A woman I know uses the word boobs, and find myself using that word. Breasts is a bit to clinical sounding for me, reminds me of a doctors surgery.
Tits, Jubblies, Knockers, Melonsā¦You name it, Iāll use it. 
Just Boobs I donāt like for some reason.
[quote=āStanton, post:8317, topic:1923ā]I never use words like tits or boobs. Sounds terrible for me.
Breasts or bosom.[/quote]Tits
Holy pullover puppies!
How wonderfully off-topic :o
ā¦ and back on-topicā¦
Lonely are the Brave the 1962 black and white Kirk Douglas modern day western was on the box this afternoon.
Quite a beautifully bitter-sweet film that co-stars a mountain and a horse.
No tits though!
Knockersā¦that one always makes me laugh for some reason. Jugs on the other handā¦ :o
Bristols ;D
Brenda Bristols does that name orginate from that porno style film that was made for "An American Werewolf in London ?
The Thing - Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.
This prequel / remake from Carpenterās The Thing is just as good. 8/10
^ You just blew my mind.
Ha ha, I knew that this would get some attention. But I really asked me where was the big difference. Didnāt found one.
But it has Mary Elizabeth Winstead instead of āugly Russellā, and Carpenter has āno leading woman uurrghā, like one former Member would have argued in favor of the remake.
[quote=āReverend Danite, post:8326, topic:1923ā]ā¦ and back on-topicā¦
Lonely are the Brave the 1962 black and white Kirk Douglas modern day western was on the box this afternoon.
Quite a beautifully bitter-sweet film that co-stars a mountain and a horse.
No tits though![/quote]
Adapted from an excellent book too, Rev. The Brave Cowboy by Edward Abbey. No tits in that either though.
[quote=āStanton, post:8332, topic:1923ā]Ha ha, I knew that this would get some attention. But I really asked me where was the big difference. Didnāt found one.
But it has Mary Elizabeth Winstead instead of āugly Russellā, and Carpenter has āno leading woman uurrghā, like one former Member would have argued in favor of the remake.[/quote]
lol! I like Winstead and certainty didnāt mind female intrusion to the Carpenter-ian sausage fest, but no other elements of the film worked for me. I really wanted to like it, but it left me ācoldā! Actually, more than that, itās the closest (alongside Mother of Tears) Iāve come to hating a film (Iām planning to write about it in an exhaustive manner one day, to get it out of my system), but I couldnāt help the awful pun!
What was bad?
The acting was good, the actors had interesting faces, the thrill was the same, the effects looked as good, the gore level was satisfying, no tits, breasts, boobs, tig olā bitties, jubblies, wood in front of the cabin, knockers, melons in both, they spoke more Norwegian. And it had Winstead.
Havenāt watched it yet, I should have, the director is Dutch and kind of a peculiar guy:
The āthingā (oh, I did it again!) is that Carpenterās The Thing is one of my favorite film ever and van Heijningen Jr.'s The Thing, with all of itās āwink-wink, do you remember that?ā, is almost impossible to judge on its own, which makes me dislike it strongly as it severely pales in comparison. I guess, if I was to do my best to judge it on its own merit I wouldnāt say its worse than mediocre. What I thought was bad (sorry, itās pretty long it sort of all came out like this) ; in the āoriginalā the thing was very cunning and intelligent which is partly why its so effective as a villain, in the 2011 version its idiotic, constantly revealing itself when it shouldnāt, showing off when it does, etc (in Carpenterās film it is only caught or forced out). Iāve heard people defending this element by saying that the thing is not used to fighting off human and hasnāt adapted yet, well ok, that makes sense, but 1) why would you even want that? that doesnāt make for an interesting film or a scary one and 2) how come the thing doesnāt become progressively more intelligent (it arguably does one of its dumbest action at the end of the film) then? Why does the 2011 film ends with an idiot thing and the 1982 film starts with a very intelligent thing?
Also ; the characters. Another element I liked about Carpenterās film, obviously they arenāt full-fledged three dimensional characters, but they all feel real and distinctive. In the 2011 version you get a stereotypical ājerk/villainā doctor (of course heās gonna die!), two or three characters with half a semblance of personality and a bunch of character who barely even register (except Winstead - and thatās mostly because sheās good, albeit a tad miscast - and Edgerton). And thereās only one guy who doesnāt speak English? Of course heās gonna survive, they need him not to be understood by the people at the American base in the ānextā film, unless more Norwegian arrive, still a 50/50 bet. We already know early on that two characters are going to survive (didnāt doubt for a second Winstead would), usually in horror movies few live at the end so the surprise here is if a third person survives. Hell, Carpenterās film had one or two characters too many, why add three more?
The music is a generic bombastic Hollywood horror soundtrack whose only decent track is decent because it āquotesā the 1982 theme, I donāt mind that it doesnāt hold a candle to Morriconeās, but could it have at least been good? Carpenterās film was also never as cheap in its scare, the moment before the helicopter crash in the 2011 version is one of the most heavy-handed, predictable, bait-and-switch āsurpriseā Iāve seen (you can almost feel the filmmaker saying ālook at how suspicious he is! look at those close-ups of those suspicious glares!ā). The 2011 version is very predictable as a whole, while I never predicted anything other than āKurt Russell is probably going to surviveā while watching the original. I never felt tension, suspense, atmosphere and paranoia in the 2011 film, while those elements are why I love the original. I would also add that the cinematography was meh, that for a film made by people who ādissectedā the original it is strange that thereās one major and obvious element of discontinuity and that they wasted their interesting ideas (so everybody except one guy speak English, so much for language barrier). And the ax scene? Only way it could have been more heavy-handed and awful is if Winstead had turned to the camera, looked straight at it and winked while she said āNo, leave it there!ā.
Couldnāt disagree more. I thought the effects were borderline laughable (and the fact that they donāt try to half-hide it like in 82, but instead proudly flaunt it doesnāt help) while the 1982 effects mostly still holds up extremely well.
[quote=āENNIOO, post:8329, topic:1923ā]Brenda Bristols does that name orginate from that porno style film that was made for "An American Werewolf in London ?[/quote]Here you go Ennioo 
I always thought it was Bristol Bits - Tits but it seems it has a few variations. Never heard the bank one before.
Cheers Yodlaf 
.