The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Fios wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:

DEHog wrote:

Matthew MacWhatever movies: the pretty boy makes me pukish.

Matt is a BIG Redskins Fan!!!

Sorry about that. He's another Tom Cruise, only more vain and contemptible rather than stupid. He's the most arrogant and hated guy in Hollywood.

Um, I don't say this proudly but my job is such that I end up following Hollywood and its ilk rather closely and, assuming you are talking about McConaughey, that's wildly inaccurate.

I work with Hollywood people all the time. That's where I get my second and third and fourth hand info. Maybe my people should talk to your people.

What's your scoop on running naked in the street and the gay guy in the hotel story?

crazyhorse1 wrote:

Fios wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:

DEHog wrote:

Matthew MacWhatever movies: the pretty boy makes me pukish.

Matt is a BIG Redskins Fan!!!

Sorry about that. He's another Tom Cruise, only more vain and contemptible rather than stupid. He's the most arrogant and hated guy in Hollywood.

Um, I don't say this proudly but my job is such that I end up following Hollywood and its ilk rather closely and, assuming you are talking about McConaughey, that's wildly inaccurate.

I work with Hollywood people all the time. That's where I get my second and third and fourth hand info. Maybe my people should talk to your people.

What's your scoop on running naked in the street and the gay guy in the hotel story?

I saw a show that I think was on the NFL network about the making of the football movie the McConaughey was in and he said he was a Redskins fan. I believe they showed him meeting Portis while filming the show.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

Fios wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:

DEHog wrote:

Matthew MacWhatever movies: the pretty boy makes me pukish.

Matt is a BIG Redskins Fan!!!

Sorry about that. He's another Tom Cruise, only more vain and contemptible rather than stupid. He's the most arrogant and hated guy in Hollywood.

Um, I don't say this proudly but my job is such that I end up following Hollywood and its ilk rather closely and, assuming you are talking about McConaughey, that's wildly inaccurate.

I work with Hollywood people all the time. That's where I get my second and third and fourth hand info. Maybe my people should talk to your people.

What's your scoop on running naked in the street and the gay guy in the hotel story?

The dude is quirky, no question about that, but arrogant and hated he is not

Big news: you heard it here first. I just saw Sweeney Todd. It's a fine, enjoyable, and wonderfully ghastly movie, but not the great movie I thought it would be. Depp's performance is no more extraordinary than those of other Demon Barbers of Fleet Street. In fact, his unchecked extravagance is rather traditional for an already incredibly over- the- top role. Further, he's less likable than most Sweeney's, whose side has been fairly easily to take in other productions.

Trouble is, Depp doesn't take the opportunity to have light hearted, affectionate, and even celebratory moments with Mrs. Lovitt and his other supporters that other Sweeney's have taken. The result is that he is something of a brooding narcissistic ass whom we fear and can understand but do not like. Burton, however, apparently wants it that way. In one instance, a comic patter song between Sweeney and Mrs. Lovitt is eliminated, the murder scenes are excessively brutal, and Sweeney seems intent on killing a child for much of thr movie.

Toby is not usually depicted as an ordinary being, or even a child.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:How could you leave out "Ratatouille"?

Or Transformers?

I will add a late entry to the mix: "Planet Earth", the BBC series*.

Mag-ni-fi-cent!!!

*Not quite a "movie", I know, but well worth watching.

Sir David Attenborough is the undoubted and unchallenged maestro of natural history TV. One of the greatest broadcasters of our, or any other age. So yes - I agree!

We tend to undervalue great television compared to film. For some reason, there's a tendency to consider movies to be a higher art form. Don't know why.

Add "The Wire", the HBO series. It starts its last series on 6 January, but go rent the earlier seasons first.

The best TV show ever. Overwhelming.

Perhaps not the greatest TV show ever but I found the historical recreation made in "Rome" to be very good. I bought the two seasons in DVD.

[quote="UK Skins Fan]Sir David Attenborough is the undoubted and unchallenged maestro of natural history TV. One of the greatest broadcasters of our, or any other age. So yes - I agree![/quote]

Sadly, the version they showed in the States was not Attenborough narrating but Sigourney Weaver. Now, I like Sigourney and all but,man, her narration was strictly dullsville. I think in the DVD version you can choose Sir David though.

BearSkins wrote:Sadly, the version they showed in the States was not Attenborough narrating but Sigourney Weaver. Now, I like Sigourney and all but,man, her narration was strictly dullsville. I think in the DVD version you can choose Sir David though.

Well, that's just dumb. Still, I suppose you should be thankful they didn't choose Chris Rock, Beyonce, or Ryan Seacrest. If the program is narrated by Attenborough, then leave it the hell alone people!

Another TV series, all available on DVD: "Foyle's War". Chief of police at the seaside town, and invasion target, of Hastings. Begins early in 1940.

Just watch Foyle. Michael Kitchen, who seems to work mostly in British TV, but who is astoundingly good.

Constant question: do we care about crime when the Germans are bombing us?

UK Skins Fan wrote:If the program is narrated by Attenborough, then leave it the hell alone people!

Do you know what the definition of ''is" is?

JSPB22 wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:If the program is narrated by Attenborough, then leave it the hell alone people!

Do you know what the definition of ''is" is?

I see your , and raise you a , and I'll follow it with one of these to let you know that I'm not upset that you seem confused by one of my more simple sentences.

UK Skins Fan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:If the program is narrated by Attenborough, then leave it the hell alone people!

Do you know what the definition of ''is" is?

I see your , and raise you a , and I'll follow it with one of these to let you know that I'm not upset that you seem confused by one of my more simple sentences.

Ok I get it now. You were saying why switch narrators, when I took your sentence to mean that if Attenborough was the narrator, I should not bother watching. Does that clear it up?

JSPB22 wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:If the program is narrated by Attenborough, then leave it the hell alone people!

Do you know what the definition of ''is" is?

I see your , and raise you a , and I'll follow it with one of these to let you know that I'm not upset that you seem confused by one of my more simple sentences.

Ok I get it now. You were saying why switch narrators, when I took your sentence to mean that if Attenborough was the narrator, I should not bother watching. Does that clear it up?

Ah - got ya. Funny how a sentence that had obvious meaning when it left my brain, came out possibly meaning the complete opposite when it hit the keyboard. Although my meaning should still have been clear in the context of my other post in the thread.

But, to be absolutely clear - Sir David Attenborough is a genius, and replacing his narrative with anybody else is just dumb. Perhaps US viewers like to think that everything they watch is made in the US, so replacing the very English Attenborough is necessary for public consumption over there?

UK Skins Fan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:If the program is narrated by Attenborough, then leave it the hell alone people!

Do you know what the definition of ''is" is?

I see your , and raise you a , and I'll follow it with one of these to let you know that I'm not upset that you seem confused by one of my more simple sentences.

Ok I get it now. You were saying why switch narrators, when I took your sentence to mean that if Attenborough was the narrator, I should not bother watching. Does that clear it up?

Ah - got ya. Funny how a sentence that had obvious meaning when it left my brain, came out possibly meaning the complete opposite when it hit the keyboard. Although my meaning should still have been clear in the context of my other post in the thread.

The context was why I found it so funny. I figured you meant to type "isn't" instead of "is." Hence the emoticon.

Just saw Mr. Charlie's War. Big disappointment. Important content people ought to be aware of, but the movie is a real dud. Acting ranged from bad (Julia Roberts) to nondescript (Hanks and Hoffman). It's talky, non-drama with a few minutes of good war footage, then back to Washington parties and bedrooms. No sex, however. None of the characters are interesting and people are motivated for undisclosed reasons. Mr. Wilson's not all that heroic or smart either. His getting money for stinger missles for Afghans to fight Russian heliocopters is actually accomplished quite easily and no more dramatically than his getting the funds to build a school.

If there is a real story in there I failed to find it, and so did director Mike Nichols.