Be Excellent To Each Other
https://www.beexcellenttoeachother.com/forum/

The Movie topic
https://www.beexcellenttoeachother.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3817
Page 324 of 423

Author:  devilman [ Fri Aug 25, 2017 23:30 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

'I.T.' was added to Netflix today

Quote:
A self-proclaimed millionaire, has his life turned upside down after firing his I.T. consultant.


Sounds a bit crap? It is. I was expecting perhaps something along the lines of 'Firewall', but nope.

Author:  Satsuma [ Sun Aug 27, 2017 15:23 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

All Eyez on Me is dogshit from the over-acting to the cringe inducing dialogue, from the Tesco Michael Bay slow-mo to the saccharine story telling. It is just a low rent mess of a straight to DVD movie that surely only escaped for a full release thanks to success of Straight Outta Compton.

Mind you, you really have to applaud the casting people really did a fabulous job of finding a 2Pac actor that looks scarily like the man himself and who sounds similar and accurately reproduced his mannerisms. However those people need shooting twice in the chest, once in the arm and once in the thigh for the atrocity of terrible unknown actors that play Dr Dre, Snoop, Suge and worse of all Big Poppa.

2wat out of 10

Author:  Hearthly [ Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:59 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Last night's film was ATARI: GAME OVER which is about the video game crash of 1983 and the role the 2600 game ET had to play in it.

It features plenty of archive footage and also has current interviews with many key figures of the time, including the chap who was given just 5 weeks to make ET for the 2600.

The thread holding these two stories together is a dig at the fabled landfill site where mythology has it that thousands of ET unsold and returned ET cartridges were buried in the early 80s - will they find anything under the ground?

This is a warm, interesting, very watchable documentary. Howard Scott Warshaw (he made Yar's Revenage, Raiders Of the Lost Ark and ET for the 2600) comes over as a decent bloke and has plenty of great tales about the early years at Atari.

If I had a complaint it'd be that it's too short at just 66 minutes, I could have quite easily watched another hour of the fascinating interviews with all the main characters in the film.

885/1000 - Available now on FLIXER-NETTERS.


Author:  JohnCoffey [ Mon Aug 28, 2017 10:20 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Yeah A GO is awesome. It's definitely got that "treasure hunting" vibe about it, which keeps you excited all the way through.

Last night I watched Fallen (Denzel Washington). Can't believe it had slipped through the net for 19 years ! great film. Also watched Spotlight too and again, wasn't disappointed. Unusual that I watch two films back to back that are great. I think my only disappointment with Fallen was that it strongly hinted at a sequel but it never materialised I guess. Shame.

Author:  Satsuma [ Wed Aug 30, 2017 17:29 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

The Hitman's Bodyguard has Ryan Reynolds doing his Deadpool/Van Wilder schtick again and, frankly, it was one film too much for me. As tired of Ryan Reynolds as I am, I'm even more worn out by Samuel L Jackson who is seemingly in every film ever made ever.

Despite this, it's reasonably entertaining and has a couple of funny lines and moments but you won't remember any of it within a weeks time.

Author:  Cras [ Wed Aug 30, 2017 19:57 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

I'm watching Van Wilder, and dedicating it to Sat.

Author:  Cras [ Wed Aug 30, 2017 20:58 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Fucking love that film

Author:  Satsuma [ Wed Aug 30, 2017 23:27 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Right then Beexers, I'm sick of you lot watching crap Marvel films and spaffing your underroos, so I'm recommending a film for you fannies to watch, cause I just watched it and I thought it was effing BRILLIANT.

It's called IT COMES AT NIGHT (2017).

Now off you go and watch it. You want more details? No. Just watch it. That is all.

Author:  Sir Taxalot [ Thu Aug 31, 2017 4:23 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

devilman wrote:
Watched 'Paycheck' earlier on Amazon. As it's about a bloke who gets his memory wiped, it seems fitting that I'd forgotten that I'd seen it before. I had a vague memory of the plot, but had no idea it was this film or that Ben Affleck was the lead.

I'm not entirely convinced by the plot device where
ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!
he sends himself items to his future self to help him escape his predicaments. To get everything right, he would have had to experiment over and over with combinations of items, as each variation would have altered the future outcome, meaning he'd have to re-watch his future over and over.


I have tried, and failed, to get through this film a couple of times, succumbing instead to the sweet feeling of dozing on the sofa.

Author:  MaliA [ Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:59 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Lord of the Flies to be remade but with girls instead of boys. People have expressed surprise.

Author:  Zardoz [ Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:08 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

I watched the original Steven King's IT the other night for the first time.

Tim Curry really carries it along as Pennywise, the other actors being pretty sketchy at times. Very creepy and I was enjoying it for almost the full three hours...

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!
...until we find out the true form is a fucking Spider(?!) and all they do is kick fucking shit out of its glowing belly(?!)

Fucking wank out of 10

Author:  DavPaz [ Thu Aug 31, 2017 13:02 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

I'm not using spoilers for IT.

The problem with IT is the book describes it as a formless eldritch horror, floating in an endless, infinite abyss with 'deadlights' (the glowing belly) being so beautiful and enrapturing that none can resist the pull. Or something like that

Quite hard to do on a TV budget. I only realised quite recently that IT is very closely tied into The Dark Tower series. Mainly through the aforementioned abyss.

Author:  Grim... [ Thu Aug 31, 2017 13:07 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Most of King's work is tied to The Dark Tower.

http://stephenking.com/darktower/connections/

Author:  Zardoz [ Thu Aug 31, 2017 14:51 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

DavPaz wrote:
I'm not using spoilers for IT.

The problem with IT is the book describes it as a formless eldritch horror, floating in an endless, infinite abyss with 'deadlights' (the glowing belly) being so beautiful and enrapturing that none can resist the pull. Or something like that

Quite hard to do on a TV budget. I only realised quite recently that IT is very closely tied into The Dark Tower series. Mainly through the aforementioned abyss.

There's no excuse for what they did, could have left it to your imagination (camera focused on actors etc). That they decided to utilise absolutely dire modelling for such a pathetically lazy creature design deserves nothing less than absolute ridicule. The visual effects department need a good fucking shoeing.

This was made in 1990, 8 years after The Thing. No excuse for shitty monster modelling and practical effects.

Apart from that it was good.

Author:  Grim... [ Thu Aug 31, 2017 14:53 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

I always though the first half (with the kids) was way stronger than the second.

Tim Curry is immense, though.

Author:  Zardoz [ Thu Aug 31, 2017 14:57 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Absolutely.

Author:  MaliA [ Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:07 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Sir Taxalot wrote:
Malc wrote:
Moana


:this:


I really liked it.

A bit later on..

"Let's play Moana", said The Big One, "I'll be Moana, and you, Daddy, can be...you can be..."

<MaliA begins to look for a hook s6ubstitute>

"..you can be..You can be the chicken".

Author:  DavPaz [ Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:08 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

The chicken is the best character! He's played by Wash!

Author:  Mimi [ Fri Sep 01, 2017 15:07 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

I hope we are all aware of Tim Curry's greatest work?


Author:  MaliA [ Fri Sep 01, 2017 17:38 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Film Review!

John wick! Could have been right shorter had he gone to the pet shop 20 mins in.

Watch of on telly but better guns n violence films exist.

Imdb says:
ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!
Quote:
Chad Stahelski and David Leitch were concerned about how the audience would react to all of the death within the film (especially the puppy). So when casting the character of Iosef Tarasov, they wanted someone who looked like a complete "prick". Consequently, they met Alfie Allen, and thought he was perfect for the role

Author:  MaliA [ Fri Sep 01, 2017 18:42 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

DavPaz wrote:
The chicken is the best character! He's played by Wash!


But, I wanna be a demi god.

Author:  DavPaz [ Fri Sep 01, 2017 20:49 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

MaliA wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
The chicken is the best character! He's played by Wash!


But, I wanna be a demi god.

But the chicken is the Samoan God Amo'a'ta, God of pain, war, flames and cheesy snacks!

Author:  Hearthly [ Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:06 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Satsuma wrote:
Right then Beexers, I'm sick of you lot watching crap Marvel films and spaffing your underroos, so I'm recommending a film for you fannies to watch, cause I just watched it and I thought it was effing BRILLIANT.

It's called IT COMES AT NIGHT (2017).

Now off you go and watch it. You want more details? No. Just watch it. That is all.


I tried to watch this at the pictures when we were across in July but there was no afternoon showing so I got Despicable Me 3 with wife and child instead.

However I see it is now available on home formats so I'll rent it out and watch it tonight.

Author:  Satsuma [ Sat Sep 02, 2017 13:32 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Just make sure you know nothing about it except the title. Just remember the title.

Author:  MaliA [ Sat Sep 02, 2017 17:31 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

The annoying thing about Days of Thunder, the only criticism that can be rightly levelled at it, is that Nicole Kidman's character, who is a neurologist, rides on a motorbike without a crash helmet.

Author:  myp [ Sat Sep 02, 2017 18:48 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

MaliA wrote:
The annoying thing about Days of Thunder, the only criticism that can be rightly levelled at it, is that Nicole Kidman's character, who is a neurologist, rides on a motorbike without a crash helmet.

Plenty of doctors and nurses drink and smoke, despite knowing the risks to their health.

Author:  MaliA [ Sat Sep 02, 2017 18:51 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Lonewolves wrote:
MaliA wrote:
The annoying thing about Days of Thunder, the only criticism that can be rightly levelled at it, is that Nicole Kidman's character, who is a neurologist, rides on a motorbike without a crash helmet.

Plenty of doctors and nurses drink and smoke, despite knowing the risks to their health.


In which case, it is the perfect film.

Author:  Findus Fop [ Sat Sep 02, 2017 22:19 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Satsuma wrote:
Just make sure you know nothing about it except the title. Just remember the title.

Is it TTOYST?

Author:  Hearthly [ Sun Sep 03, 2017 8:16 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Satsuma wrote:
Right then Beexers, I'm sick of you lot watching crap Marvel films and spaffing your underroos, so I'm recommending a film for you fannies to watch, cause I just watched it and I thought it was effing BRILLIANT.

It's called IT COMES AT NIGHT (2017).

Now off you go and watch it. You want more details? No. Just watch it. That is all.


So I watched this last night and I think it's one of those films I admire more than I like. It has problems.

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!
I get what they were trying to do, there is no actual 'IT' that comes at night, the monster here is man's own fear and mistrust, his propensity for violence. There's no need for an actual monster, because we can all become the monster - collectively or individually.

The whole post-apocalyptic scenario is essentially a sideline, since at no point do we actually see any monsters or zombies, or indeed any sick people apart from the granddad at the start, in dream sequences, and then Travis right at the end. There's also no attempt to explain what has happened to the world, or how, or when - I get that it's not supposed to be important so it doesn't need to be explained.

The problem I have with the film is that it's just a bit all over the place - it sort of has 'an idea' but doesn't really know where to go with it. Plus there are too many cheap jump scares, too many 'Ooooh is it a dream?' sequences, then dreams within dreams and all that cobblers.

And it plays out like a monster film, we're expecting a reveal and feel slightly cheated when we don't get one. If you're going to subvert a genre, you'd better make sure you do it REALLY WELL, and this film doesn't.

Then there are all the threads that aren't explained or explored, like Will's lying about his brother, or the sexual tension between Travis and Kim, or who opened the red door on the night the dog 'returned'.

My reading of it is that perhaps the dog and Travis are infected right from the start (they got it from the granddad?), which would explain all of Travis' nightmares about the illness and his (implied?) sleepwalking? It would also explain how the red door got opened (although not the outer door, which he wouldn't have had access to the key for).

I found it interesting at least, so afterwards did some Googling around only to find out that the director wanted it all to be a bit ambiguous and you can make up what you want it to mean. Erm, no, actually - you wrote and directed the fucking thing, so you should know what the point of it all is and what really happened. Apparently it's a personal film to help him cope with the death of his father which is fine but, y'know, listen to some sad songs and look at some old pictures or something, and then make a coherent film.

I'd latched on well before the end that there was no real monster or baddies as such, and that the real monsters were the humans, Paul in particular but also his wife once they realise Will and family are going to try and leave. I forget the exact scene and lines but it if there were subtitles they'd say 'THESE ARE THE BADDIES RIGHT HERE FOLKS, HERE IS YOUR MONSTER!'

The final few minutes were a bit of a gut punch and well done, although I didn't buy into their ability to murder an entire family in cold blood, including a three year old child.

On top of all that even the premise didn't feel particularly fresh. Thinking of, for example, THE BABADOOK which is notionally a monster film but is actually a film about crippling depression, that film was so well done and so compelling, IT COMES AT NIGHT doesn't hold a candle to it IMO.

Only very slightly better than THE GREEN INFERNO - 505/1000

Author:  Joans [ Sun Sep 03, 2017 21:40 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Hearthly wrote:
Satsuma wrote:
Right then Beexers, I'm sick of you lot watching crap Marvel films and spaffing your underroos, so I'm recommending a film for you fannies to watch, cause I just watched it and I thought it was effing BRILLIANT.

It's called IT COMES AT NIGHT (2017).

Now off you go and watch it. You want more details? No. Just watch it. That is all.


So I watched this last night and I think it's one of those films I admire more than I like. It has problems.

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!
I get what they were trying to do, there is no actual 'IT' that comes at night, the monster here is man's own fear and mistrust, his propensity for violence. There's no need for an actual monster, because we can all become the monster - collectively or individually.

The whole post-apocalyptic scenario is essentially a sideline, since at no point do we actually see any monsters or zombies, or indeed any sick people apart from the granddad at the start, in dream sequences, and then Travis right at the end. There's also no attempt to explain what has happened to the world, or how, or when - I get that it's not supposed to be important so it doesn't need to be explained.

The problem I have with the film is that it's just a bit all over the place - it sort of has 'an idea' but doesn't really know where to go with it. Plus there are too many cheap jump scares, too many 'Ooooh is it a dream?' sequences, then dreams within dreams and all that cobblers.

And it plays out like a monster film, we're expecting a reveal and feel slightly cheated when we don't get one. If you're going to subvert a genre, you'd better make sure you do it REALLY WELL, and this film doesn't.

Then there are all the threads that aren't explained or explored, like Will's lying about his brother, or the sexual tension between Travis and Kim, or who opened the red door on the night the dog 'returned'.

My reading of it is that perhaps the dog and Travis are infected right from the start (they got it from the granddad?), which would explain all of Travis' nightmares about the illness and his (implied?) sleepwalking? It would also explain how the red door got opened (although not the outer door, which he wouldn't have had access to the key for).

I found it interesting at least, so afterwards did some Googling around only to find out that the director wanted it all to be a bit ambiguous and you can make up what you want it to mean. Erm, no, actually - you wrote and directed the fucking thing, so you should know what the point of it all is and what really happened. Apparently it's a personal film to help him cope with the death of his father which is fine but, y'know, listen to some sad songs and look at some old pictures or something, and then make a coherent film.

I'd latched on well before the end that there was no real monster or baddies as such, and that the real monsters were the humans, Paul in particular but also his wife once they realise Will and family are going to try and leave. I forget the exact scene and lines but it if there were subtitles they'd say 'THESE ARE THE BADDIES RIGHT HERE FOLKS, HERE IS YOUR MONSTER!'

The final few minutes were a bit of a gut punch and well done, although I didn't buy into their ability to murder an entire family in cold blood, including a three year old child.

On top of all that even the premise didn't feel particularly fresh. Thinking of, for example, THE BABADOOK which is notionally a monster film but is actually a film about crippling depression, that film was so well done and so compelling, IT COMES AT NIGHT doesn't hold a candle to it IMO.

Only very slightly better than THE GREEN INFERNO - 505/1000


I agree with this, apart from the bit about the babadook, I didn't really like that either.

Author:  JBR [ Sun Sep 03, 2017 22:24 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Captain Underpants! Tra la laaaaa! Good. Funny. Simple. For kids. But if you have to see it with your kids, don't despair.

Author:  Curiosity [ Sun Sep 03, 2017 23:09 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

JBR wrote:
Captain Underpants! Tra la laaaaa! Good. Funny. Simple. For kids. But if you have to see it with your kids, don't despair.


I like the song.

Author:  Satsuma [ Mon Sep 04, 2017 17:52 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Hearthly wrote:
Satsuma wrote:
Right then Beexers, I'm sick of you lot watching crap Marvel films and spaffing your underroos, so I'm recommending a film for you fannies to watch, cause I just watched it and I thought it was effing BRILLIANT.

It's called IT COMES AT NIGHT (2017).

Now off you go and watch it. You want more details? No. Just watch it. That is all.


So I watched this last night and I think it's one of those films I admire more than I like. It has problems.

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!
I get what they were trying to do, there is no actual 'IT' that comes at night, the monster here is man's own fear and mistrust, his propensity for violence. There's no need for an actual monster, because we can all become the monster - collectively or individually.

The whole post-apocalyptic scenario is essentially a sideline, since at no point do we actually see any monsters or zombies, or indeed any sick people apart from the granddad at the start, in dream sequences, and then Travis right at the end. There's also no attempt to explain what has happened to the world, or how, or when - I get that it's not supposed to be important so it doesn't need to be explained.

The problem I have with the film is that it's just a bit all over the place - it sort of has 'an idea' but doesn't really know where to go with it. Plus there are too many cheap jump scares, too many 'Ooooh is it a dream?' sequences, then dreams within dreams and all that cobblers.

And it plays out like a monster film, we're expecting a reveal and feel slightly cheated when we don't get one. If you're going to subvert a genre, you'd better make sure you do it REALLY WELL, and this film doesn't.

Then there are all the threads that aren't explained or explored, like Will's lying about his brother, or the sexual tension between Travis and Kim, or who opened the red door on the night the dog 'returned'.

My reading of it is that perhaps the dog and Travis are infected right from the start (they got it from the granddad?), which would explain all of Travis' nightmares about the illness and his (implied?) sleepwalking? It would also explain how the red door got opened (although not the outer door, which he wouldn't have had access to the key for).

I found it interesting at least, so afterwards did some Googling around only to find out that the director wanted it all to be a bit ambiguous and you can make up what you want it to mean. Erm, no, actually - you wrote and directed the fucking thing, so you should know what the point of it all is and what really happened. Apparently it's a personal film to help him cope with the death of his father which is fine but, y'know, listen to some sad songs and look at some old pictures or something, and then make a coherent film.

I'd latched on well before the end that there was no real monster or baddies as such, and that the real monsters were the humans, Paul in particular but also his wife once they realise Will and family are going to try and leave. I forget the exact scene and lines but it if there were subtitles they'd say 'THESE ARE THE BADDIES RIGHT HERE FOLKS, HERE IS YOUR MONSTER!'

The final few minutes were a bit of a gut punch and well done, although I didn't buy into their ability to murder an entire family in cold blood, including a three year old child.

On top of all that even the premise didn't feel particularly fresh. Thinking of, for example, THE BABADOOK which is notionally a monster film but is actually a film about crippling depression, that film was so well done and so compelling, IT COMES AT NIGHT doesn't hold a candle to it IMO.

Only very slightly better than THE GREEN INFERNO - 505/1000


Well obviously you're wrong so here's why:

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!
The main problem is you want it to be a monster movie, but it isn't and never was. There's no reveal because there was never going to be one. You had nothing to "latch onto" because there were no hints that it was ever going to be a monster movie apart from the title (which is terrible, because it sounds like it's going to be a horror film but isn't). There's no similarity with The Babadook because it's nothing like it. That's all you projecting onto it. It's more of a thriller. It has more in common with The Road (also a great film).

In all honesty I thought it was going to be a horror film from the title too and I did expect something horror-like when I was watching it too, but once I'd finished watching it I'd accepted it for what it was.

The only horror trope that's in the film happens when the dog runs off, but looking back at it, the dog could have sensed other people. It doesn't play out like a horror film at all. It's just a dark look at two families hiding from an unknown disease has broken out.

Plus, I don't know what film you were watching but I can't remember any jump scares and there's a total of no more than 3 dream sequences when the creepy imagery happens and they don't last very long at all.

I acknowledge there's loose threads but most films do and the loose threads here leave you something to speculate on after the film comes to its climax. FYI The only sexual chemistry was in Travis' head during his dream. He's a lonely kid locked in a house in the woods while the world presumably dies outside his windows.

Anyway, here's why the film is so great. The characters are fantastic and, unlike say The Walking Dead or other crappy zombie/post-apocalypse movies, they never do anything that isn't entirely believable within the fiction. Even at the end when the families are threatening to shoot one another their actions are in keeping with how they'd act. When Will gets taken outside in the wheelbarrow it was still 60/40 that Paul would actually execute his new friends. If Will hadn't reacted, most viewers would probably believe that they'd have resolved it and Will's family would have walked.

The ending is fabulously done though.

There's only one problem with the film and that's the catalysit that creates the tension is poor. It's never explained how the dog got back in the house and I'm sure the dog couldn't open the door.

Anyway, I think your reading of who gets what, is wrong. It's fairly clear that the little lad touches the dog and get the disease; he passes it Travis when he puts him into bed; Travis' mum kisses him and also gets it (this was great. Check out her face and how she wipes her lips after she kisses him during a brilliant little sequence. It's so natural and subtle). They weren't infected from the start because the disease takes a day or two to show.

So all in all, a great addition to the depressing side of the post-apocalypse genre. You're wrong, but that's because you're sat there waiting for a monster because, well, for your own reasons.

Author:  Satsuma [ Tue Sep 05, 2017 20:06 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Best one of these* in a while: https://youtu.be/saTFPCuQfvw

*honest trailer for new Kong

Author:  Satsuma [ Fri Sep 08, 2017 22:48 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

As a series of pretty moving images Pirates of the Caribbean 27 is BRILLIANT. It has plenty of nice colours, lovely visuals and plenty going on complimented by a thunderous and often rousing soundtrack.

As a piece of cinematic entertainment it's utterly woeful. The story is all over the place as the cast go from daft setpiece to another with little thread to tie them together. Very few members of the cast are given meaningful screentime apart from Jack a sparrow who absolutely phones in his performance for a massive pay check. You can tell his heart wasn't in it as he slurs another tired diatribe out his mouth. A couple of the usual cast are absent (or are they?) until the end (cleared that up then) when they show up for a heartfelt scene. Actually, it's not heartfelt it's pointless and had me scratching my head why the film hadn't ended 10 minutes earlier. No Country for Old Men's baddie returns to play another baddie and he gives a decent performance when he isn't entirely incomprehensible because the sound mix is so shockingly bad that his thick Spanish accent is drowned out during the end sequence because the music was so loud. He could have revealed some kind of revelation but I couldn't make out what he was saying. Or I should say "another" revelation, in a film where revelations are dropped in every other scene because why not. (I'm your dad!) (I'm your mom's neighbour!). The new cast members give as forgettable performances as I've seen since the last bout of achingly bland teens from those Hunger Game rip offs.

But hey, it's no worse than your average CGI heavy film these days. If you couldn't care less about acting, plot, story, nuance and direction then you'll enjoy your time with Pirates of the Caribbean and can reply to this post in 2 weeks time with "I enjoyed it" without any further comment and I'll know never to trust your opinion about any films/books or any other media. I won't reply, I'll just knowingly nod my head to you as we pass in the street leaving you to wonder moments later whether I'd called you a thick twat as I walked off or whether that was a genuine cough.

Pieces of 8 out of 10.

Author:  DavPaz [ Fri Sep 08, 2017 22:56 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Conversely, I just watched Get Out. It was fucking brilliant. And really difficult to search for on the forum. So if it's been mentioned before (and I've no doubt it has) then I'm sure it was in glowing terms. Because, as I mentioned, it's fucking brilliant.

Get Out - A film with many shades of grey. 876 bananas

Author:  Hearthly [ Fri Sep 08, 2017 23:04 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

DavPaz wrote:
Conversely, I just watched Get Out. It was fucking brilliant. And really difficult to search for on the forum. So if it's been mentioned before (and I've no doubt it has) then I'm sure it was in glowing terms. Because, as I mentioned, it's fucking brilliant.

Get Out - A film with many shades of grey. 876 bananas


There is no better way of managing things like this.

viewtopic.php?p=961360#p961360

Author:  MaliA [ Fri Sep 08, 2017 23:45 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

GazChap wrote:
Watched The Big Short last night. I thought it did a tremendous job of explaining a complicated subject in an easy to digest manner, and Steve Carell's performance was outstanding - I've never seen him in a "straight man" role before. Christian Bale was alright I guess, but I was getting some serious Patrick Bateman vibes from his character.


Totally agree.

Film was excellent.

Author:  Hearthly [ Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:21 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Last night's watch was 'DEAR ZACHARY', this is a 2008 documentary film, which documents the life and death of a man called Andrew Bagby, who was murdered by his ex-girlfriend at the age of 28.

The film was made by a chap called Kurt Kuenne, who was a childhood friend of Andrew's. When Andrew was murdered, Kurt decided to make the film as a documentary of his life, interviewing friends and family from across the world, particularly Andrew's mother and father, Kathleen and David.

The film then takes an unexpected turn as Andrew's suspected murderer, his ex-girlfriend called Shirley, flees to Canada whilst on bail, and once there announces that she is pregnant with Andrew's baby. At this point Kurt decides to morph the film into a 'letter' to the child, so that he might get to know his father through watching the film once he grows up.

Kathleen and David then move to Canada to fight for custody of the baby once he is born, whom Shirley names Zachary, whilst the US legal system fights to have her extradited back to the States, where she is charged with the murder of Andrew.

This is a deeply upsetting, harrowing film. It's not an entirely objective piece, as a lifelong friend of Andrew, Kurt paints Andrew and his family and friends as the good guys, and Shirley is very much the villain of the affair, but then again she did murder Andrew in cold blood - shooting him five times and inflicting blunt trauma wounds to his head after he broke up with her.

This would be bad enough in and of itself, but once the baby is introduced to the story the level of horror becomes almost unbearable, as Kathleen and David are forced to 'befriend' the woman who murdered their son, to maintain visitation and access rights to their grandson, Zachary. (A process over which Shirley very much calls all the shots.)

There is a short reprieve of sorts when Shirley is jailed in Canada, when a provincial court rules that there is sufficient evidence to suggest she is the murderer, at which point Kathleen and David are given full custody of Zachary. But even then, Shirley manages to successfully appeal, is released from jail and is granted bail, at which point she sues for joint custody of Zachary and the Bagbys are forced to share the care of Zachary with her. I would note again here, that this is the woman who murdered their son.

If all that sounds beyond terrible, it ain't finished yet.

I won't say much more than that about the film, it deserves to be watched and unfold the story itself, but be forewarned you'll be blubbing like a baby more than once, although there is hope in the form of the indomitable spirit of Kathleen and David, despite the excrutiating rawness of their anger and grief.

It's quite a hard film to get hold of, it's not on Netflix or Amazon Prime (either instant view or rental), old DVDs of it are still available, but you may be able to source it on other 'home formats', it's still available from Usenet if your provider has sufficient retention (2.4 years ago was the last time it was uploaded).

An absolute gut-punch of a film - 913/1000

Author:  Satsuma [ Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:17 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

I watched Get Out last night after the love it was getting on here and it was a really good take on the Body Snatcher type of film, except communism is replaced by racism. The acting is, in the main, great stuff and the direction and production of a high standard for a horror film. It avoids the usual Body Snatcher trope of having some sort of alien by having something much more down to earth and it works much better for my tastes. There's not many Body Snatcher style films and I could only think of The Faculty; I even had to google it to remind it what it was actually called. And that was back in 98/99! The only problem is however that the film hasn't got much to say about racism and it's actually a standard schlocky horror film albeit one that's fun, well produced and has a decent take on an old concept. You could really feel the generic horror roots creep in around the final act as the baddies get taken out with daft implements or a weak main boss manages to almost overcome the hero.

I just wish that in a film that appears to be about racism they didn't have such a generic black comedy sidekick. I appreciate it probably needed a bit of humour thrown in here and there but this character is so reminiscent of so many others that it was bordering on the offensive.

Kevin out of 10.

Author:  MrChris [ Sun Sep 10, 2017 21:28 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

What was the hivemind's view of Aline Covenant - not worth paying money to see, but is it worth watching via a completely legitimate streaming free method?

Author:  MaliA [ Sun Sep 10, 2017 22:15 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Dale and Tucker vs Evil is brilliant.

Author:  MrChris [ Sun Sep 10, 2017 22:25 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Why would the "colonise another planet gazillions of miles away" department have "silly hats" in the issue list?

Author:  MrChris [ Sun Sep 10, 2017 22:54 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Fuck me this suddenly got very silly

Author:  Cras [ Sun Sep 10, 2017 23:17 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

MrChris wrote:
What was the hivemind's view of Aline Covenant - not worth paying money to see, but is it worth watching via a completely legitimate streaming free method?


Much like Prometheus, all of the tension and horror comes from just how incredibly stupid the entire crew are, and how desperately the mission needed a basic procedures manual.

Author:  MrChris [ Sun Sep 10, 2017 23:21 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

But I liked Prometheus.

Author:  Grim... [ Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:50 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

So did I.

I didn't like A:C (although the ending was pretty good).

Author:  Trousers [ Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:58 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

Cras wrote:
MrChris wrote:
What was the hivemind's view of Aline Covenant - not worth paying money to see, but is it worth watching via a completely legitimate streaming free method?


Much like Prometheus, all of the tension and horror comes from just how incredibly stupid the entire crew are, and how desperately the mission needed a basic procedures manual.


The crew in A:C are basically the ship from Hitchikers with all the useless fuckers on it. In the history of film I don't think I have seen a more idiotic spaceship crew.

I did laugh when he said "fingering" though.

Author:  GazChap [ Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:33 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

I genuinely don't know what the hell Ridley Scott expected from the audience during that scene. "You blow, I'll do the fingering" was bound to induce titters and guffaws, and it comes so completely out of leftfield that it just takes me out of the film.

But yes, A:C was pants.

Author:  Bamba [ Mon Sep 11, 2017 13:01 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic

I suspect this isn't a popular opinion but I watched A Million Ways to Die in the West last night and thought it was really funny. It didn't go in as hard as I was expecting on the Family Guy style vulgarity and the whole idea of having characters puncturing the entire frontier setup with a modern viewpoint while still actually living in that setting was surprisingly effective.

Page 324 of 423 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/