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 236 of 423
Author:  Mimi [ Fri Mar 27, 2015 12:01 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Cras wrote:
Mimi wrote:
no explosions, no boobs, no car chases.


I'm out.

It's not got the requisite Craster draw.
Author:  Hearthly [ Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:55 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
So I watched Transporter 2 last night and it was better than the first, which isn't saying much, and I'd say it still doesn't get itself into 'good film territory'.

A reasonably enjoyable 90 minutes of fluff with some great fight sequences, good car action, plenty of dodgy CGI, the world's most amazing regenerating Audi, and decent baddies. (Including that sexy one whose bottom you get to see. Oh yes, and Matthew Modine, who for me will always be McFly.)

And Statham was still doing a bit of a strange accent.

And the violence was clearly PG-13 stuff again, although a bit harder than the first film and it had a proper 'fuck' in it.

Basically I'd say Crank is the evolution of Transporter, and a lot better.

I give this 6/10.
Author:  Satsuma [ Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:25 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
I can't wait for Statham's remake of Face Off, "Statham Off", where he plays both the good guy and the baddie. Statham swops faces with Statham and 'face off' against one another in a film that's 80% slow motion in this John Woo remake.

Statham's full range of accents is demonstrated in his new comedy "Meet the Stathams" where Statham plays every member of a dysfunctional family. Unlike Eddie Murphy's Klumps, Statham doesn't wear any make-up and every family member wears a very nice Armani suit and sounds slightly cockney.
Author:  Slightly Green [ Sat Mar 28, 2015 11:12 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Saturnalian wrote:
I can't wait for Statham's remake of Face Off, "Statham Off", where he plays both the good guy and the baddie. Statham swops faces with Statham and 'face off' against one another in a film that's 80% slow motion in this John Woo remake.

Statham's full range of accents is demonstrated in his new comedy "Meet the Stathams" where Statham plays every member of a dysfunctional family. Unlike Eddie Murphy's Klumps, Statham doesn't wear any make-up and every family member wears a very nice Armani suit and sounds slightly cockney.



:DD :kiss:
Author:  Hearthly [ Sat Mar 28, 2015 11:25 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
I would pay good money to see both of those films.
Author:  Hearthly [ Sun Mar 29, 2015 0:08 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Tonight's film, which I watched as is now customary sat in a big comfy chair, with my supportive sports shorts on, a big fluffy pillow under my arse/bollocks, and my feet in front on me on a pouffe (praise the lord for mother in laws who still have such things as pouffes) - was The Midnight Meat Train. *

It's quite hard to describe this one really, it's appeared in my Netflix (UK) listing under the horror category. I do like a good horror film, the user reviews at Netlfix seemed to be pretty good, and the limited coverage it's got at places such as Rotten Tomatoes seemed mixed to positive.

Dodgy CGI not withstanding - (I mean, I've seen worse, and maybe you're not as averse to obvious CGI as I am, but I just fucking hate it, if they can make films like Aliens and Star Wars and Terminator with practical effects, then why the fuck use CGI? It just looks shit) - this is a pretty lean, mean, crunchy, violent, very bloody thriller/horror flick.

It's got Vinnie Jones and Bradley Cooper in it, as well as a nice looking lass who I'm not familiar with, but Wikipedia says she's been in other things.

Oh yes it's based on a short story by Clive Barker, so that may well give you some inkling of the directions it heads off in. It's also directed by a Japanese dude called Ryuhei Kitamura and as you may know they do like their horror flicks.

I am not suggesting that this is a classic 'must see' film, or even a 'must see' horror film, but you could do a lot worse with a spare couple of hours, and if you like some proper 18 rated violence and gore then it certainly delivers. (The version on Netflix UK is the unrated Director's cut, the US theatrical release had some 80 (!) cuts made to it for an R rating.)

8/10 - Solid Friday night action and took my mind off my fucked bollocks, which is the highest praise I can give at the moment.


* The left one still bleeds a bit at night. Bollock, that is, I don't have two arses.
Author:  Doctor Glyndwr [ Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:42 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Hearthly wrote:
Dodgy CGI not withstanding - (I mean, I've seen worse, and maybe you're not as averse to obvious CGI as I am, but I just fucking hate it, if they can make films like Aliens and Star Wars and Terminator with practical effects, then why the fuck use CGI? It just looks shit)

Cost.
Author:  Hearthly [ Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:52 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Hearthly wrote:
Dodgy CGI not withstanding - (I mean, I've seen worse, and maybe you're not as averse to obvious CGI as I am, but I just fucking hate it, if they can make films like Aliens and Star Wars and Terminator with practical effects, then why the fuck use CGI? It just looks shit)

Cost.


I did wonder about that but are practical effects really so expensive to do? I know they farm the CGI out to the lowest bidders and whichever rendering house in the world can do it cheapest (which apparently is why big films can end up with dodgy CGI in them), but some of what they do with CGI would be what I'd consider to be fairly basic, like blood spurts which are just squibs and suchlike when done with practical effects.

It sticks out a mile to me and totally breaks the illusion of the film, 'cause I'm just like, 'Oh yeah, CGI again'.

I appreciate there are some things that simply couldn't be done with practical effects, like Terminator 2 which did things with CGI we'd never seen as a special effect before, because practical effects outright couldn't do it (The Abyss springs to mind as well). Then again they were both James Cameron films, and both films were rammed with superb practical effects as well.

I don't mind model work and matte backgrounds and suchlike, even though I know it's a special effect too, it feels more 'real' than CGI, I guess because they are at least real objects.

Some of the CGI in Transporter 2 was shocking, especially the aeroplane stuff at the end. Seriously, just chucking an Airfix model around in someone's spare bedroom would have looked better than that.

As for The Midnight Meat Train, that had plenty of practical effects in it too, so why they stuck the awful CGI in as well I really don't know.
Author:  Doctor Glyndwr [ Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:57 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Hearthly wrote:
some of what they do with CGI would be what I'd consider to be fairly basic, like blood spurts which are just squibs and suchlike when done with practical effects.

You're right, a blood squib is really cheap... until you have to spend an hour scrubbing it out between takes. That's an hour your expensive shooting crew are sat around not doing anything useful. Want to do five takes? Now that's an entire day, rather than a few hours. Hence, CGI blood, added in post, by any number of the vast array of SFX houses, most of which are much cheaper than you'd think, especially the lower-end overseas ones.

Same goes for other practical effects: any problems making them work waste shooting time, and shooting time is really, really expensive. Post production time is almost free. So you restrict practical where you can, unless you're on an generous budget.

(Source: I know someone who works at an SFX house. He animated one of the shots in the Age of Ultron trailer.)
Author:  Hearthly [ Sun Mar 29, 2015 13:47 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Hmmm yes it makes sense when you put it like that I suppose.

Curse computers, especially cheap overseas computers!

Cheers for the explanation :)
Author:  DavPaz [ Sun Mar 29, 2015 15:56 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Also, CGI blood is easier to remove if the censors come calling
Author:  Hearthly [ Sun Mar 29, 2015 17:29 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
That's the problem with 'censoring to a certificate', there's actually not that much that the BBFC censor these days at Cert 18, but distributors will request a 15, or 12A, or whatever, and the BBFC will advise them on what to cut to get that certificate.

So recently for example Kingsman was cut for a 15, where an uncut 18 was available. A Walk Among The Tombstones got exactly the same treatment.

Transporter 2 got cut for a PG-13 in the States (some of which was indeed CGI blood), but could have had an uncut R - and so on.

I went through a phase of importing DVDs from the States in the 90s and into the 00s, as the BBFC were notoriously scissor-happy at the time either cutting for a 15 or even at 18 (they're a lot more liberal now at 18). The ridiculous cuts to The Matrix for its 15 for example, where the headbutts had to go, rendering a couple of the fight scenes a bit daft looking.
Author:  LewieP [ Sun Mar 29, 2015 20:43 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
There's so many great uses of CGI, but I can't stand it when it's used to recreate something that would be relatively easy to do a practical effect for, at least when the effect is implemented badly enough that I can tell. Films are inherently all smoke and mirror's, but I don't want to see behind the curtain. Obviously there are cost considerations, but I would agree that despite the many advances technology has provided for filmmakers, there has also been a big old mess of regression.
Author:  markg [ Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:43 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
CGI is absolutely amazing these days. I reckon that most of the time you don't even know that you are looking at it. For Expendables 3 they actually just got a bag of moldy old bollocks in front of a green screen and filmed that for two hours and all the rest was added in afterwards, you can't even see the join!
Author:  GazChap [ Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:48 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Also, for Rambo, I'm pretty sure that the cost of all of the blood squib packs would have been higher than the CGI had they gone down the practical route ;)
Author:  Pundabaya [ Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:13 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
The other issue with a lot of practical effects is that, quite often, they're built for one angle and one angle only. It locks the director into one shot. Directors don't like having the SFX guys telling them 'I don't care about your 'vision', this is the shot our FX works in.'

CGI stuff, the effects are much more flexible.
Author:  DavPaz [ Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:06 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Song Of The Sea is epically beautiful. And very relaxing.

I should have mentioned it earlier, but I just remembered.
Author:  Bobbyaro [ Mon Mar 30, 2015 12:56 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Bill and Ted 3 news: https://www.yahoo.com/movies/alex-winte ... 78022.html
Author:  Findus Fop [ Mon Mar 30, 2015 13:07 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
DavPaz wrote:
Song Of The Sea is epically beautiful. And very relaxing.

I should have mentioned it earlier, but I just remembered.


that does look wonderful. But not in the cinemas until July? Pah.
Author:  DavPaz [ Mon Mar 30, 2015 13:12 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Findus Fop wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
Song Of The Sea is epically beautiful. And very relaxing.

I should have mentioned it earlier, but I just remembered.


that does look wonderful. But not in the cinemas until July? Pah.

Is it not? Ooops.
Author:  MaliA [ Mon Mar 30, 2015 13:16 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Bobbyaro wrote:
Bill and Ted 3 news: https://www.yahoo.com/movies/alex-winte ... 78022.html


Woah
Author:  Findus Fop [ Mon Mar 30, 2015 13:17 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
DavPaz wrote:
Findus Fop wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
Song Of The Sea is epically beautiful. And very relaxing.

I should have mentioned it earlier, but I just remembered.


that does look wonderful. But not in the cinemas until July? Pah.

Is it not? Ooops.


That's what imdb says. But then I looked on the BFI site and it seems they were showing it in October last year. I don't know. Maybe July is the DVD release date. Either way, will get on it when it arrives.
Author:  Hearthly [ Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:46 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Watched 'We Are What We Are' last night which is a rather unusual horror film, I went into it basically knowing bugger all about it and it certainly surprised me on more than one occasion.

Kept me interested right to the end and the finale wasn't what I'd ever have guessed.

Oh yes it's got OLD KELLY MCGILLIS in it as well, and it also has a well hot lass called Ambyr Childers in it and for a moment it looks like it's going to get a one on the Craster Scale with her but then it doesn't. It does however get a one on the Craster Scale elsewhere, but not perhaps in a way you'd want.

Not a bad little flick, 7.5/10

Here's the synopsis from Rotten Tomatoes:

Quote:
The Parkers have always kept to themselves, and for good reason. Behind closed doors, patriarch Frank rules his family with a rigorous fervor, determined to keep his ancestral customs intact at any cost. As a torrential rainstorm moves into the area, tragedy strikes and his daughters Iris and Rose are forced to assume responsibilities that extend beyond those of a typical family. As the unrelenting downpour continues to flood their small town, the local authorities begin to uncover clues that bring them closer to the secret that the Parkers have held closely for so many years.
Author:  Morte [ Thu Apr 02, 2015 16:56 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic


...colour me excited.
Author:  Derek The Halls [ Thu Apr 02, 2015 19:53 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Divergent:Insurgent - Still a bit Hunger Games light but I think I slightly prefer this lead femme to Jennifer Lawrence as she's a tad less simpering and also much more volatile. I quite enjoyed this and there were quite a few unexpected moments in it yet somehow again there was a tiny bit of something missing that The Hunger Games manages to have. I think it's partly that it doesn't quite get the depth to do with consequences of actions or maybe just that this follows in the wake of the Hunger Games that makes it feel rather more of the same. Despite only being about 2 horus of film it still felt a little stretched as well which Hunger Games Mockingjay Pt1 didn't despite being longer and only half a film really. It's good, got a good lead character but isn't quite good enough.
Author:  Satsuma [ Thu Apr 02, 2015 20:00 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
I watched "A Year of Violence". You shouldn't.

It feels like it goes on longer than a year and has no violence. These are the facts.
Author:  MrChris [ Thu Apr 02, 2015 20:50 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Oh my god. That madmax trailer looks AMAZEBALLS
Author:  Trooper [ Thu Apr 02, 2015 23:08 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Went to see Get Hard. It should have been terrible, but it was actually pretty funny :)
Author:  Hearthly [ Thu Apr 02, 2015 23:10 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Tonight's film was the slightly bonkers (as is often the case with French films) DISCOPATH.

Seriously, I'll let the synopsis from Rotten Tomatoes do most of the talking here.

Quote:
The mid-70's: a timid young New Yorker leads an uneventful life until he is fatefully exposed to the pulsating rhythms of a brand-new genre of music: disco. Unable to control his murderous impulses that stem from a traumatic childhood experience, Duane Lewis transforms into a dangerous serial killer exiled to Montreal.


Yes we have a film set in the 70s (and then the 80s), complete with period cars and ghetto blasters and suchlike, whereby a deranged serial killer is inspired to kill by THE SOUND OF DISCO MUSIC.

This film has got the lot, young would-be lesbians at an all-girls college, perverted priests, French cops with serious moustaches, a maniac DISCO OBSESSED killer, big 70s hair, platform shoes, the whole thing. (And a pretty good disco soundtrack.)

Oh yes and some reasonably nasty murder scenes so it's not all total cheese, although death by a 45RPM is a bit daft I suppose.

You know how Craster has his scale? 1 for boobs and 0 for no boobs? Well I currently run the bollocks scale, whereby 1 is a film that takes my mind of MY RUINED FUCKING BOLLOCKS for 90 minutes or so, and a 0 is a film that doesn't.

This film gets a 1 on the Hearthly bollocks scale. A high recommendation indeed.

Check out DISCOPATH!
Author:  Grim... [ Thu Apr 02, 2015 23:25 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Trooper wrote:
Went to see Get Hard. It should have been terrible, but it was actually pretty funny :)

Fast 7 was booked up?
Author:  Grim... [ Thu Apr 02, 2015 23:26 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
I watched Horrible Bosses 2 tonight. It was bad.

I watched Interstellar yesterday. It was far too up its own arse, but seriously compelling. What an incredible film it could have been if it were an hour shorter and Nolan didn't try to be "arty" with the sound mix.
Author:  MrChris [ Thu Apr 02, 2015 23:52 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Grim... wrote:
I watched Horrible Bosses 2 tonight. It was bad.


It was a sequel to a so so film,so it didn't bode well.

Quote:
I watched Interstellar yesterday. It was far too up its own arse, but seriously compelling. What an incredible film it could have been if it were an hour shorter and Nolan didn't try to be "arty" with the sound mix.

I sort of enjoyed it, particularly the improbably badly designed robots, but I think you've hit the nail on the head there.
Author:  Satsuma [ Fri Apr 03, 2015 0:14 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
I've watched Taken 3 and I'm so angry I don't know if I'll sleep tonight. It's bad. Movie execs really took a shit all over this just like they did Bourne.
Author:  Trooper [ Fri Apr 03, 2015 0:16 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Grim... wrote:
Trooper wrote:
Went to see Get Hard. It should have been terrible, but it was actually pretty funny :)

Fast 7 was booked up?


Wife chose, and fast 7 was only on as a 2 header with fast 6 as far as I could see, it's released properly tomorrow isn't it?
Author:  MrChris [ Fri Apr 03, 2015 0:19 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Saturnalian wrote:
I've watched Taken 3 and I'm so angry I don't know if I'll sleep tonight. It's bad. Movie execs really took a shit all over this just like they did Bourne.

What have they done to Bourne?! Was there a fourth one?
Author:  Warhead [ Fri Apr 03, 2015 0:41 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Bourne on the 4th Of July
Author:  Satsuma [ Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:04 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Saturnalian wrote:
I've watched Taken 3 and I'm so angry I don't know if I'll sleep tonight. It's bad. Movie execs really took a shit all over this just like they did Bourne.

What have they done to Bourne?! Was there a fourth one?


Yeah, The Bourne Legacy. :S
Author:  Bamba [ Fri Apr 03, 2015 13:17 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Grim... wrote:
What an incredible film it could have been if it were an hour shorter and Nolan didn't try to be "arty" with the sound mix.


And if the entire plot wasn't utter bullshit from start to finish.
Author:  Grim... [ Fri Apr 03, 2015 13:47 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
That I don't mind - unless it's a documentary, I can happily overlook the science.

I'll still comment on it during the film, obv.
Author:  Bamba [ Fri Apr 03, 2015 14:12 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Grim... wrote:
That I don't mind - unless it's a documentary, I can happily overlook the science.

I'll still comment on it during the film, obv.


There's even basic stuff that's wrong with it though. Like the fact they've been planning this secret space mission for however long without thinking to ask the only experienced astronaut in the world to come along until he randomly walks in the door, despite the fact the leader of the mission knows him personally and he only lives down the fucking road from their headquarters.
Author:  Cavey [ Fri Apr 03, 2015 16:15 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Interstellar was enjoyable enough for me - but even by Hollywood standards the science was just laughable.

Never mind the fact they needed some huge old-style Apollo/Saturn type booster rocket to escape Earth's paltry gravity well, but to escape the combined gravitational pull of another Earth-sized oceanworld planet that's so close to a fucking black hole that the astronauts experienced massive relativistic time effects, only required the quick firing of shuttle-borne rockets...?

There's also the issue of said planets being blown to fuck if their parent star had gone supernova (which it must have done if there's a black hole at the centre of their system instead of a parent star); if said parent star was massive enough to go supernova and form a black hole it must've been a huge O or B Class Blue Supergiant which would've only lived for a few million or tens of millions of years at best (no way could planets with breathable atmospheres form in that geological timescale, and that's ignoring the massive stellar wind arising from, and hugely variable nature of such stars 'cause if you're a planet, said massive star suddenly turning into a Red Hypergiant can be somewhat disconcerting and terminal); and most importantly - if there's no star, only a black hole, how come it's fucking daytime/daylight on said planets and why is there even weather at all...?

I read some piece about the 'genuine science' done on the part of the film's producers in modelling exactly how a black hole is supposed to look, which struck me as a bit rich considering the pre-school stuff like this they did get wrong.

I dread to think what true science-heads made of it.
Author:  Hearthly [ Fri Apr 03, 2015 16:23 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Sounds like you guys all need to get DISCOPATH watched instead, no need to worry about the science behind it all then LOLZ.
Author:  Goddess Jasmine [ Fri Apr 03, 2015 16:24 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Hearthly wrote:
Sounds like you guys all need to get DISCOPATH watched instead, no need to worry about the science behind it all then LOLZ.

Any suggestions on where we might obtain this from?
Author:  Cavey [ Fri Apr 03, 2015 16:26 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
@Hearthly

W-What? Y-you can see what I'm typing...?


:blown:

( :D )
Author:  Hearthly [ Fri Apr 03, 2015 16:31 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Goddess Jasmine wrote:
Hearthly wrote:
Sounds like you guys all need to get DISCOPATH watched instead, no need to worry about the science behind it all then LOLZ.

Any suggestions on where we might obtain this from?


The usual combo of nzbplanet and Tweaknews worked for me, torrenty type stuff might be able to sort it out as well I suppose but I don't do torrents.

Amazon says you can buy it from the 4th May - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Discopath-DVD-J ... B00T7QLCF0

Not much of a result for the legal option there considering it's been up on Usenet for 166 days.
Author:  Hearthly [ Fri Apr 03, 2015 16:32 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Cavey wrote:
@Hearthly

W-What? Y-you can see what I'm typing...?


:blown:

( :D )


I would never put you on ignore old chap, (I've never put anyone on ignore here, for that matter), I think we just need to agree to disagree when it comes to politics :D
Author:  Cavey [ Fri Apr 03, 2015 16:34 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
:) :luv:

I know mate, that was my lame attempt at sarcastic humour.
I'll not give up the day job. :p
Author:  Satsuma [ Fri Apr 03, 2015 16:35 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
Y'know what I fancy watching today? DISCOPATH.
Author:  Grim... [ Sat Apr 04, 2015 19:11 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
So, you thought the never-ending runway at the end of Fast and Furious 6 (or whichever one it was) was stupid? Well, 7 is like that for basically the last two thirds of the film.

CGI Paul Walker was good though, although he is facing away from the camera a noticeable amount.
Author:  Trooper [ Sat Apr 04, 2015 21:40 ]
Post subject:  Re: The Movie topic
I am off to see 7 at the Imax tomorrow night. Mrs T is overjoyed to be coming along :)
Page 236 of 423 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/