Be Excellent To Each Other

This was tonight's film for me.

Very upsetting and a difficult watch, inspired by 'Of Mice And Men' by all accounts.

It has a moral compass and it ends as it should, even if I really didn't want it to.

The entire cast is superb, a great film, but it made me 'get something in my eye'.

8/10. Emma Stansfield's boobs could well take it to a 9/10 though. Or just Emma Stansfield herself actually, she's well nice.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067055/

It's a b movie, but it's a masterpiece. Every badly done aspect of it just adds to it.

Kingsman is surprisingly brilliant.

It is, isn't it?

Yep, loved it.

One of my fave films this year.

It's surprising, because the only person on here who usually talks sense about films is Nirjehenenenenenege, and the rest of you were on about how great it was.

I am very excited for this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyKWUTwSYAs

Watched 'Cop Car' with that there Mr Kevin Bacon in it last night.

It's a very simple film in a lot of ways, two young boys (around the age of ten) find an apparently abandoned cop car and make off with it. Turns out it's not abandoned and Mr Kevin Bacon, who is the cop, wants it back.

Super-tight at just 88 minutes long (there are large chunks of what's going on that we're trusted with the intelligence to work out for ourselves from a small amount of information given to us, this film is not long on exposition), Mr Kevin Bacon is splendid (as always), and the children manage to not be totally annoying.

I liked it - 7.5/10.

NOTE - Don't watch this trailer if you think you might actually watch the film.

I think as a whole, Kingsmen didn't quite work for me. It had some excellent sections and characters though.

Yeah I'd stick with my original review of it.

7.5/10 still feels about right.

Yeah, same for me. It wasn't a bad film or anything and I did enjoy it but I was quite surprised at all the praise heaped on it as it really was just 'good' and not 'great'.

I... Um... But...

It's one of those stupid trailers that condenses the film into two minutes, and gives too much away IMO.

So if you like Mr Kevin Bacon and think you would possibly enjoy the film, I'd say better to steer clear of the trailer. If however you just wish to enjoy a two minute interlude featuring Mr Kevin Bacon sporting a splendid moustache, the trailer will tick that box perfectly.

I went into the film knowing very little about it, and watched the trailer afterwards, on balance I'd say the trailer would have given me information I'd rather not have known if I'd have seen it first.

Watched so many films lately I really can't remember them all, but I will try. In no specific order..

Poltergeist (the new one). It was OK as it goes. Wild Bill doesn't really act very well though, seemed a bit stiff (the dude out of Green Mile). Overall an enjoyable watch though, 7/10.

Poltergeist (the original, hadn't seen it before) Probably not a good idea to watch films that were amazing in the 80s, 'cause they don't really translate well into modern viewing. The effects for example are awful. However, can sort of see what all the fuss was about. 8/10.

Poltergeist 2, the other side. Awful. A classic example of how not to do a sequel. 3/10.

Time Lapse. I went into this thinking it would be absolutely stupid but was very pleasantly surprised. I actually thought it was rather cool. 8/10.

Poseidon (the new one). Great film. Saw it at the cinema.. My wife has been hesitant to watch it but was soon quivering with anxiety 7/10.

Watched 'Eden Lake' last night, never seen it before even though it's a few years old.

Bit bloody grim likes, although it subverts the genre pretty well IMO.

Made me sad.

Open Grave.

Was expecting this to be quite rubbish. It was actually very good and a fantastic method of delivering a film coming from such a tired genre (Zombies).

Was expecting a load of turds, turned out to be a very good flick. Definite 8/10.

Indeed, I did like it.

It also had highly unrealistic offroading sections to enjoy!

Watched 'Mysterious Skins' on Netflix last night. A highly depressing movie about teenagers coping with the consequences of child abuse. Good performances from the leads and very evocative of small-town Kansas, but not perhaps the easiest of things to watch through to the end.

Is that the one with Joseph Gordon Levitt? We loved it when we watched it a few weeks ago but I instantly forget the name of it.

Yes, he plays Neil.

I was quite interested in the upcoming Kurt Russell western / horror film "Bone Tomahawk", then the bloody trailer basically summarised the whole bloomin' film in two minutes...stupid trailer.

Still looks good though.

In case you had nothing better to do with your week....

Trailers Always Spoil - WARNING TVTROPES LINK

The Martian was an excellent way to spend a couple of hours.

I had hoped it would be. The book was an absolutely joyful discovery. So I shall deffo go to see it.

Look, boobs!
(.Y.)

( . )( . ) are boobs. ( Y ) is a girlie's front bottom. (.Y.) is, I dunno, a girl with moles?

( ! ) is a bum.

It was a character accurate quote from the book

I'm pretty sure it's a genetic experiment waiting to happen.

( . )( . ) are boobs

( . Y . ) are boobs in a Wonderbra.

I watched 'Southpaw' last night with Jake Gyhlenenahalen in it. It's a boxing film.

He has it all, THEN HE LOSES EVERYTHING, then he has to put his life back together and triumph against adversity.

In many ways it's not actually that good of a film, clichés abound, at one stage it almost has a montage, and you know exactly what's going to happen. However, Jake Gyleelenahelll is as good as ever, and Forest Whittaker is in it too and he's always excellent.

The boxing sequences are very well done, although as ever there's enough of a pounding in 10 seconds of one round to kill a real boxer, but we're used to that now, we grew up with Rocky, after all.

I enjoyed it, and its flaws are forgiven, very much a genre piece, but a good one.

7/10.

Yeah I was overall disappointed with this film. I wanted a lot more from it.

Gyllenhaal put in a good performance, but the film was lacking in a lot of areas.

Turbo Kid is amazing.

I wasn't very convinced from the Wikipedia page then I saw a picture of Laurence Leboeuf. Sold! Though someone should probably tell her she's got a man's name.

Watched 'PRISONERS' last night which has Jake Gyllanehalenal in it (he's in a lot of stuff!) and Hugh Jackman and other good actors like Terrence Stamp and Maria Bello who you might mostly remember from the cheerleader scene in A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE which would probably have made your willy interested, if you have a willy.

So then, PRISONERS, which clearly wants to be taken very seriously and considers itself to have a MESSAGE, turns out to be not that amazing at all. It meanders around for over two and a half hours - (which is the sort of length that gets on my tits unless the film in question is properly fucking amazing, off the top of my head Scorsese is one of the very few directors who can get away with it) - and never quite achieves the lofty heights it thinks it does.



It's not a bad film, I'm going to give it 6/10, Jake Guacamole is fantastic as usual, Jackman is great as the father, in fact the whole cast are excellent in fairness, and if they weren't so good the film would founder badly IMO. It's also beautifully shot, I believe the cinematographer is the same one that the Coen brothers often use.

For my money it all gets a bit preposterous towards the end, and despite Jake Glylanyualen being this super-amazing detective (who has apparently NEVER FAILED TO SOLVE A CASE) he just sort of stumbles over stuff all the time and doesn't solve much at all. And ultimately, I know that torture is wrong, I don't need to watch a sermon about it.

Oh yes it's quite violent too, it originally got an NC-17 and needed to be cut a bit to get an R.

6.5/10 - I have given it an extra half a mark since before because it did stick with me a bit.

I thought Prisoners was one of the best films that year, just purely on the acting of each of the principal characters.

The acting is superb (as I noted above), but I honestly don't think the substance of the film is that amazing, as the credits (finally) rolled my foremost thought was, 'Hang on, that really wasn't that good, and it was just the performances that were carrying it'.

Plus it all got a bit bloody silly in the last 30 minutes or so, I was able to join all the dots in my head, but they didn't add up anything particularly believable.

6.5/10 is a solid, above-average mark, but I felt the film had lofty pretensions it didn't quite live up to. (And Terrence Stamp was criminally underused, and also, it was all a bit I AM GOING TO SMACK YOU ABOUT THE HEAD WITH MY MESSAGE, I mean, actual recitations of the Lord's Prayer, and 'The Star Spangled banner is his favourite song' - YES IT'S OK I GET IT ALREADY.)

I thought it was magnificent.

Hmmm, this reviewer here nails it for me.

A REVIEW.

The reason “Prisoners” has achieved such serious purchase among critics and cineastes has to do with Villeneuve’s pedigree (he wrote and directed the highly regarded “Incendies,” which possessed its own lurid plot pivot) and the fact that it’s superbly made. Shot by master cinematographer Roger Deakins in moody shades of gray and white, “Prisoners” exudes despair and spiritual murkiness; Jackman and Gyllenhaal bring their A-game (and, in Gyllenhaal’s case, an unexplained eye tic) to roles that would otherwise be generic, and Davis and Maria Bello are, as usual, flawless as wives and mothers waking up each day to the same but somehow brand new nightmare.

The emotions the actors bring to bear on “Prisoners” are genuinely wrenching, and there’s no denying that Villeneuve and screenwriter Aaron Guzikowski know how to ratchet up suspense and, in one or two scenes, nerve-jangling spook-outs. In that regard, they’ve delivered a grade-A genre exercise — but it’s a genre predicated on specious reasoning and promiscuous, pseudo-sacrificial suffering. Try as it might to entertain serious notions of manhood, evil and original sin, “Prisoners” works most effectively as Hollywood hypocrisy at its most sleek, efficient and meretricious. It’s stylish, high-minded hokum.

The boy in the striped pajamas.

Very good film with a horrific ending. 9/10

Oh god, even mentioning that film makes me sad.

I don't know why but just lately I've ended up watching lots of films that are hard to watch. This was another example of how foul humanity can be sometimes. I was quite torn whether to feel absolutely gutted or, yell in his father's face about irony.

Pffft, until you've done A Serbian Film* it's all just shades of Play School.


* Not the BBFC 18 version, but the original release.


NOTE - I strongly advise not watching A Serbian Film.

The Wiki article is more than enough.

It's over five years since I saw it, still can't get some of it out of my head.

Neither can tha... no, better not.

I see where you were going with that.

Tonight's film was 'LUCY' with that lovely Scarlett Johansson in it.

Yes it's based on totally nonsensical 'science' bollocks (TEN PERCENT OF OUR BRAINS), and yes the whole film is a bit daft really, but it won me over with its sheer audacity and fun, whilst still having a crack at saying something interesting.

I enjoyed it, and it did it all in 90 minutes, whereas PRISONERS last night took two and a half fucking hours to bash me over the head with bollocks and Hugh Jackman shouting a lot.

So yeah, Lucy, a nice slice of sci-fi fantasy (with very bad 'science'), splendidly put together and good fun.

7/10.

I hated Lucy.

It was just stupid. I gave up watching after 30 or 40 minutes as it got worse and worse.

Avengers Age of Ultron isn't as good as Assemble, nor any of the Iron Mans or Thor or Capt Merkin. And Black Widow was not on my birthday cake.