What have you watched recently?

Dempsey

Tony EH wrote: »

'Rocky III'

'Rocky' was the sleeper hit of 1976 that came out of nowhere to be an Oscar winner that year. Made on an extremely modest $1 million, the Stallone vehicle turned out to be a hugely successful, low budget shock. It not only beat 'Network' at the awards, it recouped it's budget many times over and made it's star (Stallone also wrote it) into an overnight success. Although it's cheapness does shine through in places and the editing is a bit off as well, 'Rocky' remains a very enjoyable film. It's sequel, 'Rocky II' completed the circle (or should have) with a re-match evolving the two main protagonists, Rocky and the World Heavyweight Champ, Apollo Creed. As a sequel, 'Rocky II' did very well to advance the story and it did so using logical steps.

'Rocky III', however, is where the franchise starts to come apart at the seams.

The Rocky story continues with this episode, as we find Rocky still the World Heavyweight Champion. He has defended his title numerous times, made shed loads of money, has been honoured by the city of "Brotherly Love" and is about to announce his retirement when an "up-and-comer" goads Rocky into postponing his plans and fight one more match. Clubber Lang (Mr. T) is an extremely aggressive younger fighter, hungry for the title and with remarkable ease pushes Rocky into getting into the ring with him. Rocky's trainer, Mickey (Burgess Meredith) is reluctant to agree to this fight, but Rocky persuades him. Without giving too much away, all does not go well.

While 'Rocky III' retains the basic formula of the first two movies (Rocky trains, overcomes adversity, then fights) it's a noticeable departure in both character and style. Rocky, who is now rich and living a very wealthy lifestyle isn't the lovable bum from downtown Philly anymore. It's like Stallone forgot how to play him, between 1979 and 1981. It's hard to put ones finger on it, but the Rocky of 'Rocky III' is almost an entirely different character from I and II. His wife, Adrianna (Talia Shire) is a completely different character. Gone is the likeable, retiring and painfully shy girl and instead we have a "dolled up" millionaires wife, who isn't afraid to roar at Rocky when the need calls for it, when previously she would barely raise her voice above a whisper. It's a dramatic change of pace, to say the least and Shire (like Stallone) isn't half as entertaining as she was in the previous films.

In finer form, but looking jaded from it all (both fictionally and realistically) is Burgess Meredith, who returns as Rocky's gravel voiced trainer, Mickey. Adrian's brother Paulie (Burt Young) also turns up, along with Carl Weathers' ex champ Apollo Creed. These three characters at least retain their basic personalities from the former movies. Although Meredith seems to be there to simply draw a cheque.

But, even with the changes in character aside, 'Rocky III' punches well below it's weight. The script calls for some unbelievable contrivance and the central buddy story of Rocky and Creed is a bit hard to swallow. It also leads to some unintentionally hilarious moments, like the "running on the beach" montage, that actually had me belly laughing. The dialogue is turgid and ill thought out and Mr T's Clubber Lang is a ridiculous villain. Mr T, completely unhindered by talent, plays Lang as best he can. But, he just comes across as a slightly meaner B.A. Baracus from the 'A-Team', which is the part that he got as a result of this movie. But, as a character, Lang is wretched. It's not entirely Mr. T's fault as he was plucked from "Night club bouncer" obscurity to play the part. The main problem is the silly writing, penned again by Stallone (although not as successfully this time).

In terms of general quality, 'Rocky III' is a huge step backwards and the series should really have ended with the second one. Stretching the basic formula out this far was bad enough, but it blows the mind when one considers that a IV, V and a VI have been made! Number IV being a truly appalling experience. While 'Rocky III' is "glossier" than I and II, its veneer can do nothing to hide the fact that it's a pale imitation of what's come before. The repetition of Bill Conti's musical cues wears thin as well, even though "Survivor" were hired to provide the famous main theme track.

'Rocky III', despite being a rather poor film, was a box office hit in 1982, earning over $120.000.000 in the U.S. alone. This is somewhat unfortunate in many ways, as it led to a bloated line of follow up movies that were even worse. The shelf life of Rocky was well past it's "sell by" date in 1982 and consequently, it's terrible sequels have been stinking up the entire series for nearly three decades.

My advice to anyone embarking on this series is to enjoy I and II and then walk away.

You missed the point of the film tbh

TestTransmission

A Serbian Film

Yeah,it's kinda different alright.

Goldstein

TestTransmission wrote: »

A Serbian Film

Yeah,it's kinda different alright.

I thought I'd seen everything. And I thought the Saw/Hostel stuff was bad. Nothing compared to that drivel. After that I really felt I had experienced the bottom of the barrel. It's not big, it's not clever, it's not artistic, it's a snuff movie.

Goldstein

The Seventh Seal (1957) (Again):
You could frame practically every shot in this movie and proudly hang it on your living room wall.

Bergman's epic movie more than lives up to its lofty reputation - a fantastic, ahead of its time Swedish piece set during the great plague. It calls into question and reflects upon the existence and nature of the afterlife as a crusading knight gambles his life in a chess game with death. It's an incredible movie.

This is besides the point but it's also my favourite video/dvd movie cover:

Renn

You gotta love this place at times. Some guy does a massive write up on a film that he's watched and the first reply is simply "You missed the point of the film tbh".

ShiverinEskimo

Dempsey wrote: »

You missed the point of the film tbh

Care to enlighten him?

weiland79

Judge Dredd was on the box the other night. I couldn't actually bring myself to watch all of it as it really is an awful mess of movie. It really is a movie that begs to be remade (to me at least).

Just did a little digging and came up with this: http://www.scifimoviepage.com/upcoming/previews/judgedredd-remake.html

Fingers crossed they do it justice this time.

And on a side note check out the quote from Mr Stallone near the middle of the article, who knew he was so elliquent in his speech.

chilloutman

just watched exit through the gift shop its a doc film about graffiti art including the famous banksy which it is supposed to be about but then turns out to be about the doc maker because he is so mad! great watch

pinksoir

Wtf? How had I never seen this film before?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114558/

It's unreal. Cameron writes, Bigelow directs, Ralph Fiennes in an incredible role, Angela Bassett, Tom Sizemore, William Fichtner, Private Pile... a combination of cyberpunk, noir, social commentary, apocalyptic millennial. It's the perfect film, moving at a perfect pace, and at 2.5 hours it never feels overly long, or that it drags, giving each character just the right amount of screen time allowing us to connect/suspect to the right degree.

The first person elements are just brilliantly done, like being in a video game, but done to such effect that we truly feel what the person is feeling, especially in the more graphic and disturbing parts. And the opening scene... wow. Again, Ralph Fiennes carries this film with such ease and so naturally, with a great Spacey-esque accent, such a fantastic actor.

If you haven't seen this film, watch it as soon as you can. It seems like a real overlooked classic, it's certainly got a cult following (especially within cyberpunk circles), but it's much more than a genre film. It takes it's obvious influences and transcends them. At one point you're laughing, at another squirming behind your hand, and the tension, suspense and twists come together, climaxing at the countdown to the new millennium, and "the end of the world" as we know it...

Dempsey

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Care to enlighten him?

The film critic has a slant against Stallone's writing and has made a tit of himself in an attempt to have a pop at him.

While 'Rocky III' retains the basic formula of the first two movies (Rocky trains, overcomes adversity, then fights) it's a noticeable departure in both character and style. Rocky, who is now rich and living a very wealthy lifestyle isn't the lovable bum from downtown Philly anymore. It's like Stallone forgot how to play him, between 1979 and 1981. It's hard to put ones finger on it, but the Rocky of 'Rocky III' is almost an entirely different character from I and II. His wife, Adrianna (Talia Shire) is a completely different character. Gone is the likeable, retiring and painfully shy girl and instead we have a "dolled up" millionaires wife, who isn't afraid to roar at Rocky when the need calls for it, when previously she would barely raise her voice above a whisper. It's a dramatic change of pace, to say the least and Shire (like Stallone) isn't half as entertaining as she was in the previous films.

I'll just put a hole through this paragraph,

Stallone didnt forget how to play him, he played him perfectly. Rocky was a bum but now he had more money and fame than most can dream of. This does corrupt motivation and attitude and he showed that perfectly, and yes lots of money will change the wife's thinking too. She wanted to keep the lifestyle she had grown accustomed to.

Only an idiot would put these changes in characters down to bad writing, plain and simple.

ShiverinEskimo

Fair enough. At least he explained his point of view. He didn't just have a pop at stallone in the same way you're having a pop at the poster.

Dempsey

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Fair enough. At least he explained his point of view. He didn't just have a pop at stallone in the same way you're having a pop at the poster.

It was a yard short of a complete troll if you ask me. I'm not a stallone/rocky fanboy but I couldnt believe that he was being serious. He actually put it up on amazon.co.uk customer review page too, I thought he just pulled it out of somewhere else for a sneer

Mr T's Clubber Lang is a ridiculous villain.

Did he ever hear of Mike Tyson?

Tristram

Resident Evil: Afterlife

Goes under the Biohazard tag here in Japan. The OH is a massive fan and bought advance tickets almost as soon as they came out. Id seen the first movie in the cinema yonks back and thought it was a grand bit of fun but I hate zombie films or anything remotely scary. Watched the second and third instalments during the week and they continued to be good fun. Saw Afterlife yesterday and certainly lacks in plot but was a grand way to spend some time. Sound was incredible in the cinema whatever system they have. Saw the 2D version and to be honest I think it suffered because it was made for 3D. Finale sets it up for a fifth but Id be surprised if it happens.

MagicMarker

Machete - What a let down tbh.

johnny_ultimate

Dempsey wrote: »

The film critic has a slant against Stallone's writing and has made a tit of himself in an attempt to have a pop at him.

Only an idiot would put these changes in characters down to bad writing, plain and simple.

Whatever you think about the post, no need for insults!

Angeltrumpet

LOL i finally managed to see "Up" it was brill

SarahBM

Watched the Quiet Man with my mam this morning.

Brilliant!

maureen o'hara was great, and the whole thing was just so funny. I loved it, and I didnt think I would.

Its put me in a great mood for the rest of the day

ultain

'Exit through the gift shop'...The best feature I've seen this year!
Beautiful.... And very clever 10/10:D

SarahBM

Body of Lies.

good film.

Mark Strong is an excellent actor!

don ramo

watched Dead Poets Society today, excellent film, surprised i hadnt seen it before, 9/10

The Talking Of Phelam 123, the new one, below average thriller, seemed more like a long episode of some new york cop show, and the counting down of the time was very very cheap, it was ok to pass an afternoon, but with denzel, travolta and tony soparno i had high expectations, 6/10

Walk Hard The Dewey Cox Story, was expecting it to be funnier, the drugs part was over done a bit, 5/10

The Man From Earth, absoluty and amazing film, the whole film is based in one room for 90 mins discussing the possibility of a man living through 140,000 years, with one of the people claiming to be the 140,000 year old man, 10/10

me-skywalker

Grow Ups... DONT ask me why. RUBBISH!! I should have known better, At least I didnt ay to see it ;-)

Tony EH

Dempsey wrote: »

The film critic has a slant against Stallone's writing and has made a tit of himself in an attempt to have a pop at him.

I'll just put a hole through this paragraph,

Stallone didnt forget how to play him, he played him perfectly. Rocky was a bum but now he had more money and fame than most can dream of. This does corrupt motivation and attitude and he showed that perfectly, and yes lots of money will change the wife's thinking too. She wanted to keep the lifestyle she had grown accustomed to.

Only an idiot would put these changes in characters down to bad writing, plain and simple.

Actually, I am not having a "pop" at anyone, nor do I have a "slant" against Stallone or his writing. Stallone's writing in 'Rocky' and 'Rocky II' was quite effective and contributed a huge degree to the enjoyment of those movies. In fact, I am a fan of the first two films.

The problem with 'Rocky III' is that it's a huge departure from those films, in writing, style and general quality.

Obviously, 'Rocky III' is precious to you in some way, hence the hyperbole, but doesn't take away from the fact that overall it's a bad movie, full of terrible clichés, miscues and some awful acting. The story too is starting to wear terribly thin as well by this point.

As for changes in character, it's VERY clear that the Rocky and Adrian Balboa of 'Rocky III' are lightyears removed from the characters that drove the first two movies. Rocky seems to have become more articulate and Adrian has ungone a complete seachange. This cannot simply be put down to "money" as there is no attempt in the movie to suggest that. It's a continuation mis-step. Nothing more.

I suggest you watch the three movies back to back and you might be able to follow this "idot's" points a little clearer.

Tony EH

Dempsey wrote: »

It was a yard short of a complete troll if you ask me. I'm not a stallone/rocky fanboy but I couldnt believe that he was being serious. He actually put it up on amazon.co.uk customer review page too, I thought he just pulled it out of somewhere else for a sneer

Are you being serious? A troll? I've been posting reviews here for ages.

Jesus, it's a review of a movie, for god's sake, get over yourself.

And yes I wrote the review on Amazon too.

mike65

Notes from a Scandal (2007) BBC Films, just one BBC2. A TV drama in all but name, marked out by the performance of Judy Dench and Bill Nighy (as I'd forgotton he could do angry!)

Otis Driftwood

I watched Splice with Adrian Brodey yesterday,what a load of garbage.:mad:

Dempsey

Tony EH wrote: »

Actually, I am not having a "pop" at anyone, nor do I have a "slant" against Stallone or his writing. Stallone's writing in 'Rocky' and 'Rocky II' was quite effective and contributed a huge degree to the enjoyment of those movies. In fact, I am a fan of the first two films.

The problem with 'Rocky III' is that it's a huge departure from those films, in writing, style and general quality.

Obviously, 'Rocky III' is precious to you in some way, hence the hyperbole, but doesn't take away from the fact that overall it's a bad movie, full of terrible clichés, miscues and some awful acting. The story too is starting to wear terribly thin as well by this point.

As for changes in character, it's VERY clear that the Rocky and Adrian Balboa of 'Rocky III' are lightyears removed from the characters that drove the first two movies. Rocky seems to have become more articulate and Adrian has ungone a complete seachange. This cannot simply be put down to "money" as there is no attempt in the movie to suggest that. It's a continuation mis-step. Nothing more.

I suggest you watch the three movies back to back and you might be able to follow this "idot's" points a little clearer.

I'm not really a fanboy of the films because Rocky is a boxer that you wouldnt find out in the real world (e.g. his ability to get leathered up and down a ring and win) but its like you are describing a different film to the one I watched.

The film is set a couple of years on and it is explained to the viewers that he has done alot of defences of his title, his fame and money has gone through the roof and he has upped the lifestyle of himself and his wife in this time This is all shown in the opening sequence. The changes in character are in line with the story.

The script calls for some unbelievable contrivance and the central buddy story of Rocky and Creed is a bit hard to swallow.

He was about to retire when Lang challenged him and he didnt train hard at all in the build up despite Mickey telling him that his 10 title defences were all handpicked to ensure that Rocky would win and also avoid Lang. That does happen.

All you have to do is pick up a paper and read about David Haye fighting Audley Harrison to know that this does happen. Two friends pretending to be enemies whilst Haye is ducking and diving the klitschko brothers whilst all the time telling the world how he is going to thump them.

Also, Shane Mosley was De La Hoya's sparring partner for his fight against Mayweather. Mosley had beaten Hoya twice before that, so the idea of Creed helping out Rocky isnt that far away from what does happen in the real world.

Tony EH wrote: »

Are you being serious? A troll? I've been posting reviews here for ages.

Jesus, it's a review of a movie, for god's sake, get over yourself.

And yes I wrote the review on Amazon too.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Whatever you think about the post, no need for insults!

I apologise for that remark

johnny_ultimate

Marie Antoinette: hmm. Wonderfully designed film. Soundtrack and visuals are amazing. If Coppola's soul goal was to make a modern looking period drama, minus everything that usually makes that genre so dull and overwrought, she succeeded.

If she wanted to tell a story, well, she kinda failed. Some bits are interesting. Interpreting the character as a spoiled brat of sorts, caught up in a world of excess, works well for a while. Can't really support the film for two hours though, and the other subplots - like attempting to consummate the marriage of Antoinette and King Louis - take far too long, with little interesting to say. It's definitely frivolous by design, but probably too long to carry it for it's entire running time.

Far from the worst film I've ever seen - the ending particularly has a few shots of great beauty, and as said the audio / visual design is hard to top. I don't always like the phrase style over substance, but here it most definitely is the case.

bnt

Over the last ten days I've watched the whole Lord Of The Rings (Extended Edition) trilogy again, for the first time in about 18 months. Since the last time I've read the book, and this time I watched all the extras for each part before the film itself, so I was watching for production tricks etc.

A fun thing I noticed in the extras: when they were shooting the Hobbits coverage of the final scene at the Grey Havens, Sean Astin (Sam) forgot to put his waistcoat back on again after lunch one day, so they had to re-shoot half a day's film, and everyone hated him for a while. (It was a difficult scene to act - lots of long faces and tears.) The re-shoot was out of focus, so they had to do it for a third time, so the hobbits were really annoyed by the time they got through it. Then, when you see the finished cut, there are shots in there of Sam without his waistcoat, even in the Extended Edition - so it looks like the editors had had enough and said "stuff it"! :cool:

Tony EH

Dempsey wrote: »

I'm not really a fanboy of the films because Rocky is a boxer that you wouldnt find out in the real world (e.g. his ability to get leathered up and down a ring and win) but its like you are describing a different film to the one I watched.

That happens all the time. People see different things in different films. Upon another viewing I may see it in a totally different light. Yes, Rocky is essentially a silly story, I agree. However, it worked for the first 2 movies. But, as I said...by number 3, the formula is really wearing thin.

Dempsey wrote: »

The film is set a couple of years on and it is explained to the viewers that he has done alot of defences of his title, his fame and money has gone through the roof and he has upped the lifestyle of himself and his wife in this time This is all shown in the opening sequence. The changes in character are in line with the story.

Yes, it's supposedly 1981 and 10 fights on from Rocky's title winning fight in 1976. Meaning, Rocky is about 35 or so and should retired long ago. That's fine. However, the character changes are simply unbelievable, especially Adrian. There's really no getting around that.

Dempsey wrote: »

He was about to retire when Lang challenged him and he didnt train hard at all in the build up despite Mickey telling him that his 10 title defences were all handpicked to ensure that Rocky would win and also avoid Lang. That does happen.

Ummm...I know. I just saw the movie a few days ago.

Look, we obviously have very different opinions on 'Rocky III' and that's fine. It's only a film and really not that good a film anyway when all things are considered. But, it's grand to have different views.

Also, regardless of the showmanship by the boxers you've pointed out, the Rocky/Apollo training angle is still a very contrived one. It suits the purposes of the film, but doesn't really sit well.

The bottom line, in any case, is that the 3rd film in the series is still standing very much apart from the beginning of the series. In fact, III, IV and V are light years away from I and II and it's easy to see where the downward spiral begins.

pocketvenus

United 93 was on tv Saturday night and even though the subject matter is upsetting I have to admit Paul Greengrass did an excellent job and obviously he had to take some artistic license the majority are from talking to relatives of the passangers and some of the flights recorder which have been released. Mind you I cried for most of it. Well worth a watch

Also ended up watching Singing in the Rain today - an old one but enjoyable.