american history x price??

F

fakebeard

Guest
Hi
I have been looking to add this disc to my collection for a while now but I am very confused by the price difference between 2 sites that usualy are very competetive.

futureent @£16.99
dvdboxoffice @£11.43

Is there any reason for this price difference?

Thanks:D
 
F

fakebeard

Guest
futureent = 3 days
dvdboxoffice = 6 days

i'll take the money

Thanks for the comment but this is not the reason why the price is different.
 

groundy

Standard Member
No real reason for the price difference. DVDBoxOffice are a Canadian Company and things tend to work out a little cheaper in Canadian dollars. Saying that Futureent's price for this particular DVD is not that competitive.

Be aware though that MuseumSteve is quite correct in his asessment of DVDBoxOffice's delivery times. I haven't used them since the last order I made never turned up at all! I had to wait two months for a refund and even then I had to go through my CC Company to get it.

You might want to check out:

http://www.cd-wow.com

Service with a smile and some of the cheapest prices around :).
 
S

Squirrel God

Guest
When FutureEnt say

"This title generally ships within 3-5 days"

What they actually mean is

"This title will ship whenever"

When I used to use FutureEnt, it could take 3 days, it could take 2 months, or any amount of time in between.

There is no difference between the R1, R2 and R4 of this title by the way (apart from NTSC / PAL of course)
 

groundy

Standard Member
Originally posted by Squirrel God


There is no difference between the R1, R2 and R4 of this title by the way (apart from NTSC / PAL of course)

Except that the first half of the movie is in B&W in the R2 version :D.
 
S

Squirrel God

Guest
Originally posted by groundy
Except that the first half of the movie is in B&W in the R2 version :D.
I've never seen it, but something tells me I shouldn't believe you :D

It's £8.99 delivered at play.com :eek:
 

encaser

Member
Yeah Groundy, but you have to admit you'd of thought the yanks would've learnt that that colourisation effect is a mistake after the Laurel and Hardy debacle:confused: :p :D
 

groundy

Standard Member
Laurel & Hardy - you would never have guessed they were wearing clothes of such vibrant colours :D.

Squirrel - you really should put this film on your list - it's a very very good movie.
 
S

Squirrel God

Guest
Originally posted by groundy
Squirrel - you really should put this film on your list - it's a very very good movie.
So everyone keeps telling me... one day, one day ;)
 
F

fakebeard

Guest
Thanks for al the help so far but what about this?
There is no difference between the R1, R2 and R4 of this title by the way (apart from NTSC / PAL of course)
R2 Duration 1 hour and 54 minutes (approx)
R1 Duration 1 hour and 59 minutes (approx)
Is this play being approximatly not bothered to time it or is there 5 mins of film missing?

And cd-wow dont stock this film :(

And about the not turning up/late films, i've had no trouble from either supplier, lucky git........:D

cheers peeps!
 
S

Squirrel God

Guest
Originally posted by fakebeard
Thanks for al the help so far but what about this?

R2 Duration 1 hour and 54 minutes (approx)
R1 Duration 1 hour and 59 minutes (approx)
Is this play being approximatly not bothered to time it or is there 5 mins of film missing?
The differences in time are due to the 4% speedup of PAL over NTSC. It's like this with all movies.
 
F

fakebeard

Guest
Thanks mate! I didd'nt know about this speed up thing........ but i do now. Thanks for answering so quickly aswell !
I'll go and order it directly:D

Cheers
 
R

ricdiggle

Guest
Although I like it, it is not a very very good movie.
It is a very very good performance by Edwood Norton. The rest of the cast are 'c list' minors from Star Trek Deep space Nine and Stacey Queech (spelling?) for christs sake.
It is great the first time you see it as it has shock value by the bucket load but it is really quite poor.

Just my opinion and, no, my copy is not for sale - the head on the kurb bit is too good!

Richard.
 

groundy

Standard Member
Originally posted by ricdiggle
Although I like it, it is not a very very good movie.
It is a very very good performance by Edwood Norton. The rest of the cast are 'c list' minors from Star Trek Deep space Nine and Stacey Queech (spelling?) for christs sake.
It is great the first time you see it as it has shock value by the bucket load but it is really quite poor.

What's the big deal how many A-List movie-stars are in this, or any film for that matter? The "star value" of a particular movie has absolutely no bearing on how good (or bad) it turns out to be. Stacey Keach played his role perfectly.

I also don't regard it as great because of the shock value upon first viewing. Yes it is shocking, but also an extremely well-written and harrowing account of one man's descent into violence and subsequent struggle to break free.

Offcourse you're entitled to your opinion but you seem to be a little confused even on that, i.e.:

Originally posted by ricdiggle
Although I like it.......

Originally posted by ricdiggle
It is great the first time you see it......

Originally posted by ricdiggle
......but it is really quite poor.......

So, do you like it, is it great, or really very poor?
 
R

ricdiggle

Guest
OOOOOOOH!

Ok subsitute 'C-list' for 'terrible'
Avery Brooks, Edward Furlong, Jennifer Lien (Spelling?), Stacey Keach.
They are all dreadful in my eyes in this movie.
I think it could have been awesome. The idea is great but not well executed in my humble opinion.
Take Edwood Norton out and this would have died on it's arse I think.

Like I said,
I quite like it, it was great on first watch, but it is quite mediocre (perhaps 'poor' was a little strong). It is very possible to like a poor movie. I love Fast and the Furious for example but would never suggest it was a great film.

Richard.
 

Iain Shields

Active Member
I have to dissagree with you there ricdiggle, I thought that the "terrible c-list" supporting cast where surprisingly good. Considering the sci-fi t.v roots of a couple of them, they aquitted themselves very well... alot better than they do on t.v anyway IMO.
 
R

ricdiggle

Guest
I think Avery Brooks was perfect as Hawk in Spencer for Hire - He didn't have to say much!
 

encaser

Member
What's with all the Avery Brooks talk? He's in it for all of 2 minutes.
This film starts well but ultimately, like most of these we're guilty US racists having an epithany, fades in force in syrup. And worse still, part of Norton's change of mind is inspired by getting a buggering in prison (public schoolboys may empathise?!) for selling out on his redneck bro's and an unrealistic prison friendship and support network.
It's a real shame as the start sets out in a realistic footing of utter contempt based on ignorant racism and makes you wonder what pervasive influence can make this man re-evaluate his social world views. But there you go. Worth a view.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Movies Podcast: Star Trek in 4K. Is the new boxset worth it?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

T+A announces high end 200 Series audio components
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Trinnov Altitude update adds new features
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Panasonic TVs welcome Disney+
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Audio Research announces I/50 integrated valve amp
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Loewe confirms return to luxury TV market
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom