What films are you watching?

[jeff leopard]

Waltz with Bashir

 

'Once you've been in combat, once you've seen it, you never want to go again unless you absolutely f*cking have to. It's like France.'

 

So said Lt Gen Miller in In the Loop and it’s the same deal with Waltz with Bashir, quite possibly the greatest anti-war film ever made, and probably the best film you'll never want to watch again. From the off you know there's not going to be a happy ending, as Israeli veterans from their 80's war with Lebanon try to piece together what happened, specifically, the massacre in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, when the Israeli Defence Force sealed off the area and allowed Christian Militias to systematically slaughter thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. The film dares to peak inside the psyche of Israel and courageously makes direct links between this act of genocide and the Jewish people's own experiences during the Holocaust, suggesting that like an abused child, the state of Israel has developed into an abusive and vendictive adult. The fact that this behaviour continues today won't be lost on anyone.

 

Politics aside, this is a technically flawless piece of film-making which mixes interviews, recollections and fantasy sequences to put across the horror and insanity of war. In many ways it’s a film about distance. Only 30 years on can the veterans begin to pick their way through their mental barricades and begin to come to terms with what they did and what happened to them. It reminded me of Slaughterhouse 5, where Kurt Vonnegut could only dare to recollect his time as a POW in Dresden by placing it within a web of absurdist comedy, aliens and time travel. Waltz with Bashir's incredible computer animation and use of dream sequences distances the audience from the reality of what happened up until its final seconds. It’s a devestating conclusion to an incredible film, just make sure you've got a warm happy place to retreat to afterwards.

 

10/10

[miserableoldgit]

Watched "Martyrs" last night. It`s a film of the so-called "torture-porn" genre and a bit of a gruelling watch with a denoument that will split viewers into those that think that it`s pretentious clap-trap and those who will hail it as genious. The following from an Empire review sums it up I thought:-

 

Nearly banned in France, u**** over here, Pascal Laugier’s film arrives with a dare-you-see-it? reputation — and it’s a work of rare, raw, brutal brilliance. Martyr’s macabre universe of child abuse, bloody reprisal and death cults is actually three movies in one — grisly revenge picture, visceral ghost story and extreme torture horror; an unflinching intensity, strong performances and a distressing twist cage it all together. Be warned: the final third is a harrowing test of stamina. Stick it out, and the provocative pay-off blends terror with the transcendent. Laugier’s remaking Hellraiser next: be very afraid...

Edited 3 December, 2009 by miserableoldgit

[Master Bates]

Watched "Martyrs" last night. It`s a film of the so-called "torture-porn" genre and a bit of a gruelling watch with a denoument that will split viewers into those that think that it`s pretentious clap-trap and those who will hail it as genious. The following from an Empire review sums it up I thought:-

 

Nearly banned in France, u**** over here, Pascal Laugier’s film arrives with a dare-you-see-it? reputation — and it’s a work of rare, raw, brutal brilliance. Martyr’s macabre universe of child abuse, bloody reprisal and death cults is actually three movies in one — grisly revenge picture, visceral ghost story and extreme torture horror; an unflinching intensity, strong performances and a distressing twist cage it all together. Be warned: the final third is a harrowing test of stamina. Stick it out, and the provocative pay-off blends terror with the transcendent. Laugier’s remaking Hellraiser next: be very afraid...

 

Sounds and looks like it's much better than Blood Gnome. Must acquire Martyrs at some point.

[miserableoldgit]

Watched "Martyrs" last night. It`s a film of the so-called "torture-porn" genre and a bit of a gruelling watch with a denoument that will split viewers into those that think that it`s pretentious clap-trap and those who will hail it as genious. The following from an Empire review sums it up I thought:-

 

Nearly banned in France, u**** over here, Pascal Laugier’s film arrives with a dare-you-see-it? reputation — and it’s a work of rare, raw, brutal brilliance. Martyr’s macabre universe of child abuse, bloody reprisal and death cults is actually three movies in one — grisly revenge picture, visceral ghost story and extreme torture horror; an unflinching intensity, strong performances and a distressing twist cage it all together. Be warned: the final third is a harrowing test of stamina. Stick it out, and the provocative pay-off blends terror with the transcendent. Laugier’s remaking Hellraiser next: be very afraid...

Interesting that the swear filter responded to the "-****" of "u****"! Well I think that you get the idea!!

[St Landrew]

I'm in the middle of watching 2001: A Space Odyssey.

 

It is still absolutely outstanding in its accuracy and detail. The special effects are still up there in grace and movement, although anyone can see that CGI has moved things along. But what hasn't moved on an inch is the complete oneness this film has to covey its story. It absolutely panders to nobody. There is no sentiment; there are no cosy Disneyesque elements. There are no Spielbergesque corny moments [well there wouldn't be, as this was before his time] to keep the audience in the cinema. And because it doesn't pander, it is all the better for it. It's hard viewing, and needs concentration to keep watching, especially in today's era, where concentration of the audience is in short supply after years of gratification from quick Star Warsesque [lot of esques tonight, sorry] action. There have been moments while watching this on my TV, where it has blown me away with its details and accuracy. The flat and undramatic acting is so real to life you might wonder whether the actors are professional, but they most certainly are, and they did their best work in this film.

 

It might seem obvious to some, but I think it is certainly the best ever film where the story is set in Space. Also, it might be noted that humans hadn't yet made it to the Moon when this was made. Yet everything is so perfectly imagined.

Edited 4 December, 2009 by St Landrew

[jeff leopard]

I'm in the middle of watching 2001: A Space Odyssey.

 

It might seem obvious to some, but I think it is certainly the best ever film where the story is set in Space. Also, it might be noted that humans hadn't yet made it to the Moon when this was made. Yet everything is so perfectly imagined.

 

A few people have written about watching the moon landings and thinking 'yes this is a momentous occasion, but it doesn't look nearly as realistic as 2001'.

 

2001 is my fave film by a few million light years, just consider the first few seconds, has there ever been a more powerful combination of image and music in the history of cinema, i think not.

 

After watching the film several dozen times, the thing that hits me is that underneath the truely staggering story, is the fact that its basically a very funny and silly sex comedy. dr strangelove is all about men obsessed with a certain part of their anatomy (huge cigars, big machine guns, nuclear weapons, generals who would rather start WW3 than face their own impotence) and 2001 takes this to another level, vaginal doorways and airlocks, spaceships and air-hostesses that look like sperm, monkeys waving bones in the air. its basically 'carry on evolving' for the art house crowd.

 

Have you seen any of Andrei Tarkovsky's films? I strongly recommend Solaris and Stalker. Both are very long but they take you places you've never been before and stay with you long after they've ended.

[St Landrew]

A few people have written about watching the moon landings and thinking 'yes this is a momentous occasion, but it doesn't look nearly as realistic as 2001'.

 

2001 is my fave film by a few million light years, just consider the first few seconds, has there ever been a more powerful combination of image and music in the history of cinema, i think not.

 

After watching the film several dozen times, the thing that hits me is that underneath the truely staggering story, is the fact that its basically a very funny and silly sex comedy. dr strangelove is all about men obsessed with a certain part of their anatomy (huge cigars, big machine guns, nuclear weapons, generals who would rather start WW3 than face their own impotence) and 2001 takes this to another level, vaginal doorways and airlocks, spaceships and air-hostesses that look like sperm, monkeys waving bones in the air. its basically 'carry on evolving' for the art house crowd.

 

Have you seen any of Andrei Tarkovsky's films? I strongly recommend Solaris and Stalker. Both are very long but they take you places you've never been before and stay with you long after they've ended.

 

Lol, like the analogy.

 

I keep seeing about 20 or so minutes of Solaris before being interrupted. One day, I'll be able to watch it all the way through, no doubt. Guess I should be happy to be wanted so much by friends.

[LVSaint]

and 2001 takes this to another level, vaginal doorways and airlocks, spaceships and air-hostesses that look like sperm, monkeys waving bones in the air. its basically 'carry on evolving' for the art house crowd.

 

I did a visual presentation on this kind of thing a long time ago, only based on the film Alien.

Ah those fun media studies days...

[Block 5]

I'm in the middle of watching 2001: A Space Odyssey.

 

It is still absolutely outstanding in its accuracy and detail. The special effects are still up there in grace and movement, although anyone can see that CGI has moved things along. But what hasn't moved on an inch is the complete oneness this film has to covey its story. It absolutely panders to nobody. There is no sentiment; there are no cosy Disneyesque elements. There are no Spielbergesque corny moments [well there wouldn't be, as this was before his time] to keep the audience in the cinema. And because it doesn't pander, it is all the better for it. It's hard viewing, and needs concentration to keep watching, especially in today's era, where concentration of the audience is in short supply after years of gratification from quick Star Warsesque [lot of esques tonight, sorry] action. There have been moments while watching this on my TV, where it has blown me away with its details and accuracy. The flat and undramatic acting is so real to life you might wonder whether the actors are professional, but they most certainly are, and they did their best work in this film.

 

It might seem obvious to some, but I think it is certainly the best ever film where the story is set in Space. Also, it might be noted that humans hadn't yet made it to the Moon when this was made. Yet everything is so perfectly imagined.

 

I watched 2001 again the other day for the first time in years.

What a great film.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I watched 2001 again the other day for the first time in years.

What a great film.

 

Not only a great film but perhaps the greatest pure Science Fiction work ever committed to celluloid in my opinion , with talents of the magnitude of Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C Clarke behind it it could hardly fail with hindsight .

 

Based on a original screenplay inspired by a AC Clarke short story called 'The Sentinel' (much of the script is Kubrick's work in truth) the story's intelligence and breath of vision is truly remarkable almost unique in fact . What I particularly enjoy about this film is that it never talks down to you , the effects of zero gravity for instance are not just ignored as it is in countless inferior movies and major elements of the script aren't even fully explained to the viewer - you have to use your imagination or at least read the book . I strongly recommend anybody who enjoys this to find a copy of it's criminally underrated sequel '2010' - a fine film in its own right .

 

Thinking back on it now images flood my memory , the unknowable Monolith , HAL 9000 , that incredible ending - what a magnificent piece of work this truly is .

[St Landrew]

The other notable thing about 2001 is that it assumes intelligence in the viewing audience. The script doesn't have obvious clues to lead on the story, except for the occasional isn't it true that the HAL 9000 series has never made an error..? [the onboard HAL has just appeared to have made one] But overall, the accuracy remains. There is no noise in Space, even from rocket engines that make noises in almost every other SF space film [Silent Running excluded, of course]. And yet, the Monolith, on the Moon emits a high pitched whistle or signal. We can hear it, but Kubrick allows us to, so that we immediately know that the whistle is happening inside the astronaut's helmets, and not in the open vacuum. Once again, the assumption is that the audience will work it out, and that is such a pleasant surprise.

[jeff leopard]

The other notable thing about 2001 is that it assumes intelligence in the viewing audience. The script doesn't have obvious clues to lead on the story, except for the occasional isn't it true that the HAL 9000 series has never made an error..? [the onboard HAL has just appeared to have made one] But overall, the accuracy remains. There is no noise in Space, even from rocket engines that make noises in almost every other SF space film [Silent Running excluded, of course]. And yet, the Monolith, on the Moon emits a high pitched whistle or signal. We can hear it, but Kubrick allows us to, so that we immediately know that the whistle is happening inside the astronaut's helmets, and not in the open vacuum. Once again, the assumption is that the audience will work it out, and that is such a pleasant surprise.

 

If you google script for 2001, you'll find a version dominated by a voice-over explaining everything that's happening, thank god kubrick had the good sense to not go with this. one of the reasons it still fascinates audiences over 40 later is that its so ambiguous. there are just three scenes when we get plot exposition: when dr floyd gives his speech on the moon, in the shuttle going to the monolith and when HAL is disconnected, apart from these moments its up to the viewer to work it out for themselves.

 

and picking up on another point you made, unlike 99% of sci-fi, there's no real sense of the space ship zooming along at tremendous speed. kubrick/clarke obviously worked out that when you're travelling such enormous distances, it would feel to all intense and purposes that you were hardly moving at all. thats why the very slow pace of the film is so apt, its dealing with evolution and deep space travel, two things that happen v e r y s l o w l y.

 

I watched Silent Running the other day (for the first time in about 20 years) and its aged really badly. oh well. looking forward to seeing Moon.

[Wallington Saint]

Mesrine: Public Enemy #1

Part two of this absolutely stonking tale of France's most notorious and popular gangster, Jacque Mesrine. After his genuinely shocking rise to power in part one, Mesrine, now the most wanted man in France, becomes obsessed with his media image, and goes to huge lengths to portray himself as a man of honour and a hero of the people (part-robin hood, part marxist revelutionary). He spends his time languishing in prison, escaping in spectacular style, robbing banks and rubbing out journalists that dare to question this version of himself and expose his very grubby past.

 

If you like a classy, intelligent crime thriller then you could do much worse than giving four hours of your life (in two break-neck paced two hour chunks) to Mesrine. You might find him a hero of the people, you may feel no sympathy when he gets his inevitable blood splattered comeuppance, but there's no doubting what a fascinating character he was as you marvel at the career-defining performance given by Vincent Cassel (La Haine/Irreversible/Eastern Promises).

 

Killer Instinct 8/10

Public Enemy #1 9/10

Just found this post whilst listening to Saints winning 2-0 at Walsall.

I saw Mesrine part one on Wednesday, but rather annoyingly the projector broke down right at the end. Can you fill me in as to the ending, are seeing part 2 on Tuesday?

[jeff leopard]

I saw Mesrine part one on Wednesday, but rather annoyingly the projector broke down right at the end. Can you fill me in as to the ending, are seeing part 2 on Tuesday?

 

That's really harsh. But yeah, absolutely, let me know where you got up to and I'll fill you in on the rest.

 

 

I'm in the middle of watching 2001: A Space Odyssey

 

One last point and then i'll shut up. Has you seen Irreversible, the rather nasty rape-revenge film which is structured backwards like Memento? It was purposely made as the antithesis of 2001. But where as 2001 is all about mankind escaping the animalistic urges of the ape, Irreversible is all about the modern-day man being doomed to follow destructive primal urges without thinking. About 20 minutes into 2001 you have the scene where the main monkey uses the bone as a tool/weapon and suddenly kick starts the human race and technology. At the same point in Irreversible, a civilised, middle-class academic uses a fire extinguisher to bludgeon someone's head in, thus realising that despite all his graces, he is no better than a wild beast.

 

Irreversible also ends with a star-gate sequence, where we travel into a womb to witness the very first moments of an unborn child's (very short) life. Unfortunately for 'it', its mother is the victim in the infamous ten minute rape/beating/mutilation scene.

 

if you fancy a double bill which will fill you full of hope and then dash it all, go for 2001/Irreversible.

 

another double-bill for only the bravest viewers out there - Schindler's List followed by Walt with Bashir. One is all about the terrible things the Jewish people suffered in WW2, the other is about how this experience enabled them to commit genocide in Palestine and the Lebanon in the years since. You'll need your blanky for it.

[Nexstar]

Went to the cinema last night to see Law Abiding Citizen, admittedly I hadn't seen much about it before hand but I was very impressed!

 

About a guy who's wife and daughter are murdered and he plots revenge against the killer and his own lawyer. Sounds like a standard storyline but included some nice twists and great acting.

 

Some fairly graphic scenes but thoroughly recommended. 8.5/10

[St Landrew]

One last point and then i'll shut up. Has you seen Irreversible, the rather nasty rape-revenge film which is structured backwards like Memento?

 

I think you've managed to put me off that one, Jeff. It's not that I'm a Disney film watcher, but I find very little pleasure or positive experience in negativity. There's enough of it in real life, and I particularly don't like to watch violence towards women, wrapped up in a sexual act. I just don't want that imagery in my head. Memento I liked.

 

Watched a couple of films over the last few days. One was The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and the other was Ocean's Eleven [the remake].

 

On violence, I must be getting more sensitive, as I get older, because I noticed the violence in TMWSLV and years ago it would have washed over me. Such a good film though, and excellent from the genre of that era.

 

Ocean's Eleven is such fun. You can tell everyone was having an absolute ball, while making it. Although it remakes the classic film from 1960, I think it actually out does it for class, even though the original featured the Rat Pack. Never mentioned it before, but I love the music score and selected tracks too; very smooth stuff by David Holmes. The credits roll nicely too. In fact, there isn't much to not like.

[Master Bates]

I'm watching 'Twin Town' tonight.

 

Anyone seen it before?

[the stain]

I'm watching 'Twin Town' tonight.

 

Anyone seen it before?

 

Yup. It's ****.

[Seany S]

Went to the cinema on Saturday and watched "Up" with my daughter. I had read some pretty outstanding reviews, particularly the one by Roger Ebert which invoked Hayao Miyazaki, so I was pretty excited. I have to say I was not disappointed. What a brilliant, brilliant film. I can't remember ever being emotionally devastated at the start of a film, either. I thought Pixar would struggle to top Ratatouille, but they have. I can't wait until it comes out on DVD, and am now very psyched for Toy Story 3, which was advertised prior to "Up"!

[OLYMPIC]

Well over the weekend i had the misfortune of watching The Hills Have Eyes 2 now that and hour and a half of my life wasted,the 2006 remake was ok but this is just junk the script is terrible and for most of the film you couldn't care less about what happens to the characters.

Then i watched Transformers Revenge of the Fallen again weak script which you expect from this sort of film,but good effects and Megan Fox running around in tight outfits so not all bad.

[jeff leopard]

I'm watching 'Twin Town' tonight.

 

Anyone seen it before?

 

i've not seen it for years and my initial reaction was 'i bet its aged really badly', but due to the fact it doesn't star danny dire, it isn't about football hooligans and it wasn't made by guy 'swept away' richie, i imagine its worth a squirt still (for a low-budget british film anyway).

 

I watched Total Recall for the first time in at least a decade and whilst the special effects look none-too-special, the story line and arnie's performance are both well above average (lets face it, all arnie has to do is look blank and confused, but hey, keanu reeves has made a career out of it). and in true paul verhoven style, its hilariously shockingly violent

 

the ending is terrible though, apart from the line 'in 30 seconds you'll be dead, and i'll blow this place up and be back home in time for corn flakes'.

[Hamilton Saint]

I finally got around to watching Gangs of New York the other night. What is it with Scorsese and ultra-violence? A beautiful film to look at (especially since I watched a blu-ray version), but it's the kind of film that turns me off because of the relentless violence. And not a very interesting story, I thought.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I finally got around to watching Gangs of New York the other night. What is it with Scorsese and ultra-violence? A beautiful film to look at (especially since I watched a blu-ray version), but it's the kind of film that turns me off because of the relentless violence. And not a very interesting story, I thought.

 

Agreed , a interesting but flawed film .

 

'Gangs of New York's lead Danial Day Lewis on the other hand is without flaw and surely among the very best actors of his generation - or any other generation for that matter . I had the privilege to view 'There Will Be Blood' recently and I can only say his brilliant performance was the work of a actor at the very top of his profession . You may not appreciate the violent ending but don't miss this incredible movie anyway - you won't be disappointed .

[the stain]

Am I the only one then who thinks Daniel Day Lewis is just a giant ham who tramples on every film he's in?

[miserableoldgit]

Am I the only one then who thinks Daniel Day Lewis is just a giant ham who tramples on every film he's in?

He was very good in "Last of the Mohicans".

[St Landrew]

Am I the only one then who thinks Daniel Day Lewis is just a giant ham who tramples on every film he's in?

 

No, you're not the only one. He's not a bad actor, IMO. But he's almost among a small group like De Niro, Pacino and a couple of others, who are lauded as great actors, but tbh, have often been hamming it up as themselves, for years.

 

Mind you, at least he isn't the highly paid lump of wood that is Keanu Reeves. I've often wondered whether a suitably trimmed and made up oak tree might do better in his roles.

[Dog]

Tonight I will be watching 'No Country For Old Men'.

 

Is it any good?

[Mao Cap]

Tonight I will be watching 'No Country For Old Men'.

 

Is it any good?

 

Really good. Joaquin Phoenix puts in a quality performance.

[jeff leopard]

Tonight I will be watching 'No Country For Old Men'.

 

Is it any good?

 

'No Country For Old Men' is great, very violent, even for a Coen brother's film. There's a real change in pace and style at the end which people either love or hate, personally, i think it takes it up to another level.

 

Really good. Joaquin Phoenix puts in a quality performance.

 

:confused:

 

Tommy Lee Jones is brilliant in it, with his bone dry sense of humour.

[Sheaf Saint]

Really good. Joaquin Phoenix puts in a quality performance.

 

Are you thinking of Javier Bardem? I don't remember Joaquin Phoenix being in it, and I've seen it a couple of times.

 

Anyway, back to the original point, yes it is a very good film and well worth watching. But then I am a little bit blinkered because I am a massive fan of the Coen brothers work.

 

The story does seem a little dis-jointed in parts, and it ends very abruptly leaving you thinking 'is that it????' (though I am told that is how the book ends), but overall it is the atmosphere and the dialogue which, like all Coen brothers films, make it what it is.

[the stain]

No, you're not the only one. He's not a bad actor, IMO. But he's almost among a small group like De Niro, Pacino and a couple of others, who are lauded as great actors, but tbh, have often been hamming it up as themselves, for years.

 

Mind you, at least he isn't the highly paid lump of wood that is Keanu Reeves. I've often wondered whether a suitably trimmed and made up oak tree might do better in his roles.

 

The difference being though that Keanu is a limited actor who should only play himself (Speed, Bill & Ted), but occasionally tries to stretch himself, with ball-achingly poor results (although I thought he was quite good as the violent redneck in The Gift).

[Sheaf Saint]

The difference being though that Keanu is a limited actor who should only play himself (Speed, Bill & Ted), but occasionally tries to stretch himself, with ball-achingly poor results (although I thought he was quite good as the violent redneck in The Gift).

 

In fairness to him, his acting style was perfect for his role in The Matrix (the first one anyway) - the 'rabbit caught in headlights' look worked really well for the Neo character. Same can be said of Charlie Sheen (another actor so wooden he stays at home on bonfire night 'just in case') in Platoon.

[the stain]

In fairness to him, his acting style was perfect for his role in The Matrix (the first one anyway) - the 'rabbit caught in headlights' look worked really well for the Neo character. Same can be said of Charlie Sheen (another actor so wooden he stays at home on bonfire night 'just in case') in Platoon.

 

I was going to say a similar thing about The Matrix, but then would have had to have gone on to explain how I think it's a rubbish film but that he was certainly competent in it. And I didn't want to do all that typing.

 

(And I don't like Platoon either)

[Ponty]

I caught "Tears Of The Sun" last night, a Bruce Willis film that had passed me by. S'alright.

[jeff leopard]

In fairness to him, his acting style was perfect for his role in The Matrix (the first one anyway) - the 'rabbit caught in headlights'

 

As you and stain stated about Keanu, quite often films call for main characters that are blank slates (like the recent batman films), and Keanu does this better than most. He's great as the new-age dentist in Thumbsucker, which is a more "acting required" role.

 

 

******SPOLIERS A-PLENTY FOR NO COUNTRY AND BURN AFTER READING!!******

 

The ending of No Country is really interesting, the way the narrative suddenly switches away from the main character as he meets the siren by the pool and his messy comeupence. It sounds like that was a plot device used in the book, but the Coens then use it again for Burn After Reading, where we suddenly leave John Malkovich's character just before he goes axe-happy and gets shot. Its brave and innovative touches like this that makes the Coens so special in the world of Hollywood.

 

Fargo is still my fave film of theirs, whilst Barton Fink holds a special place just by being so damn weird and spooky.

[RedAndWhite91]

Just watched Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels for the first time. Very good film, more twists and turns than a country lane and keeps you hooked from the off. 8.5/10.

[Wallington Saint]

That's really harsh. But yeah, absolutely, let me know where you got up to and I'll fill you in on the rest.

 

 

 

 

One last point and then i'll shut up. Has you seen Irreversible, the rather nasty rape-revenge film which is structured backwards like Memento? It was purposely made as the antithesis of 2001. But where as 2001 is all about mankind escaping the animalistic urges of the ape, Irreversible is all about the modern-day man being doomed to follow destructive primal urges without thinking. About 20 minutes into 2001 you have the scene where the main monkey uses the bone as a tool/weapon and suddenly kick starts the human race and technology. At the same point in Irreversible, a civilised, middle-class academic uses a fire extinguisher to bludgeon someone's head in, thus realising that despite all his graces, he is no better than a wild beast.

 

Irreversible also ends with a star-gate sequence, where we travel into a womb to witness the very first moments of an unborn child's (very short) life. Unfortunately for 'it', its mother is the victim in the infamous ten minute rape/beating/mutilation scene.

 

if you fancy a double bill which will fill you full of hope and then dash it all, go for 2001/Irreversible.

 

another double-bill for only the bravest viewers out there - Schindler's List followed by Walt with Bashir. One is all about the terrible things the Jewish people suffered in WW2, the other is about how this experience enabled them to commit genocide in Palestine and the Lebanon in the years since. You'll need your blanky for it.

I think it was last five minutes...they were pracitising shooting in national park, and ended up shooting park rangers.

[saint_stevo]

quite want to watch irreversable......not likely to be in my local blockbusters is it?

[percy windham]

it may well be, its quite a well known film. They normally have it in CEX in town for a few quid.

[Johnny Shearer]

Disaster Movie

 

Yes I know very poor but I needed to laugh at something however this isnt bad good. Just bad, not funny in the slightest. Dont ever watch it.

 

Inglorious Basterds

 

Good but was expecting more from this. Expected something with a bit more pace and explosiveness. Maybe it'll be better second time round I watch it.

 

The Last Starfighter

 

Hadn't seen this in years and it has aged terribly.

[jeff leopard]

I think it was last five minutes...they were pracitising shooting in national park, and ended up shooting park rangers.

 

That's OK then, you basically just missed the end credits. They all drove off, and then there was a title card saying that his Canadian mate was shot during a hold-up about a year later (after he and Mesrine went their separate ways) and that the high security prisons were closed down after an enquiry that looked into the attack. I'm glad you didn't miss their attempt to free the prisoners as it would have sounded really far fetched, but incredibly it all happened.

 

I personally think part 2 is slightly better, the first half hour or so is just non-stop action.

 

 

quite want to watch irreversable......not likely to be in my local blockbusters is it?

 

the first 20 minutes or so is a real slog, but if you make it through, its a fascinating film, but it will mentally scar you

 

The Last Starfighter

 

Hadn't seen this in years and it has aged terribly.

 

that's a shame as i remember it being brilliant and the special effects being amazing. i think it was one of the first films to use cgi. still, its a really good premise for a kiddy sci-fi adventure.

[Wallington Saint]

That's OK then, you basically just missed the end credits. They all drove off, and then there was a title card saying that his Canadian mate was shot during a hold-up about a year later (after he and Mesrine went their separate ways) and that the high security prisons were closed down after an enquiry that looked into the attack. I'm glad you didn't miss their attempt to free the prisoners as it would have sounded really far fetched, but incredibly it all happened.

 

I personally think part 2 is slightly better, the first half hour or so is just non-stop action.

 

 

 

 

the first 20 minutes or so is a real slog, but if you make it through, its a fascinating film, but it will mentally scar you

 

 

 

that's a shame as i remember it being brilliant and the special effects being amazing. i think it was one of the first films to use cgi. still, its a really good premise for a kiddy sci-fi adventure.

Thanks for tying up loose ends...saw part 2 last night, and agree with you, probably a tighter film than part 1, and certainly and incredible story!

[Seany S]

Watched Dobermann again last night, brilliant french comic book style violence with Vincent Cassell. Lots of swearing, guns, explosions and tits. The way he offs the baddie at the end is awesome.

[St Landrew]

There I was saying to Jeff about not being a smaltzy Disneystyle-Viewer, and there I go watching Field Of Dreams last night. I'd mislaid the DVD, somehow for several years, but found it in a cardboard box while I was looking for some electrical wiring. As it happened, I was able to put the film on and do the little wiring job I had in front of me, while watching. After I'd finished, I set the job aside, got a beer, and just flopped into a comfy chair.

 

It's just a great film. It's soppy, it's slightly daft, but it pulls at the heartstrings like few other films, and is incredibly uplifting, if you let yourself go with it. It's almost It's A Wonderful Life for the present day generation, and what better praise can I give it.

 

9/10, and that's only because no film is entirely faultless.

[Sheaf Saint]

Going back to what I was saying about the Coen brothers the otehr day, I came home from work early today cos I'm poorly sick so me and my GF decided to dig out the Coens boxset and watch The Hudsucker Proxy

 

I only have very vague recollections of seeing this film on TV many years ago and not watching all of it either, so this is really the first time I have seen it all, and what a wonderful film it is. I love the way the Coens re-create the atmosphere of the particular time period in which their films are set. This time it is in 1950s New York and the film itself is a new take on the B&W screwball comedies that were being produced in Hollywood in the 40s and 50s.

 

The sets are visually stunning, and there are some deliciously OTT performances, particularly from Jennifer Jason Leigh who I thought was just brilliant. The twisted reality that is created for the film works so well with the script and I found myself laughing non-stop both at the dialogue and the visual quirks.

 

For all its merits though, it does seem to lack a little bit of the human emotion that you would normally associate with their other films, so it gets an 8/10

[Thedelldays]

The Last Starfighter

 

Hadn't seen this in years and it has aged terribly.

 

 

no way....used to love that film

[Johnny Shearer]

no way....used to love that film

 

I watched it on Five on sunday and sadly it doesn't hold the magic anymore for me.

 

However something like the Flight of the Navigator does.

 

Hopefully there'll be some decent old films on over the Xmas and NY.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Of a similar vintage to 'The Last Starfighter' (but rather better methinks) I revisited that 80's Si Fi classic 'Enemy Mine' the other day - a tad sentimental perhaps but still pretty watchable I thought .

[Red Alert]

I watched THE GAY BED AND BREAKFAST OF TERROR last night. Worst film I have ever seen by a long way. I saw it reviewed as rubbish in Empire magazine so thought I would give it a watch. The acting is like a porno without the sex and the script was clearly written by a mental. Was expecting some so bad its funny kind of film, but it went beyond that point to just being painfully crap.

[miserableoldgit]

DEADGIRL:- An unsettling and atmospheric horror film, and worth a watch.

 

"Frightening.That’s the best way to describe Deadgirl, an impressive effort by co-directors Marcel Sarmiento and Gadi Harel based on an ingenious script by Trent Haaga that takes an uncomfortably harsh look at gender-sexual dominance. It’s frightening on multiple levels. It's a perennially f--ked up movie.

Yes, it’s another zombie film, but like Let the Right One In’s treatment of vampires, Deadgirl lets the horror emerge not from the ghastly ghoulies but from the dark impulses developed by the uncertainty of growing up. The premise alone is pure brilliance, but where the film takes its teenage characters to is a real revelation of both talent and the male psyche.

The Deadgirl in question is a sexy naked girl (a brave and sporting Jenny Spain) two aimless boys Rickie (Shiloh Fernandez) and JT (Noah Segan) find chained in the basement of an abandoned asylum. Realizing that she’s undead and unclaimed, JT eagerly makes her a personal sex slave, even inviting their equally idle friend Wheeler (Eric Podnar) to join in on what is essentially rape. Rickie’s refusal to participate in this debauchery is interesting, because in some ways he’s following a moral compass, but it’s also established that he is obsessively in love with a childhood sweetheart who’s grown up to be a girl out of his league. She dates a jock who torments Rickie for his longing looks. The bittersweet ending, which of course I won’t spoil, blurs Rickie’s moral line even more.

We don’t know how the Deadgirl came to be or why she was there, but that’s trivial compared to what she is in the eyes of the boys. Unlike most films that deal with teenage sexual curiosity, this film explores the really perverse side, where it’s not the discovery that drives these boys but rather the pure lustful gratification; completely skewing their perception of a healthy sex life. Knowing there’s “free pussy” to be had at any time, JT cuts off his social life, stops going to school, and even holes up in the asylum basement to have sex with the Deadgirl all day. Wheeler, having failed at standing up to jock bullies, boasts to them about the Deadgirl; somehow convinced that having a living sex doll makes him much more of a man than those who have girlfriends. Of course, it’s really screwed up that the jocks kind of buy into Wheeler’s statement and want to have a piece of the Deadgirl themselves to prove their own manhood.

In case you haven’t noticed, this film isn’t really sympathetic with us guys. It concludes that the male ego is a carriage drawn by a wild ****.

With such a provocative story, it’s a real feat on the directors’ part to keep it from being too exploitative. It’s also stylishly shot and paces itself nicely, deftly sprinkling dark humor here and there.

Ultimately, it's how convincing it is at presenting the boys that makes it such a creepy film. Deadgirl acknowledges that base urge in teenage boys to indulge in sexual conquest and the frustration that comes with being rejected by girls when you’re at your most curious about sex. It does so by stripping its protagonists of the responsibilities that young men have to learn at that age. The zombie angle works because it allows them to see the Deadgirl as something inhuman. Take away the personality and the nuisance of having to consider a woman’s feelings, what’s left for the boys to see is opportunity spread-eagled.

A teen horror movie that deals with being a teen? What a strange idea!

It’s a film that offers an original take on an exhausted genre, using a zombie as a tool to incite dangerous lust. In some ways, the zombie is still a threat, but not just physically. Deadgirl asks a difficult question: "If the victim is a flesh-eating monster, does ethics still apply?" It uses otherworldly elements to perform a horrific probe of the human experience, which is what the best horror films always do."