What have you watched recently: Electric Boogaloo

MilanPan!c

Tony EH wrote: »

If I had to choose a "best Kubrick film", 'Paths of Glory' would be it.

It's up there alright. Def one I've watched a heck of a lot of times. It's funny, because the story is deeply cynical, but it's not necessarily told in a cynical way. Which makes it sort of unique for Kubrick.

MilanPan!c

Mizu_Ger wrote: »

Lifeforce:
I'd never heard of this film until recently. Finally got around to watching it (on Netflix) over the weekend and it wasn't what I was expecting! Starts off as a Sci-fi epic, then turns into exploitation, on to some British sci-fi before taking in Quatermass and the Pit for the finale. All the time infused with silly dialogue, b-movie characters, fantastic (state-of-the-art) special fx and a complete lack of tension. It's worth a look for being so ridiculous, but I can see why it's not talked about much anymore. I'm surprised it didn't turn up on Moviedrome years ago.

Same writers (including the wonderful O'Bannon) and director as the remake of "Invaders From Mars!" but nowhere near as good. The FX were done by Dykstra and are pretty great. Mostly.

There's always been arguments over which "cut" is the best, but really, they're all just variations of bad. Saying that, the film was plagued by money problems, casting problems and studio problems.

Basically the beginning of the end of Hooper's decent films. Shame.

D'Agger

Watched Gravity last night & was very impressed with it

Short, simple movie and I have to say I thought Sandra Bullock was outstanding in it, found it very easy to empathize with her character. Some lovely shots in it too, visually it was impressive throughout.

Would highly recommend

kaimera

Bad Grandpa - had it's moments.

Escape Plan - pretty ****.

Captain Philips - awesome.

Gravity - brill

Mizu_Ger

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Same writers (including the wonderful O'Bannon) and director as the remake of "Invaders From Mars!" but nowhere near as good. The FX were done by Dykstra and are pretty great. Mostly.

There's always been arguments over which "cut" is the best, but really, they're all just variations of bad. Saying that, the film was plagued by money problems, casting problems and studio problems.

Basically the beginning of the end of Hooper's decent films. Shame.

The dialogue was awful and the actors were not able to get past that. Very hammy acting! If they had tightened that side up it would have been more enjoyable.

What's the difference between the US and International cut?

MilanPan!c

Mizu_Ger wrote: »

The dialogue was awful and the actors were not able to get past that. Very hammy acting! If they had tightened that side up it would have been more enjoyable.

What's the difference between the US and International cut?

There's more blood and nudity and a few minutes more on the shuttle.

It's only about 15 mins extra.

But

There were a lot of scenes they didn't shoot because they ran out of money.

A big failure on every level.

johnny_ultimate

Salo: 120 Days of Sodom - the reputation of some films precede them. Often when films are ranked among the most shocking or controversial, the hype eventually overstates the films' actual content. Not so with Pasolini's Salo. Honestly, the whole experience left me a bit rattled - it's such a brutal, explicit and miserable piece of work that it was one of those rare cases when the walkouts in the IFI were quite understandable (although I have to wonder how anyone ended up in there without being at least generally aware of what they were choosing to subject themselves to). From a repulsive sequence where the characters dine on a meal of **** to the disturbingly graphic final moments, witnessed from a distance (reflecting on the role of the viewer in this horror show), it's a assault of depravity. Its blackly comic to the degree where it feels inappropriate to even use the word 'comedy' at all. There's a surreal edge to it too - such as the jaunty piano music frequently playing the background - that adds to the whole uneasy, queasy atmosphere.

I couldn't in good conscience 'recommend' the film in the traditional sense, given pretty much anyone would find it varying degrees of repugnant. But it is, in many ways, worthy of our endurance. As an exaggerated allegory and deconstruction of fascism, it's curious and often powerful. The development of the torture victims is also fascinating - some end up broken, others turn on each other, while a handful become actively complicit in the horror. And above all, as a study of the collapse of the human spirit, the degradation of the body, the corrupting nature of power and the almost complete absence of hope it's as stark and devastating as anything in cinema. It's elegant cinematography and set design are also rather remarkable. In it's way, Salo is horribly beautiful, but I need to stress it truly is horrible.

I have Pasolini's Gospel According to Matthew to watch tonight or tomorrow - I'm promised it will provide some much needed counter-programming!

the_monkey

Twelve Monkeys http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114746/
Very good film, finally got to see it, but needs another watch.


Children of Men http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206634/?ref_=nv_sr_2
Overrated Garbage


The Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy - masterpieces.

Gamayun

Dead Man (1995)
Jim Jarmusch western, with Johnny Depp. Great cast, performances, soundtrack (Neil Young) and cinematography. Very good.

Kauas pilvet karkaavat AKA Drifting Clouds (1996)
Aki Kaurismäki film. A couple go through a tough time economically and try to cope. Nicely stylistic, especially the colouring. Enjoyable.

Arizona Dream (1992)
Emir Kusturica film, with Johnny Depp. Very unusual dreamlike feel to this, neither self consciously quirky nor out-and-out surreal. I really enjoyed this.

Down by Law (1986)
Another Jim Jarmusch film. The film revolves around three prisoners played by Tom Waits, Roberto Benigni and John Laurie . Benigni's semi-improvised high energy performance is fantastic and contrasts the coolness of the other two characters well. Enjoyable.

Let Me In (2010)
I've already seen the original film, which I think is great. They made some changes for this which change the tone of the film from the original.

Dropping Abby's sex/gender issue, adding a demonic voice to Abby (heard through the wall), demonic make up/contact lenses and the jittery animal-movement Abby murder part.

Mediocre remake, watch Let the Right One In instead.

poundapunnet

Sightseers Loved this. I knew it was a comedy and I'd seen Kill List before so I really didn't know what to expect. Maybe I'm just a bit twisted but I thought it was one of the funniest films I've seen in a long time.

Favourite things:

The script! "I'd never thought of that before, just killing innocent people"
"He wasn't a person, he was a Daily Mail reader"


The performances: A seriously sharp script, the skill set that lets people perform a film they've written is probably quite rare but when it works, it really works. Laugh-per-minute rate is very high and generated by the line-readings as much as the lines themselves, and they had the chops to get across the darkness and funniness of the characters without it getting confused.

The locations: The English tourist board could have funded this, I really want to go on the holiday they went on. I mean I'm not that in to tram museums, but so many other spots look really interesting, and the beauty of the English landscape isn't something that's usually focused on by film-makers recently, especially because so many horrors have been urban-set. Gorgeous shots, really beautiful stuff.

The specificity of the Englishness: a real strength of the film as a whole. The references to English history, the

different versions of The Season of the Witch

, the William Blake poem, the

pagan sacrifice, the dream sequence

, it all draws comparison with the Wicker Man, which is a brave fecking comparison to draw, but in this instance the film is up to it.

The Ending: Loved it.

9/10

ButtersSuki

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Salo: 120 Days of Sodom - the reputation of some films precede them. Often when films are ranked among the most shocking or controversial, the hype eventually overstates the films' actual content. Not so with Pasolini's Salo. Honestly, the whole experience left me a bit rattled - it's such a brutal, explicit and miserable piece of work that it was one of those rare cases when the walkouts in the IFI were quite understandable (although I have to wonder how anyone ended up in there without being at least generally aware of what they were choosing to subject themselves to). From a repulsive sequence where the characters dine on a meal of **** to the disturbingly graphic final moments, witnessed from a distance (reflecting on the role of the viewer in this horror show), it's a assault of depravity. Its blackly comic to the degree where it feels inappropriate to even use the word 'comedy' at all. There's a surreal edge to it too - such as the jaunty piano music frequently playing the background - that adds to the whole uneasy, queasy atmosphere.

I couldn't in good conscience 'recommend' the film in the traditional sense, given pretty much anyone would find it varying degrees of repugnant. But it is, in many ways, worthy of our endurance. As an exaggerated allegory and deconstruction of fascism, it's curious and often powerful. The development of the torture victims is also fascinating - some end up broken, others turn on each other, while a handful become actively complicit in the horror. And above all, as a study of the collapse of the human spirit, the degradation of the body, the corrupting nature of power and the almost complete absence of hope it's as stark and devastating as anything in cinema. It's elegant cinematography and set design are also rather remarkable. In it's way, Salo is horribly beautiful, but I need to stress it truly is horrible.

I have Pasolini's Gospel According to Matthew to watch tonight or tomorrow - I'm promised it will provide some much needed counter-programming!

Have it on DVD, bought it when I lived in the UK and watched it with herself on night when she was visiting. How she didn't leave me then I'll never know...... That said, believe it or not, the only thing I remember from it was how harsh the Italian accents are in it! Thankfully other Italian films have made up for it since.

Padjooshea

I thought bedevilled was pretty good. It's got some great characters.

DazMarz

The Black Cauldron (1985)

The "lost" Disney film. The one that never truly got the recognition it deserved. The darkest and most frightening children's animated film ever? Possibly. I loved this as a kid; until I got a terrible nightmare from it and didn't have the balls to watch it again until I was much older.

Man, is she dark!!! For a kids film, this was incredibly dark, scary and very un-Disney. But it was effective, atmospheric and quite possibly one of the truly forgotten gems of Disney's back catalogue (Cauldron never got the cinematic re-release, the theme park rides or any of the other stuff that other Disney animated films got).

The story is basically that of good v. evil again. The young hero, the damsel, the sidekicks...

And one of the greatest cartoon villains ever; the Horned King (with a superbly sinister growl from John Hurt making him even more sinister and evil). An undead, skeletal being with glowing red eyes, fierce looking fingernails/talons, a flowing crimson cloak and, of course, Satanic looking horns protruding from his head. Guaranteed to scare the living crap out of any kid who watches the film. He also commands legions of equally evil soldiers, and two dragon-like creatures that screech and wail horribly as they attack... Pleasant he ain't.

Young hero Taran is instantly a likeable character; innocent, doe-eyed and dreaming of being the hero and warrior and stopper of evil. He's not fully formed as a hero (he is actually an assistant to a mystic and looks after his pig!), but he is getting there. He has a good heart, wants to be a great warrior and will try to do the right thing. Echoes of Luke Skywalker, truly.

The film is steeped in Welsh mythology (as the books that the film is based on were based themselves upon Welsh myth), and as such, some of the characters have odd-sounding and completely un-spellable names. But this only serves to make it slightly more unique and endearing.

Visually, the film is dark as they come; looming castles cloaked in fog, thunderstorms and lightning, grim and windswept mountain tops, mountains of dead soldiers, ugly witches, snarling rats... all lushly animated and excellently done.

Elmer Bernstein (he who composed "The Great Escape Theme") does the music here, and it is brilliant. It really adds to the atmosphere of the film. The evil swell in the music as we see Spiral Castle or the Horned King is bone-chilling.

This film is not without its faults, no questions there. But it did not deserve the slamming it got at the box office (grossing less than half its budget). The main reason it fared so poorly was simply down to timing; Disney was not the powerhouse it is now, animated films were not doing well in the mid-80's, teenagers and pre-teens were radiating towards more mature films than Disney ones, young kids were terrified of this film and outraged parents would not take them to see it, etc. It was just an unfortunate series of events that scuttled the film before it could get going.

The truest reason behind its premature demise was the darkness of it; what parents are going to take their kids to see a film (that is meant to be FOR kids!!!) that only succeeds in scaring the crap out of them? Not many... The film also suffered from having many scenes edited out because of this problem (alleged scenes included rivers of gore and blood surrounding dead bodies, dead bodies fermenting in dungeons being revived by the eponymous Cauldron, etc.). It was aimed at the wrong demographic, it was ahead of its time in a way and Disney did not believe in its animated division at the time.

A wonderful film of heroism and fighting against the odds that is sinfully overlooked by many. Too dark for kids, but probably not dark enough for adults. But nonetheless, well worth a look (and watch it with your kids just so's you can give them a bit of a scare; around Halloween might be good! :P )

briany

Zeitgeist : Moving Forward (2011)

The third film in Peter Joseph's controversial documentary trilogy, which serves to question some commonly held human beliefs, some enduring human institutions and eventually suggesting solutions to problems the world faces, or will face, in the years to come.

None of the information presented in these documentaries is particularly new but it consolidates a lot of it and presents it in a way that's compelling, even though it's mostly through graphics and voice over. While some 'facts' could be (and, well, are being) hotly debated on message boards and the like, the notion that sustainability, consumerism and the energy supply are on a collision course as of now is something that's sadly getting harder and harder to ignore. Michael Ruppert, star of the excellent Collapse makes an appearance as a talking head, too.

Epi

Detachment (2011)

"Detachment is a chronicle of three weeks in the lives of several high school teachers, administrators and students through the eyes of a substitute teacher named Henry Barthes (Adrien Brody). Henry roams from school to school, imparting modes of knowledge, but never staying long enough to form any semblance of sentient attachment. A perfect profession for one seeking to hide out in the open. One day Henry arrives at his next assignment. Upon his entry into this particular school, a secret world of emotion is awakened within him by three women. A girl named Meredith in his first period. A fellow teacher Ms. Madison, and a street hooker named Erica, whom Henry has personally granted brief shelter from the streets. Each one of these women, like Henry, are in a life and death struggle to find beauty in a seemingly vicious and loveless world."

The movie was directed by Tony Kaye, known for directing American History X.

It's one of those movies that leaves a sick and twisted feeling in your stomach after watching it. Henry is truly interested in trying to make a difference. Trying to open the students eyes and direct them in the right direction, knowing that he won't always be able to succeed. There are a few plot twists that made me cry, but Adrien manages to project the right emotions at the right time, you feel his pain and sadness.

Liam McPoyle

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Salo: 120 Days of Sodom - the reputation of some films precede them. Often when films are ranked among the most shocking or controversial, the hype eventually overstates the films' actual content. Not so with Pasolini's Salo. Honestly, the whole experience left me a bit rattled - it's such a brutal, explicit and miserable piece of work that it was one of those rare cases when the walkouts in the IFI were quite understandable (although I have to wonder how anyone ended up in there without being at least generally aware of what they were choosing to subject themselves to). From a repulsive sequence where the characters dine on a meal of **** to the disturbingly graphic final moments, witnessed from a distance (reflecting on the role of the viewer in this horror show), it's a assault of depravity. Its blackly comic to the degree where it feels inappropriate to even use the word 'comedy' at all. There's a surreal edge to it too - such as the jaunty piano music frequently playing the background - that adds to the whole uneasy, queasy atmosphere.

I couldn't in good conscience 'recommend' the film in the traditional sense, given pretty much anyone would find it varying degrees of repugnant. But it is, in many ways, worthy of our endurance. As an exaggerated allegory and deconstruction of fascism, it's curious and often powerful. The development of the torture victims is also fascinating - some end up broken, others turn on each other, while a handful become actively complicit in the horror. And above all, as a study of the collapse of the human spirit, the degradation of the body, the corrupting nature of power and the almost complete absence of hope it's as stark and devastating as anything in cinema. It's elegant cinematography and set design are also rather remarkable. In it's way, Salo is horribly beautiful, but I need to stress it truly is horrible.

I have Pasolini's Gospel According to Matthew to watch tonight or tomorrow - I'm promised it will provide some much needed counter-programming!

People actually walked out of the IFI screening?

Salo is certainly an endurance test but I do think its a victim of its own notoriety.

There was some debate about it on the Horrorthon FB page, below are my thoughts, too lazy to write em again. :pac:

Salo is actually pretty misunderstood and vilified by alot of people for no good reason in my opinion. Alot of folk tend to get caught up in the sh*t eating scene but there is alot more to it than that. Criterion's re-release (pictured above) has a lovely booklet of essays on the movie and the second disc is packed full of featurettes and deconstructions of the film and of what Pasolini was trying to achieve. Yes, its an extreme movie with some extreme content but its not any more violent or depraved than Irreversible, I Spit on Your Grave, In a Glass Cage, or countless other movies that are loved by people in this group. Id urge people that havnt seen it to give it a fair crack and not to let alot of the crap written about it cloud their judgement.

Tony EH

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Salo: 120 Days of Sodom - the reputation of some films precede them. Often when films are ranked among the most shocking or controversial, the hype eventually overstates the films' actual content. Not so with Pasolini's Salo. Honestly, the whole experience left me a bit rattled - it's such a brutal, explicit and miserable piece of work that it was one of those rare cases when the walkouts in the IFI were quite understandable (although I have to wonder how anyone ended up in there without being at least generally aware of what they were choosing to subject themselves to). From a repulsive sequence where the characters dine on a meal of **** to the disturbingly graphic final moments, witnessed from a distance (reflecting on the role of the viewer in this horror show), it's a assault of depravity. Its blackly comic to the degree where it feels inappropriate to even use the word 'comedy' at all. There's a surreal edge to it too - such as the jaunty piano music frequently playing the background - that adds to the whole uneasy, queasy atmosphere.

I couldn't in good conscience 'recommend' the film in the traditional sense, given pretty much anyone would find it varying degrees of repugnant. But it is, in many ways, worthy of our endurance. As an exaggerated allegory and deconstruction of fascism, it's curious and often powerful. The development of the torture victims is also fascinating - some end up broken, others turn on each other, while a handful become actively complicit in the horror. And above all, as a study of the collapse of the human spirit, the degradation of the body, the corrupting nature of power and the almost complete absence of hope it's as stark and devastating as anything in cinema. It's elegant cinematography and set design are also rather remarkable. In it's way, Salo is horribly beautiful, but I need to stress it truly is horrible.

I have Pasolini's Gospel According to Matthew to watch tonight or tomorrow - I'm promised it will provide some much needed counter-programming!

I've always thought 'Salo' was a load of old bollocks, to be honest, and I've never bought the alleged "fascism" allegory, which I think is simply tacked on post-production by Pasolini in an effort to give his, frankly, disgusting and quite trashy film an air of fake intellect.

'Salo' is really just a fancy exploitation flick dressed up in fine clothes. It's also exceedingly tedious, when it's not showing some sort of depraved act.

It's the same type of pseudo-legitimacy that Srđan Spasojević has tried to give his own celluloid atrocity. However, both 'Salo: 120 Days of Sodom' and 'A Serbian Film' are nothing more than efforts to produce a series of disgusting images with a pretend "message" about far more important subjects. In that context, both directors have achieve their goals. To me, both films are more to do with the sheer depths of depravity that human beings can plummet to.

But, they're just insulting the audience in trying to pretend that their films are about something else.

Sugarlumps

Eden was on Sky premier, I was expecting it to be pants. Turned out to be a rather enjoyable watch. Well worth a watch.

johnny_ultimate

Coleman Slawski wrote:

People actually walked out of the IFI screening?

Yep, a relatively small amount given it was a sold out screening, but definitely a few (including two separate people who were sitting beside me). Whether that was through repulsion or boredom (some of those 'storytelling' sequences are rather numbing in their repetition, truth be told) I couldn't tell you!

Several of the Criterion essays you mentioned are available on their site, by the way: http://www.criterion.com/films/532-salo-or-the-120-days-of-sodom Some of them are pretty academic, but others are definitely a helpful expression of different responses to the film.

Tony EH wrote: »

I've always thought 'Salo' was a load of old bollocks, to be honest, and I've never bought the alleged "fascism" allegory, which I think is simply tacked on post-production by Pasolini in an effort to give his, frankly, disgusting and quite trashy film an air of fake intellect.

Tacked on in pre-production if anything Apparently Pasolini shot or at least wrote several alternative endings, some of which are far more explicit in zoning in on the whole fascist angle - one of which, for example, saw the film end on a shot of a fascist flag. That the film is even set set when it is - neither conforming to the source material or a contemporary setting for the time of production - would also indicate that thought and effort was at least placed into that level of the text.

Whether that allegorical aspect works, that's undoubtedly a subject worthy of debate. I do think there's some intriguing aspects to it, like the way the narrative incorporates the collaboration of some of the 'victims', and De Sade's core ideas of the loss of individuality are given a resonant new level in the context of wartime Italy. But I'd be lying if I said I sat there during some of the film's more extreme moments and thought 'I appreciate how this ties into the film's allegorical aspects'. It was more just 'reh'. I do feel the final scene is really interesting aesthetically speaking - how the torturers become the viewer, like us, and raises questions about the kind of responses audiences have to this kind of graphic content. It's scenes like that that indicate how the likes of Michael Haneke's Funny Games were heavily inspired by some of the ideas in the film.

I do absolutely sympthaise and understand with anyone who would have an almost entirely negative response to the film: it's one of those film where it's totally up to the individual to discern for themselves whether the ends justify the means. I do feel there's enough in the film to if not justify then at least contextualise the repulsive content. But, watching it in a different frame of mind, I mightn't have felt that way at all, and it's always worth considering whether whatever themes and 'rewards' there are could not have been articulated in a less extreme manner.

Tony EH

Pre or post, it's still something that's artificial. There's nothing in the scatologically focused content that's familiar to anybody that's studied the period, except for the year mentioned and the fact that it's called Salo.

To me it's not just a question of whether the allegory works, it's a matter of how genuine the director is in using the period to give leverage to his story. I just don't believe that Pasolini is being honest with the viewer and is offering a paltry underlying "message" to somehow "legitimise" his work.

Frankly, I think 'Salo' would work without the attempt at trying to shoehorn a highbrow topic into its narrative, because as a film that portrays extreme inhuman behaviour, it can be powerful in segments, when one gets past the turgid dialogue.

But, as a comment on Italian Fascism, or Fascism in general, it's completely worthless. In fact, in my honest opinion, it serves as a detraction.

johnny_ultimate

I agree the film's key concern is more than anything an examination of extreme human behaviour and the degradation of the body and self-expression. Removed from any wider contexts, that's still a harrowing and powerful idea, and few films have rendered it as boldly as Salo. I haven't seen any other of Pasolini's films yet, but I've read that his previous three works particularly heavily imply sexuality and eroticism as tools to achieve profound self-expression and freedom. This is the dark flipside of that, a world where those freedoms have been taken away and horrifically distorted. That's a pretty stark message in its own right, and ultimately what Salo portrays most viscerally and memorably.

As for the fascist subtext, I'd also agree it isn't necessarily even wholly coherent, but IMO it lends some sections of the film a subtle extra layer that we can take or leave. With a couple exceptions, change the context (say, to De Sade's original era) and the film wouldn't radically alter anyway. As is, to me it's a minor but occasionally intriguing aspect of the film, but fully respect your response too: it would be ill-advised to read or interpret Salo solely on allegorical terms.

Tony EH

I've seen his Canterbury Tales film and one other, of which I can't remember the name.

I really couldn't tell you much about either though Johnny, I'm afraid.

budgemook

Has been done to death in this thread already but King of the Travellers is just finishing on TV3. Watched it again as there's nothing else on.

Lord Jaysus it's awful ****e.

castletownman

budgemook wrote: »

Has been done to death in this thread already but King of the Travellers is just finishing on TV3. Watched it again as there's nothing else on.

Lord Jaysus it's awful ****e.

I agree. Although Peter Coonan was very good in it.

Fran the Sublick

kryogen

budgemook wrote: »

Has been done to death in this thread already but King of the Travellers is just finishing on TV3. Watched it again as there's nothing else on.

Lord Jaysus it's awful ****e.

One of the worst films I have seen in a long, long time.

longshotvalue

Watched Rush last night, and it is very seriously over-rated.. Very poor race scenes (cars way to slow), fake sounding accents etc. Really they should have just used the real race scenes. Still a decent enough film but one that will be looked back on in a few years wondering what all the fuss is about. (which puts it in the lord of the rings and batman club for me)

poundapunnet

aidankkk wrote: »

Watched Rush last night, and it is very seriously over-rated.. Very poor race scenes (cars way to slow), fake sounding accents etc. Really they should have just used the real race scenes. Still a decent enough film but one that will be looked back on in a few years wondering what all the fuss is about. (which puts it in the lord of the rings and batman club for me)

I liked it, but I went to see it when it first came out before there was much hype, and I really wasn't expecting to enjoy a film about formula one. Race scenes did it for me but then again I'd have no idea if they were realistic or not. I do agree with you on Chris Hemsworth's accent, it's like a slightly posher Thor. Thought Bruhl was great in it though.

I'd say the fuss is more to do with the fact that they managed to make a good film with broad appeal, even though it's centred on formula one. I went with my mother and we both liked it, where normally we'd avoid sports films.

(Although when we heard the accident and death statistics at the start we both turned to each other to say "There's a reason women don't do this" :P)

firestarter51

rush, i enjoyed it i thought it was well made, and told the story of the rivalry very well
grudge match, a few laughs, passed away a couple of hours
escape plan, good to see arnie and stallone together, not a great film but still good enough if you can switch the brain off first
lone survivor very good
last vegas it was ok a bit predictable at times

zx complex

Speed...Still as good today as when I first watched it. Wooden performances and goofy story, just leave the brain outside and enjoy.

connollys

firestarter51 wrote: »

rush, i enjoyed it i thought it was well made, and told the story of the rivalry very well
grudge match, a few laughs, passed away a couple of hours
escape plan, good to see arnie and stallone together, not a great film but still good enough if you can switch the brain off first
lone survivor very good
last vegas it was ok a bit predictable at times

Lone Survivor - did ya not think it should have been called America, F*&k Yea! Thought it was ridiculous.