View Full Version : Road to Perdition
mecurdius
07-10-02, 02:55 AM
On the topic of seeing movi4es early, i saw this movie tonight, and it was truly fantastic. Wait Tom Hanks?? Who didnt see that coming?!?
The cinematography is the key to this movie, everything is perfect. When Tom Hanks goes on Jay Leno and says, "It has good coloring" Dont laugh at him folks he means it, this is the third movie i would nominate so far this year for cinematography (MINORITY REPORT, INSOMNIA)
The Actors are amazing. Tom Hanks for best actor, Paul Newman for supporting, they were both stunning. Jude Law had the best character in the entire movie, bt i wont spoil it for you. The Breakthrough had to be with the kid, Tyler Hoechlin, dont forget that name, hes the best since Haley Joel Osment in the 6th sense.
You look at this movie and you think, hmm this doesnt look very much like Sam Mendes, it looks like Kubrick with lots and lots of cinematography, but then you think, "wait a second the only other movie he did was American Beauty, and that won best picture" He will definatly get a Nom if this movie is remembered in Oscar season.
THe music is by Thomas Newman, not only did he do American Beauy, but the Green Mile as well. It had great music, but lacked a memorable SCore like American Beauty's.
All in all this movie was great, but i think this forum will split it two ways, half of us will love it and the other half will just like it. Ohh and remember look of the word perdition before you see this movie, it adds a lot.
Holden Pike
07-10-02, 06:56 AM
And heck, if you don't know what the words "road" or "to" mean, look them up too.
I've been looking forward to this one for a while. If Mendes has managed to capture the core and spirit of the story and the always brilliant Connie Hall the amazing look of the graphic novel, it should be a wonderful film. Newman, Jude Law and Stanley Tucci are all dead solid perfect as far as casting the characters from the book, the only question mark in my mind being Tom Hanks. Not that I don't like him or think he's not capable, I'll just be curious to see if he call pull it off as written.
I'll be seeing it Friday, so I'll know soon enough.
Holden Pike
07-10-02, 06:31 PM
Don't know if anyone else has read the graphic novel (or is even aware this movie is based on one), but I thought the way the 'Archangel of Death', the character that Hanks plays, was drawn that he looked more like maybe Montgomery Clift, and if this movie was being made in 1955 that's who I would have probably cast. From today's generation of actors, I'd say more naturally Daniel Day-Lewis, Val Kilmer or a younger Treat Williams, circa Prince of the City (and if he were a tad bit taller and lankier). I just don't visualize Tom Hanks in the part, but we'll see if it works....
mecurdius
07-11-02, 01:00 AM
this movie could have been taken right out of a graphic novel, the way the colors are used and everything, it looks like a painting, im gonna have to get this book.
Holden Pike
07-11-02, 01:45 AM
Well, while the original graphic novel The Road to Perdition (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0743442245.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg) has a terrific visual flair and density to it (drawn by Richard Rayner), it's not in color at all, but black and white exclusively. Great use of shadows and wonderful inking, but no colors. Kind of reminds me of Will Eisner's style quite a bit, if you're familiar with his work (The Spirit (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1563896753.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg) most prolifically).
Holden Pike
07-12-02, 11:01 PM
Ugh.
I found The Road to Perdition to be a huge disappontment.
First of all, as an adaptation it gets a grade of 'F'. They changed the plot signifigantly from the framing device on down, added a whole new needless character, dropped others that were interesting/crucial and most criminally they completely altered character motivations. All in all, a horrible adaptation. The original graphic novel is no literary masterwork or anything - it has its flaws, but a really fine film could have been made using it as the source material. Sam Mendes' flick ain't it.
But trying to judge it apart from how wildly far off of the novel it went, there's something very overall uninvolving about it for me. Baisc elements of the stroytelling, like the heirarchy of the organization to the main character's backstory, were muddled at best and nonexistent at worst. The character development is amaturish, and there's just no emotional connection to play upon. The score was obtrusive at times as well.
Thanks to Conrad Hall's talent, the movie has a decent look to it anyway (though not spectacualr), but that isn't nearly enough to save it.
Really disappointed.
Grade: C-
The Silver Bullet
07-12-02, 11:04 PM
Now you've got me all disappointed too, man. Damn. I was looking forward to the film too [if it ever got released down here]...
How about the performances?
How did Hanks end up doing for you?
Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
...looking forward to the film too ...if it ever got released down here
Same here. Road to Perdition will not be playing at all at my theater. :mad: Same thing happened with Evolution. I believe it's the same movie company. I have to find out EXACTLY why from my manager as soon as I go back to work. I will report back to you all about it when I find out. ;)
For some reason, it's debuting in less than 1,800 theaters nationwide. A lack of wide release such as this usually means one thing: the studio doesn't particularly think it'd be much of a cash cow, and therefore it's not worth the money to promote and distribute it the way they might a more marketable film.
The Silver Bullet
07-12-02, 11:51 PM
Cash cows are usually terrible works of crap...
:yup:
So then you would hate Road to Perditition you're saying?
The Silver Bullet
07-13-02, 12:09 AM
Um, no.
If you had bothered to read what Yoda wrote, maybe what I said would have made more sense. He's saying that the studio might not think that Perdition [not Perditition as you spelt it] is a cash cow, and I say 'cash cows are usually crap anyway'.
And I said usually too in case anyone even tries to argue.
Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
Cash cows are usually terrible works of crap...
Are they? Here are the top ten highest grossing films of all-time, domestically: Titanic
Star Wars
E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace
Spider-Man
Jurassic Park
Forrest Gump
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
The Lion King
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the RingI'd only be comfortable calling mabye one of those a "work of crap." I guess I'd have to ask what you consider to be a "cash cow," then.
The Silver Bullet
07-13-02, 12:17 AM
And I said usually too in case anyone even tries to argue.
:rolleyes:
Yep, saw that. And I quoted that. I duly noted the use of the word "usually," but I see maybe one film (two, at most) in the top ten there that would qualify. "Usually" implies at least a majority. So, as I said, I have to ask: what's your definition of a "cash cow"?
The Silver Bullet
07-13-02, 12:32 AM
Obviously different to yours...
:rolleyes:
That's all I'm gonna get outta you, eh? :D
The Silver Bullet
07-13-02, 12:47 AM
No, not really.
My definition of a 'cash cow' is ultimately a film that has been made to do nothing but make money, a film with ultimately no point behind it, except to make more money, even a mediocre and pitiful amount [Scary Movie 2 for example.]
I know the other definition is obviously the film that will make a lot of money and be huge. The other other definition is that a 'cash cow' is going to be a financial and critical and award winning success story.
My definition is just as right as the others, and supports my comment:
Most 'cash cows' [as defined by me] are crap.
Well, when you said "a film that has been made to do nothing but make money," what perspective is being used? I think an argument could be made that, from the studio executive's point of view, basically all movies are made to make money.
FiLm Fr3aK
07-13-02, 01:07 AM
From bible bangin to cash "slangin'" You guys are just itchin to bicker tonight aint ya?
you guys need a DEBATE thread... :yup:
We've got dozens already...we trashed them. :D
The Silver Bullet
07-13-02, 02:46 AM
The funniest part is that for the entire period in which we've been 'arguing' we've been having a delightful discussion on MSN. We're ridiculous, really.
Yeah, from the studio's perspective, maybe. But what about from the perspective of, say, the director? Surely Sam Mendes thinks he's doing something artistic [or something worthwhile along those lines; story that needs to be told, art, homage, those sorts of reasons]. The director of Scary Movie 3 can't honestly believe that he's directing the film for any reason other than to milk to 'cash cow' one last time before the franchise dies [I think it already has died, mind you...]?
Originally posted by Yoda
Well, when you said "a film that has been made to do nothing but make money," what perspective is being used? I think an argument could be made that, from the studio executive's point of view, basically all movies are made to make money.
Some of us still believe in cinema as an art form. :yup:
I hated Road to Perdition - it's one of the poorest movies I've seen all year. I read a critical profile of Sam Mendes, and it said "Mendes is a master at pumping up sentimental cliches and passing them off as mysticism." This is the most apparent element of Road to Perdition, and nowhere is it made more noticable than through the photography, where grace, rhythm, and timing take a backseat to sustained moments of shadowy pretension that would invite laughs were the movie not so stone-faced and cold. And if I'm right in assuming the most important parts of the movie have to do with the relationship between Hanks and his kid, why isn't there one? I recall just one scene that made my blood race, and it was the confrontation in the basement of the church between Hanks and Newman: "Only one thing is certain. None of us will see Heaven." Otherwise, this movie is quite possibly the most offensively pretentious piece of vigilante trash of the year. Even worse than Enough.
Originally posted by Steve
Some of us still believe in cinema as an art form.
:rolleyes: Did you even read the posts leading up to that? We were discussing what the phrase "cash cow" meant. Or did you take one glance at the fact that we were talking about (gasp!) money in relation to movies, and decide to make your remark?
Movies are made (*gasp*:eek: ) by those crazy foreigners that dont' have a connection to Hollywood. And, strangely enough, these failed Americans seem to make many of the most interesting movies in the world today. So, please, by all means, trash the work of thousands of filmmakers across the globe. :rolleyes:
What on Earth are you talking about, man? I haven't trashed anyone's work. We're talking about Hollywood and "cash cow" movies. Are you implying that we HAVE to include Independent filmmaking in this discussion?
Originally posted by Yoda
What on Earth are you talking about, man? I haven't trashed anyone's work. We're talking about Hollywood and "cash cow" movies. Are you implying that we HAVE to include Independent filmmaking in this discussion?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm implying. To disregard the work being done elsewhere when making judgements on the quality of movies, "cash cow" or otherwise, is basically the same as trashing it.
No it's not. We're having a discussion about what a "cash cow" movie is. Indy films are not cash cow films. Your protest here makes about as much sense as claiming that it's not fair not to exclude Men in Black 2 in a discussion about low-budget filmmaking. The discussion is about films designed just to make money, basically. Indy films don't really fall under that. Therefore, they're not part of the discussion. What's so tough to swallow about that? Are you so high on Indy filmmaking that you feel it needs to be included in every movie-related discussion without exception, even when the topic of choice is a kind of filmmaking inconsistent with Indy filmmaking?
I misread your argument. I apologize. :(
Holden Pike
07-15-02, 06:33 AM
See, Steve, you should have seen 13 Conversations About One Thing instead, Man. Or Sunshine State, for that matter. I'll post my review on that later today, but I enjoyed it a Hell of a lot, another good piece of work from Sayles.
So, did anybody else bother to see The Road to Perdition this weekend? So far it's two to one against here amongst us MoFos. As it got such sparkling professional reviews (for some reason), I'm wondering if many others were as disapointed as Steve and I were?
The Silver Bullet
07-15-02, 06:52 AM
Ebert gave Perdition the same score as Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course.
What that says about Roger Ebert I don't know.
Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
Ebert gave Perdition the same score as Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course.
What that says about Roger Ebert I don't know.
Ah, but perhaps it says something about Road to Perdition.
Holden: No, I didn't get to see 13 Conversations yet. I think that this weekend is going to be my non-multiplex weekend, because Sunshine State is out too...I've been slacking lately, but if there's a new John Sayles flick out, I'm sold.
Saw this film tonight. I'll be writing a review shortly. Let me just say for now, though, that the score was most definitely not intrusive. If anything, I think most scores are played down too far...this one gave an underlying emotion to all the scenes that needed it. I thought the music complementing each scene was handled perfectly.
We thought "Road to Perdition" was a really fine film. I was worried that maybe Tom Hanks would hurt himself by playing a dark character, but he is so three-dimensional in every role that he made it work. And Jude Law (who is SO good looking) was a wonderfully slimy badguy.
And evidently I'm not the only one who liked it. Reports are that it is turning into a big grosser after all.
Good acting wins again. hooray!
Love,
Jozie
I loved this movie. More than American Beauty? Probably not, but it was still a fine film. My biggest problem wih it was the ending monologue, it ruined the entire movie for me. But, I was also dissapointed with the older sons performance, it all looked a little over-choreographed.
As far as Ebert goes, I've totally stopped reading or even thinking about his reviews. I think that maybe he's too old, or senile to sit through the movie, so he judges it on whether or not the preview made him feel good. It's about high time that Ebert follows Siskels good example, or retires, as long as he stops writing reviews I'll be pleased.
I'm probably being too hard on the guy, I dont know...:dizzy:
_______________
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-Voltare
Karl Childers
07-22-02, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Yoda
Are they? Here are the top ten highest grossing films of all-time, domestically: Titanic
Star Wars
E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace
Spider-Man
Jurassic Park
Forrest Gump
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
The Lion King
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the RingI'd only be comfortable calling mabye one of those a "work of crap." I guess I'd have to ask what you consider to be a "cash cow," then.
I would say 6 of those 10 films are Hollywood crap.
I won't say which ones, though.
Originally posted by Karl Childers
I would say 6 of those 10 films are Hollywood crap.
I won't say which ones, though.
I would have to choose 2 out of the 10.
I loved this movie. Everything about it was just brilliant. I read the comic shortly after seeing the movie, and I liked the movie better. This should win as many awards as they can throw at it.:yup:
mecurdius
08-15-02, 08:51 PM
yeah holden not trying to change your mind (because i know you cant and usually what you think the second you come out of the movie is what you will always think of it) but maybe you shouldnt have based your opinion of the movie on how accurate it was to the graphic novel.
Holden Pike
08-16-02, 04:43 AM
Er, well thanks for the advice...but I did. If you re-read what I wrote, I said as an adaptation of the source material it grades an 'F', and as an overall movie it grades a C- from me. My problems with it were legion above and beyond how different it was from the graphic novel.
The Silver Bullet
10-19-02, 05:02 AM
I really enjoyed Road to Perdition, as I predicted I would. I didn't love it; it was a brilliant piece of filmmaking or anything, but it kept me enthralled for the most part.
But the question, I think, is why.
I'm sure it is no secret by now that I want to be a filmmaker when I leave school. For this reason I find it very easy, if I am not enthralled by a film, if I am not being engrossed by the story, I can easily find something else to latch on to that will carry me through to the end.
For much of Perdition I was less interested in story [I consider story and plot to be seperate, just by the way; story includes characters and motivations as much as plot specifics], I had no real interest in either of the Michael Sullivan's for the most part, but I loved Jude and I loved Paul. As a result I found myself either waiting for their scenes to arrive, or bathing in the visual style.
I found it interesting to note the comparisons between Perdition and American Beauty, visually. Hall uses the rain in both films to give the illusion of weeping rooms and weeping people when the shadows of the rain get cast across the faces of characters. It was also interesting to note the ever rightward pan; a montage that pans right slowly before disolving into another shot that keeps the pan moving. This appears in American Beauty when each character hears the gunshot, and as Lester discusses the most beautiful things in his life. In Perdition the montage in which the two Michael's rob all the banks did the same. I was suprised; it is a very, very obvious technique when you are looking for it, and here was Hall reusing it again for a major sequence.
That being said there were some astounding visuals; the scene between Newman and Hanks in the street, in the rain. The shots of Jude as the train passes. The shot at the end; the reflection of the lake in the window as Hanks looks out of it. The out of focus shot on Conner Rooney. The door closing revealing Conner in the bath. My personal favorite; Jude Law's entrance. Sure it was a direct wink to Vertigo, but please. What an entrance. What a shot.
But at the same time, how quickly was I able to reel all of those shots off? Surely I shouldn't have noticed them so much, surely I should have cared about Michael and Michael? Instead I noticed the nuance of the cinematography; the small puddle of blood that flows from the bullet, ever so slightly, catching a glint of the candlelight, as it rests in the bowl, things like that. Surely the character should have meant more to me.
Well, they didn't. But I didn't mind. I didn't need the emotional connection because the filmmaker in me just leapt to the technical side, basically from the beginning of the film. A two hour lesson in cinematography was still worth my money.
So yeah.
I enjoyed it.
John Kinsella
11-30-02, 07:17 PM
Besides eqsuisite cinematography and good music...this film really blew...
As soon as the opening shot faded up u knew the ending...besides that...the story was just boring...
Acting was fine but when isn't Tom Hanks fine?
Bad movie...:sick:
The Silver Bullet
12-05-02, 09:06 PM
Eqsuisite, hey?
Can't get enough of that eqsuisite stuff. Bring on the eqsuisite...
John Kinsella
12-05-02, 09:37 PM
EXQUISITE...Happy now? :rolleyes:
The Silver Bullet
12-05-02, 11:25 PM
Yessum.
:yup:
John Kinsella
12-06-02, 12:42 AM
Whats yessum...?:confused:
The Silver Bullet
12-06-02, 12:46 AM
:laugh:
John Kinsella
12-06-02, 01:17 AM
:licklips:
I really enjoyed Road to Perdition, as I predicted I would. I didn't love it; it was a brilliant piece of filmmaking or anything, but it kept me enthralled for the most part.
But the question, I think, is why.
I'm sure it is no secret by now that I want to be a filmmaker when I leave school. For this reason I find it very easy, if I am not enthralled by a film, if I am not being engrossed by the story, I can easily find something else to latch on to that will carry me through to the end.
For much of Perdition I was less interested in story [I consider story and plot to be seperate, just by the way; story includes characters and motivations as much as plot specifics], I had no real interest in either of the Michael Sullivan's for the most part, but I loved Jude and I loved Paul. As a result I found myself either waiting for their scenes to arrive, or bathing in the visual style.
I found it interesting to note the comparisons between Perdition and American Beauty, visually. Hall uses the rain in both films to give the illusion of weeping rooms and weeping people when the shadows of the rain get cast across the faces of characters. It was also interesting to note the ever rightward pan; a montage that pans right slowly before disolving into another shot that keeps the pan moving. This appears in American Beauty when each character hears the gunshot, and as Lester discusses the most beautiful things in his life. In Perdition the montage in which the two Michael's rob all the banks did the same. I was suprised; it is a very, very obvious technique when you are looking for it, and here was Hall reusing it again for a major sequence.
That being said there were some astounding visuals; the scene between Newman and Hanks in the street, in the rain. The shots of Jude as the train passes. The shot at the end; the reflection of the lake in the window as Hanks looks out of it. The out of focus shot on Conner Rooney. The door closing revealing Conner in the bath. My personal favorite; Jude Law's entrance. Sure it was a direct wink to Vertigo, but please. What an entrance. What a shot.
But at the same time, how quickly was I able to reel all of those shots off? Surely I shouldn't have noticed them so much, surely I should have cared about Michael and Michael? Instead I noticed the nuance of the cinematography; the small puddle of blood that flows from the bullet, ever so slightly, catching a glint of the candlelight, as it rests in the bowl, things like that. Surely the character should have meant more to me.
Well, they didn't. But I didn't mind. I didn't need the emotional connection because the filmmaker in me just leapt to the technical side, basically from the beginning of the film. A two hour lesson in cinematography was still worth my money.
So yeah.
I enjoyed it.
This is very old I know, but I thought that was a great review Silver. I too found the story to be lacking at times, but found myself impressed by the camera work. I wouldn't call this movie GREAT or anything, but definetly a good movie. All characters played their parts well, it's good that young people like me get to see why Paul Newman is considered to be so great. The show-down with him and Hanks in the church, and the epic event that takes place later that night is the highlight of the movie.
Notice how when Newmans bodyguards are shot the gun makes no sound, and you only see the bodies fall. But when Newman is shot you hear sound but don't see the body fall? I dunno why but I thought that was great.
DrenaiWarrior
11-19-03, 02:44 AM
I'll be brief.... I liked the movie alot.
It stuck in my head for a long time... so I won't need to buy it
and I wouldn't buy it unless i saw it for cheap (sorry I'm a college student!)
But I definetly told all my friends to see it at least once! It is worth that, good theme, good moral question posed, good Hanks, good Jude, semi-decent oldest son (hehe) All in all GOOD like chicken
Beale the Rippe
11-19-03, 09:22 AM
I too will say shortly that I loved this movie.
Jude Law really stood out for me as the villain...minly because I loved how all of the scenes he was in were handled. I also loved Paul...he was great, and Tom, who made a great anti-hero. (although everyone was really good)
The direction and look of the film were just so great....I loved it's structuring...a great movie.
DrenaiWarrior
11-19-03, 01:26 PM
OMG... I completely forgot about Paul. And he had my favorite speech in the movie, where he and Tom talk about how they both knew that neither of them were going to heaven and how he could do the right thing for his son. Can't believe I forget something like that. My bad
projectMayhem
11-19-03, 06:26 PM
The scene in which Hanks brings down Newman and his guards in the rain is my favorite scene from any movie ever. Just the way it is shot and the way the sound is mixed is totally amazing to me.
Beale the Rippe
11-19-03, 06:57 PM
The scene in which Hanks brings down Newman and his guards in the rain is my favorite scene from any movie ever. Just the way it is shot and the way the sound is mixed is totally amazing to me.
That was a beautiful scene. There are so many great scenes...plus it is so heartbreaking to see two essentially good people in such a bad line of work...they even talk about how they've damned themselves...It is a very emotional movie. I loved it.
Beale the Rippe
11-19-03, 07:00 PM
Er, well thanks for the advice...but I did. If you re-read what I wrote, I said as an adaptation of the source material it grades an 'F', and as an overall movie it grades a C- from me. My problems with it were legion above and beyond how different it was from the graphic novel.
I read the novel and it wasn't...too...different. I'll grant you there were some major changes, but on the whole I thought the movie improved upon the graphic novel.
I don't dig letter grades, but I'll give it an A.
Tom Hnaks was great in Road to Perdition. The movie has some great parts. The ending was just sad :bawling:
Beale the Rippe
11-30-03, 12:58 AM
I actually found the ending to be quite triumphant.
I actually found the ending to be quite triumphant.
True. But the ending was something unexpected.
SPOILER
A father and a son go to Road to Perdition alone to forget everything that they've been thru. Once they get there, they see nobody at the beach home. The father goes inside while his son is playing with the dog. There is a moment of silence while Tom Hanks is looking out the window and all you hear are the waves. All of a sudden... bang! He's shot several times. And you know he's not going to make it. The kid comes in finding the photographer [the guy who shot Tom] taking pictures of his ill dad. The photographer gets shot and dies. So will Hank, but not before he can have his last words with his own son. Real sad ending.
EDITED: To Add Spoiler Tags
LordSlaytan
11-30-03, 01:44 PM
True. But the ending was something unexpected.
SPOILER
A father and a son go to Road to Perdition alone to forget everything that they've been thru. Once they get there, they see nobody at the beach home. The father goes inside while his son is playing with the dog. There is a moment of silence while Tom Hanks is looking out the window and all you hear are the waves. All of a sudden... bang! He's shot several times. And you know he's not going to make it. The kid comes in finding the photographer [the guy who shot Tom] taking pictures of his ill dad. The photographer gets shot and dies. So will Hank, but not before he can have his last words with his own son. Real sad ending.
Why did you feel it necessary to write down the ending?
Why did you feel it necessary to write down the ending?
Start smoking again Lordy, for lord's sake start smoking ;) - (Or at least chew one when you're feeling fractious :))
Caitlyn
11-30-03, 04:56 PM
Start smoking again Lordy, for lord's sake start smoking ;) - (Or at least chew one when you're feeling fractious :))
:laugh: ... no, he is going to make it... and hopefully the "bear" will go into hibernation soon... but if not, we love him anyway... :yup:
LordSlaytan
11-30-03, 05:05 PM
NO! Why did the guy write the ending down? There was no point to it at all! He said it was unexpected, then told step by step...damn. I can't be the only one who's upset about the influx of morons...am I? This forum used to owned by intelligent people, now they hardly post. People are getting to 1,000 posts doing nothing but posting one word in word association...GRR!!!! I used to get so mad at Silver for being rude, but now that's all I feel like doing.
Caitlyn
11-30-03, 05:20 PM
NO! Why did the guy write the ending down? There was no point to it at all! He said it was unexpected, then told step by step...damn. I can't be the only one who's upset about the influx of morons...am I? This forum used to owned by intelligent people, now they hardly post. People are getting to 1,000 posts doing nothing but posting one word in word association...GRR!!!! I used to get so mad at Silver for being rude, but now that's all I feel like doing.
I know what you mean… and I can well understand a lot of your irritation and the reason behind some of Silver’s posts now… but a lot of the new posters are young and many of them are trying… the ones who aren’t don’t normally stick around too long anyway… ;)
LordSlaytan
11-30-03, 05:25 PM
I know what you mean… and I can well understand a lot of your irritation and the reason behind some of Silver’s posts now… but a lot of the new posters are young and many of them are trying… the ones who aren’t don’t normally stick around too long anyway… ;)
Are you trying to tell me to show patience and restraint? Because if you are...BOLLOCKS!!! ;D
"This forum used to owned by intelligent people, now they hardly post. People are getting to 1,000 posts doing nothing "
Gosh, I never knew you missed me so much! Har-har!
But it's true that we live in the age of the death of quality.
And yet . . .
Love 2 all,
Jozie
Gideon58
03-11-14, 07:39 PM
Loved Hanks and especially Newman and I also have to give a shout out to the music...the music in this film is just amazing.
christine
03-11-14, 08:20 PM
aww it's lovely to see Caitlyn's posts again :)
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.