What films are you watching?

[warsash saint]

Can see why Parasite is winning all the awards ... best film I have seen for years!

[whelk]

Yes pleasantly surprised how much I enjoyed Parasite. Was thinking it might have been a pretentious nod to the Academy embracing diversity.

[sadoldgit]

Saw Little Women recently and it was excellent as was Emma.

[Nordic Saint]

Can see why Parasite is winning all the awards ... best film I have seen for years!

 

I lived in Korea and they love films. It is the greatest nation of cinema-goers in the world. There are so many great Korean movies but this is one of my favourites.

 

[badgerx16]

Saw Little Women recently and it was excellent as was Emma.

 

Was she ?

[skintsaint]

The missus chucked on the Eurovision movie on Netflix last night....

Was as bad as I thought it would be.

[ecuk268]

On 2/8/2020 at 10:17 AM, Batman said:

Just watched Un-cut Gems on Netflix.

 

A decent film about a Jewish jewell broker (Adam Sandler) who is always in someones pocket and risks it all to survive.

 

a gritty performance from him too

Amazing teeth

[miserableoldgit]

Thoroughly enjoyed Tom Hanks new film "News of the World", which is his first Western....if you don't count Woody from "Toy Story".....and is directed by Paul Green grass.

Edited 22 February, 2021 by miserableoldgit
Pedantry...

[badgerx16]

Just seen No Time To Die.

 

Great film for anti-vaxxers, where the locations steal the show.

[CAH61]

Anybody else seen The Rescue yet?, it's an amazing story that everyone should watch, incredible courage and ingenuity...

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9098872/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

[badgerx16]

Looking through a list of films due for release this year, amongst the sequels, those based on computer games, and the ceaseless avalanche of Marvel and DC stories, there is one over-riding question;

Why the f**k is there yet another 'new' version of Batman ?

[skintsaint]

Watched 'Don't look up' last night, didn't expect much going into it but quite enjoyed it in the end.

[Sheaf Saint]

On 29/01/2022 at 09:52, badgerx16 said:

Why the f**k is there yet another 'new' version of Batman ?

That was my initial thought too, but I went to see it yesterday with a mate and it's actually really good. Much better than I expected.

There's no attempt to re-write history and create a whole new origin story or anything like that. It's just a very good stand-alone story with some excellent performances from the cast. Well worth a watch if you can manage the nearly 3hr runtime (it doesn't feel that long TBF).

[badgerx16]

Just watched "Everything, Everywhere, All at Once". Crazy, confusing, and brilliant.

Edited 8 February, 2023 by badgerx16

[SotonianWill]

I’ve not watched the new Indiana Jones film yet but The Spectator says a more fitting name would be ‘Indiana Jones and the Script by ChatGPT’ which I find quite amusing. 

[badgerx16]

Oppenheimer is excellent.

[StDunko]

Watched a film called "Significant Other" on telly the other night. Thought is was great...

Perhaps because I'd not heard of it and had not read the blurb before watching it, so started with, no/low expectations...

[HedgeEnder]

On 27/07/2023 at 19:04, badgerx16 said:

Oppenheimer is excellent.

Saw it last night, great film.

[Hamilton Saint]

I watched Lust For Life recently for the first time. It's the 1956 film (based on the Irving Stone biographical novel) about the life of Vincent Van Gogh, which stars Kirk Douglas and Anthony Quinn. For a Hollywood film made in the '50s, it is surprisingly good--especially the performance of Kirk Douglas as Van Gogh. There is also a lot of location shooting (France, Belgium and The Netherlands), which is also unusual for a Hollywood film of that period. If you have an interest in the subject matter, I would recommend this film. A good companion piece to Loving Vincent.

[badgerx16]

Just seen Dune 2. Very good film, lots of sand, but for me, being pedantic, the ending seemed a bit rushed and spoilt by missing out important details and characters found in the closing chapters of the book.

Obviously it has been re-purposed to lead into the third film, to be based on Dune Messiah and Children of Dune.

[LVSaint]

Zone of Interest. Horrors of the holocaust conveyed through sound and what's just out of camera shot. Engrossing and haunting.

Oh, and Oppenheimer for the second time, the night before. Needed to watch it again on the big screen before it leaves cinemas. So so good.

[Saint Luke]

On 04/03/2024 at 17:02, badgerx16 said:

Just seen Dune 2. Very good film, lots of sand, but for me, being pedantic, the ending seemed a bit rushed and spoilt by missing out important details and characters found in the closing chapters of the book.

Obviously it has been re-purposed to lead into the third film, to be based on Dune Messiah and Children of Dune.

I thought it was excellent - I can live with the variations to the source work but feel your comment about it being changed to helping leading in to the next film a little spurious - surely the books lead on - although there may be a gap between Dune and Dune Messiah - can't remember even though I only read the trilogy last year.

This is not a go by the way

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, Saint Luke said:

I thought it was excellent - I can live with the variations to the source work but feel your comment about it being changed to helping leading in to the next film a little spurious - surely the books lead on - although there may be a gap between Dune and Dune Messiah - can't remember even though I only read the trilogy last year.

This is not a go by the way

Spoilers warning;

The span of this part of the story in the books is 3 years, in the film it is less than a year, ( measured by Princess Irulan's diary entries and Jessica's pregnancy ), and possibly little more than "'a season", ( according to one of Chani's lines of dialogue. ) Because of this certain details of the relationship between Paul and Chani don't fit in, nor the Baron's death, which I can accept, but Chani's ending rewrites the political impact of Paul's accession.

As a consequence there are characters and relationships that, whilst pre-existing in the book of Dune Messiah, have yet to be introduced in Villeneuve's Duniverse.

It's a bit like watching The Two Towers and seeing the Elves appear at Helm's Deep, I'm just a bit autistic about such things.

Edited March 7 by badgerx16

[Sheaf Saint]

9 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Spoilers warning;

The span of this part of the story in the books is 3 years, in the film it is less than a year, ( measured by Princess Irulan's diary entries and Jessica's pregnancy ), and possibly little more than "'a season", ( according to one of Chani's lines of dialogue. ) Because of this certain details of the relationship between Paul and Chani don't fit in, nor the Baron's death, which I can accept, but Chani's ending rewrites the political impact of Paul's accession.

As a consequence there are characters and relationships that, whilst pre-existing in the book of Dune Messiah, have yet to be introduced in Villeneuve's Duniverse.

It's a bit like watching The Two Towers and seeing the Elves appear at Helm's Deep, I'm just a bit autistic about such things.

I've just been to see it, and based on your post, it's times like these that I'm glad I've never read the books and could just enjoy the film at face value.

The only frame of reference I have is the 1984 David Lynch version, which I did like when I was younger, but its many flaws are laid bare by the depth of DV's films. 

My only slight gripe is with the casting - as much as I like Rebecca Ferguson, she simply doesn't look old enough to be Timothee Chalamet's mum (she's only about 11 years older than him), so it's not convincing. But on the flip side, Austin Butler is infinitely more menacing as Feyd Rautha than Sting was 🤣

[Holmes_and_Watson]

I just caught Dune as it left my local cinema. It's been a long time since I read any of the books. I had caught a few comments somewhere being a bit sniffy towards the Lynch version. Which I thought a bit unfair. I felt that, despite the increased running time, that the fall of the Attreides, specifically the lead up to it, was rushed in the first one, and that, very much like the 80s one, that a lot was crammed into the ending of this one.

Knowing how things would roughly go, I found that Rebecca Ferguson's arc was the interesting one, and that she gave a lot of weight to the film.

But it's really good to see it this sort of running time, with this sort of budget. The extra space allows for a lot of the complexity running through it to come out.

[badgerx16]

Out of curiosity, Ridley Scott's "Napoleon"; imo it is a ponderous and confusing, historically inaccurate 'epic', on a subject that surely deserves much better.

Edited May 19 by badgerx16

[Whitey Grandad]

3 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Out of curiosity, Ridley Scott's "Napoleon"; imo it is a ponderous and confusing, historically inaccurate 'epic', on a subject that surely deserves much better.

I agree. It’s an awful travesty of a film. No narrative flow, no relationship with history and doesn’t know what it wants to be. How can you get the Battle of Waterloo so disastrously wrong?

[badgerx16]

9 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I agree. It’s an awful travesty of a film. No narrative flow, no relationship with history and doesn’t know what it wants to be. How can you get the Battle of Waterloo so disastrously wrong?

Ridley Scott's response to the criticism; "Were you there. ? No ? Then fuck off".

Every battle scene was wrong, based on written historical references - and he did not lead cavalry charges, Napoleon never watched Marie Antoinette's execution, the retreat from Moscow was not the reason for his removal from power - he fought on for more than a year and by many accounts his most brilliant campaign was the forlorn defence of Paris in 1814 Josephine died 10 months before he left Elba, Wellington never met Napoleon, and compared to what I have read even his death scene is wrong.

However, Napoleon's legacy is so much more than his military campaigns, and his political, legal, and educational reforms which persist to the modern day, are completely overlooked.

 Other than that.......

Edited May 20 by badgerx16

[miserableoldgit]

On 20/05/2024 at 08:25, badgerx16 said:

Ridley Scott's response to the criticism; "Were you there. ? No ? Then fuck off".

Every battle scene was wrong, based on written historical references - and he did not lead cavalry charges, Napoleon never watched Marie Antoinette's execution, the retreat from Moscow was not the reason for his removal from power - he fought on for more than a year and by many accounts his most brilliant campaign was the forlorn defence of Paris in 1814 Josephine died 10 months before he left Elba, Wellington never met Napoleon, and compared to what I have read even his death scene is wrong.

However, Napoleon's legacy is so much more than his military campaigns, and his political, legal, and educational reforms which persist to the modern day, are completely overlooked.

 Other than that.......

Hoping for better from this :- 

"One of Stanley Kubrick’s lost projects, a large-scale biopic of Napoleon Bonaparte, has been in the works for HBO for the last seven years.

Steven Spielberg, who has been involved for at least ten years, now says he is “mounting a big production” and the project will become a seven-part series for the premium cable network.

Deadline understands that the project is still in the development stages but it is nearing a series order.

Speaking at the Berlin Film Festival, The Fabelmans director said, “With the co-operation of Christiane Kubrick and Jan Harlan, we’re mounting a large production for HBO on based on Stanley’s original script Napoloeon. We are working on Napoleon as a seven-part limited series,” he said.

[sadoldgit]

We were given a “freebie” two months subscription to SKY Cinema so have been catching up with movies that we have missed over the last year.

Oppenheimer, despite its long running time and slow start, was excellent and well worthy of all of its awards. We also caught Barbie which was nothing like I expected and also excellent.

Last night I went for a bit of nostalgia, The National Lampoon’s Animal House which I first saw in 1978. An early example of the American teen gross out movies with the brilliant John Belushi, still made me laugh after all these years.

[sadoldgit]

On 20/05/2024 at 00:36, Whitey Grandad said:

I agree. It’s an awful travesty of a film. No narrative flow, no relationship with history and doesn’t know what it wants to be. How can you get the Battle of Waterloo so disastrously wrong?

We watched it yesterday and thought it was ok for a bit of entertainment on a wet Saturday afternoon, but one of Scott’s poorer films. Agree about the lack of historical accuracy but then Hollywood never lets that get in the way of making movies (Braveheart etc) and I guess Scott would argue that it is an artistic interpretation rather than a biopic. Glad that I didn’t pay money to see it at the cinema, but it wasn’t as bad as I thought it was going to be.

[Sheaf Saint]

Just been to see Gladiator 2.

If, like the ancient Romans, you love a bit of gratuitous violence with little to no realistic supporting storyline, then it'll be right up your street. 

It's good entertainment, but very contrived and borrows too much from the original film, so it's unlikely to win any awards for originality. Still a solid 7/10 though. 

[badgerx16]

On 16/11/2024 at 01:20, Sheaf Saint said:

Just been to see Gladiator 2.

If, like the ancient Romans, you love a bit of gratuitous violence with little to no realistic supporting storyline, then it'll be right up your street. 

It's good entertainment, but very contrived and borrows too much from the original film, so it's unlikely to win any awards for originality. Still a solid 7/10 though. 

Like all Ridley Scott historical films, historical accuracy is irrelevant.

 

"Were you there ? No ? Then fuck off."

 

I am sure they nicked the idea for the rhino from 300.

Edited November 18 by badgerx16

[badgerx16]

On 16/11/2024 at 01:20, Sheaf Saint said:

Just been to see Gladiator 2.

If, like the ancient Romans, you love a bit of gratuitous violence with little to no realistic supporting storyline, then it'll be right up your street. 

It's good entertainment, but very contrived and borrows too much from the original film, so it's unlikely to win any awards for originality. Still a solid 7/10 though. 

 

On 18/11/2024 at 08:40, badgerx16 said:

Like all Ridley Scott historical films, historical accuracy is irrelevant.

 

"Were you there ? No ? Then fuck off."

 

I am sure they nicked the idea for the rhino from 300.

Just seen it. As entertainment it isn't a bad film; historically it is bunkum. As for the monkey-dog hybrids, sharks in the arena, and grossly oversized rhino, they probably aren't the wildest flights of Scott's fancy.

I listened to the Mark Kermode review of Gladiator 2 and he said that early on in the film's genesis Nick Cave was asked to write a script, taking into account that Russell Crown had said he wanted to be in any sequel. What emerged is summarised here https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20180810-gladiator-2-was-written-and-its-mad

, and the script itself can be found on the Internet.

Edited November 21 by badgerx16

[Sarnia Cherie]

I saw Blitz last week. It isn't likely to win any top awards but was an ok film. However, the trailer for Conclave looked very good. If I can see past Ralph Fiennes being a Roman Catholic cardinal instead of Voldemort I will be ok. It has 5* reviews.

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

I saw Blitz last week. It isn't likely to win any top awards but was an ok film. However, the trailer for Conclave looked very good. If I can see past Ralph Fiennes being a Roman Catholic cardinal instead of Voldemort I will be ok. It has 5* reviews.

We are going to see Conclave on Tuesday. As my wife says, looking forward to seeing a film for grown ups.

[badgerx16]

Conclave is very good, beautifully filmed and an excellent cast, and although the outcome of the Papal election became, for me, predictable the twist was unexpected. Conspiracy, intrigue, political dirty tricks, and the usual Catholic tropes all lead to a film that will probably upset quite a few in the Vatican.

 

Fiennes has come a long way from his sadistic camp Commandant in Schindler's List.

 

Mind you, if the purpose of a conclave is to select a new Pope according to God's will, you would think they would get a unanimous result on the first round of voting.

Edited December 3 by badgerx16