What have you watched recently: Electric Boogaloo

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

King Arthur (2017)

Another "bloke-sploitational" film from Guy Ritchie, clobbering the King Arthur myth round the head and dressing it in Lord of the Rings cosplay by way of 'Snatch'. The end product was precisely as enjoyable as ones tolerance for Ritchie's single gimmick of Cockney geezery will allow, so for me it made the whole experience excruciating to sit through & utterly, irredeemably obnoxious; it wasn't hard to fathom how and why this film tanked in the cinemas. To its slim credit though, it bucked a regrettable trend with current blockbusters, in that it wasn't a film that tried to front-load itself with winking sequel potential, instead everything wrapped up in the final act without any trailing ellipsis in the script. Thank god for small mercies.

Unfortunately wasted my time on this one also. Truely awful.
The matey-cockney shtye didn't work (and is tired at this stage) in the medieval setting and the structure was an attempt at incoherently linking bad action sequences.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I'm looking forward to seeing how Ritchie works his Cock-er-ney Geezah style into Disney's live action Aladdin.

Mi Amigo Hugo

I think without Oliver Stone, and not only in his making of movies but in his documentaries - South of the Border, The Docs on Castro, Untold History of the Utd States, and recently the Putin interviews, much of the worlds history since WW2 might indeed be confined to the narrow ideology and strategic aims of the neocolonialists that have been the United States.

I don't believe there is another director on a par with him that gives the other side of the story. And even with all his accolades, Oscars and magnificent works of film he is still chastised and maligned often in mainstream media.

I found this short doc on Chavez quite heartwarming, and a great insight into the man himself who we were told was basically a ruthless dictator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJumwvO2DrA

NIMAN

Brief_Lives wrote: »

How good was the quality, it has just been released in the cinema, right?
You sound like you were watching it at home though...

I was at home, and quality perfect....film still pants, can't have seen 2nd half improving dramatically.

Heckler

Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Men Tell No Tales.

Loved the first. Second was OK. Third I lasted about 15 minutes and fourth about 5.

But I enjoyed this one. Thought it was more in spirit with first one. Time to retire Jack Sparrow no doubt. Apart from a few dodgy CGI moments the special effects were great.

I'll never get tired of pirate ships breaching from the depths.

7/10

Looper007

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)

Just a mind blowing piece of Cinema that sadly was neglected at the time (I know Mark Kermode gave it his film of year in 2007) as it was overshadowed by There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men, that's a tough year to really stand out. But from Andrew Dominik directing, to Roger Deakin's beautiful Cinematography, amazing Nick Cave/Warren Ellis Soundtrack, to a career best performance from Brad Pitt, With Casey Affleck showing what a talent he is. With some of the best written Voice/Over I've heard in film (big up Hugh Ross). This is a Terrence Malick film in all but name, a poetic and stark western that deserves more attention. a true classic imo. 10/10

Also Dominik's follow up film, Killing Them Softly (2012) with Brad Pitt, deserves a second look. Savaged by many on it's release, I think it's a fantastic film with great performances from Pitt, Ben Mendelsohn, Scoot McBairy and the late great James Gandolfini. Not to everyones tastes I know, but it's a film for me that gets better with each viewing. 8/10

Mr E

After neglecting the cinema in the last week or two (too busy), I went 3 times this week.

Logan Lucky was flawed but good fun. The actual heist wasn't particularly well done. One of my favourite Adam Driver roles.

American Made was tailor-made for Tom Cruise - if even half of it is true, it's still a crazy story. Domhnall Gleeson was excellent too.

Detroit was a let down. The middle section was gripping, but there was a combined 30-45 minutes of bloat on either side that could have been condensed to make a leaner (and better) movie.

Nerdlingr

Looper007 wrote: »

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)

Just a mind blowing piece of Cinema that sadly was neglected at the time (I know Mark Kermode gave it his film of year in 2007) as it was overshadowed by There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men, that's a tough year to really stand out. But from Andrew Dominik directing, to Roger Deakin's beautiful Cinematography, amazing Nick Cave/Warren Ellis Soundtrack, to a career best performance from Brad Pitt, With Casey Affleck showing what a talent he is. With some of the best written Voice/Over I've heard in film (big up Hugh Ross). This is a Terrence Malick film in all but name, a poetic and stark western that deserves more attention. a true classic imo. 10/10

Love this film. That dinner table scene with Casey Affleck always stands out for me. I think it and 'Zodiac' came out the same year (2007), two of my favourite films of the last ten years/ever. Must re-watch the two of them again soon.

Tony EH

Looper007 wrote: »

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)

Just a mind blowing piece of Cinema that sadly was neglected at the time (I know Mark Kermode gave it his film of year in 2007) as it was overshadowed by There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men, that's a tough year to really stand out. But from Andrew Dominik directing, to Roger Deakin's beautiful Cinematography, amazing Nick Cave/Warren Ellis Soundtrack, to a career best performance from Brad Pitt, With Casey Affleck showing what a talent he is. With some of the best written Voice/Over I've heard in film (big up Hugh Ross). This is a Terrence Malick film in all but name, a poetic and stark western that deserves more attention. a true classic imo. 10/10

Personally, I think it's a much better film than anything Malick has done.

Looper007 wrote: »

Also Dominik's follow up film, Killing Them Softly (2012) with Brad Pitt, deserves a second look. Savaged by many on it's release, I think it's a fantastic film with great performances from Pitt, Ben Mendelsohn, Scoot McBairy and the late great James Gandolfini. Not to everyones tastes I know, but it's a film for me that gets better with each viewing. 8/10

Never saw it, but always wondered why it got the drubbing it did? It didn't look that bad.

NIMAN

Wasted 90mins of my life last night watching It Comes At Night.

One of those films that the trailer makes look tense and scary, absolute shiite.

3/10 for me.

buried

Tony EH wrote: »

Never saw it, but always wondered why it got the drubbing it did? It didn't look that bad.

I can guarantee this Tony, not only will you enjoy that film, but after watching it you will know full well why the mainhouse collective drubbed that film so. It's a modern classic IMO. A nice collective grimshot of hypocrisy in all its forms everywhere in this day and age. That's why it was drubbed. Fantastic work.

Looper007

Tony EH wrote: »

Personally, I think it's a much better film than anything Malick has done.



Never saw it, but always wondered why it got the drubbing it did? It didn't look that bad.

I wouldn't disagree with you Tony, if this was made by Malick in the 70's it would be held in higher opinion imo.

With Killing Them Softly I think a lot were expecting a Scorsese like Gangster flick and what they got was something a lot more of slow burning political gangster film with a ending that just annoyed the hell out of the audience. I thought it was a fantastic film, when I first saw it and think it's a lost gem now after a few rewatches.

Looper007

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Love this film. That dinner table scene with Casey Affleck always stands out for me. I think it and 'Zodiac' came out the same year (2007), two of my favourite films of the last ten years/ever. Must re-watch the two of them again soon.

I love train robbery at the beginning, one of the greatest shot scenes you ever see. Roger Deakins greatest work imo and that's saying something.

2007 would have a good shout for one of the best years in cinema in recent times

No Country For Old Men
There Will Be Blood
The Assassianation of Jesse James
Zodiac
Eastern Promises
Into The Wild
Michael Clayton
Gone Baby Gone
The Lives of Others
Black Book
Hot Fuzz
Once
Rescue Dawn
Control
The Darjeeling Limited
The Diving Bell and The Butterfly

That's a damn good year.

brianregan09

Watched a few in the last few days

The Wall (2017)

Starring Aaron Taylor (kickass) johnson and John Cena was a very tense sniper vs sniper battle ala Enemy at the gates set in amongst the Iraqi war , Decent performance in there from Johnson considering how ****e he was in Godzilla

Bushwick (2017)

Sort of like the purge a little Dave Batista as the lead star some great realistic looking action very gritty and un hollywood like , Very weak ending though but worth a watch

White Dog 1982 Not so much they don't make em like this anymore, but more 'they can't make em like this anymore'. A young actress runs over a dog late one night and takes him home only to discover he has been trained to be a 'white dog', in other words trained to attack black people. She takes him to a special black trainer who tries to cure the dog. Both a bizarre and remarkable film at the same time, with a great score by Ennio. Not an animal movie for the kids....

Shapey Fiend

The Assassination of Jesse James was interesting in that I hated it the first time I saw it at the cinema but upon rewatching it a second time I really enjoyed it. That said I'm starting to tire of Casey Affleck his performances seem a little repetitive. Meant to be a nasty sleaze in real life as well for that matter.

Watched Patti Cakes this weekend. The central performance was good but I thought the music was a little sparse and not particularly brilliant (I want more rap in a rap movie). The story beats were very bog standard for this kind of film so that's kind of important.

Looper007

UNA (2017)

Based on Blackbird a play by David Harrower (Jeff Daniels and Michelle Williams did a recent stage version of it on Broadway), Director Benedict Andrews does his best to make something Cinematic out of a play that's strength is probably on stage, it's a tough watch and does lull in places (especially in the third act) so no wonder even with it's impressive cast, it's slipped onto VOD rather then a cinema run and has received middling reviews. It would have worked better on the small screen, like those one off dramas Channel 4 or BBC 2 did in the 80's/90's.

Saying that Rooney Mara gives one of her career best performances, which is why this is worth checking out. She's one of those hit and miss actresses, she does stuff where she's completely wasted in (Lion and Trash come to mind, which both were great films but she has forgettable roles in both) but then does amazing stuff in the likes of Carol or A Ghost Story, her role in Una is up there with her performance in Carol for me. Ben Mendelsohn is always at his best playing slimy and does it to perfection. Riz Ahmed and Tara Fitzgerald are both wasted in nothing roles, really wonder why Ahmed who's on a career high would chose such a nothing role here. Not a perfect film, a tough comfortable watch with a career best turn from Mara, probably one of those stage adaptions that true power lays on the stage. 6/10

Looper007

Shapey Fiend wrote: »

The Assassination of Jesse James was interesting in that I hated it the first time I saw it at the cinema but upon rewatching it a second time I really enjoyed it. That said I'm starting to tire of Casey Affleck his performances seem a little repetitive. Meant to be a nasty sleaze in real life as well for that matter.

I don't excuse what he does off screen and going by Brie Larsson reaction to him when he picked up a Oscar, I'm sure many of his fellow thespians don't either. But I think Casey, a bit like his former brother in Law Joaquin Phoenix, when he gets the right material he is as good as anyone out there.

I think he's given great performances in Jesse James, Gone Baby Gone, Out of the Furnace, and especially Manchester by The Sea, whatever he did off screen his performance in that film is heartbreaking, well deserving of his Oscar.

The Big Sick
Reviews were very good. I had taken it to be a comedy but it's more of a drama with some comedy in it.
Premise is a cross-cultural relationship in the US (Pakistani stand-up comedian wannabe against his family wishes of an arranged marriage within his own culture and an American girl who he meets but can't tell his family about).
Very dialogue heavy. Not bad but drags a bit at times. Based on a true story.
6/10

Looper007

glasso wrote: »

The Big Sick
Reviews were very good. I had taken it to be a comedy but it's more of a drama with some comedy in it.
Premise is a cross-cultural relationship in the US (Pakistani stand-up comedian wannabe against his family wishes of an arranged marriage within his own culture and an American girl who he meets but can't tell his family about).
Very dialogue heavy. Not bad but drags a bit at times. Based on a true story.
6/10

I enjoyed it a lot, but like a lot of Judd Apatow produced or Directed stuff it's far too overlong for a comedy, could have cut 25 minutes out of it and it would have been stronger. Kumail Nanjiani is a likeable lead, and his script written along with his real life wife, has it's heart in the right place. But I thought the film was at it's strongest when it was based around Kumail and Zoe Kazan's Emily, far too much of it started to drag once Holly Hunter and Ray Romano (both very good) came on screen. It picked up once Kazan came back on screen.

Wasn't laugh out loud funny, none of the stand up stuff was very funny. Hunter and Romano bought the laughs. A tad overrated by the critics, like most Apatow involved stuff. But it's heart is in the right place. 7/10

Tony EH

'The Limehouse Golem'

A nice idea, executed with mediocrity, in a fragmentary way and leading to a real letdown. It's obvious ending should also be apparent to anyone who's paying even the slightest bit of attention as well, which doesn't help it any.

All of that is a shame, because everyone is game here and the setting of old London town is richly created, with a genuine care and observance to the details.

But, while the London of the grim and gritty 1880's feels relatively authentic, it's the story that doesn't hold up. It also unfolds in a series of flashbacks and feels uncontrolled and disjointed, with a "twist" that's so clear from the first frame, it makes the film almost not worth watching because the payoff is so grossly underwhelming.

Bill Nighy leads as Inspector Kildare, who's been tasked to investigate a series of brutal murders in the Limehouse district of London. He has to prove the identity of the killer, who he suspects is the husband of a music hall actress, Elizabeth Cree, who has recently been accused of poisoning him. It's a race against time for Kildare, as Cree is destined for the drop.

It's a pity that such an empty story is given a believable setting and a troupe of actors that inhabit their roles well. But, it never even gets to the level of a Sunday afternoon Agatha Christie TV adaptation.

3/10

Looper007

Looper007 wrote: »

I enjoyed it a lot, but like a lot of Judd Apatow produced or Directed stuff it's far too overlong for a comedy, could have cut 25 minutes out of it and it would have been stronger. Kumail Nanjiani is a likeable lead, and his script written along with his real life wife, has it's heart in the right place. But I thought the film was at it's strongest when it was based around Kumail and Zoe Kazan's Emily, far too much of it started to drag once Holly Hunter and Ray Romano (both very good) came on screen. It picked up once Kazan came back on screen.

Wasn't laugh out loud funny, none of the stand up stuff was very funny. Hunter and Romano bought the laughs. A tad overrated by the critics, like most Apatow involved stuff. But it's heart is in the right place. 7/10

agreed that the parents of Emily were the best part. I still only give it 6/10. This sort of this has been done better before e.g. East is East (1999).

Tony EH

'Wonder Woman'

Currently boasting a 92% score on Rotten Tomatoes, 'Wonder Woman' seems to have hit a seam of popularity that I have to admit, I find truly bewildering. Its opening ranges from dull to stupid, it's ending is unbelievably flat, while its middle section flabs as soon as we leave London for Flanders. I guess I'm just not seeing what others are seeing in this.

Applying full disclosure, I'm not a fan of the character. I think the Amazonian goddess angle is dumb and along with Thor, I just find the character to be one of the most ridiculous of the big name superheroes. That's saying something when superheroes are choc-a-bloc with stupid characters. But, even with that, I was more than willing to give Wonder Woman a chance to wow me. Instead, it just bored me with its inanity and kind of angered me with its setting.

Its simplistic story is also a let down. But, it's an "origin story", so there's only so much one can do I suppose, intro/villain appears/defeat villain. 'Wonder Woman' starts off on the mystical and hidden island of Themyscira (somewhere near Turkey I presume), where we see a little poppet version of Diana/Wonder Woman who is already running around and wanting to emulate her elders. The island is totally populated by women, but Diana, we're told, was created from clay by her mother - Queen Hippolyta - and given life by the Greek God Zeus. Zeus, by the way, created the race of Amazons as sworn protectors of mankind (how they do this when they can never leave their hidden Island remains an actual wonder). Diana eventually grows up, meets blue-eyed Steve Tevor (Chris Pine) when he crashes near her Island and is runs off with him to a WWI ravaged Europe to stop the First World War nazis from gassing everybody on the planet...or something.

To be honest, the story is appallingly childish - even for a comic book film - and never really moves along at anything but pretty leisurely pace. Every character, with the exception of the female wonder herself, is pretty limp. With a particularly milquetoast villain, who's twist appearance is so unsurprising, as to be almost insulting and its setting of WWI is a travesty. Although, we can be thankful it's not WWII, which would no doubt have been rendered worse. Another negative is its use of badly created CGI, which remains incredibly unconvincing. The green screen is so obvious at times, it's staggering.

The positives, however, lie solely with Wonder Woman herself and I believe the good will towards this film is almost totally due to Gal Gadot's good performance/look. Plucked from her modelling career, Gadot does well and is charming with her broken accent and fish-out-of-water act. But, this angle is terribly underused and is at its best in the short London section, which is the most amusing section of the film. The opportunity for a few laughs at the expense of stuffy early 20th Century British society is utilised well enough and benefits from great support from an unrecognisable Lucy Davis (Dawn from the Office) as Etta Candy, Steve Trevor's secretary (or "slave" as WW calls her, most likely due to the fact that she hasn't discovered what a job is yet).

At the end we’re left with the feeling that there's definitely something to Gadot's Wonder Woman which promises more from the character in future DCCU films. But, as a film in and of itself 'Wonder Woman' leaves an awful lot to be desired from me, I have to admit. ‘Wonder Woman’ is simply another average big budget Hollywood movie that has received and incredible amount of quite undeserving praise. Perhaps that’s due to the generally low quality of the Hollywood output, I just don’t know.


4.5/10

Shapey Fiend

Rotten Tomatoes rating system is little barometer of anything really. It got 92% off predominantly average reviews. Most non-film focussed publications are inclined to give everything 3/5 unless it's spectacularly bad.

It's like how when movie magazines do videogame reviews (like Empire) they only cover movie/comic games and give everything to 3 to 5 stars.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

'Wonder Woman'



To be honest, the story is appallingly childish


4.5/10

Could it possibly be anything else I ask you? I mean the market for this is people who will be checking their instagram every 2 mins during the film!

Disposable1

It's nice to see so many Spanish films recommended as it's the one region I've always neglected so have relatively little knowledge of, but after I watched The Body a few weeks ago on BBC I'm eager to see more. The Body, although it has it's flaws, is still an excellent film.

david75

The Matrix.
What a great film. 19 years old. Hard to believe.

GreNoLi

A Dark Song, excellent Irish made horror film, highly recommended.

david75

The Lost City of Z

Well I liked it. Some understated performances and lovely period production but a fascinating true story also. Worth a watch. Nice lazy weekend film.

Harry Palmr

Kingsman: The Secret Service 2015 Dir Matthew Vaughn

James Bond as imagined by Chuck Jones. Watched this on Channel 4 which I recorded thankfully - nearly three flipping hours with all the adds. Wasn't sure for quite while as it was effectively two films in one by necessity but by the end I had enjoyed myself. Very knowing but with just enough conviction to get away with it. Not sure what the fuss about the violence was about - the whole thing is so cartoony you'd have to be very sensitive to take offence. Killing Harry (or maybe not!) halfway through was a clever move, Eggsy didn't need him any longer really. Mark Strong was brill as usual and it took me a few moments to recognise Mark Hammill esp with that accent!