What have you watched recently: Electric Boogaloo

ButtersSuki

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Dances with Wolves 1990 Extended Version

At almost 4 hours I think this is the longest film I've ever watched. The fact that Costner was able to direct a film like this at the age of 35 is really incredible. The beauty and ranger of emotions he managed to grasp, everything from joy to complete despair on a backdrop of scenery that is simply breathtaking is almost too hard to believe of a man so young. It is easily one of the greatest pieces of film ever made and will never date.
The extended version might be slightly slow in parts, but its worth doing all the same just to know that you've seen it all.

Bought that recently on import (the UK release doesn't have the extended cut) and just trying to find time to watch it in one sitting. Loved it on a first viewing on wait for it.......video (didn't see it in the cinema which I can only imagine would have been an even better experience). Haven't seen it since but looking forward to it.

Yeah I have a copy of it on VHS too, I think its 18 years or something since I watched the regular version. Been reading some of the trivia around it - 3500 buffalo used to created the Buffalo scenes, 20 rustlers to control them, helicopters and much over shooting. During the making it was getting dubbed "Kevins Gate", he actually put in the last 3 mil himself that went over budget.
Getting buffallo's to run at people using Oreos lol. A far cry from the CGI animals used in the Revenant which in the blink of an eye took the realism out of the film!

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

Dances with Wolves 1990 Extended Version

At almost 4 hours I think this is the longest film I've ever watched. The fact that Costner was able to direct a film like this at the age of 35 is really incredible. The beauty and ranger of emotions he managed to grasp, everything from joy to complete despair on a backdrop of scenery that is simply breathtaking is almost too hard to believe of a man so young. It is easily one of the greatest pieces of film ever made and will never date.
The extended version might be slightly slow in parts, but its worth doing all the same just to know that you've seen it all.

Was never a fan of Costner and always wondered how he ended up at the centre of the hollywood universe there for a while in the 90's. He's, frankly, a pretty bad actor by any stretch and his directorial efforts never did that much for me either.

However, 'Dances With Wolves' is truly one of the greatest pictures of its type and remains very watchable, even with the enormous running time. It's handled with great skill and showed that, given the right material he could pull out a winner.

When Wind in His Hair shouts his goodbyes to Dunbar at the end, it never fails to get me.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Dances with Wolves 1990 Extended Version

At almost 4 hours I think this is the longest film I've ever watched. The fact that Costner was able to direct a film like this at the age of 35 is really incredible. The beauty and ranger of emotions he managed to grasp, everything from joy to complete despair on a backdrop of scenery that is simply breathtaking is almost too hard to believe of a man so young. It is easily one of the greatest pieces of film ever made and will never date.
The extended version might be slightly slow in parts, but its worth doing all the same just to know that you've seen it all.

He's, frankly, a pretty bad actor by any stretch and his directorial efforts never did that much for me either.

Have to say I always like him as an actor. What do you think of his performance in JFK?

Tony EH

Passable, I suppose, although I like that film too, despite its shortcomings. Costner is just usurped by the other that appear on screen, like Oldman or Sutherland. That scene in the park where Sutherland is informing Costner about black ops is as riveting as any action scene and it's just a couple of guys on a bench.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Na5-1LbUI

ButtersSuki

Tony EH wrote: »

Passable, I suppose, although I like that film too, despite its shortcomings. Costner is just usurped by the other that appear on screen, like Oldman or Sutherland. That scene in the park where Sutherland is informing Costner about black ops is as riveting as any action scene and it's just a couple of guys on a bench.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Na5-1LbUI

Was just talking about that scene on another thread this week actually. How Sutherland didn't get a best supporting nod for that piece is beyond me.

However the criticism of Costner is very harsh. He's not truly awful, and his long monologue scene in JFK (done in one take apparently) is far superior to "passable".

arcticmonkeys

Big bad Wolves on Netflix last night. One of the highlights of the year for me because I had only heard about it in passing on Mark Kermode's blog. Pretty violent and very dark in places.... and funny so not for the faint hearted but one of the better revenge movies I've seen in a while. One of Quintin Tarantinos movie of the year back in 2013. Leaving Netflix Monday I think.

david75

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Dahl actually led a very interesting but tragic life. His first book was inspired by the time he crashed in the desert in North Africa while he was a fighter pilot in WW2 and was seriously injured. He had a young daughter die and a young son seriously brain damaged in an accident. His wife had 3 massive strokes while pregnant with another child and she was in a coma for weeks and then had to learn to walk and talk and do everything again. All her words were mixed up and he used some of her phrases for the language in the BFG. I think it was also inspired by the death of his daughter. He used to make up stories about a giant who sprinkled nice dreams into kid's heads and he'd go outside, climb up a ladder and using a bamboo cane he'd blow glitter into their rooms. He said they were still dealing with their sister's death and deserved nice dreams.

So, yeah, quite a few of his books were inspired by quite dark times in his life. There was a really great piece about him in last month's Empire and BBC did a little documentary about him last night too. Fascinating man. He hated every attempt to make his books films too, except Danny and, I think, an animated BBC version of the BFG. Would have been interesting to see what he made of this BFG.

I was at a preview in savoy screen one and it was predominantly kids. About a thousand of them. So when the frobskottle gets brought out at the palace, the kids were all in hysterics laughing long before 'it' happens

Lovely moment to see great film really enjoyed it.

Tony EH

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Was just talking about that scene on another thread this week actually. How Sutherland didn't get a best supporting nod for that piece is beyond me.

However the criticism of Costner is very harsh. He's not truly awful, and his long monologue scene in JFK (done in one take apparently) is far superior to "passable".

Perhaps. He has his moments. He's just very one note.

On Sutherland, that scene in 'JFK' is a school in how to deliver intense dialogue. A quick Google search says Jack Palance got best support that year. Agree that Sutherland should have been there. As far as I know, he's never been nominated for anything.

ButtersSuki

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Tony EH wrote: »

Passable, I suppose, although I like that film too, despite its shortcomings. Costner is just usurped by the other that appear on screen, like Oldman or Sutherland. That scene in the park where Sutherland is informing Costner about black ops is as riveting as any action scene and it's just a couple of guys on a bench.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Na5-1LbUI

Was just talking about that scene on another thread this week actually. How Sutherland didn't get a best supporting nod for that piece is beyond me.

However the criticism of Costner is very harsh. He's not truly awful, and his long monologue scene in JFK (done in one take apparently) is far superior to "passable".

Yes was about to say the same, the monologue is an outstanding piece of acting. I think he has a good body of work, screwed up a couple of times, but sher don't we all

Sad Professor

Costner's low-key but quietly passionate performance in JFK is remarkable given that he's surrounded by scene-munching character actors at the top of their game who were being aggressively egged on by Stone, who was well known for pitting his actors against each other by whispering in their ears between takes that they were being acted off the screen. Stone's mind games with Woods and Belushi on the set of Salvador almost turned that movie into a comedy. It's hard to think of another leading man at the time with Costner's confidence. He's like the eye of the storm. It's a very underrated performance IMO, that carries what might otherwise have been a very chaotic movie.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I watched The Secret Life of Walter Mitty on RTE this evening. I'm not 100% sure but I think Papa Johns might have paid for some of it.

MilesMorales1

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I watched The Secret Life of Walter Mitty on RTE this evening. I'm not 100% sure but I think Papa Johns might have paid for some of it.

Oh yeah I forgot about that. And KFC references right?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Oh yeah I forgot about that. And KFC references right?

Papa Johns and E Harmony were the main ones. KFC, McDonald's and Cinnabon got mentions too.

Tony EH

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I watched The Secret Life of Walter Mitty on RTE this evening. I'm not 100% sure but I think Papa Johns might have paid for some of it.

How did it stack up against the Danny Kaye version Tickles?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Tony EH wrote: »

How did it stack up against the Danny Kaye version Tickles?

I'm afraid I've never seen that version but I'd imagine it had less Papa Johns in it.

Shint0

I watched The Wailing, a two and half hour S. Korean horror/thriller. It revolved around an apparent village plague, ghosts, possessions, shamans and some Christianity undertones. There was also some comedic value from a dumb cop, the main character, whose daughter also becomes possessed and his family engage a shaman to assist with the exorcism and drive the evil force out of the village.

A very intriguing shamanic ritual takes place but in the end it's left very much open to interpretation as to who or what is the real source of the possessions and deaths in the village with some cannibalism thrown in too.

ButtersSuki

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I'm afraid I've never seen that version but I'd imagine it had less Papa Johns in it.

I have it on Blu Ray (a present, not my choice!) but is the product placement as bad as say the constant apple product placement in Sex Tape (which is truly, truly awful btw).

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

ButtersSuki wrote: »

I have it on Blu Ray (a present, not my choice!) but is the product placement as bad as say the constant apple product placement in Sex Tape (which is truly, truly awful btw).

I haven't seen Sex Tape but yeah.... there is a lot of Papa Johns, even in Iceland. And there's a whole side bit where the guy from E-Harmony keeps ringing Walter up and they actually have a conversation about why it's a better dating site than the alternatives and Walter agrees that those points are why he's happy with the service. There's also a scene in a Cinnabon for no reason where the E Harmony guy tells Walter that the coffee or the cake is like food crack, it's so good.

ButtersSuki

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I haven't seen Sex Tape but yeah.... there is a lot of Papa Johns, even in Iceland. And there's a whole side bit where the guy from E-Harmony keeps ringing Walter up and they actually have a conversation about why it's a better dating site than the alternatives and Walter agrees that those points are why he's happy with the service. There's also a scene in a Cinnabon for no reason where the E Harmony guy tells Walter that the coffee or the cake is like food crack, it's so good.

That's just ridiculous, how stupid do movie makers think we are?

In sex tape, the plot is woven around the amazingness of the iPad. at times it's like being in an Apple Store and listening to two apple "geniuses" discuss their favourite features of the iPad.

gucci

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Papa Johns and E Harmony were the main ones. KFC, McDonald's and Cinnabon got mentions too.

I think the most irritating part for me was (as well as ruining a reasonably decent lightly entertaining movie) was that I think they thought they were being ironic by being so blatant with the product placement, and that it added to the fun / comedic element of the movie, or maybe that is just how i picked it up.

I didn't mind the subtle placement of Jose Gonzalez music though, that was nice. In fact, if it was just his music and landscape flyovers of Iceland for the entire running time, it probably would have been as good for me!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

ButtersSuki wrote: »

That's just ridiculous, how stupid do movie makers think we are?

In sex tape, the plot is woven around the amazingness of the iPad. at times it's like being in an Apple Store and listening to two apple "geniuses" discuss their favourite features of the iPad.

I remember watching an episode of Smallville (don't judge!) where Lois had to distract some security guards and she just drove up to them in her new Ford or whatever it was and started telling them all the features and how many miles to the gallon and all that. It was literally a sales pitch for the car.

I love how 30 Rock used to do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9hepxidZyo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d36wUmJGzvA

Looper007

Everybody Wants Some (2016)

Richard Linklater's sort of follow up to his classic Dazed and Confused, this time set in the 80's around a group of college baseballers over a few days. Although it probably lacks the heart and characters of Dazed and Confused, it's still a hugely enjoyable film with a kick ass 80's soundtrack mixing everything from Disco, Funk Punk and Rock. Although it hasn't got a character like McConaughey's Wooderson and whatever female characters are in it are either just used for the guy's to get with, only Zoey Deutch (daughter of Back to The Future's Lea Thompson) gets any sort of character build even that is only given a small amount of screen time near the end. But Blake Jenner as Jake was likeable, Wyatt Russell (son of Kurt Russell) is probably this film's Wooderson but isn't as memorable. Glen Powell as Finnegan as the group's smart ass is probably the stand out. Like Dazed and Confused, you don't get any plot just the guys going from party to party then some practice the back to partying. A good not a classic follow up but well worth watching 8/10.

ButtersSuki

Binge watched The People vs OJ Simpson over the BH Weekend. If I didn't know better I'd assume it was made by the E! Channel. I'd describe it somewhat like when you pass a car crash on the opposite side of the motorway - you know you shouldn't slow down and look but you end up doing so anyway. Normally I'd give up on stuff like this after 1 episode but for some reason I stuck with it. The cast on paper is ok, but the only two IMO who come out of this with credit are Sterling K. Brown and Courtney B. Vance as opposing prosecutors Darden and Cochrane. The rest of the performances are as befitting (as I previously mentioned) an E! production or one of those "True Life Stories" you see on channel 786. Travolta is weird, Schwimmer plays Ross from Friends (again - honestly, apart from his role in Band of Brothers has he ever deviated from this?) and the rest are meh. Facts are optional in this retelling of the take and drama and hyperbole given free run at the story which hardly needed any embellishment. There's a few funny digs at the Kardashians too for anyone who's interested. And yet despite all of that, there is something about it that draws you in. A very weird 5/10.

ButtersSuki

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Binge watched The People vs OJ Simpson over the BH Weekend. If I didn't know better I'd assume it was made by the E! Channel. I'd describe it somewhat like when you pass a car crash on the opposite side of the motorway - you know you shouldn't slow down and look but you end up doing so anyway. Normally I'd give up on stuff like this after 1 episode but for some reason I stuck with it. The cast on paper is ok, but the only two IMO who come out of this with credit are Sterling K. Brown and Courtney B. Vance as opposing prosecutors Darden and Cochrane. The rest of the performances are as befitting (as I previously mentioned) an E! production or one of those "True Life Stories" you see on channel 786. Travolta is weird, Schwimmer plays Ross from Friends (again - honestly, apart from his role in Band of Brothers has he ever deviated from this?) and the rest are meh. Facts are optional in this retelling of the take and drama and hyperbole given free run at the story which hardly needed any embellishment. There's a few funny digs at the Kardashians too for anyone who's interested. And yet despite all of that, there is something about it that draws you in. A very weird 5/10.

Very harsh! One of travoltas best performances for me, perfectly presenting the sheer sliminess of that lawyer, and Schwimmers only decent performance. He is basically a hang dog guy, so let him do his thing lol. Watching him in Feed the Beast right now he is very tiresome in that role, but I think it worked well for this show. Cuba was a bit OTT at times, but I found this got stronger as it got going, and Jonny Cochrane stole the show.

ButtersSuki

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Binge watched The People vs OJ Simpson over the BH Weekend. If I didn't know better I'd assume it was made by the E! Channel. I'd describe it somewhat like when you pass a car crash on the opposite side of the motorway - you know you shouldn't slow down and look but you end up doing so anyway. Normally I'd give up on stuff like this after 1 episode but for some reason I stuck with it. The cast on paper is ok, but the only two IMO who come out of this with credit are Sterling K. Brown and Courtney B. Vance as opposing prosecutors Darden and Cochrane. The rest of the performances are as befitting (as I previously mentioned) an E! production or one of those "True Life Stories" you see on channel 786. Travolta is weird, Schwimmer plays Ross from Friends (again - honestly, apart from his role in Band of Brothers has he ever deviated from this?) and the rest are meh. Facts are optional in this retelling of the take and drama and hyperbole given free run at the story which hardly needed any embellishment. There's a few funny digs at the Kardashians too for anyone who's interested. And yet despite all of that, there is something about it that draws you in. A very weird 5/10.

Deleted User wrote: »

Very harsh! One of travoltas best performances for me, perfectly presenting the sheer sliminess of that lawyer, and Schwimmers only decent performance. He is basically a hang dog guy, so let him do his thing lol. Watching him in Feed the Beast right now he is very tiresome in that role, but I think it worked well for this show. Cuba was a bit OTT at times, but I found this got stronger as it got going, and Jonny Cochrane stole the show.

Check my 2nd last line! It had something, I'm just not sure what that was....

Personally, I thought Schwimmer's best was Band of Brothers as he didn't effectively play Ross/himself for once (well that and the moustachioed part he had in The Iceman). This was Ross playing Robert Kardashian - now I don't know enough about RK to comment otherwise and maybe he was Ross personified, but somehow I doubt it.

I thought Travolta was grand, nothing to write home about. Cochrane/Vance and Darden/Brown had the best roles; Cochrane in OTT mode and Darden showing restraint. Cuba Gooding Jr. was awful IMO.

ButtersSuki

Grizzly Man on DVD (another from my vaults). Documentary directed by Werner Herzog about Timothy Threadwell who spent 13 summers living alone (mostly) with grizzly bears in Alaska. It's a fascinating insight into a deeply troubled young man's search for something - anything I fear, to give him and his life meaning, which ultimately and I guess predictably ends in tragedy. Has a real "Into The Wild" feel about it. It has left me a little upset tbh, it's very sad in places. 8/10.

charlie_says

Went to see latest Bourne. It sucked.

A few intriguing moments and pacing was pretty decent throughout but it just descends into mediocrity when the action kicks in over and over again. Some of the main protagonists motivations were totally unbelievable also. Was really wanting it to end after the silly Vegas car chase (probably would have made a fun GTA mission though).

Not worth the admission in my opinion.

BorneTobyWilde

Split 2010

One girls journey to find her love 30 days before she turns 30. Really easy going movie with lots of excellent individual performances from lots of lil knowns actors. I love that.
Lots of funny and quotable lines .
Solid 8/10

DavidKeane

The Purge: Election Year (2016)

Watched this last night. You know what you're getting TBF but I found it the best of the trilogy. There's a political element which makes it more interesting IMO and it has an overall better story line than it's predecessors (not that that'd be hard!). Good acting overall TBF to the actors. The events of the purge night itself seem a little tacked on in places and just for effect while the main story revolves around competing presidential candidates- one pro-purge, one anti. It's not particularly thrilling or scary but it's worth a watch if you like dystopian type films with a bit of gore and violence

ButtersSuki

Mystery Road Australian crime story in a western style

complete with shoot out finale

recorded from BBC earlier this year. Has its moments

aforementioned shootout, some great cinematography

and some good performances (incl. a barely recognisable Hugo Weaving) but overall the story is just too uneven (there's a lot of lows to go with the good parts) to be really good. It could have been really good with a better/tighter script, but it's not terrible either. 6/10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxx6eNrxKgY