was actually watching that film on the movie network, hence I was watching it on cable television. I'm now watching CNN HD.
View original
No it's not! HD has nothing inherently to do with digital TV!
HD is resolution.
Digital is a broadcast method.
PAL and NTSC are broadcast formats.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Curt said:
From Wikipedia
Quote:High-definition television (HDTV) is a digital television broadcasting system with higher resolution than traditional television systems (NTSC, SECAM, PAL). HDTV is digitally broadcast because digital television (DTV) requires less bandwidth if sufficient video compression is used.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I give up.
Clockwise is a great film.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 10 2008, 7:09 PM BST
I give up.
Clockwise is a great film.
View original
I agree. Sorry Aaron.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mark said:
Quote: dingo @ May 10 2008, 4:26 AM BSTMy problem with Magicians was that there was plenty of Mitchell and plenty of Webb, but not much Mitchell and Webb. Does that make any sense? Hope so.
View original
I think this is the perfect review of the film... well put.
So what was the last funny British comedy film then? I'm struggling to think of a recent hit...
(Son of Rambo is meant to be ok?, I've not seen it though)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
Hot Fuzz?
I really hope Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel is funny.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Gavin said:
Quote: Curt @ May 10 2008, 4:55 PM BST
You can be sure there will be a continuation of Iron Man. Anyone watch after the credits when Sam Jackson shows up as Nick Fury agent of SHIELD? Awwwesome I cheered in the theater with a bunch of other nerds.
View original
NO WAY! Oh bollocks man I watched the whole damn thing and left while credits were rolling
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: Curt @ May 10 2008, 4:55 PM BST
You can be sure there will be a continuation of Iron Man. Anyone watch after the credits when Sam Jackson shows up as Nick Fury agent of SHIELD? Awwwesome I cheered in the theater with a bunch of other nerds.
View original
Is that advertising his own film?
Nick Fury is never black though.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Gavin said:
He was in the Ultimate Marvel line.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
War Machine is the next in the series - hence Tony Starks black mate looking at the kit in the movie and say "me next time"
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: Gavin @ May 11 2008, 7:02 PM BSTHe was in the Ultimate Marvel line.
View original
Sorry - I'm not up with Ultimate Marvel stuff.
In the 60s and of course in WWII and Korea (before he lost his eye) he seemed very white to me although one of his howling commandos was black. The one with the trumpet.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Gavin @ May 11 2008, 6:47 PM BSTNO WAY! Oh bollocks man I watched the whole damn thing and left while credits were rolling
View original
People who leave during the credits are knobs.
Anyone see the close of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Griff said:
Quote:Anyone see the close of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End?
Was it as fucking awful as the rest of it ?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
BUT IT HAD PIRATES! PIIIRATESS!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
I've only seen the first one... I think.
That girl annoys me.
And the other one with the crap Jamaican accent does too.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Gavin said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 11 2008, 10:02 PM BST
BUT IT HAD PIRATES! PIIIRATESS!
View original
Bah internet Whimsy.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Griff said:
I really liked the first Pirates Of The Caribbean but thought the two sequels were stinkers.
Pirates are brilliant. The best pirates ever are in The Pyrates by George Macdonald Fraser.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: zooo @ May 11 2008, 10:04 PM BSTI've only seen the first one... I think.
That girl annoys me.
View original
I'm not a fan of Knightley, but I am truly shocked you've not seen them all!
Quote: Griff @ May 11 2008, 10:26 PM BSTPirates are brilliant. The best pirates ever are in The Pyrates by George Macdonald Fraser.
View original
Film-wise, I highly recommend Yellowbeard, which is marvellously insane.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Are there 3?
Oh, I've seen two then.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Yep, three. I am genuinely shocked you haven't seen the others!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Well, I do like Johnny Depp...
I've been remiss!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Watch. Report back.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Will do, Cap'n.
*salutes*
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, M Lewis said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 11 2008, 9:40 PM BSTPeople who leave during the credits are knobs.
View original
People that stay till the end have gone to movies on their own.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, sootyj said:
I goto movies on my own all the time.
If you're seeing a friend why sit in a darkened room where you can't talk for 2 hours?
Unless you're really boring and ugly.
Is that why people ask me to go to the cinema?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: M Lewis @ May 11 2008, 11:41 PM BSTPeople that stay till the end have gone to movies on their own.
View original
Nothing wrong with that!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: Griff @ May 11 2008, 10:26 PM BSTI really liked the first Pirates Of The Caribbean but thought the two sequels were stinkers.
Pirates are brilliant. The best pirates ever are in The Pyrates by George Macdonald Fraser.
View original
I've got that book although I haven't got around to reading it yet.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Phill said:
Quote: Aaron @ May 11 2008, 10:36 PM BST
Film-wise, I highly recommend Yellowbeard, which is marvellously insane.
View original
I love Yellowbeard, but find people strangely reluctant to give it a go.
On the plus side, I've nicked pretty much every joke from it and no one seems to have noticed.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
They're too busy staggering and rolling around!