Quote: Renegade Carpark @ January 27 2012, 11:01 PM GMTNo, the Deadliest Warrior is the most historically inaccurate show ever created.
It's not measuring historicalness, it's measuring deadliness!
This is just to keep me until
"Pol Pot vs Sadam Hussein!"
How come this thread's suddenly pinned? 
Shit. I expect I clicked it by accident. I'm on my laptop and the mouse is borked.
Zooo something more technical please!
It's depressing thinking I'm wasting my friday night arsing about on your laptop.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ January 27 2012, 11:04 PM GMTDie.
27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ly0z0yOCSM1r7i3mwo1_500.jpg
Quote: Lee @ January 27 2012, 11:15 PM GMT
Can't see nuffink.
I give up with that f**king link.
Quote: Lee @ January 27 2012, 11:20 PM GMTI give up with that f**king link.
I win...again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote: Lee @ January 27 2012, 11:20 PM GMTI give up with that f**king link.
Cheers Gav.
Quote: Lee @ January 27 2012, 11:24 PM GMT
No problem.
Had a conversation with a fellow cinemaphile and we were trying to determine which directors had a pretty decent track record from beginning to end. Here was the very short list -
Alfred Hitchcock
Ridley Scott
Christopher Nolan
If anyone else has any suggestions, then please feel free.
Ridley Scott? He's made a lot of films, but only about two I actually really like, and they were both at the start of his film career. Obviously very interested in his next one though.
Paul Thomas Anderson has done well so far.
Orson Welles; recieved wisdom is he made Citizen Kane and nothing else of worth; completely untrue, the rest of his directing career is studded with masterful, if generally compromised due to intereference or lack of cash, gems.
Depending on who you ask, the Coens haven't done too badly.
Quote: zooo @ January 27 2012, 11:35 PM GMTDepending on who you ask, the Coens haven't done too badly.
Very few poor films, yeah; just a bit of a wobble with Intolerble Cruelty and The Ladykillers. But either side of that, lots of great films.
