The color of magic

[The_Discworldaholic]

just read the article from the US times online for the colour of magic, i cant believe this bloke, i quote "it is by and large a droll, ingratiating affair, albeit one whose rickety effects and lackadaisical pacing " was he watching the same film as us, bloke was on drugs obviously, i just wish there was somewhere on his article i could reply with my displeasure, anyway he cant even spell colour right dunno if you noticed the spelling in the title of the thread and yes i do know thats how out expat cousins spell it Oh that Boston tea party has a lot to answer for

[Tiffany]

That man, who wrote that, is obviously not into Sci-Fi & Terry Pratchett in particular. They should have got another critic to write about it.
That man is a philistine.

[The_Discworldaholic]

mind you after reading the article, the way he goes on about it, his wording is i find rather arcaic, he probably reviews things like sheakspeare or some such.

[Tiffany]

How about a link so we can read it too?

[Jason]

Link to review:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/movie ... ref=movies

[The_Discworldaholic]

thanks jason should of thought of that and i must say thanks for the link in your newsletter, excellent as always.

[Tiffany]

Thanks Jason.
I guess because the film isn't over the top with production & special effects as American films tend to be, that's why he said what he said. They aren't used to our style of film making & he is, in my opinion, totally wrong in his first remarks.

I thought the American remake of The War Of The Worlds was completely wrong. They should have used Jeff Wayne's version, but I digress.

[Catch-up]

Pretty condescending review. And I got the impression this guy has a list of ridiculous words written down, just waiting for the chance to stick them in a review somewhere.

[Dotsie]

I thought the American remake of The War Of The Worlds was completely wrong. They should have used Jeff Wayne's version, but I digress.

I'll digress with you. The first American remake of War of the Worlds (in the 1950's) was very good, much more suspense than the latest version. Although they couldn't manage the special effects to make the tripods, & they were a bit shy of the whole "humans as food" thing.

Back on topic - there are plenty of films that I love that got crap reviews, & they didn't all do badly. If the man wants to sound like a pretentious fart, he must know he runs the risk of completely invalidating any arguments he might have against the film, and of losing readers. Berating the special effects of a lower budget production is just petty anyway, and just goes to show that the man doesn't have any artistic talent himself.

[Tiffany]

Yes, Tony, the first version was much better, but it was still the American version & not the way H G Wells meant it at all. Where as Jeff Wayne's was spot on.

I too have seen lots of films that got crap reviews & liked them. I guess we all like different things. It shows never to take notice of critics remarks. Make up your own mind.

[chris.ph]

ignorant s@@@. not saying anything else on that!
on dotsies and tiffanys comments _ the 50s film is brills and i never judge a film by a review ive specifically bought films that are awful just for a laff ie, battlefield earth and my favourite series lebrachaun god there so bad but funny

[Dotsie]

Yes, Tony, the first version was much better

I think it's time I had a makeover!

[Tonyblack]

Yes, Tony, the first version was much better

I think it's time I had a makeover!

Yeah! Don't blame me - I'm innocent I tell ya!