What have you watched recently: Electric Boogaloo

Kolido

Myrddin wrote: »

Just watched all five of the original Planet of the Apes movies, in relatively quick succession. Honestly, without having any idea of how their viewed by minds greater than mine, I really enjoyed them all. Next up is the 2001 Walberg remake...

Tim Burtons remake was pretty crap compared to the originals, I would be interested to hear what you thought of it.
The reboots, Rise and Dawn I thought were very good though.

Looper007

Kolido wrote: »

Tim Burtons remake was pretty crap compared to the originals, I would be interested to hear what you thought of it.
The reboots, Rise and Dawn I thought were very good though.

Dawn is one of the best blockbusters of the last few years with an amazing performance from Andy Serkis, best film In the whole canon. Plus Toby Kebbell as Koba been one of the more interesting Villains on screen . Plus its got Apes riding horses shooting machine guns and using tanks. Rise is very good once again Andy Serkis stealing the show. Tim Burton film can be summed up by this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4US0Fjr4Rb8

Harry Palmr

Myrddin wrote: »

Just watched all five of the original Planet of the Apes movies, in relatively quick succession. Honestly, without having any idea of how their viewed by minds greater than mine, I really enjoyed them all. Next up is the 2001 Walberg remake...

my review of Escape from here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95044942&postcount=6024

Just watched The Anderson Tapes (1971) Dir Sidney Lumet. The 2nd of the Lumet/Sean Connery series, is an early entry in the 70s surveillance/paranoia genre combined with a fairly standard heist storyline as a con having only just got out of sing sing decides there is a killing to made from a New York townhouse full of wealthy types. Featuring an interesting score from Quincy Jones and superbly crisp editing Joanne Burke (ever notice how often editors are women?) Lumet as usual doesn't waste a moment with everything moving a clip as the plan is hatched, takes shape and is executed. There are one or two style touches that are very much of the era esp the tape playback moments early in the film and brief flash forwards during the burglary sequence. As for the tapes in the title ah well....that would be telling Christopher Walken makes his debut and you have to wonder why it would be another six or so years before his career took off, cos he's very good here - obvious star material. Everyone else is good value for their efforts.

Schadenfreudia

Limitless (2011)

Thriller starring Bradley Cooper, Abbie Cornish, and Robert De Niro. Dased on novel The Dark Fields - a 2001 techno-thriller novel by Irish writer Alan Glynn.

Pretty good.

I read another book with exactly the same concept recently but being clean out of NZT I can't remember which one.

Decuc500

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Yet I couldn't shake the feeling that in some ways this is also 'Eastern European arthouse cinema 101'. The deeply uncomfortable violence, raw sex scenes and a prolonged, graphic back-street abortion sequence (no camera movement there) have the desired effect, especially a genuinely horrific conclusion. Yet at the same time they seem almost gratuitous, daring the audience to look away. The Romanian New Wave is full of gritty, explicit tales of hopelessness and despair - and despite coming from a different country, The Tribe's no-nonsense portrayal of horror and miserableness felt at times numbing, and can I even suggest obvious?

I would agree with this. I was initially very taken with the film but as technically impressive as The Tribe was it was not a film I would want to watch again. The despair was overwhelming. The director was at JDIFF and he seemed like a guy who enjoyed confrontation.

bnt

OldeCinemaSoz wrote: »

KINGSMAN

A bit of a disappointment despite the hype if I say so myself. The kickass flicks were far more fun. The opening with dire straits would really put you in the mood but what was all that queen of Sweden's bit about? Easily know the BBFC had got their mits on it.

Saw this last night, after managing to avoid the major spolier, which did catch me by surprise. (Not so much what happened, but the circumstances in which it happened.)

The church scene has been discussed already: I found it a bit disturbing in what it was asking from the viewer. They were clearly horrible people - as if a bunch of Nazis joined the Westboro Baptist Church on steroids - but does that justify what happened to them? It's about as callous as Valentine was towards the rest of humanity.

PS the Swedish bint was a princess, not a queen - one of many minor Royals floating around Europe these days. Her name is also a joke: a Tilde is a ~.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I saw Far From The Madding Crowd today. I have to say I was disappointed.

I read the book a few years ago and it instantly became a favourite so I was probable always going to be a little bit disappointed but I think even without having read the book it's not a great film. Carey Mulligan is the perfect person to play the lead role in this but she's let down by pretty much everyone around her, cast, writer, director (Thomas Vinterberg). Michael Sheen is the only other of the main cast that delivers something on par with Mulligan. The other two male leads are poorly written and acted. She's acting her socks off and you'd hardly think the other characters knew who she was they're giving her that little. Maybe it was a height thing but I seem to remember the majority of Mulligan's scenes with Schoenaerts being shot "over the shoulder" or whatever that's called? They're in lots of scenes "together" but you don't see them on screen at the same time in a lot of them. Maybe it's just me but it makes it very hard to sell a connection between two people when you're not even sure they were on set at the same time.

They've somehow managed to strip away the entire heart of the story and still deliver a 2 hour long film.

fin12

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I saw Far From The Madding Crowd today. I have to say I was disappointed.

I read the book a few years ago and it instantly became a favourite so I was probable always going to be a little bit disappointed but I think even without having read the book it's not a great film. Carey Mulligan is the perfect person to play the lead role in this but she's let down by pretty much everyone around her, cast, writer, director (Thomas Vinterberg). Michael Sheen is the only other of the main cast that delivers something on par with Mulligan. The other two male leads are poorly written and acted. She's acting her socks off and you'd hardly think the other characters knew who she was they're giving her that little. Maybe it was a height thing but I seem to remember the majority of Mulligan's scenes with Schoenaerts being shot "over the shoulder" or whatever that's called? They're in lots of scenes "together" but you don't see them on screen at the same time in a lot of them. Maybe it's just me but it makes it very hard to sell a connection between two people when you're not even sure they were on set at the same time.

They've somehow managed to strip away the entire heart of the story and still deliver a 2 hour long film.

I went with a group of people to that film and everybody just ended up laughing their asses off at how bad it was. I thought it was quite funny in bits too, but I have seen way worse films. Carey Mulligan is very good in it.

BMMachine

watched Chappie.
Terrible. No likable characters, no one with brains, everyones a psycho and not in a good way. Felt like an advertisement for a band. Action scenes - didnt care for because I couldnt connect with a single one of the characters. Sigourney Weaver was in it for no good reason.

LOVED District 9, thought Elysium was OK, hated this. Not good for Mr. Blomkamp

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

fin12 wrote: »

I went with a group of people to that film and everybody just ended up laughing their asses off at how bad it was. I thought it was quite funny in bits too, but I have seen way worse films. Carey Mulligan is very good in it.

Parts of it were funny but they weren't supposed to be. It's not the worst film it's just if you've read the book it's very disappointing. It comes across a bit like an overly dramatic soap on screen.

fin12

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Parts of it were funny but they weren't supposed to be. It's not the worst film it's just if you've read the book it's very disappointing. It comes across a bit like an overly dramatic soap on screen.

Ya i get that it must be disappointing alright if you have read the book and get that you would be laughing but its not supposed to be funny.

expectationlost

Journey to the Far side of the Sun

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064519/combined

in search for good 70's movies found this one from 69 Gerry Anderson produced, so it spend a lot of time looking at slow moving machines, its about finding a planet on the opposite side of the sun, its worth a watch, very 60's/70s in good and bad ways.

expectationlost

again searching for good old movies and liking war/prisoner of war movies despite my pacifist self I found 'The Hill' 1965

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059274/combined Sean Connery is the lead name but its ensemble cast with some very good other actors, its a a military prison camp in the Egyptian desert where they are made drill and double march up a sand hill built in the centre of the camp to bring them back to being obedient soldiers.

its long uncomfortable watch as I don't like seeing people treated badly but its really intense and really well shot, you stick with it in the hope that they somehow win in the end.

directed by Sidney Lumet, this is a Classic that I've never heard of before.

I reminded me of the Last Castle I always wondered why that movie was made and think they were trying to remake the Hill

Harry Palmr

Sir! I'll send Ian Hendry round to give you damned good shouting at for not knowing about the Hill! Great film, you can taste the sweat.

Connery and Lumet made 5 or 6 films together, teh first three of which are worth seeing - The Anderson tapes was next (see my review above) and then The Offence.

Tony EH

I'll agree with Harry.

Your next film should be 'The Offence'.

The film that made me understand that Sean Connery wasn't just Jimmy Bond.

Also stars one of my fave character actors Ian Bannen.

Arghus

I mentioned The Hill on here before, in a thread about obscure enough films, that you reckon are amazing. I think it's a stone cold classic, amazing how it remains relatively unknown to the world. Such a solid movie.

I've been meaning to check out The Offense for a while, but I'm never quite in the mood for it's promise of grueling "entertainment". One of these evenings though.

Anyway- In Fear (2013) - Nifty enough psychological horror. The story is the stuff of simple nightmares- Young couple travel through woods and back roads, searching for the worlds hardest to find hotel. As a dark and menacing evening gives way to an evil nighttime, they find themselves at the mercy of local forces seen and unseen. Or it could all be in their heads...

Won't win any prizes for originality. One of those films where characters will make stupid decision after stupid decision because the plot demands it. You'll be screaming at them. Also there isn't so much holes in the plot, as there is the semblance of a story teetering in existence around huge gaps in logic.

Having bashed it for all of the above I have to give it some credit - The performances are natural and believable and when it's at it's best, it can be a purposely disorientating and taut experience. It had me going with it, at least two thirds of the time. The director definitely has an eye too. Lots of really cool visual elements help it stand out from the crowd. I'd call it a thumbs up, despite it's flaws. A definite watch for horror aficionados.

Ageyev

Kolido wrote: »

Tim Burtons remake was pretty crap compared to the originals, I would be interested to hear what you thought of it.
The reboots, Rise and Dawn I thought were very good though.

Burton's "re-imagining" came out at the wrong time before a remake was called a reboot.

Rise was good, Dawn was poor imo falling into zombie survival tropes all too easily.

Harry Palmr

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Sir! I'll send Ian Hendry round to give you damned good shouting at for not knowing about the Hill! Great film, you can taste the sweat.

Connery and Lumet made 5 or 6 films together, teh first three of which are worth seeing - The Anderson tapes was next (see my review above) and then The Offence.

Sidnet Lumet is hard to beat. Just probably skip over "Equus"

The Verdict is probably my favourite Lumet movie, but he has so many old gems its tough to pick, best just to watch them all! Oh maybe not The Wiz either

Del.Monte

"Mission Impossible.2." (2000). On Netflix. I hate Tom Cruise so I was biased against this before I sat down to watch, and I loved the original TV series..

It was so bad that I gave up after 20 minutes or so - at the request of my 12 year old - I'm 56 and we both love action movies. What market is it aimed at? -10 Avoid at all costs!

MagicMarker

Del.Monte wrote: »

"Mission Impossible.2." (2000). On Netflix. I hate Tom Cruise so I was biased against this before I sat down to watch, and I loved the original TV series..

It was so bad that I gave up after 20 minutes or so - at the request of my 12 year old - I'm 56 and we both love action movies. What market is it aimed at? -10 Avoid at all costs!

Watch the 3rd instalment. It's fantastic.

castletownman

The Fault in Our Stars (2014)

Never have been so moved by a film as much in a long time. Brilliantly acted by the two leads, with a beautiful sound-track that added to the sense of love/acceptance/reality almost perfectly. Not only is the overall theme of teenage cancer remarkably touched on, but so too is that fresh life that the courtship phase brings to anyone lucky enough to have enjoyed chasing young love, so engagingly portrayed

(it could be argued that her relationship with Augustus brought "oxygen" to her lungs)

As a 27 year old man, I still get a real buzz out of the initial courtship in a new relationship (soppy I know )

There was both a beautiful correlation with the visit to the Anne Frank museum and Hazel's standing as a 17 year old terminal cancer sufferer (ie the isolation both her and Anne Frank must have felt) and a connection to how her favourite book ended abruptly mid-sentence, and how the film itself finished with her saying "okay".

Some very moving scenes throughout,

particularly the eulogies and Gus revealing his cancer has spread (as cliched a plot device as it has become in films)

. I think it's biggest strength is that almost everyone has been affected by cancer in some way (my uncle passed away from it recently), but very rarely has the theme of teenage cancer been portrayed on screen (that I know of, open to correction).

Beautiful, emotive and profound. 10/10

Liam McPoyle

Headless

A movie borne out of a movie. A couple of years ago a movie named Found came out. It centered around a horror movie obsessed kid whose favourite movie was an exploitation movie called, you guessed it, Headless.

Found garnered a huge amount of praise from the indie and underground scene, dont ask me why, I thought it was rubbish, so the makers had a kick starter campaign through indiegogo and Facebook to get the funds together to make Headless.

Its about a serial killer with a penchant for decapitating his victims and performing sex acts on gouged out eye sockets, and thats basically it. The movie is part told in flash back where we see the killer as an abused child with a domineering mother and cruel sister finally snapping and setting off on his merry serial killer way.

Its a low budget movie and it shows. Dont get me wrong, Ive no issue with low budget when its done well but this felt very flat throughout. Forgettable cast, predictable throughout only raised from been completely crap by some decent albeit not spectacular gore effects.

Its worth a watch for fans of the more extreme or low budget leanings but tbh, I wouldnt be arsed ever watching it again.

5/10

Harry Palmr

expectationlost wrote: »

Journey to the other side of the Sun

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064519/combined

in search for good 70's movies found this one from 69 Gerry Anderson produced, so it spend a lot of time looking at slow moving machines, its about finding a planet on the opposite side of the sun, its worth a watch, very 60's/70s in good and bad ways.

I saw that as a child back in the late 70s but not since, what I remember mainly is the spectacular climax - sort of Thunderbirds on steroids. Derek Meddings sure liked blowing stuff up! BTW its FAR side, not OTHER.

Tomagotchye

Watched 20 Feet from Stardom. It was pretty interesting considering music isn't really my thing. Opened my eyes a little to the behind the scenes talent for once

Arghus

The Beguiled(1971) - Clint Eastwood plays against type in this redolent slice of Southern Gothic.

Way, way against type.

Clint is a wounded Union soldier who turns up, begging for his life, on the doorstep of an all girl boarding-school, deep in Confederate territory, at the tail-end of the civil war. What's only meant to be a short, illicit stay before he's turfed over to Confederate authorities, instead becomes a prolonged power play within the walls of the educational establishment. The chief battle pieces being repressed female sexuality, petty jealousy and Clint, in full-on sexual being mode.

And that's a sight that takes some getting used to. If you look at the film firstly through a Clint shaped prism it's a fairly revelatory experience. He's a lying, cheating, no-good lowlife. It's one of the finest asshole performances in cinema history. What's so great about it is how he isn't just merely playing against what you would expect, but playing as a complete inverted twin of his usual persona. There's guts and brains in that. Too bad we didn't see him more often as malignancy manifest throughout his career, he's a surprisingly persuasive heel.

Apart from the central performance, there's a whole pile of elements in the films favour. The otherworldly fevered atmosphere is hard to describe, but undeniably potent. It's the kind of movie where you aren't the least bit surprised when - just as a matter of course - you hear someones internal monologue. The cinematography and setting are alternately earthy and "heady". Lots of visual tricks help set the tone of a piece, where everyone's barely contained emotions are going one hundred miles to begin with, and only reach light-speed from there.

All in all, a bit of a classic. With its complicated, adult themes and uniqueness of form, serving to give life to a variety of great performances, I can't give it anything but a solid thumbs up. It also makes me love that Eastwood-Seigal combo all the more. They had a lot of classics to their name, but they were mostly of a certain flinty, blokish type of great. This movie is something different entirely and it makes me wonder at the rare genius they both possessed.

identer

Selma (2014) .. A film centered on Martin luther king jr and the freedom walk, rosa park e.t.c
Really nice movie.

bnt

Recorded J. Edgar from TV, the biopic of FBI Directoy J. Edgar Hoover by Clint Eastwood. I thought I'd start it to see if I liked it, and am just finishing it now. Much better than the reviews led me to expect.

Harry Palmr

Murder by Death (1976) Dir Robert Moore

The worlds most famous detectives are gathered together by mysterious figure to solve a murder for a $1,000,000. One of several thousand (or so it felt like) Neil Simon adaptations made in the 70s features an all star cast in good form esp Peter Falk channelling Humphrey Bogarts portrayal of Sam Spade. Plenty of silly and enjoyable visual, verbal (and other audio) gags abound. The portrayal of a Chinese character by Peter Sellers would probably not get past the first casting session now even though it makes perfect sense when you understand what's being parodied.

fin12

bnt wrote: »

Recorded J. Edgar from TV, the biopic of FBI Directoy J. Edgar Hoover by Clint Eastwood. I thought I'd start it to see if I liked it, and am just finishing it now. Much better than the reviews led me to expect.[/QUOTE

saw it when it was in the Cinema, for me it looked way better in the trailer, it wasn't a great film, wouldn't watch it again.

Tony EH

While I don't think Leo is a great (or terrible) actor, he was dreadfully out of his depth in 'J.Edgar'. Although, the material didn't help.