Out of morbid curiosity, what is it that disturbs you or makes you think it's "Unpleasant and stupid"? *question aimed at Libby and Ela*

Ah, morbid, morbid Cor. Let me see . . it's been a few years - but I'll admit the part where the main guy is tortured really really - hurt me, shall we say? I can't remember it without a shudder. I guess that's just little ol me, but all the rest of it was disturbing. When he was brought back to life, the giant whatever they were, everything. And as for stupid? EVERY MINUTE OF THE FILM!
Yay Libby and Bella! *highfives*

Sorry this is way back

Some movies I've seen in the past half year (yeah, I know, not very much time for DVD-watching )...
True Grit,

I take it you mean the 2010 version. I kinda want to see that one. I've only seen parts of the '69 version but it was enjoyable... (Dad likes it a lot )

@ Sweeet. Correct, though I believe the book (by the screenwriter) came out a few years before the film. I may be wrong, so don't attack em with sparkles if I am...

@ Ela. Huh... Besides the torture scene, everything else was just goofy and bizarre to me. Oh well, I like it (though I don't "love it") and you obviously do not. Shall we move on?

@Wolfie The 2010 version was really good; although I've never seen the old one, so I can't compare them.

Sorry; I didn't mean to spur a discussion on The Princess Bride. If I may offer a few closing remarks:

I know it's a comedy but why does every America show/movie seem to refer to Australia as if we're still living in the times of convicts and are a backward nation of criminals?

SL offered a nice comment on this (I live in that "flyover country" he mentioned). My response to this line, when watching the movie, was not about Australia being backward or anything like that, but just Vizzini, the self-described genius, as simply running off at the mouth again.

The book in the beginning is a plot device by the writer of the script, William Goldman, as there is no such book by S. Morgenstern. There IS a book (by William Goldman), but the script and book were written concurrently, I believe.

I know some people in real life who've told me "I've got to find that book by S. Morgenstern."

It doesn't help that it's subtitled "S. Morgenstern's Classic Tale of True Love and High Adventure."

The book was published in 1973 - 14 years before the movie came out - and has some significant changes from the movie. Some people I know prefer the book; others the movie.

I'm not a fan of the goofy and bizarre (or at least the combination), so that would explain it. *takes a big step away from it*
I'm really super excited - on the 22nd (I think), me, Betsie, Dennie, and two other friends are going to have a movie night and watch North and South - all of it. It's my favorite movie (as some of you may have guessed . . ), and I'm actually the one making this happen - so I'm super excited!!!!!

There IS a book (by William Goldman), but the script and book were written concurrently, I believe. It's pretty funny, when you think about it.

I read this totally wrong at first, I must admit. I thought you were talking about a book by William Golding...who wrote Lord of the Flies. Now that would have been a really weird adaptation!

Westley: "Buttercup! Buttercup, I love you!"

Buttercup (with a mad laugh): "I don't listen to the conch shell holder anymore!" *grabs spear*

You know, I could go on like this all afternoon.

cor: the whole thing had a very weird undertone of strangeness that didn't bide well with me. Miracle Max gave me nightmares, but not the kind that make you afraid of your closet or the dark. after seeing The Princess Bride, I had nightmares about the whole thing, dreams, that became the reason for my vow to never watch it again. how do I explain this? it's just that I found the whole movie to be very, um, freaky. and I really honestly didn't care about the characters Westley creeps me out and I agree with ela - the whole thing is, IMO, very stupid

I know it's a comedy but why does every America show/movie seem to refer to Australia as if we're still living in the times of convicts and are a backward nation of criminals? It's just lame.

For the same reason they oftentimes portray any American that doesn't live in California, New York, or Illinois as backwards hayseeds and hicks who reside in "flyover country" (the great big empty space in the middle of the US) . Don't worry about it too much, with the state of public education in the country right now I seriously think 50% of students probably think Australia is somewhere east of Mexico, give or take 20 miles. And that's why my kids are going to get homeschooled.

I do have to agree with this. Many people think Alaska is a little island stuck down under the US because of stupid maps such as this one:

Do a google image search for "us maps" (that's how I found that one) and that ^^ is the type of map you will get. There are few that actually show Alaska in the correct place.

Or else you'll get a map like this one:

which makes very stupid people think that Alaska is not part of the US at all and is part of Japan or Russia.

For example, most of the people that know Alaska is part of the US seem to know that Alaska is larger than Texas. But due to images like the first map I posted, they don't realize just how big Alaska is. Alaska is not just bigger than Texas, it's twice as big! Almost (but not quite) three times as big! With more coastline than the rest of the US put together. If you super-imposed Alaska over the rest of the US, this is what it would look like:

On top of that, Alaska is not only the Western-most and Northern-most state, it's also Eastern-most since part of the Aleutian chain is in the Eastern hemisphere.

Since we are on a Narnia site, it seems appropriate to use this quote.

"What do they teach them in these schools?"

*steps off of soapbox*

OK, to go back on topic: Somebody mentioned The Pianist a while back. I had to watch that a couple years ago for a college class. It was very good! I loved the piano playing, for one and the soundtrack was excellent. Due to being rated R for violence, I was expecting it to be scary and/or disturbing but I found it to not be at all. Perhaps it should, but the violence didn't really bother me. Now, no it wasn't nice to watch and it wasn't pleasant but it just didn't bother me. The main actor (I can't remember his name) was excellent in his role. The whole movie was very realistic and kind of awful. I mean, it dealt with the Holocaust! It wasn't the nicest movie in the world but it was very good and very well made.

Also, you have to remember the time at which The Princess Bride is set. Close to those days (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong), criminals were sent to live in Australia. They were deported to a kind of Alcatraz so to speak. Though they weren't all horrible people, sometimes they were just thieves, but still. Pretty much all anyone knew of Australia was that it was full of criminals.

And ditto what SL said about America. We get a lot of stereotypes too.

P.S."Brooklyn!"

It depends in what era Princess Bride was allegedly set. Seeing it is supposed to be a fantasy, it could have been set in any era from Medieval times to what we consider Modern history, commencing with the French Revolution in 1789. If it was set after 1788, like the founding of the boarding school mentioned in Three Men and a little lady, and before 1868, when the last transport of convicts landed at Western Australia, then fair enough. And in any case there wasn't really a country called Australia until 1901. By that time, swords were mostly for decoration, fighting was normally done with pistols etc, most of the original convicts had died off, and immigrants came here of their own free will.

True, but it was only Eastern Australia that was established for convicts. For example, South Australia was colonised by free settlers from Germany, Prussia and the UK etc. Some people didn't even do simple thievery to be transported to Australia as a convict. They found almost any excuse to get the poor off the streets.

For the record, Western Australia had convicts because they needed cheap labour there. The convict settlements in the East weren't there merely as a solution to poverty and criminality in UK. Arguably they were a direct result of the American Revolution, since Great Britain could no longer send such convicts to America, as it had done so, for a much longer time, since 1610. I agree with you that Aussies can laugh at themselves. I also agree there might be similar stereotypes in America, though sometimes I don't 'get' the humour, I'm afraid.

You are right about many of those transported having done little to deserve it. For example, Henry Fulton, the first minister of one of Australia's oldest Anglican churches, was transported to New South Wales because he was an Irish rebel, and not for any criminality. Other transported felons were taken captive after battles like Culloden, and due to the later 18th century proscriptions in Scotland.

The original idea for the First Fleet was also to claim the new-found continent of Australia and establish a military presence there before the French moved in.

It depends in what era Princess Bride was allegedly set. Seeing it is supposed to be a fantasy, it could have been set in any era from Medieval times to what we consider Modern history, commencing with the French Revolution in 1789. If it was set after 1788, like the founding of the boarding school mentioned in Three Men and a little lady, and before 1868, when the last transport of convicts landed at Western Australia, then fair enough. And in any case there wasn't really a country called Australia until 1901. By that time, swords were mostly for decoration, fighting was normally done with pistols etc, most of the original convicts had died off, and immigrants came here of their own free will.

I think you might be taking the film a bit too seriously . The time setting in the movie is extremely ambiguous and at times almost anachronistic (which you hint at) and I don't think the film is meant to be taken seriously at all.

*laughs at narnian_at_heart's description of Alaskawaii*

Yes, I did find narnia at heart's description of alaskawaii funny. For what it is worth, the maps are probably drawn by those same cartographers who make maps of Australia which leave out the State of Tasmania. Employing those folk who confuse Australia with Austria.

"What do they teach them in these schools?"

*steps off of soapbox*

Yes indeed. Me, too.

I wasn't taking Princess Bride all that seriously: I just found the movie both forgettable and irritating. Like all those disaster movies from the 1990's. I can't think why we ever watched them.

I have another great Disney movie I watched a month ago after my wisdom tooth extraction: The Sword in the Stone, a Disney movie I only picked up at the library because I thought it looked interesting.

After the death of King Uther Pendragon, a sword is left in a stone, and whoever pulls it out is the new king of England. However, nobody has been able to pull out the sword, and England suffers through a Dark Age.

Meanwhile, Merlin, a wizard, finds out that a young orphan boy, Arthur, called Wart by his foster brother Kay and foster father, is to be the next king of England. Merlin throughout the movie tries to give Arthur an "education" or whatever that is.

I think this is a very underrated Disney film, and that it should be given a chance. Archimedes(Merlin's owl) and Merlin have hilarious dialogue, which is very quirky. A thing that irks me is that Arthur's voice throughout the film changes, sometimes in mid sentence. The animation is also great.

I would definitely recommend watching it.

Fencer, no, I didn't remember the whole The Princess Bride quote, just part of it and I looked up the rest.
I've read the novel. It was more indepth than the movie but much of it was very, very dull, seemed pointless and also meandering (S. Morgenstern's lengthy asides).

I just don't understand how people can see it as freaky. It's stupid and you may not like it, but it's hardly scary.

I beg to differ on the scary part. The pastor of the church I used to attend several years ago has seen the movie so many times he could quote it with my brother and I. However, his wife ALWAYS jumps at the part when Fezzek throws the rock at the man in black before the battle of strength. She is even warned and prepared for it, and she still jumps. I jumped more the first time Wesley was attacked by the ROUS. But the movie is so cheezy it's hilarious.

I've read parts of the book and I can see it being quite dull. Of course what I read was the famous sword duel. I would only be able to push through that by placing the actors' voices in for their lines.

"Inconceivable!"