Actually misread this at first...thought it was about cigarette smokers.

A mix of feelings here. You do not have to expect a science fiction movie here as scenic design is far from today standards and maybe a 20 years old could laugh.

Anyway Stalker is the masterpiece. Light, in what i think is a very poor production set, is simply awesome. Position of camera, water and rust did it.

A Walk Among the Tombstones

What a good movie. Well drawn characters, good acting and buckets of tension.

Best thing that Liam has done for a while.

Watched this on Netflix ...will now buy the DVD.

M

Another great italian movie with a great soundtrack.

A missed opportunity, an unrealized potential. The landscapes of Nebraska's plains are gorgeous.

My loathing of superhero and elf films is well-known among my friends, but after a good deal of nagging I acquiesced and watched this, which I had been assured was "brilliant" and "several notches above the usual superhero movie".

I was misled. What a load of crap this film was. The usual poorly-lit, story-free, CGI-heavy bombast, with underdeveloped characters, "action"/fight scenes that dragged on and on for no good reason, a director with no sense of cinema, inaudible dialogue, Russell Crowe doing his tough guy schtick yet again, and a buffed-up but charisma-free leading man. The wonderful Amy Adams was completely wasted.

The worst aspect of this rubbish was the soundtrack, one of the poorest I have ever heard, by Hans Zimmer. Tuneless, vacuous, turgid, over-produced and lacking in drama or dynamics, it was I suppose the perfect accompaniment to this clodhopping piece of pap.

Did you really expect anything else Kevin? The vacant look on the cover says it all. Looks like he just filled his latex shorts.

G

I know G. That's two and a half hours of my life I will never get back. Next time I will trust my instincts.

I also don't like superhero films but quite liked this. Not your typical superhero movie.

I really think you should come off the fence on this one, Kevin.  All those weasel words. Just tell us whether you recommend it or not. 

Mike

I really think you should come off the fence on this one, Kevin.  All those weasel words. Just tell us whether you recommend it or not. 

 

Mike

Trouble is Mike, I just can't decide. I'm a bit of an indecisive person, and I really don't like coming over as too opinionated.

I've not seen that film, FC, but the people who market pictures make me laugh sometimes. Zack Snyder, director of the Superman farrago I moan about above, is referred to as "the visionary director of 300" on that Watchmen poster. I've seen 300 and it is a wasted opportunity, just another piece of overblown CGI tripe - and Snyder's other films include turkeys like Sucker Punch and his pointless remake of Dawn of the Dead.

A "visionary director" is someone like Terrence Malick, FW Murnau, Carl Dreyer, Michael Powell, Francis Coppola or Orson Welles. Snyder is just a hack, like Guy Ritchie, Michael Bay, Peter Jackson or latter-day James Cameron. Nothing wrong with being a hack - Roy Del Ruth, one of the Golden Age of Hollywood's best directors, was a hack who churned out stylish, hugely entertaining and occasionally brilliant films for a mainstream audience -  but I wish people wouldn't attach pretentious terms such as "visionary".

Lying wankers! I'm surprised people fall for it.

Oops. Didn’t realise Watchmen and Man of Steel where directed by the same person, although it’s not surprising, I’ve never heard of Zack Snyder. I’ve also never watched Sucker Punch, Dawn of the Dead, 300 or Man of Steel. Perhaps I was lucky to catch his only good movie.

With regards the ridiculous claim he’s a visionary director, you’re probably right, and are they are lying winkers, but I’m amazed you’re getting so uptight about it, it’s just marketing, the same thing happens with the promotions/reviews of music and books. I’m sure the average 300 viewer doesn’t care if the director’s visionary or doesn’t even know the meaning of the word.

There's  probably only three or four good superhero films; Superman one and two starring Christopher Reeves and Spiderman one and two starring Tobey Maguire are very decent movies.

I didn't bother watching  any of the new Superman films because they have taken away all of the fun from the franchise and tried to make it too serious. Christopher Reeves' Superman films were perfectly cast, Reeves had the ability to play Clark Kent as a nerd with great comic timing and then transform into Superman effortlessly.

Christian 'yawn' Bale as Batman; gawd how boringly serious are those films?

Wolverine and all those rubbish X-men films.

Avengers Assemble; quite rubbish.

Hollywood makes money with these superhero films even if they're shite as there will always be interest In them.

Maybe just one, Mystery Men?

MDS,

Good assessment from my perspective as well. Not my typical type of film genre, but my daughter liked the book and I happened across it on HBO just as it was beginning. Certainly drew me in and held my attention for the entirety of its 2-1/2 hours length. My only complaint "would a rape victim really be dismissed from a hospital with the blood of her murdered assailant still all over her body?" A bit too much dramatic liberty taken in that regard.

Mike, that trailer is spot on! Hilarious!

I think you are right there Tetra - those first two Reeve films are great fun, there's a twinkle in his eye, he has charisma and back in the 70s it really was extraordinary and magical to see a man flying on the screen.

And I agree about Bale - what a bore! Like Daniel Day-Lewis, he's one of those overly serious actors whose modus operandi seems to be: "I've suffered for my art, now it's your turn!'

The problem is that these modern-day superhero films take themselves so bloody seriously. To be honest I've never seen a better version of Batman than that camp 60s TV series - at least it acknowledged the inherent ludicrousness of the genre. All those directors wanting to inject a bit of "darkness" into what is just adolescent fantasy are seriously deluded and up their own arses IMO...

 The characters from the 60s Batman show are excellent and have never been played better.

Caesar Romero as the Joker

Burgess Meredith as Penguin

Eartha Kitt as Cat-woman

and the guy who played the Riddler were superb as they were incredibly good fun and OTT just how super villains should be.

All totally inimitable 

Frank Gorshin was the Riddler, superb manic laugh.

Yes, joerand. I thought that scene implausible. I guess it was retained to add spice to the later shower scene where she washes off the blood while 'confessing' to her husband.

Mike 

Based on the novel Night Train to Lisbon (2004) by Pascal Mercier and written by Greg Latter and Ulrich Herrmann, the film is about a Swiss teacher who saves the life of a woman and then abandons his teaching career and reserved life to embark on a thrilling intellectual adventure that takes him on a journey to the very heart of himself.

J.K. Simmons justly won a Best Supporting Oscar for his performance as a totally ruthless jazzband leader who intimidates a young drummer keen to join his group. The film has a slightly surreal quality that enhances, and benefits from the two principle actors also being good musicians.

Wonderful, gripping stuff and highly recommended.