What's the Latest Thing You've Seen at the Cinema II

As we are in the school holidays I have been taking children to Kids Club:

Sing

I have this on DVD, but the big screen does add a lot to the experience. The four year old I had with me LOVED it, and was enthusiastically joining in with the songs, she has seen it a few times.

Recommended.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid

Aimed at an older children this film majors on toilet humour. Some of the sets ups are funny, but there is just too long between the laughs, especially as some are weak and don't land.

M

Mr Underhill posted:

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

Luc Besson has made some really good films, this isn't one.

From the stable of thought that bought you Prometheus & Alien Covenant we have yet another film which features:

Stratospherically high production values;
A lead with no charisma;
Poorly developed characters;
A plot with more holes than a colander.

It is a shame as the film does have some nice ideas & sequences.

M

 

Sorry M, it's not that I disagree - I don't - but I do think you're short selling the film by measuring it against a traditional set of criteria. Like films as Titan A.E. and Oblivion, and to a lesser extent Disney's Treasure Planet and Atlantis, we have high concept productions in which the passion of its creators clearly shines through and makes them worth watching even through the plot holes and thin characterisation. It is a shame that there is a certain unfulfilled promise here, but it would be an even bigger shame not to go see these movies because of it. Just my 2 cents...

EJ

It felt like a parade of sound and visual special effects. Personally, I would have been much more interested in what was happening on the beaches. It is also sad that the sacrifice of the 18.000 French soldiers who gave their lives to defend the Dunkirk pocket and enabled the evacuation was never fully recognized. I would give it three stars out of five.

EJS posted:
Mr Underhill posted:

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

Luc Besson has made some really good films, this isn't one.

From the stable of thought that bought you Prometheus & Alien Covenant we have yet another film which features:

Stratospherically high production values;
A lead with no charisma;
Poorly developed characters;
A plot with more holes than a colander.

It is a shame as the film does have some nice ideas & sequences.

M

 

...... but I do think you're short selling the film by measuring it against a traditional set of criteria.

EJ

Hi EJ,

<spoilers>

I do think that there is a lot of good stuff in the film, mainly on the concepts and design.

I am happy to give it a pass from reality based on its clear fantasy bias.

What prevented me from enjoying it was what I saw as lazy writing, such as:

1. Having a group of primitive living, although highly intelligent, beings get onto a crashed spaceship on a planet that is then disintegrated, but somehow live through that process and survive, learning the previous occupants language & technology whilst only having the resources on this broken ship .....what??
2. Give the lead bad-guy such a lack of development, and fill his mouth with political ideas clearly culled from here and now but so poorly expressed. I like it when you spend time giving the 'other side' a view point that you may well disagree with but that you can intellectually 'get'; or better yet strongly empathise with, such as in Hellboy 2.

I could go on, but basically my feeling was that despite some great visuals this film failed to hang together in any meaningful way, and I always want Luc to hit the ball out of the park.

</spoilers>

M

Mr Underhill posted:
EJS posted:
Mr Underhill posted:

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

Luc Besson has made some really good films, this isn't one.

 

...

M

 

...... but I do think you're short selling the film by measuring it against a traditional set of criteria.

EJ

Hi EJ,

<spoilers>

I do think that there is a lot of good stuff in the film, mainly on the concepts and design.

I am happy to give it a pass from reality based on its clear fantasy bias.

What prevented me from enjoying it was what I saw as lazy writing, such as:

1. Having a group of primitive living, although highly intelligent, beings get onto a crashed spaceship on a planet that is then disintegrated, but somehow live through that process and survive, learning the previous occupants language & technology whilst only having the resources on this broken ship .....what??
2. Give the lead bad-guy such a lack of development, and fill his mouth with political ideas clearly culled from here and now but so poorly expressed. I like it when you spend time giving the 'other side' a view point that you may well disagree with but that you can intellectually 'get'; or better yet strongly empathise with, such as in Hellboy 2.

I could go on, but basically my feeling was that despite some great visuals this film failed to hang together in any meaningful way, and I always want Luc to hit the ball out of the park.

</spoilers>

M

On Clive's motivation, isn't it only fair that the film from the books that had such a profound influence on Star Wars would be about trade sanctions  

EJ

Hi EJ,

Yes. It wasn't the 'what' of the motivation that jarred with me, it was the clumsy verbiage that was put into Clive's mouth.

Like John Carter this was a huge influence of much that has followed, but the shame is that in waiting for the technology to make a good film possible they both feel derivative ....but I would say that John Carter was better crafted in terms of the narrative flow, pacing and dialogue.

.....we should debate this over a couple of pints!

M

IT

Recommended

I remember reading IT when I was 12 and being highly put out that while I could read this material I was not allowed to go to a cinema and watch it. Had I known I would have realised how poorly such material is served on screens of any size; until now.

Stephen King wonderfully observes a side of human life that is frequently ignored by much rose tinted fiction ; childhood may have some wonderful memories but much pain is simply down played, not here. Here the awfulness of disempowerment is ramped up. However, the film is also surprisingly funny and always well observed.

What this film does is take its time to paint characters with whom you empathise, so that as they are drawn into danger you do care, as they make questionable decisions you understand that they are being manipulated, not just being stupid.

At last, Stephen King horror is realised properly on the screen; and NO, I don't include 'The Shining', more Kubrick than King.

M

Decent document of a couple of truly historic concerts at the old ruined amphitheatre in Pompeii. Filmed in 4K with pretty astonishing sound. The first half is a bit ploddy, but after "One Of These Days" Dave and the band pull out the real bangers, accompanied by spectacular lights, lasers, fireworks etc, which generally enhance the magic of the extraordinary setting.

Some absolutely majestic guitar from the fat man too, and his band (Greg Phillinganes especially) are on superb form.

One thing makes me laugh though - throughout the film there was a sea of mobile phones visible. So, you're going to a once-in-a-lifetime gig, which you know beforehand is being professionally filmed, almost certainly for a cinema and DVD/BR release, yet you behave like an absolute numpty and spend the whole show watching the world's greatest living guitarist through the screeen of your mobile, instead of just enjoying the moment. Why? So you can say you were there to your mates on Facebook, and upload a crap quality, shaky vid onto YouTube which will get about six views before it is taken down by the Floyd's legal people.

There was even a fcukwit in the cinema filming the movie on his mobile (at least, until he was told to stop by a member of staff, as, unlike filming gigs, filming a movie is completely illegal). What an arse!

People waving their bloody mobile phones around are a real curse at concerts nowadays. Seems to me it's rather more about showing your mates -  "Look where I've been, aren't you envious?" than actually enjoying the concert. Very strange behaviour indeed. 

I'll look forward to watching this when the 4K BluRay comes out!

tonym posted:

People waving their bloody mobile phones around are a real curse at concerts nowadays. Seems to me it's rather more about showing your mates -  "Look where I've been, aren't you envious?" than actually enjoying the concert. Very strange behaviour indeed. 

Have to agree with you there, it seems to be a symptom of the social media generation, and we've seen folks around us who seem to be paying little attention to what's actually going on in front of them, preferring to compare video clips and chat with their mates whilst not getting into the music at all.

Even more amusing, the trend of bringing along an iPad, specifically to record the music ............. do they actually see and hear the concert for the first time, once back home? Strange behaviour, especially given ticket prices these days.

OK, rant over .............. from one of the baby boomer generation. 

dave marshall posted:
tonym posted:

People waving their bloody mobile phones around are a real curse at concerts nowadays. Seems to me it's rather more about showing your mates -  "Look where I've been, aren't you envious?" than actually enjoying the concert. Very strange behaviour indeed. 

Have to agree with you there, it seems to be a symptom of the social media generation, and we've seen folks around us who seem to be paying little attention to what's actually going on in front of them, preferring to compare video clips and chat with their mates whilst not getting into the music at all.

Even more amusing, the trend of bringing along an iPad, specifically to record the music ............. do they actually see and hear the concert for the first time, once back home? Strange behaviour, especially given ticket prices these days.

OK, rant over .............. from one of the baby boomer generation. 

You won't see this at organ concerts. None of the youngsters wants to publicly admit being there ...

Kingsman: The Golden Circle

I have seen Kingsman compared to James Bond many times, I think a better comparison would be an updated 'The Man from UNCLE'; it incorporates much of the silliness of that franchise. That said I am very much in two minds about this film. I did enjoy it, but I feel that despite having a servicable story, good action and lead actors there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.

This film carries a 15 certificate. It is uses the F word gratuitously. At one point a young woman offers to allow one of the leads to urinate on her. One sex scene was unnecessarily explicit. However, it is not completely morally bereft, for reasons I will allow you to find out for yourselves. Finally the character of the President of the USA is interestingly written, making a noteworthy decision that within a different film might be interesting and plausible, within the context of this lightweight fluff I am left feeling uncomfortable.

What is it that we want younger members of society to aspire to and believe?

M

Posted on the DVD thread by mistake

Mother!

An existential piece advertised as a horror film. Peoples interpretations of this film will be based on the cultural background, mine is given below, go no further if you wish to see the film unsullied!

<spoilers>

My interpretation of the film is that it is religious allegory, with very strong Judaeo/Christian influence.

The film is cyclical, re-birth through to destruction. En-route people enter an unfinished but lovely setting, selfishly destroying what is there and not listening to the 'Mother', a personification of nature perhaps.

The first set of intruders are a mother and father who go where they are forbidden, and whose sons fight, one killing the other. Adam and Eve with Caine and Abel?

Bardem & Lawrence make love and Lawrence is immediately aware that she has conceived, and Bardem who is being portrayed as an unproductive writer overcomes his writers block and produces what is stated to be a masterpiece.

As the pregnancy reaches term hoards of people arrive at the house to see Bardem, who has proven to be a magnetic and strangely generous character. The scene descends into anarchy during which the baby is conceived, and shortly thereafter handed by Bardem to the people who kill him. Strong Messianic overtones. This leads Lawrence to destroy what remains of the house whilst Bardem begs her to 'forgive them'. She is carried from the ruins by an unaffected Bardem and she asks him to be allowed to die.

The opening scenes of the film are now repeated with a different Mother Nature now in the bed. Presumably a new muse to trigger the creation of an even greater masterpiece by God, Bardem.

</spoilers>

This is obviously my interpretation of what was presented. Personally I have never been a fan of allegory. I think that it is trying to be clever and profound and misses those targets without being truly entertaining, or more damningly giving any original insight into the human condition.

M

tonym posted:

People waving their bloody mobile phones around are a real curse at concerts nowadays. Seems to me it's rather more about showing your mates -  "Look where I've been, aren't you envious?" than actually enjoying the concert. Very strange behaviour indeed. 

I'll look forward to watching this when the 4K BluRay comes out!

Up there with the mania for selfies.

Time was you could take your time to frame an interesting photograph and any other person with a camera could be doing likewise nearby and between you you'd unconsciously synchronise yourselves to get a nice shot without the masses intruding.

Now you can't do so because of the endless stream of fkrs determined to take a wide angle pic of their noses, +1, in front of whatever it is you'd like a picture of too.

Blade Runner 2049

Recommended.

As good as the original? I think not, but certainly a well made and thoughtful film. Does it add anything to the first film, perhaps not.

If you are going for an action adventure then this is the wrong film. As with the original this is more of a procedural with a bit of action, and a lot of noir. The money has been spent on expanding the world in which the film takes place, but without removing the sense of claustrophobia.

M

Bladerunner 2049.

A well crafted extension to the original narrative. It took me a little while to acclimatise to the movie, but after about twenty minutes I was hooked and totally absorbed. Slow (deliberately) contemplative pace throughout that increasingly builds in atmosphere, the emotional core of the movie a genuine surprise. Unexpected. I think Denis Villeneuve should be applauded.

It looks sensational, well, for a bleak dystopia. Exquisite cinematography by Roger Deakins. Thoughtfully framed shots (a dead tree has never looked so beautiful). Interesting new environments. Plus some unexpected direction changes. All of the cast are good, although Rutger (teardrops in the rain) Hauer could never be equalled for presence.

I don’t think it will have the influence of the original, but I throughly enjoyed revisiting the world created by Ridley Scott. 

Worth seeing on the big screen for the production design alone.

From empire..

As bold as the original Blade Runner and even more beautiful (especially if you see it in IMAX). Visually immaculate, swirling with themes as heart-rending as they are mind-twisting, 2049 is, without doubt, a good year. And one of 2017’s best.”

tonym posted:

People waving their bloody mobile phones around are a real curse at concerts nowadays. Seems to me it's rather more about showing your mates -  "Look where I've been, aren't you envious?" than actually enjoying the concert. Very strange behaviour indeed. 

I'll look forward to watching this when the 4K BluRay comes out!

Yep. It's one reason I go to relatively few concerts. Drives me absolutely bonkers. WTF is wrong with people?

Yetizone posted:

Bladerunner 2049.

A well crafted extension to the original narrative. It took me a little while to acclimatise to the movie, but after about twenty minutes I was hooked and totally absorbed. Slow (deliberately) contemplative pace throughout that increasingly builds in atmosphere, the emotional core of the movie a genuine surprise. Unexpected. I think Denis Villeneuve should be applauded.

It looks sensational, well, for a bleak dystopia. Exquisite cinematography by Roger Deakins. Thoughtfully framed shots (a dead tree has never looked so beautiful). Interesting new environments. Plus some unexpected direction changes. All of the cast are good, although Rutger (teardrops in the rain) Hauer could never be equalled for presence.

I don’t think it will have the influence of the original, but I throughly enjoyed revisiting the world created by Ridley Scott. 

Worth seeing on the big screen for the production design alone.

From empire..

As bold as the original Blade Runner and even more beautiful (especially if you see it in IMAX). Visually immaculate, swirling with themes as heart-rending as they are mind-twisting, 2049 is, without doubt, a good year. And one of 2017’s best.”

Yep, saw it last night. I thought it was absolutely stunning. It won't appeal to the superhero/transformers/fast-furious fans (too slow, not ridiculous enough), but is destined to be a lasting classic, just like the first one. A further contemplation of what it means to be human. Stretched in different directions and expanding on the original in this regard. A visual masterpiece, to boot.

Haim Ronen posted:

It felt like a parade of sound and visual special effects. Personally, I would have been much more interested in what was happening on the beaches. It is also sad that the sacrifice of the 18.000 French soldiers who gave their lives to defend the Dunkirk pocket and enabled the evacuation was never fully recognized. I would give it three stars out of five.

Well my Grandfather was pulled off that beach by a civillian boat and so I was very much looking forward to the film and thought it was excellent.  He never spoke about it or North Africa or Italy later on but what he did say was that those civillian sailors that came to the rescue of the troops where some of the bravest men he ever met so I personally think it was fitting that the focus of the film was on them rather than the fear amongst the stranded soldiers.

Watched the new Blade Runner on Friday and thought it had much in common with the original.

I loved the flying cars in this one and the fact that Ryan Gosling's car came with his own deployable drone in place of where a sunroof would have been fitted in the 80s. I look forward to the day when the word 'Drone' is squeezed between CD Auto Changer and Metallic paint in the optional extras list.

A clever and spectacular film no doubt but I didn't really enjoy it as I thought it was a bit too long and some of the scenes were unnecessarily violent and long. All IMHO of course.

Ray

Ok, it's a really good film, one that will deservedly top a lot of people's 2017 lists, and I would wholeheartedly recommend it; the direction is taut, the cinematography eye-popping and the production design incredible.

However those who say it surpasses the original are a bit wide of the mark IMO. It lacks Ridley Scott's film's poetic touches  - there is nothing to match, for example, the scene where Zhora, having been shot by Deckard, crashes through the windows to Vangelis' music; or Roy's remarkable dying speech.

The new film is more conventional, a more conventional story more conventionally told - nothing wrong with that, but for all its visual splendour, it just lacks that certain something that made Scott's movie so remarkable (once he'd stopped tinkering with it).

Plus, Hans Zimmer's score is horrible, especially when stacked up against Vangelis' contributions to the first picture. Why this bombastic hack keeps getting work in Hollywood is beyond me.

Kevin-W posted:

......made Scott's movie so remarkable (once he'd stopped tinkering with it).

 

In my view, the "Final Cut" version of the original Blade Runner is definitely the best. He DID have to tinker with it, both to undo studio interference (voice-over and happy ending), and to sympathetically refine the "look" (which was a bit dated in certain FX) with modern techniques. I feel that he improved it significantly. I tried to watch the original cinematic release a couple of years ago and I couldn't get through it. 

Other directors' later dabbling in their original movies has ended less well in the view of many.

As an aside.....  The 4K release of the new movie will be the trigger for me to upgrade our TV and player (as well as buy my 5th or 6th version of the original movie).

Kevin-W posted:

Ok, it's a really good film, one that will deservedly top a lot of people's 2017 lists, and I would wholeheartedly recommend it; the direction is taut, the cinematography eye-popping and the production design incredible.

However those who say it surpasses the original are a bit wide of the mark IMO. It lacks Ridley Scott's film's poetic touches  - there is nothing to match, for example, the scene where Zhora, having been shot by Deckard, crashes through the windows to Vangelis' music; or Roy's remarkable dying speech.

The new film is more conventional, a more conventional story more conventionally told - nothing wrong with that, but for all its visual splendour, it just lacks that certain something that made Scott's movie so remarkable (once he'd stopped tinkering with it).

Plus, Hans Zimmer's score is horrible, especially when stacked up against Vangelis' contributions to the first picture. Why this bombastic hack keeps getting work in Hollywood is beyond me.

We've just returned from watching this at our little local cinema. Being a Blade Runner fan, I was rather worried I'd be disappointed. No chance, it was awesome, quite gobsmackingly so. Loved every second, and even SWMBO, who I dragged along, enjoyed it. In terms of spectacle I've not seen anything like it & I feel compelled to watch it again as soon as possible.

I saw it, quite good I thought... some parts didn’t totally gel in my opinion, especially as the film and plot progressed, and the twist was a bit too obvious, but I won’t spoil it here. The film was quite obviously preparing for a sequel with the opening and unresolved plot lines. I agree, probably a little too long. I thought Harrison Ford was very good... and the opening scenes over the protein farm were spectacular.

 

i saw Victoria and Albert as well this week, and I thought that was a great and quite amusing film... not sure how close to the actual truth it was however...

Thor: Ragnarok  - One film, two perspectives

That of myself and my older daughter:

Me = The funniest of the Marvel films, solid recommendation
D = Dreadful misuse of some great characters that lacks any subtlety, sacrificing them on the alter of mammon.

There is some truth in both.

I was bought up in the sixties reading, amongst other things, WWII comics based around the Desert Campaign and Tommies fighting the East Afrika Corps. Where Marvel did impinge it was in the person of Dr Steven Strange, and so that character does hold slightly more of a resonance for me. My daughter lived and breathed Marvel.

For me any Marvel movie, and perhaps especially Thor, must balance portentous nonsense with some finely balanced humour, if it can then also include a soupcon of pathos then it has hit the mother-load; I felt the first Thor film did this and so it still represents the Thor Gold Standard. The second film was all drama and carried too great a weight to be held by the weak bones of its underpinning. This film is consistently hilarious, and here is also where, for me, it falters. Once into the last act I feel humour must be put to one side, but this director just cannot do this. Given a choice between dramatic highlight and belly laugh he will always go for the latter, which leads to a misstep in the final face off.

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and will be adding it to my collection. My daughter wishes she hadn't bothered. I suppose it comes down to how seriously you take these cartoons.

M

Thor: Ragnarok.

My son and I ambled along to a half term showing this afternoon and quite frankly it was a hoot from start to finish. We both thoroughly enjoyed the humorous (very mischievous) tone created by Taika Waititi. In some ways this is an out and out comedy first, superhero movie second! When the credits finally rolled my son said "that was awesome and the best ever Marvel movie!". Made me smile - and was certainly worth the price of admission even if it was awful (it wasn't!). A lot better than the other two Thor movies.

Superbly camp, visually extravagant with affectionate nods to 1980’s design (and music), excitingly paced and well acted throughout - a true pleasure to see Jeff Goldblum having such fun with his role. Also, the most effective use of Led Zeppelin’s Immigrant song I’ve yet seen used in a movie. 

Highly recommended and I probably agree with the The Boy Yeti, one of the best Marvel movies to date. 

Went last night to see...

As a big Christie fan and a a big fan of David Suchet’s performace was a little trepidatious about this version, but enjoyable throughout for the most part. There are a few derivations from the source, but not really to its detriment (except perhaps the couple of unnecessary “action” scenes added).

A second to the David Suchet performance (unlike some people Branagh’s moustaches didn’t bother me though a couple of times his accent slipped) but at least equal to Albert Finney.

Justice League

Well, I enjoyed this - not as much as Thor, but it also does not make the mistake of undermining emotional punch with humour at the wrong time.

The film does have the weakness of most films of this genre - the denouement. But, the journey is entertaining, the characters given enough flesh and the action well executed. I do look forward to the BluRay as I suspect this has been rather pruned for theatrical release.

There are TWO post credit scenes.

M

Add Reply

Likes (2)
EJSmatt podniesinski
×
×
×
×