It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
just because you do, doesn't mean you should.
2nd one- -not so good but the shonky CGI is off putting.
3rd one is better than 2.
https://speakerimpedance.co.uk/?act=two_parallel&page=calculator
With his grasp of facts and ability to argue wrong positions without ever admitting he was wrong means the locals will make him Governor in a few years.
https://speakerimpedance.co.uk/?act=two_parallel&page=calculator
All you do is move the goalposts. Every time an argument has run its course on a particular point and any reasonable person would admit that their position might have been a bit wrong you instead move the goalposts.
That you do not realise we all see it is both amazing and a hugely entertaining distraction.
https://speakerimpedance.co.uk/?act=two_parallel&page=calculator
But if I must compare, I think the '70s Murder on the Orient Express is pretty good, but one of those bloated "all star cast" films they were prone to in those days. I think Finney himself is dreadful. I like the Ustinov films, but I don't really think of Ustinov as Poirot. The Branagh films are perfectly alright (Death on the Nile, not so much), but they're not doing anything any better (or significantly worse) than the previous film and TV adaptations. I do think Suchet became the definitive Poirot, partly because he appeared in so many adaptations, but also because he was so good from the very start.
Christie adaptations are a bit like Bond films for me, all basically tripe but I will always watch them.
I'm not locked in here with you, you are locked in here with me.
But I chose not to.