| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/05/2007 : 16:12:57
The Number 23
This film could turn out to be really corny, but I hope it doesn't... because this is my lucky number. (I've even won over �2,000 on the Lottery with this number - not exactly a fortune, but plenty for an eighteen-year-old living in the foothills of Everest!) It was such a surprise when the trailer came up. Fingers crossed... |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/24/2007 : 23:41:05
Here's another inconsistency:
I cannot remember their names, but the book character meets the blonde on his 32nd birthday, then has sex later that day with the Italian. It is then stated that he met the Italian when he was 32. So unless he met her on the same day, which is not how it comes across, it doesn't add up. At least it can be passed off as being from Carrey's craziness when writing the book, but I didn't get the impression that it was meant to be. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/24/2007 : 23:31:32
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Title credits really amazing -- remember Se7en?
Yes. No.
quote:
I always like Jim Carrey - yeah, even when he's OTT, which he isn't here.
Me too.
quote:
The story is SO LAME [and it could have been excellent which is even more frustrating]
Yep, it's a good concept wasted, but since I expected it to be a bad concept, I was pleased!
The ending is unbearably dire and sappy, though. Very annoying.
quote:
Don't worry I won't spoiler it, but if you honestly don't guess the punchline you just haven't seen enough films
I had already added a spoiler warning to the thread so that I could make my point above (i.e. that the trailer is misleadingly bad, which made the film a nice surprise for me), so you can go ahead and say anything you want.  |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 02/24/2007 : 22:59:23
Just seen this. Some excellent direction by Schumacher. Title credits really amazing -- remember Se7en? best I've seen since then. One particular special effect quite near the end which blew me away. I always like Jim Carrey - yeah, even when he's OTT, which he isn't here.
BUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUT
[doncha hate a film with a big but]
The story is SO LAME [and it could have been excellent which is even more frustrating] ... first time screenwriter I think. IT SHOWS!!!!
Don't worry I won't spoiler it, but if you honestly don't guess the punchline you just haven't seen enough films 
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/24/2007 : 22:22:53
This turned out to be a lot better than I expected. It is still a generic thriller in many ways, but all the crazy numerology stuff is actually presented as being crazy.
I saw it yesterday (the 23rd), of course. In case any British people care, Michael and Aisleyne from Big Brother were sitting right behind me!
I cannot really understand why Carrey's son, who according to story can be at most twelve (unless he is a step-son, which isn't stated) looks about sixteen.  |
| Downtown |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 15:01:51
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Yep, I've always thought it completely bizarre that most people don't use the best translation available.
I've always thought it inconvenient to use any translation at all.
(That is, of the Old Testament. [insert smug smilie here])
Wow. You read ancient Greek and Aramaic? Cool!
You'd have to open up the Holy Ark itself to find a version in the original ancient Hebrew. And we all know what will happen if you try to do that (faces melting, etc), assuming you can even find it (there's a small church in Ethiopia that claims to have the original Ark itself but only the Priest is allowed to see it so nobody can prove it).
Anyway, we need to bring this conversation back to the subject at hand, which is: why this movie looks so very, very lame. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 11:21:35
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Yep, I've always thought it completely bizarre that most people don't use the best translation available.
I've always thought it inconvenient to use any translation at all.
(That is, of the Old Testament. [insert smug smilie here]) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 08:54:44
Yep, I've always thought it completely bizarre that most people don't use the best translation available. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 19:07:41
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Ah, interesting. I didn't know that part. They didn't splash out too much on the old research then.
The NSV Bible - the most accurate version, because they went back to those ancient manuscripts to do it, unlike all the other versions which are essentionlly translations of translations (it's like playing "telephone") - mentions this ambiguity in the footnotes. Anyone who's studied the Bible in the last two decades probably would have used the NSV version (or the Revised NSV), assuming they were studying it in an academic, secular environment. Theological schools probably still use older translations, especially the KJV, which ironically is probably the most inaccurate translation of them all. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 16:38:07
Ah, interesting. I didn't know that part. They didn't splash out too much on the old research then. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 16:25:43
Not only that, it's not even firmly established that "the number of the beast" is indeed 666. Some of the ancient Greek manuscripts - the oldest surviving text of both the Old and New Testaments, from which all later translations are derived from - identify it as "616." |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 15:48:01
A worrying thing (i.e. with regard to the film's quality) from the trailer is this example of what to do with the number 23.
"2/3 = .666 = the number of the devil"
Well, yes - if one arbitrarily rounds off to three decimal places, rounds down instead of to the nearest figure and then multiplies by 1,000. Oh, and ignores the fact that 666 is only "the number of the beast" and there is no clear evidence that this refers to the devil at all. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 16:27:12
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I suppose you could say both Jordan and Beckham are prime candidates. 
Two reactions to this:
1. ARGH! 'prime' ARGH!
2. What? To be portrayed by Jim Carrey on screen?
Your first reaction was the desired one. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 15:52:37
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
he chose 23 - why because of Michael Jordan - his 23 is simply an homage to MJ, thus 23 remains Michael Jordan.
Thanks for the info. That's a shame. I'll just have to rely on this film being good then. (Probably a long shot.) |
| turrell |
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 15:46:32
When Beckham couldn't wear 7 because the Real Madrid captain already had 7, he chose 23 - why because of Michael Jordan - his 23 is simply an homage to MJ, thus 23 remains Michael Jordan. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 12:17:39
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I suppose you could say both Jordan and Beckham are prime candidates.
Two reactions to this:
1. ARGH! 'prime' ARGH!
2. What? To be portrayed by Jim Carrey on screen?
|
