Hot Fuzz Trailer

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » December 21, 2006, 10:50 pm

From the peeps that brought us the wonderful Shaun of the Dead...

http://www.workingtitlefilms.com/traile ... xlarge.php

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » December 22, 2006, 1:49 pm

Looks flippin' sweet.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » December 22, 2006, 2:52 pm

I am there!

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » December 22, 2006, 3:35 pm

Ohhh, looks sweet, im so gonna see that one.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » January 12, 2007, 10:47 pm

Here is the US Trailer, but it is pretty much the same as the other with a few added tidbits.

http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist. ... 40&qth=400

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » January 12, 2007, 11:17 pm

oh hell yes

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 13, 2007, 3:09 am

For the quicktime haters... http://youtube.com/watch?v=i7J_vYN5ZkY

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 13, 2007, 3:52 am

Needs to double feature with Balls of Fury:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esbLEIv0cFI

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » January 13, 2007, 3:56 am

Not really.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 13, 2007, 7:08 am

I liked Shaun of the Dead but that Fuzz trailer didn't do much more for me than seeing Christopher Walken, with a Sumo hairdo, shame himself in the Fury clip...From what I see, Fuzz might have a chance to be a Club Dread type quality follow up movie.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » January 13, 2007, 7:19 am

So you felt that adding a link to a trailer to a movie that has 0 relevance to the topic would make your point?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 13, 2007, 6:05 pm

Yes. I thought seeing Christopher Walken with a Sumo Hairdo was the key to making my point later in the thread. The issue was too complex to break down all in one chunk.

The Super Trooper crew did rebound somewhat after Club Dread with Beerfest.

Having to walk around the set like this must have been fun!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 13, 2007, 6:24 pm

I just don't get why you're such a stupid fucking retard. Make your own thread.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 13, 2007, 6:40 pm

stalker shocker!

I'm tired of your mind numbing responses. Lets settle this once and for all.

It's On!

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » January 13, 2007, 8:43 pm

Shouldn't you be designing emo-clothes in second life or something?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 13, 2007, 9:43 pm

That's what dual monitors are for. I can use a trick I learned from kyoukan and focus one eye on each monitor.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 13, 2007, 11:50 pm

Your last 3 posts on this thread have included "whacky" pictures that aren't funny, you purposely try to derail threads, you troll, you aren't funny and you have basically zero charisma. And you are amazed when I call you a stupid fucking retard. My flames aren't getting stale because I am not flaming you. I am calling you a stupid fucking retard. That is like calling water wet.

Were you so fucking neglected as a child that you have to leap into every thread and try to change the topic with your humourless stupidity?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 14, 2007, 1:52 am

I'm amazed you keep posting the same stupid stalker responses after my posts. I'm amazed that you're overly concerned with my charisma or humor.

You need a life, not me. I continue to create new posts or reply to threads as I wish, basically doing what I want while you seem to spend your time worrying yourself (response from the eskimo: "no, it's because I HATE YOU") about what I write. I hope it's helping your sex life or something as it's not doing any good on this board.

At best, you're a fool. You should keep yapping on and on about piracy. You were doing so well with that.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 14, 2007, 3:42 am

hurr hurr stalker

that one keeps getting fresher and more cutting

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 23, 2007, 4:25 pm

kyoukan wrote: That is like calling water wet.

Actually that is a comparison that makes no sense. Wet would be an adjective that describes what water does to other substances. A better comparison would be: "calling Kyoukan a bitter little troll".

Truant · Post by **Truant** » January 23, 2007, 5:47 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
kyoukan wrote: That is like calling water wet.

Actually that is a comparison that makes no sense. Wet would be an adjective that describes what water does to other substances. A better comparison would be: "calling Kyoukan a bitter little troll".

It took you 10 days to come up with that? Wow.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 23, 2007, 7:39 pm

Truant wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
kyoukan wrote: That is like calling water wet.

Actually that is a comparison that makes no sense. Wet would be an adjective that describes what water does to other substances. A better comparison would be: "calling Kyoukan a bitter little troll".
It took you 10 days to come up with that? Wow.

It was worth the wait.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » January 23, 2007, 9:34 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Truant wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
kyoukan wrote: That is like calling water wet.

Actually that is a comparison that makes no sense. Wet would be an adjective that describes what water does to other substances. A better comparison would be: "calling Kyoukan a bitter little troll".
It took you 10 days to come up with that? Wow.
It was worth the wait.

Hardly, it was pathetic. I'm ashamed for him.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » January 23, 2007, 10:57 pm

Looks like it could be interesting!

Post by **Sylvus** » January 24, 2007, 12:03 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Actually that is a comparison that makes no sense. Wet would be an adjective that describes what water does to other substances. A better comparison would be: "calling Kyoukan a bitter little troll".

I mean, if you want to get technical, water is wet when you're using wet as an adjective. Wet is a verb when describing what water does to other things.

Good effort, though.

And to rerail (like Aslanna is attempting), I think this movie will definitely be entertaining. I may not hold it in the esteem that I do Shaun, but I'm sure it'll be worth seeing.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » January 24, 2007, 7:06 pm

Keep in mind though that the trailer shows the gay parts, much like the Shaun trailer. I'm sure it won't disappoint.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 24, 2007, 10:25 pm

Zamtuk wrote:Keep in mind though that the trailer shows the gay parts

no wonder canelek is so excited.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » January 25, 2007, 3:57 am

kyoukan wrote:
Zamtuk wrote:Keep in mind though that the trailer shows the gay parts
no wonder canelek is so excited.

Damn skippy!

Sophomore slump may be in the works, but holy fuck, was Shaun a good job... April will be good times....what with Twin Peaks S2 on DVD(FINALLY) and GRINDHOUSE! Good times (in a very very gay way)

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 29, 2007, 5:34 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Actually that is a comparison that makes no sense. Wet would be an adjective that describes what water does to other substances. A better comparison would be: "calling Kyoukan a bitter little troll".
I mean, if you want to get technical, water is wet when you're using wet as an adjective. Wet is a verb when describing what water does to other things.

I am not sure what version of English they teach at Michigan, but you appear to need some English 101. You could use wet as a noun in your example, but not an adjective. Here is a link so you can check out the differences. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wet

Now if you want to argue that water can mak itself wet, then that is going to take some convincing arguments. I think it would be more compelling to make a pool to see how many of the fnord cronies back up your argument though.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » January 29, 2007, 5:45 pm

You have a moustache.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 29, 2007, 6:07 pm

Fash wrote:You have a moustache.

I know....

Post by **Sylvus** » January 29, 2007, 6:26 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Sylvus wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Actually that is a comparison that makes no sense. Wet would be an adjective that describes what water does to other substances. A better comparison would be: "calling Kyoukan a bitter little troll".
I mean, if you want to get technical, water is wet when you're using wet as an adjective. Wet is a verb when describing what water does to other things.

I am not sure what version of English they teach at Michigan, but you appear to need some English 101. You could use wet as a noun in your example, but not an adjective. Here is a link so you can check out the differences. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wet

Now if you want to argue that water can mak itself wet, then that is going to take some convincing arguments. I think it would be more compelling to make a pool to see how many of the fnord cronies back up your argument though.

Or you could revisit the link that you have so generously provided, take a look at, say, the second definition on that very same page under the heading "adjective" and agree that water is indeed "in a liquid form or state". You could probably get away with definition #3 as well, but #2 is what I was originally going for: an adjective that describes water.

That's your call though. And I never did take 100-level English at Michigan, I placed out of it, so I can't speak to the quality of the education provided in that class. I'll give you 5 or so more days so you can make it to the second definition (I realize I might read more quickly than you do), then you can let me know if you agree or if I need to present my arguments more clearly.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 2, 2007, 2:59 pm

From over on the movie blog:

Up and up, this film isn't as good as Shaun of the Dead, and to be honest, even though it has some EXCELLENT funny moments, I walked out of the screening a little bit disappointed. That's not to say Hot Fuzz isn't a good movie, or a fun movie... it just failed to meet my (perhaps over sized) expectations. The film gets a little too "silly" in parts and often feels like a "spoof" movie (much like Scary Movie or Hot Shots) instead of a creative comedy like Shaun was.

Post by **Sylvus** » February 2, 2007, 3:18 pm

Er, are they trying to imply that Shaun wasn't a spoof? I thought it totally was. It was much more creative and way funnier than Scary Movie and its ilk, but it was a spoof nonetheless.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 1, 2007, 4:50 am

Sooon..... Hotdiggity shit--this flick is going to rocker.

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » March 1, 2007, 12:06 pm

God damn that's funny. Can't wait.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 1, 2007, 1:28 pm

When is this actually being released in the US?

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 1, 2007, 1:41 pm

Country - Date
UK - 14 February 2007
Argentina - 15 March 2007
Australia - 15 March 2007
Russia - 15 March 2007
Netherlands - 5 April 2007
Sweden - 13 April 2007
USA - 20 April 2007 (limited)
Germany - 14 June 2007
France - 25 July 2007

Thanks imdb!

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 1, 2007, 1:55 pm

I even checked there before leaving for work...I fail

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 2, 2007, 2:39 am

Actually, I think it may be the 13th and not the 20th. Sorry for not posting date originally!!

As far as the release, I hope it is not limited like some reports say--it seems like they should do well based on the surprising turnouts from 'Shaun.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 18, 2007, 5:02 am

I sorta agree with the movie blog review thingie quoted a few posts up. I wanted to like this movie, and I'm sure some here will, but it just felt like it was missing something. That's not to say I hated it exactly. I just wish it would have had more of whatever it was missing and a bit less of what it had.

80% of the funny lines you've already heard if you've watched the trailer. So they're not as funny as they would be otherwise. And the fast camera switches/edits during the action scenes are downright quite fucking annoying.

Sorry. This is not the Shaun of the Dead you were looking for.

6/10

Nick · Post by **Nick** » March 19, 2007, 6:17 pm

It was entertaining, as is everything Simon Pegg does. I really liked all the cast in Hot Fuzz, but I think a lot of those selections (and why they are cool) would have gone over the head of people outside the UK.

It's not as good as Shawn of the dead, which is because Shawn of the dead is absolutely fucking awesome. This is "just" awesome.

I always think giving rankings out of 10 for films is retarded, but I'd definitely recommend checking this out

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 19, 2007, 8:29 pm

Nick wrote:
I always think giving rankings out of 10 for films is retarded, but I'd definitely recommend checking this out

How do you rank things then?

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 19, 2007, 9:05 pm

I think he's more of a "See it" or "Don't see it" kinda guy. Which is basically the same thing as ranking something just not on as fine a scale.

I'd rank his post at 4/10.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 19, 2007, 9:56 pm

Aslanna wrote:I think he's more of a "See it" or "Don't see it" kinda guy. Which is basically the same thing as ranking something just not on as fine a scale.

I'd rank his post at 4/10.

Yeah, the smiley to "quote" ratio was too low at 1:1.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » March 20, 2007, 7:33 am

Those replies are totally not worth reading. This one however is well worth the read and I highly recommend checking it out!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 20, 2007, 2:27 pm

I just finished watching this. Not as funny or entertaining as I thought from the previews. I give it 3 out of 10 shamrocks.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » April 3, 2007, 10:46 am

Fuck that... this was quite possibly the hardest I have laughed in a cinema in 20 years. Anyone who gives it 3/10 is a humourless cunt.

Well... there's 3 pound I owe the swear jar.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 3, 2007, 10:52 am

Zaelath wrote: Anyone who gives it 3/10 is a humourless cunt.

.

Or, just isn't as easily amused as you are. No big deal. I'm glad you liked it.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » April 3, 2007, 12:09 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Zaelath wrote: Anyone who gives it 3/10 is a humourless cunt.

.
Or, just isn't as easily amused as you are. No big deal. I'm glad you liked it.

Or ... well, the entire cinema from what I could see. I can appreciate that you wouldn't get most of the jokes, but that doesn't make it a bad movie...