What films are you watching?

[Verbal]

As Hollywood remakes of European Art Cinema goes, i thought Soderbergh's version was alright. Its much shorter than the original and obviously has much better special effects, but it doesn't capture the unforgettable dream-like nature of Tarkovsky's original.

 

I've just read The Road which was amazing, but by most accounts the film version isn't all that. If Tarkovsky was still alive today he would have been the perfect director for The Road, it would have been three hours plus long, and not a great deal would happen, but by the end the audience would have been on profound journey. Or Lynch is another director who could get the balance right between mundane existence with earth-shattering horror potentially around each bend. Oh well, read the book, its ace!

 

The movie's pretty good. Not a great deal happens, but the evocation of a desperate, post-apocalyptic world is stunningly well done. Viggo Mortensen is terrific, as is the boy who plays his son.

[Upton72]

Sideways; lovely, gentle film, even better if you're interested in wine. As was said earlier, it does draw you in.

Just watched Burn after Reading, Clooney, Pitt, Malkovitch and Frances McDormand. Slow burner but it gets very funny.

Its another Coen Brothers film to be enjoyed if you like something different. I think they are brilliant; particularly enjoyed Fargo and No Country for Old Men. I reckon the Coen Brothers are an acquired taste, but worth acquiring.

The Road; probably the most riviting book I've read in a long time. Interesting movie reviews from the critics and you guys. Debating whether to go and see it but not many films live up to the book. Day of the Jackal was about the closest.

good thread to read

[RonManager]

Looking forward to the Ian Dury film. My alltime hero so I hope I'm not disappointed. Andy Serkis as the Upminster Kid is a good starter though.

[Verbal]

Looking forward to the Ian Dury film. My alltime hero so I hope I'm not disappointed. Andy Serkis as the Upminster Kid is a good starter though.

 

Serkis's imitation of Dury isn't bad - although Dury had a sweeter, more poetic voice than the rasp we often get in the movie. The film's a touch pedestrian, although quite enjoyable here and there. As someone who sees the A1 sign for 'Hatfield and the North' too often these days, it brought back some distant happy memories.

[RonManager]

Serkis's imitation of Dury isn't bad - although Dury had a sweeter, more poetic voice than the rasp we often get in the movie. The film's a touch pedestrian, although quite enjoyable here and there. As someone who sees the A1 sign for 'Hatfield and the North' too often these days, it brought back some distant happy memories.

 

How come you've seen it? The posters on the underground said Jan 8th!

[Verbal]

How come you've seen it? The posters on the underground said Jan 8th!

 

Secret - but I see most films before release. The movie to watch out for is Invictus, though, and Morgan Freeman will compete for the lead actor Oscar with Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart, in which he is simply brilliant. You heard it here first!

[Deppo]

Just been to see the Sherlock Holmes film. I enjoyed it. Obviously it takes a few liberties with the portrayal of Conan Doyle's original, but I don't think people would flock to see a two-hour version in the style of the Jeremy Brett era Holmes series.

[Dog]

Just been to see Alvin & the Chipmunks. Rubbish film, very bad dubbing & I fell asleep after 1 hour.

[stedje]

Watched "Men who hate women" the other day. Swedish film. Great.

[saint lard]

'This is Spinal Tap' on Dave right now.

 

I never tire of this film,absolutely class.

I'm sure Gervais watched this over again to get 'style and technique nailed down'

I know what i mean even if you don't.

[St Landrew]

Salmer Fra Kjøkkenet

 

The second time I've seen this film, and tbh, I thought that the first viewing, although highly enjoyable, had just caught me in the right mood. But a year or two have passed and so I decided to watch it again; and it was bloody brilliant. I honestly can't put my finger on what is so good about it. It just has a lovely feel about it. Suffice to say, that 95 minutes whizz by, even though the film proceeds at a pedestrian pace. Highly recommneded. 9/10

[dubai_phil]

Lots of time on planes of late so lots of 8" LCD screens to watch.

 

District 9 I think I mentioned before, is an indisguised dig at systemic racism in SA that if you know a lot of Yarpies hits the spot really well.

 

Moon - someone else mentioned this, a really odd film in many ways but gripping and leaves you.. well, it just does.

 

Cloudy with Meatballs Later. Stupid nonsense, but I have to say I laughed & the cartoon Mr T was well, Mr T.

 

But of course while away went to see the whole 3D Avatar thing. (Never like watching movies here because the cinemas are always full of those oh so self important a**holes who cannot be apart from their friends on their mobiles for more than 10 minutes) Hell Hello, yes I at cinema, yes now the man he is blue, I no understand, why he have tail? What, hello? Halas. Habbla habbla yadda AVATAR they want me wear glasses I say no they not Gucci I say not possible film crap is not even in focus how they make such cr*p)

 

Yeah, so flew away to watch it with Thai subtitles.

 

May not be the greatest or most original movie story or script in history, but by heck what a great experience watching the whole thing was.

Am I the only person who kept getting attacks of vertigo during that film and feeling quite wobbly?

 

Spent a happy hour at the dodgy DVD stall while there, have something like 60 new DVD's at about a quid each, not just movies but also managed to get some new series we don't get down here, Fringe S2, Half of House S6 and 1st 3 seasons of Allo Allo in case Skates stabilise & I cannot get my daily laugh from that thread

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I got to see Avatar at last the other day and mighty impressed I was , James Cameron has already amassed a body of work that will assure him a place in movie history . I did notice however that 3D technology can still look wrong or unnatural when being used in predominantly 'live action' scenes (giving an unreal sense of depth/focus) but it has to be said it works beautifully when employed on CG 'Green-screen' images or in animation such as 'A Christmas Carol' .

[Verbal]

I got to see Avatar at last the other day and mighty impressed I was , James Cameron has already amassed a body of work that will assure him a place in movie history . I did notice however that 3D technology can still look wrong or unnatural when being used in predominantly 'live action' scenes (giving an unreal sense of depth/focus) but it has to be said it works beautifully when employed on CG 'Green-screen' images or in animation such as 'A Christmas Carol' .

 

Agreed. Shallow depth of field works beautifully in conventional films, but in 3D, it can make foreground characters look like 2D cut-outs and background characters unnaturally muzzy. If 3D is going to stay around this time, directors and cinematographers will have to adapt by dropping some of the oldest cinematic conventions.

 

Conversely, infinite depth of field really doesn't work if overused in 2D. Try watching Speed Racer for more than ten minutes - it's really unpleasant.

[jeff leopard]

The Road is pretty good. Not a great deal happens, but the evocation of a desperate, post-apocalyptic world is stunningly well done. Viggo Mortensen is terrific, as is the boy who plays his son.

 

Not a great deal happens in the book but its still utterly absorbing and the best thing I've read in years, but its hard for films to get away with no having much in the way of action. I'm still looking forward to seeing it though. When i was reading the book I could imagine Viggo being perfect for the role, also good news that his son isn't too drippy or annoying.

 

I've recently watched two films adapted from classic novels -

 

Watchmen - its been about a year since I saw it in the cinema, and in my post-new year's eve state, it was suitably violent and mindless. I've not read the graphic novel so I'm happy to give it the benefit of the doubt (unlike V for Vendetta and From Hell), and its infinitely better than the director's previous film, 300. Its long, of course, but despite not having slept for several days, it kept me hooked. And Rorschach makes an interesting and genuinely sympathetic hero. 7/10

 

The Trial - Orson Welles's 1960s version of Franz Kafka's classic unfinished novel mixes film noir and french new wave, as Joseph K awakes one morning to find himself arrested for an unspecified crime and hopelessly tangled in a bureaucratic nightmare. The enormous sets and vast numbers of extras are incredible, especially in the current age of over-used and under-whelming cgi. It plays out as a black comedy, and the tone gets a little too hysterical toward the end, but its visually stunning and obviously a massive influence on the films of Terry Gilliam, especially Brazil. 8/10

[Seany S]

Just watched Gone Baby Gone and thought it was brilliant. Ben Affleck is fantastic behind the camera and thakfully lets his far more talented brother take the lead role. The supporting cast is excellent and not for a long time have I seen such a thought provoking film. You really are left thinking what would I have done.

 

Thoroughly recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it.

 

I watched this last night for the second time. Affleck senior directs with an understated panache, and effectively shows the seedy side of Boston's Dorchester district. Casey Affleck is absolutely brilliant, the scene with the Haitian drug boss is particularly outstanding. The supporting cast was equally superb, with a mesmerising Ed Harris, and nice little cameos from Boston-bred rapper Slaine and Michael K Williams, better known as Omar from The Wire. The ending scene has to have one of the most emotionally devastating shots I have ever seen; I was left feeling incredibly sad, but still had nothing but admiration for Affleck's wonderfully played Kenzie character. I would love to see more of the Dennis Lehane Kenzie novels made into films.

 

Also this weekend I watched Apatow's Funny People. While the film kind of loses its momentum toward the end, the opening hour and a bit is top, top stuff, with Adam Sandler once again showing that with decent material (a la Punch Drunk Love, Reign Over Me) he can really act. Seth Rogen is really growing on me too. Well worth watching.

 

Oh and last night I watched one of my favourite guilty pleasures - End Of Days. Probably Arnie's darkest film since the first Terminator, you know you are watching a pile of crap but you can't stop watching it. Gabriel Byrne hams it up as the devil, Rod Steiger is in it, and the willowy young female lead flashes a bit of tit. Oh and the scene where The Oak is hanging from the helicopter is utterly ludicrous stuff >_

[jeff leopard]

Brazil

 

I watched Brazil last night and was reminded that back in the mid-80s it was regarded by the young hip things as possibly the greatest film of all time, or at least a flawed masterpiece. The passing years, alas, haven't been too kind, and for all its visual flair, the tone and pace of the film lurch awkwardly from knock-about farce to hand-wringing tragedy and back again. Its too unsubtle to be considered social satire, and too long to maintain any dramatic tension. Its full of wonderful touches of course, some nice Pythonesque moments of comedy, Jonathon Pryce and Micheal Palin are both great, and visually its always arresting, but as a film, its just too unfocused and (dare I say it) dull to really grab the viewer. It’s a curious piece though, a hybrid of Blade Runner, 1984, Franz Kafka/Orsen Welles's The Trial and Monty Python, but its nowhere near as good as it thinks it is (or i thought it was). For my money, Twelve Monkeys is Gilliam's best film, which gets better with each viewing.

 

6/10

[Scudamore]

Something, Something, Something, Dark Side

 

Freaking sweet. Highlight for me being the AT-AT scene.

 

8/10

[Sheaf Saint]

Got round to watching Let The Right One In lastnight, after reading some glowing reviews of it.

 

I looved the atmosphere of it. The bleak 1970s Swedish housing estate existence was a perfect backdrop for the film, which is atually a very heartwarming take on the age-old vampire story. But rather than the 'good vs evil' theme you would normally associate with vampire films, you're never really sure who you are supposed to be routing for in this one.

 

The young boy Oskar, who is the main focus of the film, is initially shown to be an innocent 12-year old who is the victim of bullying at school, but as the story unravels it is clear that he has a bit of a dark side to him, which is written and acted supremely well.

 

There are many little quirks to the screenplay, little things that happen later on that make you think back to little things that were alluded to earlier in the film, but were done so subtley that you have to think about it rather than having handed to you on a plate.

 

A wonderfully engaging film that I could happily watch again and again.

 

8.5/10

Edited 6 January, 2010 by Sheaf Saint

[RonManager]

Just watched 'The Cat Returns' on film 4.

 

Always help a cat out, you may be rewarded.

 

Another quality product from Studio Ghibli animations.

[St Landrew]

Fellowship of the Ring

 

Read the books as a teenager, and loved the BBC radio dramatisation, which I still have somewhere. Just decided to watch the first film again to see whether the old magic could be rekindled.

 

Peter Jackson's version of the first book does grate occasionally, because it misses out fantastic little episodes like the Dark Wood, the Barrow-wights, and of course, old Tom Bombadil, which the BBC had also left out. Indeed Jackson practically followed the BBC adaptation's storyline, except where he chose to interchange a character here or there, i.e. Arwen coming to the aid of the injured Frodo, instead of Glorfindel.

 

But it's a great film nonetheless, and an affectionate retelling. Make no bones about it though, as magnificent as it may be, the book is still better. You can't leave out Tom Bombadil and get away with it scot free.

 

Incidentally, I always thought the Ralph Bakshi animated cartoon an immense disappointment [yes, he ran out of money, but it was poor in any case, IMO], and longed for someone to do the job properly. PJ certainly did that.

 

When the film first appeared in the cinema, I went with a mate of mine, who professed to know all about Tolkien, and the trilogy. I suspected he actually didn't have much of a clue. Detailed Tolkien lore is not something you can bluff, as it is so spawling in its scope. So it came as little surprise when, at the end, he asked with all astonishment... is that it..?

 

I suspect I might well be moving onto The Two Towers this evening.

[Sheaf Saint]

Fellowship of the Ring

 

Read the books as a teenager, and loved the BBC radio dramatisation, which I still have somewhere. Just decided to watch the first film again to see whether the old magic could be rekindled.

 

Peter Jackson's version of the first book does grate occasionally, because it misses out fantastic little episodes like the Dark Wood, the Barrow-wights, and of course, old Tom Bombadil, which the BBC had also left out. Indeed Jackson practically followed the BBC adaptation's storyline, except where he chose to interchange a character here or there, i.e. Arwen coming to the aid of the injured Frodo, instead of Glorfindel.

 

But it's a great film nonetheless, and an affectionate retelling. Make no bones about it though, as magnificent as it may be, the book is still better. You can't leave out Tom Bombadil and get away with it scot free.

 

Incidentally, I always thought the Ralph Bakshi animated cartoon an immense disappointment [yes, he ran out of money, but it was poor in any case, IMO], and longed for someone to do the job properly. PJ certainly did that.

 

When the film first appeared in the cinema, I went with a mate of mine, who professed to know all about Tolkien, and the trilogy. I suspected he actually didn't have much of a clue. Detailed Tolkien lore is not something you can bluff, as it is so spawling in its scope. So it came as little surprise when, at the end, he asked with all astonishment... is that it..?

 

I suspect I might well be moving onto The Two Towers this evening.

 

I really enjoyed the LOTR films upon first watching. I am one of the few people on this forum it seems who has never read the trilogy, so I had no frame of reference when sitting down to watch them.

 

Visually, the films are utterly absorbing; they boast some of the most breathtaking landscapes and battle scenes that you could ever hope to see in a film. You cannot deny that Peter Jackson's vision was huge, and he went a long way towards realising that vision fully, but I do think he fell short in some areas.

 

Some of the dialogue is awful. It is overly mawkish in parts, and one or two of the parts were badly cast IMO. However, the biggest flaw with all of them, and the sole reason I cannot watch them any more, is the fact that Elijah Wood's acting goes from average/poor at first, to just downright crap/annoying towards the end of the third film. He is supposed to be the hero/main protagonist of the story, but I find myself almost wanting Gollum to smash his brains out with a rock so I don't have to see his gormless, single-expression face again.

 

Shame really.

[Red&White]

Just watched let the Right One In.........subtitled but darned good !

Edited 6 January, 2010 by Red&White
spelling

[Redbul]

Just watched 'The Cat Returns' on film 4.

 

Always help a cat out, you may be rewarded.

 

Another quality product from Studio Ghibli animations.

 

Have they ever done a bad film?

 

My favourites, I mean the children's favourites ***ahem*** are Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle.

 

 

Also, good to see so many people watching Let The Right One In. It was one of my favourite films of last year. Film is very gentle, but the book is very dark.

[jeff leopard]

Let The Right One In

There are many little quirks to the screenplay, little things that happen later on that make you think back to little things that were alluded to earlier in the film, but were done so subtley that you have to think about it rather than having handed to you on a plate.

 

that's one of the real joys of art-house/world cinema/non-hollywood cinema/call it what you will. the hollywood remake is already being made, and i think its wrong to assume all hollywood remakes are rubbish, but i'm sure certain things will be spelled out. such as the 'father figure' to the vampire in the first half of the film

[the stain]

I watched Brazil last night and was reminded that back in the mid-80s it was regarded by the young hip things as possibly the greatest film of all time, or at least a flawed masterpiece. The passing years, alas, haven't been too kind, and for all its visual flair, the tone and pace of the film lurch awkwardly from knock-about farce to hand-wringing tragedy and back again. Its too unsubtle to be considered social satire, and too long to maintain any dramatic tension. Its full of wonderful touches of course, some nice Pythonesque moments of comedy, Jonathon Pryce and Micheal Palin are both great, and visually its always arresting, but as a film, its just too unfocused and (dare I say it) dull to really grab the viewer. It’s a curious piece though, a hybrid of Blade Runner, 1984, Franz Kafka/Orsen Welles's The Trial and Monty Python, but its nowhere near as good as it thinks it is (or i thought it was). For my money, Twelve Monkeys is Gilliam's best film, which gets better with each viewing.

 

6/10

 

Tideland is his best one. After that, The Holy Grail. Twelve Monkeys is good though. But Tideland. Tideland.

[Sheaf Saint]

that's one of the real joys of art-house/world cinema/non-hollywood cinema/call it what you will. the hollywood remake is already being made, and i think its wrong to assume all hollywood remakes are rubbish, but i'm sure certain things will be spelled out. such as the 'father figure' to the vampire in the first half of the film

 

Yeah that's exactly one of the aspects I'm talking about.

 

>>

 

 

 

 

 

They leave you guessing as to what his exact relationship to Eli was. It isn't actually implied, but you guess that he, just like Oskar, is her lover who had fallen for her and had chosen to travel with her and protect her. She says that she is twelve, but has been twelve for a long time, and you see flashes of her showing her true age at various points of the film, so it fits that he has been with her since he was Oskar's age, and ultimately was willing to die for her. And also, when she tells Oskar that he should fight back as hard as he can against the bullies at school, it becomes obvious later that this was to manipulate him into toughening up, so that he would be able to protect her better it seems.

 

 

I can't believe that there is a Hollywood remake on the cards. well, actually I can well believe it, which probably makes it even more depressing. Don't think I'll even bother to watch it when it gets released.

 

Out of interest, and this is aimed at Redbul seeing as you have seemingly read it, was the book originally written in Swedish as well?

[SuperMikey]

Out of interest, and this is aimed at Redbul seeing as you have seemingly read it, was the book originally written in Swedish as well?

 

I've read the book as well, and I believe that it was originally written in Swedish but it's been translated into loads and loads of different languages.

 

According to Wikipedia:

 

The book was a bestseller in the author's home country of Sweden and has been translated into Danish, German, Russian, English and Chinese in 2007 and Finnish in 2008. It has also been translated into Italian, Spanish, Polish, and Norwegian. A Swedish-language film version by the same name, directed by Tomas Alfredson, was released in 2008 to widespread critical acclaim. An English-language remake, to be directed by Matt Reeves, is scheduled for release in 2010.

[St Landrew]

I really enjoyed the LOTR films upon first watching. I am one of the few people on this forum it seems who has never read the trilogy, so I had no frame of reference when sitting down to watch them.

 

Visually, the films are utterly absorbing; they boast some of the most breathtaking landscapes and battle scenes that you could ever hope to see in a film. You cannot deny that Peter Jackson's vision was huge, and he went a long way towards realising that vision fully, but I do think he fell short in some areas.

 

Some of the dialogue is awful. It is overly mawkish in parts, and one or two of the parts were badly cast IMO. However, the biggest flaw with all of them, and the sole reason I cannot watch them any more, is the fact that Elijah Wood's acting goes from average/poor at first, to just downright crap/annoying towards the end of the third film. He is supposed to be the hero/main protagonist of the story, but I find myself almost wanting Gollum to smash his brains out with a rock so I don't have to see his gormless, single-expression face again.

 

Shame really.

 

I don't know about awful, but it is greatly simplified, and does sound a bit iffy up against the book. There's a great lot of wheels-within-wheels hidden in Tolkien's words. A lot of which is beyond the scope of the film. Little bits I've mentioned before are also left out of the other films too, and it leads to an over-simplification of the story. There are tales of ancient adventures, and references that are not even hinted at in the films, and these have to be glossed over with direct dialogue.

 

As to Frodo, he is merely the faltering spearhead of a great push to destroy the ring and overthrow Sauron. His role is one of great suffering, and he gets weaker as the ring takes control. I don't think Wood puts in too bad a performance. If truth be known, from the book, I always thought Frodo quite brave, if weak. But from the radio, as played by Ian Holm, I always thought him a bit self centred, and weak. The one who really shows bravery is Sam Gamgee. In the book and radio drama, he's quite the hero. In the film he doesn't seem to be quite as necessary. As Frodo says, he'd have never had got through it without Sam by his side. The wizard Gandalf is really the main protagonist. Everyone else essentially does his bidding.

 

Read the book and see what you think of Wood's performance then.

[St Landrew]

The Two Towers

 

This one is the weaker film for me. I suppose a story that has no beginning and no end, and is all middle was always going to be weaker than the other two. I'm sure it's no accident that this one took less at the box office than the other two episodes. I have to admit I'm not a fan of characters constantly proclaiming their allegiance, bravery, stoically going to war, and knocking seven bells out of the enemy. I occasionally like them to sit down and have a cup of tea and a chat. Well in TTTs it just doesn't get a chance to happen, because the whole film is setting the scene for the end game in the third film, and as a result it suffers. Funny thing is, it's still a great book story, but just an above average film, because the layers from the book are just not there. Can't fault the effort though.

[Redbul]

Out of interest, and this is aimed at Redbul seeing as you have seemingly read it, was the book originally written in Swedish as well?

 

What SuperMikey said....

 

Ref the Hollywood remake, graphic and fairly violent as the Swedish version is, the Hollywood version may choose to keep Hakan's character (Eli's 'guardian') as he has a much larger role to play in the book. Although Oskar is a victim of bullying, he too is depicted as a much more malevolent character. So, much I frown when I hear 'Hollywood remake' there is scope to make a good job of this.

[Give it to Ron]

Serkis's imitation of Dury isn't bad - although Dury had a sweeter, more poetic voice than the rasp we often get in the movie. The film's a touch pedestrian, although quite enjoyable here and there. As someone who sees the A1 sign for 'Hatfield and the North' too often these days, it brought back some distant happy memories.

 

I had some freebies last night at the Odeon ....good film excellently portrayed by Serkis.

Certainly a troubled childhood that caused him issues in later life - came across as a bit of a b8stard and could never be accused of being a family man!

Worth watching just for the acting.

[Marsdinho]

The Two Towers

 

This one is the weaker film for me. I suppose a story that has no beginning and no end, and is all middle was always going to be weaker than the other two. I'm sure it's no accident that this one took less at the box office than the other two episodes. I have to admit I'm not a fan of characters constantly proclaiming their allegiance, bravery, stoically going to war, and knocking seven bells out of the enemy. I occasionally like them to sit down and have a cup of tea and a chat. Well in TTTs it just doesn't get a chance to happen, because the whole film is setting the scene for the end game in the third film, and as a result it suffers. Funny thing is, it's still a great book story, but just an above average film, because the layers from the book are just not there. Can't fault the effort though.

 

3 words.....Empire Strikes Back

[SuperMikey]

What SuperMikey said....

 

Ref the Hollywood remake, graphic and fairly violent as the Swedish version is, the Hollywood version may choose to keep Hakan's character (Eli's 'guardian') as he has a much larger role to play in the book. Although Oskar is a victim of bullying, he too is depicted as a much more malevolent character. So, much I frown when I hear 'Hollywood remake' there is scope to make a good job of this.

 

I haven't seen the film (I have the DVD in my 'to watch' pile), but in the book Oskar is actually a pretty dark character. He dreams of being a serial killer and has a fascination with knives and other weaponry. The film probably glosses over this a bit to focus on the relationship between him and Eli.

 

I was also disappointed to hear that Hakan isn't in the film as much as he is in the book, because I felt that his sub-plot was what really drove on the second half of the story. I'd also loved to have seen the scene with him and Tommy (who was also left out of the film I believe?) in the basement, although it'd probably scare the sh*t out of me as well! That scene, if done properly, could really be horrifying, and i'm sure that a Hollywood studio would make sure that such a well written horror scene would be included in the film.

[jeff leopard]

Let The Right One In

 

>>

 

Yes, exactly that point. It just gives the whole thing another layer of bitter-sweetness.

 

 

The Two Towers

 

This one is the weaker film for me

 

The full length version of Two Towers is my fave of the three by some way, its just a rollicking old-school piece of Hollywood, heavy on the swash'n'buckle and with enough romance to keep everyone happy. The build up to the Helms Deep battle is wonderfully done, and the moment where it starts raining just before kick-off is just priceless. And I found myself really caring about Aragon and his lady friend. The film has its faults, of course, the Helms Deep battle gets way too jokey as it goes on, and the big emotional scene between Sam and Frodo at the end is maybe the worst thing I've ever seen in my whole life. But by and large, and especially compared to the third film (which I thought was pretty dull), its great fun. But, then again, I don't have any allegiance to the books as I've not read them.

[St Landrew]

3 words.....Empire Strikes Back

 

If you are alluding to Star Wars and its sister films, I never liked that shoot-em-up series.

[Sheaf Saint]

If you are alluding to Star Wars and its sister films, I never liked that shoot-em-up series.

 

But his point being that The Empire Strikes Back was in virtually an identical situation as The Two Towers. It was the middle film of a trilogy, with no discernible beginning or end, yet it was by far the best film of the original three.

[St Landrew]

But his point being that The Empire Strikes Back was in virtually an identical situation as The Two Towers. It was the middle film of a trilogy, with no discernible beginning or end, yet it was by far the best film of the original three.

 

Oh I see. Well George Lucas could do as he liked. He had no reference to adhere to. We keep coming back to this book thing. I'm afraid The Two Towers wasn't written by Michael Crichton, with an eye on the screenplay, otherwise no doubt it would have been lightweight and trashy. It was written by an academic who layered it with legend upon legend. Something that the film alone couldn't possibly convey. but as I said before, can't fault PJ for trying, and you certainly can't watch the first and last of the three films and get away with it. Although apparently, according to the stats, a proportion of cinema goers did.

 

Of course, I've been doing Tolkien a bit of a disservice all this time. He did end TTTs with a bit of a bang. He let Shelob the spider bump off Frodo. Something PJ couldn't let himself do.

Edited 7 January, 2010 by St Landrew

[Sheaf Saint]

Oh I see. Well George Lucas could do as he liked.

 

Well, you see here's the thing, and some might say this is the reason why it was so much better than the other two... TESB was the only one of the original three that wasn't directed by George Lucas.

[St Landrew]

Well, you see here's the thing, and some might say this is the reason why it was so much better than the other two... TESB was the only one of the original three that wasn't directed by George Lucas.

 

Oh I didn't know that. There's a Trivial Pursuit question lurking in there.

 

Having never been a Star Wars fan, I obviously don't know the details. But that little fact is worth filing.

[LVSaint]

Well, you see here's the thing, and some might say this is the reason why it was so much better than the other two... TESB was the only one of the original three that wasn't directed by George Lucas.

 

Although eternally grateful, it surprises me that the muppet Lucas chose Kershner to direct TESB in the first place. Shame he wasn't responsible for all of them...what could have been....

 

 

On another note, I still have Let the Right One In to watch from Christmas. Looking forward to it.

[Sheaf Saint]

Lastnight my girlfriend and me shut ourselves away from the cold outside and watched Werner Herzog's antarctic documentary Encounters At The End Of The World

 

The film is centred around the close knit community of scientists, engineers, technicians and service personnel that inhabit McMurdo; an american-lead research station on the southern tip of Ross Island. It is essentially just a series of interviews with the various people who have gathered in this remote and desolate place to carry out research into all areas such as marine biology, volcanicity and climate related science; all narrated by the unique voice of Herr Herzog himself.

 

I found it utterly absorbing. Some of the camera work is stunning, reminiscent of some of the cinematography featured in Planet Earth. It is presented in such a way as to be almost poetic, contrasting the industrial nature of the McMurdo settlement with the stark beauty of the frozen wastes of the antarctic ice.

 

Fascinating, educational and beautiful to watch. Highly recommended

 

8/10

Edited 8 January, 2010 by Sheaf Saint

[jeff leopard]

Although eternally grateful, it surprises me that the muppet Lucas chose Kershner to direct TESB in the first place. Shame he wasn't responsible for all of them...what could have been....

 

After Star Wars ep 1, 2, 3 and Indiana Jones 4, Lucas shouldn't be allowed to go anywhere near a film again.

 

Kershner did a great job on Empire Strikes Back, but lets not forget another sequal to a sci-fi classic that he directed - Robocop 2. Not only is it terrible on just about every technical and artistic level, it also leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth due to the script by Frank 'shameless Nazi' Miller. The only thing that saves it is that, somehow, Robocop 3 was considerably worse.

[SuperMikey]

Rambo ( 2008 )

 

Bloody good fun. And when I say bloody, I mean bloody. Those seated in the first front rows may get wet!

Loved it when it first came out, love it even more on Sky Movies at 1am.

 

8/10 (because anything involving Rambo gives me a raging boner)

[LVSaint]

After Star Wars ep 1, 2, 3 and Indiana Jones 4, Lucas shouldn't be allowed to go anywhere near a film again.

 

Reminding me a South Park episode I saw again the other day where the kids are on a mission to stop Lucas and Spielberg from ****ing up their films with 'enhanced' versions.

 

Kershner did a great job on Empire Strikes Back, but lets not forget another sequal to a sci-fi classic that he directed - Robocop 2.

 

Arrghhh! Lordy!

[Redbul]

Watched Dead Man's Shoes last night.

 

Okay, it's a bout 5 years old now but without a shadow of a doubting Thomas, this is Shane Meadows' finest film, and all his other films are superb.

 

It's the old story of harboured grudges and retribution but set in a northern town where two brothers return to put right wrongs done a few years previously with violent and graphic results. It has some truly very funny moments but it is also painfully sad as the relationship between the brothers and the slow untangling of the historical events slowly unfolds.

 

Paddy Considine co wrote (with Meadows) and plays the leading role in the film.

 

It's a Brit flick not to be missed.

[Sheaf Saint]

Watched Dead Man's Shoes last night.

 

Okay, it's a bout 5 years old now but without a shadow of a doubting Thomas, this is Shane Meadows' finest film, and all his other films are superb.

 

It's the old story of harboured grudges and retribution but set in a northern town where two brothers return to put right wrongs done a few years previously with violent and graphic results. It has some truly very funny moments but it is also painfully sad as the relationship between the brothers and the slow untangling of the historical events slowly unfolds.

 

Paddy Considine co wrote (with Meadows) and plays the leading role in the film.

 

It's a Brit flick not to be missed.

 

I have to disagree about all of Meadows' films being superb. I find him to be hit and miss. For example, I wasn't too keen on This is England despite what other people said about it. He tries to make films that appear very real, but there were a lot of aspects about that film that just weren't realistic at all I found.

 

However, I cannot deny that Dead Man's Shoes is a truly excellent film, and by far Meadows' best work. Paddy Consadine is absolutely brilliant in the lead role - faultless in fact - and Tony Kebbells's portrayal of his mentally diabled brother is unnervingly realistic. A very dark film with some pretty gruesome images, but I just loved the scene where Richard spikes the gang with what I can only assume is LSD to make them trip out in that way.

 

Anybody who hasn't seen this film - go and buy it... now. Possibly the best british film of the last decade.

[jeff leopard]

Shane Meadows, all his other films are superb.

 

I've not seen 'Once upon a time in the Midlands' which Meadows has disowned, or his latest one about the roadie and the mc, but i loved 24/7, Romeo Brass, This is England, and some of his early short films, but Dead Man's Shoes is the bomb, its very very sad, but the more i watch it, the more the gang's humour comes through. and yeah, the lsd scene is amazing.

 

Kershner did a great job on Empire Strikes Back, but lets not forget another sequal to a sci-fi classic that he directed - Robocop 2. Not only is it terrible on just about every technical and artistic level, it also leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth due to the script by Frank 'shameless Nazi' Miller. The only thing that saves it is that, somehow, Robocop 3 was considerably worse.

 

I'm not proud but i decided to watch Robocop 3 last night (the best and cheapest way to get Robocop on dvd is to buy the trilogy) and i'm willing to eat my words, as in a way its better than Robocop 2. Yes its terrible, but where as 2 was terrible and genuinely nasty, 3 is terrible and camp, and easily qualifies as 'so bad its watchable'.

 

OCP are forcibly evacuating everyone from the run-down parts of Old Detroit to build Delta City and putting the poor into concentration camps, and the relocation troops are evil, how do we know that, because their leader is played by an English actor using his plummiest voice (boo-hiss). And an evil Japanese company now owns OCP (more booing and hissing).

 

There's a horrifically cutesy kid which befriends Murphy and has the ability to reprogramme every Ed 209 and evil robot they come across (including a gaggle of robo-ninja's), its stars Josh from West Wing and Arty from Larry Sanders Show, the action scenes are either laughably bad (think A-Team) or just plain disappointing (obviously there was no money for a fight choreographer), and the script from Frank Miller is p1ss-weak. But the best part is definitely the sight of Robocop in a jet-pack! Cue hilariously bad special effects of him flying around and blowing sh1t up.

 

3/10

[Ponty]

It was on TV at Christmas, jeff, and yes, it's so bad it's compelling.

 

I particularly liked the robot ninja fight scene towards the end.

[St Landrew]

Return of the King.

 

Yep, finally got through the lot again. I don't know what it is about the film, but by the time I got near to the end I started skipping through bits of it. I remember when I first read the books, there was a moment where I wished it would hurry up. The One Ring goes into the Fires of Orodruin, and that's that. Only there are several chapters left. Tolkien manages to fill those with real meaning, and as the book story slows down after its high point, the reader [at least me] wants the book to now carry on, rather than finish. Not so with the film. It's a shame because there is still a lot to tell, but because there is very little background [for people who haven't read the stories], the significance is largely lost. I mean, who cares if the Elves sail into the West in ships at the end of the film..? Not me. But there is a proper reason for it.

 

Another significant portion of the story was left out, that of Saruman's changes brought about on The Shire when he fled there. So we don't have the battle there either, or the death of Saruman, killed by his sidekick Grima. Even the Beeb left this bit in, on the radio adaptation back in 1980, even though they shortened it.

 

So I was left with a film that Bexy got sick of because it became overly sentimental, and that's probably right too. The reverence does fall into sentimentality and it diminishes what is a good film trilogy overall. The whole lot gets 7.5/10, but this last film drags the score down, for me.

 

If you're the type of person who likes to tick off significant films, books, places, etc... with a been there, done that, type of mentaility, then don't fall into the trap of watching the film trilogy and thinking you've done with the books too. Because you haven't, not by a long, long way. Scratching the surface, is a more apt description.

Edited 10 January, 2010 by St Landrew