Page 6 of 8
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:47 pm
by krakenten
Mad Max had a very small budget-and the dubbed version actually led to a law that forbids dubbing Australian films into American dialect.
I saw "Road Warrior" first.
A similar film, if you can find it, is "The Cars that Eat People", a wicked little gem.
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:03 pm
by Eternities End
What the shit! they had a dubbed version of Mad Max...Anougther good/stupid little gem is the recent B movie Monster Man. Its about a guy in a monster truck who kills people!
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:09 pm
by krakenten
It was dubbed into American dialect.
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:16 pm
by Eternities End
What a travesty of nature
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:26 pm
by JJ Burke
krakenten wrote:It was dubbed into American dialect.
kind of like mel gibson as a star
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:21 pm
by krakenten
It would have been nearly unintelligible to Americans.
Just like "The Long Good Friday" which could have used subtitles in spots.
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:24 pm
by JJ Burke
ehehe.. even
gallipoli, a top notch australian movie, was hard for me to follow in dialogue-heavy parts.
language is a big joke
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 12:52 am
by E.A. Lovecraft
Gallipoli is a pretty good flic. You're the first person I've encountered who has seen it.
What I like about all three of the Mad Max flics is the way they depict the progression of post-apocalyptic civilization. The Road Warrior is the best of the bunch, IMO.
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:23 am
by Eternities End
E.A. Lovecraft wrote:Gallipoli is a pretty good flic. You're the first person I've encountered who has seen it.
I've seen Gallipolopipy on several occaisions. And as with the dialect I could follow all four movies pretty easily
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 1:13 pm
by Jesus Prime
krakenten wrote:It would have been nearly unintelligible to Americans.
Just like "The Long Good Friday" which could have used subtitles in spots.
How could you not understand "The Long Good Friday"? You had the sound turn on, yeah?
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 1:47 pm
by krakenten
I speak pretty good Brit, but the argot of the razor men is pretty dense.
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:45 pm
by Jesus Prime
The only thing I couldn't understand was how Pierce Prosnan was cast.
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 7:25 am
by Alan Lemex
Ghouls and Zombies are the same thing in the Dead films...
But if there are set rules for Zombies and Ghouls to be IDed as, I don't know any.

Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:24 am
by krakenten
Ghouls are creatures from Arab mythology, supernatural beings who eat the dead and haunt graveyards.
Zombies are revived corpses-they come from the voodoo tradition-voodoo is a strange religion, probably harking back to the Egyptian.
Lovecraft's Ghouls are a subrace of humans, or perhaps a seperate species, who practice necropopogy, and live extended spans-many are great scholars.
Zombies are bestial creatures, used for robotic slave work-myth has it that a taste of salt will undo the evil spell and return the body to death.
Lovecraft used the zombie in "The Thing on the Doorstep", though this was the zombie like posessed corpse, another version of the myth, more akin to the vampire.
The revenant, a corpse returned from the dead, is a powerful occult idea, and much feared, only recently have people shed their dread of the walking dead, even in Europe and America.
Or have they?
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 1:37 pm
by Eternities End
Zombies are undead...Ghouls are living...both have the taste for human blood...While Ghouls are a lot smarter then zombies and usually don't work under a master.