What have you watched recently: Electric Boogaloo

Sleepy

Alex & The List - starring the always enjoyable Patrick Fugit with Karen Gillan and Jennifer Morrison in supporting roles (though sharing higher billing in the cast list).

It's a better than average rom-com that isn't quite as predictable as you'd initially think and yet another reason to wonder who Fugit pissed off as he really doesn't seem to have the level of success I'd have expected of his talent at this stage.

branie2

Jurassic Park: Fallen Kingdom at the cinema this evening; I thought it was very good.

reklamos

buried wrote: »

The Vietnam War (2017) - Ken Burns and Lynn Novick 18 hours of historical documentation film making of the Vietnam war that was shown on PBS last year. Got this on DVD and it is absolutely brilliant. The photo archive footage mixed with film archive footage alongside modern interviews with people from all sides and angles of the terrible conflict, this all mixed in with music from the time and a fantastic original soundtrack by the likes of NIN's Trent Reznor and The Silk Road Ensemble with Yo Yo Ma. This is a great work. The interviews with the actual people are brilliant and mixed in really expertly with the film's narrative at all sections of the entire work. This really is a 18 hour film. Highly recommended. Brilliant stuff. For 40 euros you won't go wrong 10/10

Thanks for recommendation, this a extremely well put documentary.

branie2

branie2 wrote: »

Jurassic Park: Fallen Kingdom at the cinema this evening; I thought it was very good.

Once again you have surpassed yourself with in depth description and wit Brainie

Lorelli!

I watched Stand By Me last night. It's one of those films I've never seen but always heard was great. It's a nice film but I don't know if it's overrated or dated? I think I was expecting more.

Also Richard Dreyfess who plays the older version of Gordie and Will Wheaton who plays the younger version both have distinctively different colour eyes.

Wombatman

BORG VS. MCENROE (2017)

An intelligent insight into the obsessive drive and self control it takes to become one of the greats. Simple, yet super intense. Relationships are authentic and the central performances are excellent. Backdrop is well chosen and recreated. Story imbalanced in favor of Borg's story, which robs us of a deeper exploration of the intriguing McEnroe. Recommended.

7.5/10

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Lorelli! wrote: »

I watched Stand By Me last night. It's one of those films I've never seen but always heard was great. It's a nice film but I don't know if it's overrated or dated? I think I was expecting more.

Also Richard Dreyfess who plays the older version of Gordie and Will Wheaton who plays the younger version both have distinctively different colour eyes.

I could be wrong but I think it's one of those you have to see at a fairly young age when the idea of having an adventure like that is amazing and then it carries a nostalgia thing with it after that.

Lorelli!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I could be wrong but I think it's one of those you have to see at a fairly young age when the idea of having an adventure like that is amazing and then it carries a nostalgia thing with it after that.

Ye, its funny you say that because I was talking to my brother about it earlier after I posted and he was shocked and said "what?? It's brilliant" and I was thinking then it's just one of those things you had to see when you were of a similar age to the characters so I missed the boat on that

NIMAN

Solo at the cinema.

I wasn't expecting much based on reviews I had read, but better than I thought it would be.

The lead was pretty good, but I think Harrelson stole the show, but he tends to do that in most films.

Just a little overlong, but that's a common trait of modern cinema, they tend to drag them out.

7/10

SimonTemplar

I ended up watching Sam Mendes' Bond films recently (Skyfall and Spectre) so I decided to go back and watch Quantum of Solace which I hadn't seen in a while. I knew it wasn't great though.

A couple of things came to mind while I was watching it:

- It is only about 1 hour 45 mins long but it feels longer. I know Spectre has its issues but at no point during that movie was I bored or lost interest. It has plot problems but it is still a very entertaining movie. On the other hand, QoS really dragged at times.

- The action isn't well directed at all. Loads of confusing close ups, shaky cam and rapid editing. Those three elements aren't necessarily a bad thing in the hands of someone who knows how to utilize them (like Paul Greengrass). This comes across as a director trying to copy Bourne's action and failing. (QoS was made in 2008, the last Bourne movie of the trilogy was released in 2007). I really don't know how Marc Foster got the job. Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland and Stranger Than Fiction isn't really a good back catalog to helm a major action movie. And he doesn't have the reputation of Sam Mendes or Danny Boyle.

- One of the things that most surprised me is that there is a definite mean streak running through the movie. There is an often mechanical coldness, almost heartlessness, to Bond in this movie which certainly isn't how Craig played him in his other three movies. I really can't fathom why the writers decided to do this, especially after making Bond the most human and sympathetic he had ever been in Casino Royale. I'm really glad they added just a little touch of fun and humour to the character when Mendes came along.

- The scenes I enjoyed the most were those between Bond and M, partly because Dench is an absolutely legend and plays that character perfectly, but also due to the knowledge of where their relationship will end up in Skyfall.

- The title song is rubbish, absolute rubbish.

- I thought Olga Kurylenko did a decent job. She is taller than the villain (totally forgettable) and there are a few scenes where she puts her arm around his shoulder to convey dominance. That was a nice little touch.

- The movie has the misfortune of having an opera scene which is fairly bland on its own, but it is especially bad when compared to the outstanding opera scene in Mission Impossible 5 seven years later.

So, definitely a below average Bond movie and certainly a disappointment after the highs of Casino Royale.

I really hope Craig goes out on a high note for his last film but I do trust Danny Boyle.

Padraig Mor

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I really hope Craig goes out on a high note for his last film but I do trust Danny Boyle.

Dunno.....besides Casino Royale I've been disappointed by the Craig Bond movies. QOS and Spectre were rubbish, Skyfall went well for a while before lumbering on with an unnecessary half hour. All down to the script writing though - I think Craig himself is very good.

al87987

QOS was the same time as the writers strike hence the idiotic plot and poor dialogue. Terrible film

El Duda

Amores Perros - 9.5/10

I remember seeing babel years ago and being really impressed with its intertwining structure and cleverly crafted set pieces. Compared to this, Babel pales in comparison and feels like a heavily diluted version of Irranitu's unique style. Not for the feint hearted and certainly not for anyone who cannot bare to see dogs in distress, Amores Perros tells us three thematically linked stories that explore desire, fantasy, death, isolation, greed and many other aspects of human nature. The consistent factor between the three stories is the involvement of various dogs.

The film is set and filmed in a dangerous suburb of Mexico. So dangerous in fact, that it was common for members of the cast and crew to get robbed during filming. It depicts a dog eat dog world full of crime and desperation and it feels wholly authentic and dangerous throughout. The three stories are all equally gripping and unnerving in their own unique ways. This is probably best enjoyed without knowing much about each plot thread beforehand. The film really takes you on a ride and its unpredictability is one of its greatest strengths.

Full of superb performances, excellent music choices and one of the most enigmatically compelling 'rogue' characters ever, Amores Perros truly lives up to all of its praise and justifies its critical acclaim. A phenomenally explosive debut feature from Alejandro González Iñárritu. It really is the mutts nuts.

El Duda

A few shorter ones:


The House of the Devil - 5.5/10

Disappointed with this as it had been recommended by people whose opinions on horror films tend to fall in line with my own. Shot on a 13mm camera to give it that 70's/80's aesthetic, it never really lives up to the promise of its opening titles. We all know exactly where the film is heading due to the movies title and the text that pops up at the start. There is no element of surprise and it is all fairly predictable.

I do appreciate the intent here, a glacially paced horror with a brooding sense of dread. It tries to conjure up an eery atmosphere using old school techniques, but it ultimately fell a little flat for me.

I'd never seen anything with Greta Gerwig in before but know her name from 'Ladybird', which was a huge talking point during Oscar season. I was shocked at just how bad she was in this film, it's only a small role but she is unbearable.
.

Army of Darkness - 8/10

Highly enjoyable, madcap film making from Sam Raimi. Arguably the quintessential horror/comedy of all time. It knows exactly how ludicrous it is and Bruce Campbell puts in a comedic masterclass of a performance.

Only 80mins in running time so its fast, frenetic and chaotic. Ash's 'Boomstick' speech is stuff of legend.


Rocky Balboa - 7/10

I've been slowly working my way through the franchise and, with the exception of 5, every film maintains a consistent level of quality. Stallone is great at writing scripts that are wholly relevant to where he was in life at the time.

Despite some tenuous links to the original films, this is a very good send off for cinemas most iconic boxer. Stallone insists that the fight at the end was for real and it is arguably one of the best fights in the series.


Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge - 5/10

The sequel to Wes Craven's classic fails to recapture the spirit and tone of the first film. Freddy is underwritten and the film really suffers for it. The scenes with the parents were oddly entertaining and it turns out the Mother was played by Oscar nominated actress Hope Lange.

Mark Patton tries his best but is ultimately a strange choice of lead. His girlish flamboyance was apparently a deliberate choice and there is a whole subtext about repressed homosexuality that doesn't really go anywhere. The film is redeemed by the weird, surrealist sequences at the end.

Mikenesson

Match Point , 6/10 transition to serial killer for Rhys Meyers was certainly very quick

Sicario , I thought bit was about 7/10 first time round.Only about a 5 this time,the story is pants.

Tony EH

'Braveheart'

Mel Gibson's love letter to Scotland is an absolute load of bunkum. A Heavily - with a capital H - fictionalised account of William Wallace's uprising against the English at the end of the 13th century. Gibson's Wallace bears absolutely no resemblance to the real figure in any way at all. Wallace, a man of minor Scottish nobility who was - more than likely - well travelled, (probably) the son of a landowner, geared for the priesthood and had prior military experience is, in the movie, depicted as a low commoner of simple farming stock, who disappears to Europe after his father is killed in an early uprising against English soldiers.

Although, an actual detailed history of Wallace is non-existent and there are more than enough legendary stories from both the Scots and the English which picture him as a hero and a villain, it's certain that Gibson's portrait is entirely a fantasy, with even the people and events the character knows and takes part in being painted with a liberal daub of made up "creativity". Robert the Bruce, for instance, comes in for some serious rewriting as a kind of mentally and morally tourtured Quisling, the battle of Stirling bridge, has no bridge and the battle of Falkirk is portrayed as a malicious betrayal.

On the English side, Edward I is a tyrant and his son Edward II, an effeminate "puff" caricature. While there's definite evidence of Edward I's tyranical tendencies - he was a rampant expansionist, who had invaded Ireland and Wales, was prone to the odd massacre and was known as the "Hammer of the Scots" - Gibson has Patrick McGoohan play him as a semi-Machiavellian Hitler figure, who is casual in his lust for power and violation of other nations. Edward II, his "sodomite son", is played largely for a kind of comic relief and while there are hints that the real life Edward II had a "close" relationship with a man in the Royal Court, actual evidence of a homosexual relationship is nowhere to be found. Into the bargain, Edward II would have been in his early teens when Wallace was campaigning against his father.

Probably the most egrigious retelling of an historical character is that of Isabella of France, as played by the fantastic looking Sophie Marceau. Isabella is a forlorn woman in a loveless, sham, marriage, who has a sexual relationship with William Wallace and gets pregnant by him, in a absurdly scripted section of the film. All of this dubiously forced drama would have been completely impossible, as Isabella was about 3 years old when the battle of Stirling bridge happened!

There little or nothing in Mel Gibson's film that can be said to have happened or remotely transpired and it's a litany of historical sins. Even the title of the film, 'Braveheart' has nothing to do with Wallace. The moniker was actually attributed to Robert the Bruce after his death, who's "brave heart" was carried into battle by the Scots in a ceremonial box.

And yet, it remains a very good and entertaining movie, who's entirely fictional characters are quite compelling. McGoohan makes a great villain, Gibson a great hero and Marceau a great romantic. Elsewhere, there's excellent support from the likes of Brendan Gleeson, David O'Hara, Peter Hanly, James Cosmo and a whole host of English, Irish and Scottish non-stars. The story itself is fine, once the viewer is divorced from the historical record (as it stands) and is very enjoyable, albeit on a very shallow level.

But, where the film shines is in its battle sequences. The two large pitched conflicts are superbly handled and are exciting and horrifying in equal measure. Men are hacked and slashed, battered and smashed in a bloody mess. Everyone gets covered in gore of some sort and it's all excellently done. Horses, too suffer and are shown as battle casualties like never before and the terrifying prospect of a heavy cavalry charge is wonderfully staged, as is the Scots defensive use of improvised spears, hacked from into shape from trees. Flakirk, too, has its "charms" and the twist of betrayal adds an extra layer, which serves as a (clumsy) comment on the fracture of internal Scottish politics of the time.

As an historical film, 'Braveheart' is absolutely worthless. But as a drama, it's an entertaining, oscar winning movie that's as enjoyable as one could expect from such an outing.


7/10

Ipso

I love the below criticism.
"farcical representation as a wild and hairy highlander painted with woad (1,000 years too late) running amok in a tartan kilt (500 years too early"

SEPT 23 1989

The 12th Man

9/10

ButtersSuki

Studio 54 in The Light House on Monday night, the latest in a string of documentaries about the legendary nightclub. To be honest I was somewhat disappointed in this; possibly admittedly as I've seen and read so much about it over the years (I even have the book Ian Schrager is compiling during the filming). This is surprisingly short at less than 100minutes and offers precious little if anything new that hasn't been covered elsewhere on film or in print. What they did very poorly I thought was discuss the influence of the music and the DJs on the club and the scene at the time; which, considering Nile Rogers was one of the interviewees seems a very strange creative decision and is a big omission. It's not awful by any means; if you don't know that much about it I'd imagine it's a much better watch, but for me, a disappointing 5/10.


Molly's Game on Blu Ray last night. Aaron Sorkin's directorial debut featuring Jessica Chastain as a former elite athlete turned illegal high stakes poker game organiser and host and the characters she encounters on her way. Based on true story, the casting is mostly good (with the notable exception of Chris O'Dowd playing a - wait for it - drunk Irish American). I wasn't all that hot on Chastain earlier in her career but she's definitely growing on me in the last few roles I've seen her in. An interesting and entertaining watch, a 7/10. Will likely buy the book for futher info.

branie2

Ocean's Eight at the cinema this evening. I thought it was very funny.

Fysh

The White Chamber (EIFF screening) - despite a promising setup, this wasn't very good. It's trying for a sort of 1984-meshed-with-V-for-Vendetta (the comic more so than the film) tone and narrative, and while Shauna Macdonald is the focus it works reasonably well. Unfortunately, the narrative structure is badly put together and puts Oded Fehr front and centre, which is a mistake because his character is woefully written and Fehr is unable to give the character any depth through his performance. The plot is fairly daft as presented on screen - with a civil-war-riven UK,

the government decides that the key to victory lies in engineering a new performance enhancing drug for its troops, which Macdonald's character is responsible for designing - but she instead uses the titular White Chamber, nominally an environmentally controlled test chamber, to get revenge on the leader of the rebel forces

. The verisimilitude of what's on screen is lacking, partly for budget constraints and partly because seemingly nobody thought to ask the relevant questions. So we get told things repeatedly that are not shown, e.g.

chemists cooking up batches of drugs on an open bench in their allegedly state-of-the-art lab instead of in a fume cupboard, and generally doing Sciency Looking Things With Flasks And Test Tubes, but never measuring out their reagents accurately either by weight or by volume

. In a better film this might not be a problem, but here it just reinforces the lack of depth in the writing.

About the best hope for this is the possibility of someone cutting it down to a 60-minute-ish Black Mirror episode. As it is now, it's not really worth a watch.

The Secret Of Marrowbone (EIFF screening) - a nicely put together haunted house/ghost story in the vein of The Orphanage, with good performances throughout and some lovely cinematography. The titular Marrowbone is the name of both the protagonist family and the decrepit old house to which they return at the start of the film. The narrative is very neatly assembled such that there's an ongoing ambiguity around the scares, and one thing I really liked was that the nature and presentation of the scares varied depending on which character was in focus at the time. Partly because this avoids the kind of repetitive feeling that lesser films fall into, and partly because it uses something that could have just being a jumpscare to instead show us a little more about the characters.

There is one element of the story that strikes a bum note -

during the height of the third act, it is revealed that Jack, consumed with grief at the murder of his three siblings by his vengeful father, suddenly develops Multiple Personality Disorder and thus for most of the film has in fact been accompanied only by imaginary versions of his siblings

- but the rest of the film is handled so well that this is a minor quibble rather than, as in some other films that try to use the same conceit, a showstopper.

ButtersSuki

Red Sparrow on 4K Blu Ray (not my first 4K BR purchase, but my first watch). Jennifer Lawrence, Matthias Schoenaerts, Joel Edgerton, Jermey Irons, Charlotte Rampling, Bill Camp (again, 2nd movie this week after his Molly's Game cameo) and others in Cold War-style Russian Honey Trap Spy movie. Definitely more cerebral in the Tinker, Tailor etc. genre than an action flick, but far more enjoyable as a result - this is most definitely not Marvel . The biggest problem for me was Edgerton (as he and Lawrence have zero chemistry), who seems miscast in this role. I've liked some things he's done, but they tend to be Australian movies to be fair. I feel the movie would also have benefited from being longer, with more time given to the training element

I mean as an all around spy, not the seduction element

in particular. There's 3 books in the series so it will be interesting to see the story develop if they make the other two. It's not as I mentioned without fault, but I'd give it a 7/10.

On the 4K experience, I'm not sure it merits the price increase from standard BR, but sure I'm a sucker for this stuff.:rolleyes:

oneilla

Alien Covenant

Prometheus confused me the way they tried to shoehorn in a back story to the original Alien timeline. Covenant just outright had me baffled - so, David and Shaw land on the engineers planet, David turns out to be a bad android, kills the engineers and then somehow creates the alien species from the originals?

Wasn't the whole point of the Prometheus mission to discover who created mankind? How'd that turn into David creating the aliens and why?

Covenant is an OK sci-fi action film playing out the usual trope of "ship lands on planet and things goes bad".
Just seems to muddle the whole canon and I can't really see how these fit into the first Alien film.

Trying on the good vs bad android thing was a bit daft.

bnt

Watched X-Men: The Last Stand for the first time yesterday, the third in the series. I haven't been following the whole X-Men thing closely, so wasn't aware going in that the film really was going to be that "final", in the sense that anything made later would need to be a prequel and/or reboot. It's received mixed reviews, and I thought it was pretty OK. That whole thing with the

Golden Gate Bridge

was just a pointless stunt, really didn't get why Magneto would waste his energy on that. The surprise star of the show for me was Kelsey Grammer as Dr. Hank McCoy / Beast: he was clearly having a great time in such an unusual role for him.
edit: I now see that The Wolverine was actually a sequel to this, but it stood up on its own anyway.

Chev_Chelios

The Foreigner

Jackie Chan stars as a man who seeks to avenge his daughters death at the hands of an IRA splinter group. An enjoyable action thriller, Jackie Chan gives a very good performance, shows his range as an actor, Pierce Brosnan is good too.

SimonTemplar

bnt wrote: »

Watched X-Men: The Last Stand for the first time yesterday, the third in the series. I haven't been following the whole X-Men thing closely, so wasn't aware going in that the film really was going to be that "final", in the sense that anything made later would need to be a prequel and/or reboot. It's received mixed reviews, and I thought it was pretty OK. That whole thing with the

Golden Gate Bridge

was just a pointless stunt, really didn't get why Magneto would waste his energy on that. The surprise star of the show for me was Kelsey Grammer as Dr. Hank McCoy / Beast: he was clearly having a great time in such an unusual role for him.
edit: I now see that The Wolverine was actually a sequel to this, but it stood up on its own anyway.

To be fair, I don't think it is as bad as its reputation, but I think its main problem was that it directly followed X2 which is rightfully considered to be a great film, and it is therefore a big disappointing drop in quality.

I'd consider The Last Stand to be better than the first Wolverine movies (maybe even the second), and the awful X-Men Apocalypse a few years ago.

Fysh

A few more EIFF screenings I caught:

Supa Modo - the most interesting film about superheroes I've seen in ages, this was a very moving film about grief, community and, yes, superheroes. Jo is a 9 year old girl who loves superheroes and action film heroes, and dreams of becoming her own superhero, the titular Supa Modo. She also has cancer (or something similarly devastating) which is pronounced terminal at the start of the film, leading to her being discharged from hospital and returned to the care of her mother and sister. While her mother struggles with the grief of knowing Jo is dying, her sister prefers to play with her and indulge her desire to be a superhero, gradually persuading the rest of the community to join in, culminating in a film-within-a-film segment that is at once wonderfully moving, funny and sad. Very much a film about the importance of choosing how we live in the absence of being able to choose how we die.

Oh, and like many superhero films, Supa Modo has a post credits scene. Easily the best one I've seen, and worth sticking around for.

Papillon - Another adaptation of the book that was the basis of the 1973 film, this is mostly a solid character-oriented prison escape. It starts lumpily with some heavily expository silliness that's both badly scripted and unnecessary to the story. Within a few minutes we move to the incarceration of Hunnam and Malek's characters, though, and that's where the film works. The two have good chemistry and Malek seems to bring a better-than-usual performance out of Hunnam; the pace is ponderous in a way that fits the setting, although occasionally it feels needlessly slow. There are a few moments of over-egging the pudding, such as

during the escape, the four escapees take turns to jump down from a 12 foot wall instead of all doing so at the same time, seemingly for no reason than to build cheap tension as to whether they will get caught.

Despite that, it's effective and worth a watch (note that I have not seen the '73 version, so I've no idea how similar or otherwise it is).

The Little Girl Who Was Too Fond Of Matches - it wouldn't be a film festival without something bleak, miserable and oppressive featuring long stretches of silence and in black and white, would it? Once it gets going, this is a pretty good if quite heavy portrait of a small family yoked by the weight of a tragic past. The opening third has a few fascinating details but is remarkably obtuse - long stretches of silence and unexplained dynamics between the central charactera creates a mood of tense doomy foreboding but does little to indicate any idea of who the characters are outside of their interactions with one another. After that, the narrative gains some momentum and the characters, along with their history, start to come into focus. Very much a film in which pretty much everyone is a despicable arsehole of some sort (and several are also victims to varying extents), there's a lot to appreciate here if you're in the right frame of mind for it. Cheery, however, it is not. (Note: I also have not read the book this adapts).

SimonTemplar

Psycho

Not really much more I can say about this that hasn't already been said.

A few things that came to mind as I was watching it (probably my 10th time). Spoilers below.

- Janet Leigh's little smirk in the car as she is imagining her boss finding out she stole the money is unexpected and very devilish.

- The shots of the police officier with large black sunglasses are so good.

- The scene in Bates' parlour between himself and Marion is probably one of the best written dialog scenes ever. So many great lines and some excellent foreshadowing.

- I like that Bates' parlour is decorated with stuffed birds and Marion's surname is Crane.

- Imagine the shower scene from Marion's point of view. The guy she's spent the evening with is standing in front of her dressed as a woman and holding a knife. The audience thinks it is the mother which is bad enough but imagine what Marion must have thought as she screamed. Terrifying!

- How awesome is that shot underneath Bates' chin as he is talking to the PI!

- After she has stopped screaming and Bates runs in dressed as his mother, I love Vera Mills' confused WTF expression.

- The psychologist's explaination scene goes on far too long. He says the same thing in about 4 different ways. It is a common criticism but I can forgive it due to being made in 1960.

Tony EH

One of the greatest films of its era, despite being produced as a fairly low key enterprise.

Martin Balsam and Anthony Perkin's scenes are perfect. He knows, Bates knows, both know each other knows and they both dance and the obvious.

One of the most rewarding films for multiple viewings and one of the few Hitchcock films that I can still watch without reservation.

Del.Monte

Tony EH wrote: »

One of the greatest films of its era, despite being produced as a fairly low key enterprise.

Martin Balsam and Anthony Perkin's scenes are perfect. He knows, Bates knows, both know each other knows and they both dance and the obvious.

One of the most rewarding films for multiple viewings and one of the few Hitchcock films that I can still watch without reservation.

Except for the shower scene! Apparently Janet Leigh was similarly affected by it and years after making the film always locked the bathroom door when taking a shower - I still do! I can hear the music!