/ Gravity

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Darren Jackson - on 07 Nov 2013
This film seems to be garnering uniformly excellent reviews. Film 2013 lauded it last night. The Guardian has awarded it 5 stars today:

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/nov/07/gravity-review

It's a must-see. Me thinks that I'll be making a special trip to a 3-D cinema for this one.
davidbeynon - on 07 Nov 2013
Darren Jackson - on 07 Nov 2013
In reply to davidbeynon:

High praise indeed!
Alyson - on 07 Nov 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson: In my new nappy-centric world, one of my favourite parts of the week is going to a special parent and baby cinema screening every Monday. I'm seeing more new films now than I ever have, and Gravity is the week after next. So it won't be in 3D and it may be punctuated by the occasional crying baby but I will get to see it! Whoop!
Darren Jackson - on 07 Nov 2013
In reply to Alyson:

Good stuff... Nowt like trying to watch a movie whilst simultaneously changing a nappy, huh? ;-)
ring ouzel on 07 Nov 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson: Just as well its a good film or simply *everyone* would have said Gravity Sucks!



sorry Darren - just had to do it!
Darren Jackson - on 07 Nov 2013
In reply to ring ouzel:

Would you mind treating this thread with a little gravitas?
davidbeynon - on 07 Nov 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:

Eventhough "gravity sucks" is technically inaccurate I can see the attraction.
Bruce Hooker - on 07 Nov 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:

I went with the family yesterday after being told it was good by somebody who'd seen it and frankly it was fairly boring... almost like a documentary except for the usual technical inaccuracies (I won't say what to avoid a spoiler). Amazing special effects, no doubt about that, but is that what the cinema is all about? Story line zero and the usual Hollywood platitudes laid on with a trowel. Ok on a rainy day if you've nothing better to do.
paul mitchell - on 08 Nov 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson: Does gravity age?
aln - on 08 Nov 2013
In reply to Alyson: Changing a full nappy in zero gravity would be an interesting experience.
Kevin Woods - on 08 Nov 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Darren Jackson)
>
> I went with the family yesterday after being told it was good by somebody who'd seen it and frankly it was fairly boring... almost like a documentary except for the usual technical inaccuracies (I won't say what to avoid a spoiler). Amazing special effects, no doubt about that, but is that what the cinema is all about? Story line zero and the usual Hollywood platitudes laid on with a trowel. Ok on a rainy day if you've nothing better to do.

To the contrary, I have it on word from a good few folk, who know quite a lot on the subject, who are amazed a film could be so accurate for once.
Ste Brom - on 08 Nov 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:
You wanna watch solaris, the clooney remake. His finest moment.
Alyson - on 08 Nov 2013
In reply to aln:
> (In reply to Alyson) Changing a full nappy in zero gravity would be an interesting experience.

It can be a challenge in regular earth gravity, especially with a daughter intent on getting her feet into the whole sorry mess.
James Gilbert on 08 Nov 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:

Definitely one of the most enjoyable films I've seen this year. And I think the first film I've ever seen where the 3D works well throughout.

For those into film realism, you can find all the boring facts on the film's Wikipedia page about the details they got slightly wrong.
In reply to Alyson:
> (In reply to aln)
> [...]
>
> It can be a challenge in regular earth gravity, especially with a daughter intent on getting her feet into the whole sorry mess.

For your next challenge see lowest photo

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/the-real-problem-with-the-breastfeeding-yoga-m...

I've only known this baby and Darren Jackson achieve such a feat!
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 08 Nov 2013
In reply to Alyson: Haha, I fell your pain, I was changing my daughters full nappy the other day, it fell on the floor (gravity grrrr!), my son crawled up to it and put his hands in it, I kicked it away from him and it slid up to the dog, who was snoozing on his bed, who got up and tucked into the contents.
Byronius Maximus - on 08 Nov 2013
davidbeynon - on 08 Nov 2013
In reply to Byronius Maximus:

Sadly fake.

As for the physics... If you can do it in kerbal space program it's fine by me.
Darren Jackson - on 08 Nov 2013
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
>
> ... my son crawled up to it and put his hands in it, I kicked it away from him and it slid up to the dog, who was snoozing on his bed, who got up and tucked into the contents.

Sweet Jesus! That sounds like something straight out of Family Guy!
Darren Jackson - on 08 Nov 2013
In reply to Byronius Maximus:

"During one crucial and deathly silent scene involving Sandra Bullock’s character’s desperate attempt to reach her vessel and avoid dying in the void of space, the man who brought honour and fun to Canadian space exploration let out a long, piercing, and altogether perfect fart.

That bit made me chuckle but, overall, what a jerk!
Byronius Maximus - on 08 Nov 2013
In reply to davidbeynon:
> (In reply to Byronius Maximus)
>
> Sadly fake.
>
> As for the physics... If you can do it in kerbal space program it's fine by me.

Not 'fake' exactly; it's a satirical news site like The Daily Mash. I think it's had quite a few people fooled looking at the replies here though!
Darren Jackson - on 08 Nov 2013
In reply to Byronius Maximus:

Guilty!
stp - on 13 Nov 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:

Saw on IMAX and thought it was really good. I think the IMAX bit hugely adds to the movie: the floating around in space, the weightlessness and the point of view shots going into the space craft works incredibly well. Closest thing most of us will ever experience to what its like being in space. That, for me, is what makes this movie special. I think the film would lose a lot on 2D cinema but on IMAX its a great film.
Fraser on 13 Nov 2013
In reply to stp:

I quite fancy seeing this in 3D or IMAX, but did you see it in proper IMAX - the one where the screen is right in your face and extend beyond your peripheral vision and very steep seating - or 'IMAX-lite' ie just a slightly bigger screen and comfy seats?
thomm - on 13 Nov 2013
I saw it and recommend it. The story is not much but the visuals make it a must-see, not just in a shallow 'wow' way but really beautiful. As an ex-physicist I found it mostly extremely accurate and convincing, except a couple of orbital details they had to change to make the (highly improbable) story work. But definitely worth seeing, on a big screen and in 3D.
r0x0r.wolfo - on 14 Nov 2013
The convoluted story took me out of the film. Every plot point rests on the other people being unusually stupid (houston, the astronaunts etc.). This has the efThere is some imagery around the idea of rebirth, (one scene is pretty heavy handed here if you think about it) ect of being fairly apathetic towards the characters and made the whole film feel forced. You will soon learn to be always waiting for the next mistake to lead to the next gfx set piece.

Not particularly happy with the casting decision either. I think some unknowns would have given this film a much more serious and involving atmosphere. Although the acting was not bad: Clooney was Clooney, and played his usual charming and relaxed self. Sandra Bullock was O.K, far too many shots of her crotch for my taste though.

The C.G.I is very good, another step forwards perhaps. This is why most people are giving this very good reviews but I can't ignore everything else. A film that 'needs' to be watched in 3D and on imax is obviously resting on the cinematic experience to carry it. It succeeds in delivering this punch visually and audibly and if you can suspend your disbelief better than myself you will have a good time. The visuals, sound and direction really are good, but I am already looking 5-10 years in the future and this film has become irrelevant as it's looks will fade.


r0x0r.wolfo - on 14 Nov 2013
A non screwed up version of my post*

The convoluted story took me out of the film. Every plot point rests on the other people being unusually stupid (houston, the astronaunts etc.). This has the effect of being fairly apathetic towards the characters and made the whole film feel forced. You will soon learn to wait for the next blunder followed by a gfx set piece.

Not particularly happy with the casting decision either. I think some unknowns would have given this film a much more serious and involving atmosphere. Although the acting was not bad: Clooney was Clooney, and played his usual charming and relaxed self. Sandra Bullock was O.K, far too many shots of her crotch for my taste though.

The C.G.I is very good, another step forwards perhaps. This is why most people are giving this very good reviews but I can't ignore everything else. A film that 'needs' to be watched in 3D and on imax is obviously resting on the cinematic experience to carry it. It succeeds in delivering this punch visually and audibly and if you can suspend your disbelief better than myself you will have a good time. The visuals, sound and direction really are good, but I am already looking 5-10 years in the future and this film has become irrelevant as it's looks will fade.

Gordon Stainforth - on 15 Nov 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:

Really longing to see this movie, in 3D ... maybe in Derby in next week or two.

(PS. Really enjoyed Woody Allen's Blue Jasmine at the Ritz tonight. A very intelligent and interesting movie. Not very funny at all, though it has its funny moments. His best for ages.)
Kimono - on 15 Nov 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Definitely see it in 3D

As for BJ (unfortunate initials!) I thought it was very funny....in a tragic sort of way :)
ads.ukclimbing.com
Blue Straggler - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:

I give it 8.5/10. It is a true spectacle, indeed I'd call it an "event" or "experience" (saw it in IMAX 3D, I think it was IMAX-lite as someone described, as the screen wasn't the size of an aircraft hangar, but somehow the 3D seemed to be so much better on this than on standard 3D screenings I've seen of other films).

It only loses points for some clunking expository dialogue (including characterisation contrivances) especially near the start, and a rather overbearing and somewhat horrendous score (I actually thought at the beginning that there was to be no score and that when Kowalski turned off his music, there would be no more music at all).

The audacity and ambition of some of the design of the shots was amazing. You could be harsh and call it "cinematic masturbation" (a charge I've seen levelled at Werner Herzog re: Fitzcarraldo etc.) but I thought it worked as part of the inherent storytelling. I am surprised nobody on the thread has commented on the length of some of the "single" shots (I use the inverted commas there because obviously they are composites such as when the camera appears to move INTO Stone's space helmet). Cuaron did similar with "Children of Men" but here it's taken to a new level.

The plotline, suspense and action were always going to be secondary to the spectacle on a film like this, but I think it went well enough. And I am a seasoned-enough movie fan to be able to overlook any slightly "bad science" in it. I even forgive it the ending which a few people seemed to dislike.

I would love to give it 10/10 but as I say, that score and some of the expository dialogue are a couple of little negatives.

Bruce Hooker - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> The plotline, suspense and action were always going to be secondary...

Funny, they're the things I go, or used to go, to the cinema for! The cinema seems to be just "have technology will use it". I suppose you could say that films have just gone down to the level of crassness of society as a whole, or could it be that it is actively dragging us down to this pitiful level? Chicken or egg?
Blue Straggler - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Blue Straggler)
>
> [...]
>
> Funny, they're the things I go, or used to go, to the cinema for!

Then you are narrow minded.
I sometimes go to the cinema for these things. I sometimes go for other things.

Gordon mentioned Woody Allen's "Blue Jasmine" higher up in this thread. I saw that a few weeks ago and liked it, but I was not watching for plot or suspense. I was watching it for acting, dialogue and characterisation.

Prior to that I watched "Prisoners" which I did watch for plot and suspense.

Prior to that I watched the strange documentary "The Art of Killing" which is not about plot, suspense or action but is one of the best releases of 2013.

Last year saw "Dredd 3D" for the sake of spectacle and escapism. There is no characterisation at all in that film and it's all the better for it.

Cinema is about far more than plot, suspense and action. If that's all you ever want, just get a load of Hitchcock films and sit around slating everything else, whilst we have fun enjoying everything from Terminator 2 to Jessica Hausner's "Lourdes" :-)
Fraser on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler:

As expected, that's a pretty decent review, thanks.
Robert Durran - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:

I went to see it beacuse a physics teacher told me that the physics of momentum etc were so well done that he could use it effectively for a physics lesson.

I thought it was superb; the physics did seem pretty faultless to me, the realism superb (judging froim real film I've seen)and the plot not too ridiculously far fetched. I'd never seen 3-d film before but thought it worked brilliantly.

The only way I could fault it was that the soppy backstory about her daughter and the dream sequence were completely unnecessary.

Tom V - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Saw it yesterday in 3D Imax. No qualms about the score and only a tiny bit about "bad science" so 9.5 from me..
And I can't believe that some one posted earlier about seeing too much of Sandra Bullock's crotch, even if it did look bigger than my garage.
Robert Durran - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Tom V:
> (In reply to Blue Straggler)
> And I can't believe that some one posted earlier about seeing too much of Sandra Bullock's crotch, even if it did look bigger than my garage.

I did wonder whether female astronauts really do wear nothing but knickers and a vest under their spacesuit.

Blue Straggler - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to Tom V)
> [...]
>
> I did wonder whether female astronauts really do wear nothing but knickers and a vest under their spacesuit.

I was wondering that too. I suspect a clause in Bullock's contract stating that she gets to show off that she got in decent shape for this film.
ClimberEd - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:

9.5/10 from me.

Not perfect, but pretty damn awesome.
No specifc gripes really.

Also the first film I have seen that genuinely uses 3D in a beneficial way.
dek - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:

Well Dazza, I thought it lacked atmosphere......



<Grabs spacesuit>...and heads for the Airlock...
Skyfall - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Well, I think it's total rubbish because of the lack of big pants for the Bullock and the score and, well, Clooney is just really past it now. I've seen better.

Not that I've seen it yet .... but this is UKC and, anyway, what have they ever done on grit?!

badwabbit on 21 Nov 2013
I thought it was ok - honestly, from the positive reviews, maybe I was expecting a little more.

Some of the imagery is indeed fantastic, particularly the impact hits.
Blue Straggler - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to dek:
> (In reply to Darren Jackson)
>
> Well Dazza, I thought it lacked atmosphere......
>

It's a shame the camera never took us into Clooney's helmet

<ahem>
Bruce Hooker - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to Tom V)
> [...]
>
> I did wonder whether female astronauts really do wear nothing but knickers and a vest under their spacesuit.

They have since Alien :-)

Concerning your previous post I'm a little surprised at your physics teacher's remarks, especially concerning momentum as one point I thought was wrong was when they both stopped by her catching her feet in the cables, they then decided to copy the climbing film where after a fall the father sacrifices himself by letting go so as to save his daughter/son as the belay was going to pull... In the "Gravity" version the pair had stopped, relative to the space station, so their would have been no more tension in line joining them, so one of the main points in what passes for a scenario was scientifically "wrong"...

Fair enough in Indiana Jones style phantasy but in a film that is presented as being realistic a bit silly. It wouldn't have been hard to have found a technically sound way of knocking him off into space... a stray Nespresso machine cutting his air supply and bashing him away, for example.
Tom V - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

That was my main "wrong", Bruce,as well, so I'm glad you've done any spoiling instead of me. ;)
wercat on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

forgive me for asking, as I haven't seen it yet, but is it at all possible that the space station is spinning? if so it's surface would be subject to a constant acceleration which could create a tension?

David Riley - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to wercat:

You could be right. I didn't think of that.
Blue Straggler - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> In the "Gravity" version the pair had stopped, relative to the space station

My interpretation of this scene was that they had NOT stopped moving relative to ISS - they were still moving slowly. This is why the loosely entangled ropes were moving down Stone's lower leg. This is why there was tension in the line joining Stone to Kowalski. This is why Kowalski detached, to massively reduce the momentum of the "Stone/Kowalski entity" and give Stone a chance to not rip free of the ropes.

But we are biased. I liked the film so I will defend it. You didn't like it so you will attack it.
Bruce Hooker - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to wercat:

The shots of the space station as they approach it don't show it as spinning. Sorry for the spoiler, it's hard to discuss this sort of thing without doing it... Don't worry though, he comes back later on ;-)

Anyway, as said already, the main interest is not the story line it's the special effects, which even I must admit are pretty spectacular, but like in other modern films you can't help regretting that they didn't divert 10% of their costs to paying a decent writer.
Blue Straggler - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler:
> This is why Kowalski detached, to massively reduce the momentum of the "Stone/Kowalski entity" and give Stone a chance to not rip free of the ropes.

Or was his concern that they may snap under tension? Either way, I maintain that they had not stopped moving, so this is not the glaring error that Bruce is claiming.
Blue Straggler - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Yes, maybe. There are MUCH more glaring errors than this though, you know!
Bruce Hooker - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler:

No, their motion had virtually stopped. Any slight movement - they spent quite a while chatting about what to do - would have been insufficient to generate any real force. When he released he shot off, he didn't continue the slow movement away from her. The scene was simply as if gravity was at work, and it wasn't, in the linear direction anyway. If it had been the space station would have been feeling an identical force and be accelerating like him too. Just a sloppy scenario. In fact the title "gravity" is particularly badly chosen.

It's not so much attacking it as frustration at such incompetence, and also have spent 6€ to be bored quite a bit of the time. For example another space film with lots of special effects but one that wasn't boring was Alien... special effects but decent scenario, not high-brow but a good film, which I enjoyed. In Alien you ended up feeling for the characters, in Gravity, not at all, just waiting for the next disaster in a totally linear plot.
Kevin Woods - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Blue Straggler)
>
In fact the title "gravity" is particularly badly chosen.
>

If there's no gravity, what keep the moon in orbit??! ;-)

It's true that George Clooney shouldn't have moved away so quickly once they let go.

On the other hand, this film is *so* correct that I'll bet you that the makers were aware of the mistakes they made - I mean sometimes you simply have to bend the truth a little to make the story work. SO, so many details are so spot on, and the dynamics of two people on either end of a tether is frankly mind blowing.
Dispater on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:

Story 6/10

Atmosphere: 8/10

Score: 8/10

Acting: 8/10

Visual spectacle: 14/10


£10 very very well spent, all in all.
Robert Durran - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> Concerning your previous post I'm a little surprised at your physics teacher's remarks, especially concerning momentum as one point I thought was wrong was when they both stopped by her catching her feet in the cables, they then decided to copy the climbing film........by letting go so as to save his daughter/son.......

Yes, I think you are right; the only way it would make sense is if they were rotating around the space station or if the whole thing was spinning and I don't think it was.

Anyway, the fact that the physics has provoked such good debate on here shows how educationally productive the film could be - show it to a class of 16 year olds and then discuss the physics (both good and bad). It has to be a winner!

There were some brilliant touches - the highlight for me was when the fire extinguisher ran out and she flung it away to get just enough momentum to save herself.

Anyway, the film might seem very realistic to to some of us climbers, but then we are not astronauts; maybe an astronaut would find Cliffhanger or K2 realistic.

Postmanpat on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:

To those complaining:

Major Tom to ground control. It's a fantasy folks! You know, a story. It's fiction so the details don't have to be perfect.

Oh, and the name, "Gravity", is ironical.

Blimey........
Robert Durran - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> It's a fantasy folks! You know, a story. It's fiction so the details don't have to be perfect.

There is a big difference between an implausible fantasy and plausible fiction. I think the film was intended to be nearer the latter.

> Oh, and the name, "Gravity", is ironical.

And the dubious use of the term "zero G" to describe life in orbit would provide great scope for that teenage physics class......Einstein would have definitely approved.
Dispater on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

Jesus! Can't you stick to being a miserable obsessive humourless pedant on the photography thread.
Robert Durran - on 21 Nov 2013
In reply to Dispater:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> Jesus! Can't you stick to being a miserable obsessive humourless pedant on the photography thread.

I am none of those things, but please do feel free to call me Jesus.

Kevin Woods - on 22 Nov 2013
In reply to Dispater:
> (In reply to Darren Jackson)
>
> Story 6/10
>
> Atmosphere: 8/10
>
> Score: 8/10
>
> Acting: 8/10
>
> Visual spectacle: 14/10
>
>
> £10 very very well spent, all in all.

I'd substitute story with characterisation - bit one-dimensional I thought.

Other than that, stunning film.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Fraser on 22 Nov 2013
In reply to xxxx

Is it about now someone edits the title to say 'spoler alert'?!
Blue Straggler - on 22 Nov 2013
In reply to Fraser:
> In reply to xxxx
>
> Is it about now someone edits the title to say 'spoler alert'?!

I rarely open threads about films that I plan to see. I wait until after I have seen the film. Upon seeing "Gravity" in the Culture Bunker, I made an exception and carefully skim-read the thread (this was last week) so as to not see any spoilers (I was interested in what people had to say about the 3D and IMAX 3D), then I made my own thread about IMAX so as to further not see any spoilers.

Never opened the Blue Jasmine thread until after seeing it.

I think you should just assume "spoiler" all the time
Robert Durran - on 22 Nov 2013
In reply to Dispater:

> Story 6/10

Yes, it was a bit predictable. It might have been a nice poignant touch if, say, she had been eaten by a crocodile at the end.
Blue Straggler - on 22 Nov 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to Dispater)
>
> [...]
>
> Yes, it was a bit predictable. It might have been a nice poignant touch if, say, she had been eaten by a crocodile at the end.


Or landed in icy water. Or on land, which might hurt a bit...
Blue Straggler - on 22 Nov 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> [...]
>
>
> Or landed in icy water. Or on land, which might hurt a bit...


Or on a bus with a bomb on it.
Robert Durran - on 22 Nov 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Or maybe she landed hundreds of miles from anywhere in Siberia, presumed dead (and wearing just knickers and a vest) and there's going to be sequel.
kipper12 - on 22 Nov 2013
In reply to Skyfall:
> (In reply to Blue Straggler)
>
> Well, I think it's total rubbish because of the lack of big pants for the Bullock and the score and, well, Clooney is just really past it now. I've seen better.
>
I thought Cloonys portrayal of Buzz Lightyear was spot on
PeterM - on 22 Nov 2013
In reply to kipper12:
> (In reply to Skyfall)
> [...]
> I thought Cloonys portrayal of Buzz Lightyear was spot on

Excellent! :-)
Gordon Stainforth - on 24 Nov 2013
In reply to Dispater:

Saw it this afternoon (at a very underwhelming 'de Lux' 3D cinema). My eyesight problem meant that the 3D glasses didn't work at all for me, so had to make do with a rather eye-straining 1D. Freda had great time with the 3D however. I was perhaps more critical of the film.

VFX: 11/10 - very proud to see that the whole movie was UK based, with all the ground breaking (and surely Oscar winning) visual effects being done by a huge London-based team. V good news for the UK film industry.

Script: 3/10. Far too much verbiage. And the religious stuff I found extremely mawkish (don't let Coel see it!)

Acting: 7/10

Score: 5/10

Dispater on 24 Nov 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


> VFX: 11/10 - very proud to see that the whole movie was UK based, with all the ground breaking (and surely Oscar winning) visual effects being done by a huge London-based team. V good news for the UK film industry.

Indeed. The silent destruction of the ISS has possibly set a new high point in what SFX can achieve. One of the most powerful few seconds of fictional film I've ever seen.
Ste Brom - on 24 Nov 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:

awesome! better than acid!
Dispater on 24 Nov 2013
In reply to kipper12:

> I thought Cloonys portrayal of Buzz Lightyear was spot on

For that single post, alone, this site needs a Like function.

:))))))))))))))

Dispater on 24 Nov 2013
In reply to Ste Brom:


Steady on! :)

Viewed on acid could see one hospitalised, mind. :-/

My first trip involved watching 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit?'

I've never been the same since. :))))
wercat on 25 Nov 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler:

I had a nasty moment thinking of "Incident at Owl Creek" and wondering if she'd imagined the whole escape story as she died ...
wercat on 25 Nov 2013
In reply to wercat:

incidentally I saw that at school in the 1960s and it must be one of the most powerful short films ever made

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.