Just what I look for in a movieAt least it was short I suppose. Why does every other film seem to be well over 2 1/2 hours these days? Does everyone think they are Peter Jackson?
\grumpy old git blog
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 10:24,
archived)
\grumpy old git blog
oh shitI never sent you that cricket link did I.. Will do this evening
(
Finite "Aardvark sorted out my shit!" on,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 10:26,
archived)
thanksthat would be good. i think a 'valid' excuse to do no DIY this weekend is exactly what i need! can i blame you when the wife kicks off?
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 10:30,
archived)
It's the old "I would have written a short letter, but I didn't have time" thing.It's harder to make a good, short movie, than it is to ramble on for hours in the hope that this improves things.
Recent good short film : Burn After Reading. 96 minutes. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887883/)
(Recent good short film : Burn After Reading. 96 minutes. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887883/)
The Alchemist king of the needlessly complicated,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 10:31,
archived)
haven't seen that yetthere's a famous quote from someone about how much time is needed to make a speech, which fits nicely with that. something like "if you want me to talk for 10 minutes i need a week to prepare, for half an hour i need a day and if you want me to talk for an hour i can start now". maybe Roosevelt (and obviously i've paraphrased horribly from memory).
(,
Fri 31 Jul 2009, 10:44,
archived)