Page 41 of 41 FirstFirst ... 31394041
Results 2,001 to 2,041 of 2041

Thread: What films are you watching?

  1. #2001

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    22 Acacia Avenue
    Posts
    9,956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batman View Post
    anyone seen the new Bond film yet?
    Not as good as Casino Royale or Skyfall, not enough screen time for Monica Belluci, and I'd rather have Mr Hinx's Jag than the DB10.

  2. #2002

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    22 Acacia Avenue
    Posts
    9,956

    Default

    ....

  3. #2003

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badgerx16 View Post
    Not as good as Casino Royale or Skyfall, not enough screen time for Monica Belluci, and I'd rather have Mr Hinx's Jag than the DB10.
    Exactly my thoughts too. Belluci got star slot but only in for about 5 minutes.
    Casino Skyfall and then Spectre for me as well


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #2004

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    George Sander's sweet cesspool
    Posts
    5,943

    Default

    I saw again yesterday a 2001 movie that I much enjoy called 'Thirteen Days' - a dramatised account of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

    As a child of the Cold War myself stories set in this tense and dangerously unstable world have long interested me. Films such as Stanley Kubric's 'Dr Strangelove' and the awesome 'Failsafe' I still count as being among the best that I have ever seen. But those films are works of fiction and much of the power of 'Thirteen Days' brings to the screen is that this film is based upon actual historical events - to a degree anyway.

    Seen from the perspective of a long term Kennedy family ally and aide called Kenneth O'Donnell (played by Kevin Costner) the film shows us JFK and his brother Robert attempting to cope with a escalating situation under enormous pressure, for if this crisis can't be 'defused' in time then the world would lay on the very brink of a nuclear disaster with appalling consequences for life on this planet.

    Much of the controversy surrounding this movie on its realise was related to the important role in the Missile Crisis the script attaches to O'Donnell. Some historians of the era arguing that he was in fact a relatively minor Whitehouse 'staffer' of little real significance. The film's director - Roger Donaldson - refuted this and maintained that the Kennedy's trusted O'Donnell implicitly and placed much faith in his advice. Whether O'Donnell did attend the critical 'Excomm' committee meetings at the height of the crisis is I understand a matter that is disputed.

    Be that as it may, I think that 'Thirteen Days', judged only as a entertainment, is a real success. Costner is actually very good here and the actors chosen to play the key JFK and Robert Kennedy roles not only resemble their characters physically, they seem to have captured something of their spirit too - although admittedly the film has no place at all for all the womanising and dodgy Mafia connections that also went on. Above all the script manages to impart some of the (very real) tension of the time to the viewer in way that a straightforward historical documentary might not accomplish.


  5. #2005

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    George Sander's sweet cesspool
    Posts
    5,943

    Default

    I must have seen 'The Godfather' ten or twenty times over the years, but I've only just noticed a glaring continuity error in what is perhaps one of the most famous scenes in cinema history.

    When young Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) so memorably assassinates that git Sollozzo and his sidekick Captain McCluskey in the Italian restaurant, Michael shoots McCluskey (Stirling Hayden) twice - first in the throat and then once in the forehead. However, watch the action closely and just before the final bullet is fired into McCluskey's head you can clearly see that the bleeding wound is already there - take a look for yourself:



    Francis Ford Coppola and his film editor must I guess have noticed this when they were cutting 'The Godfather' together in post-production, but I can only assume that the young director just didn't get all the shots he wanted when he was filming the scene and had to improvise. It's still a great movie of course, but it does go to show you that nothing made my the hand of man is ever perfect.

  6. #2006

    Default What films are you watching?

    Watched Black Mass the other night. Reasonable American gangster type movie, but not an outstanding film, which that genre often are. I am not sure why I wasn't blown away. Perhaps I am more critical these days or perhaps it just lacks something. Mind you in a world full of crap movies it's certainly won a watch.

    A far better movie is Dope. Nice pace and flow to it, half decent story and well acted. Nice sound track too. Really enjoyed it.

  7. #2007

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    George Sander's sweet cesspool
    Posts
    5,943

    Default

    I saw, and was quite impressed with, 'Zero Dark Thirty' the other day - a dramatised account of the CIA's decade long manhunt for Al-Qaeda supremo Osama bin Laden. Directed by Kathryn Bigelow, the film revolves around the character 'Maya' (Jessica Chastain), a ferociously dedicated young intelligence analysis who will stop at nothing to get her man.

    As with many films of this type you do wonder where the dividing line between truth and fiction lays, but 'Zero Dark Thirty' certainly doesn't seek to avoid depicting the thorny moral issue of the CIA's employment of torture methods in order to extract information from captured terrorists. Indeed, we see here that this intelligence proved instrumental in the eventual discovery of Osama's hiding place in Abbottabad, Pakistan. It seems to me that while this film depicts torture it adroitly avoids (sidesteps?) forming any real judgement on this difficult issue - we seem instead to be invited to form our own opinion as to whether we feel that the 'ends justify the means' here. Is that a 'cop out' or a wise choice I wonder.

    While 'Zero Dark Thirty' may struggle at times to resolve the tension that exists between the need to develop both its charterers and a (rather complex) plot, it is nevertheless a successful effort overall I think. The climatic scenes when US Special Forces finally launch their raid on Osama's secret compound are certainly highly dramatic.


  8. #2008

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    George Sander's sweet cesspool
    Posts
    5,943

    Default

    I went out and saw 'The Dressmaker' yesterday evening. A film so very strange that I really don't know what to make of it in all honesty! But if I said that this movie is one of those ''once seen, never forgotten'' experiences you sometimes encounter in the cinema then that will have to suffice for the time being at least.



    PS - that Kate Winslet is a lovely thing

  9. #2009

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    George Sander's sweet cesspool
    Posts
    5,943

    Default

    The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2

    So after having endured the sweet frustration of waiting an entire year since 'Mockingjay Part 1' hit the screens, we game fans have finally gotten the chance to see 'The Hunger Games' series reach its suitably climatic conclusion. Those who have read the (excellent) books will already know how the plot unfolds because rest assured this is yet another faithful adaptation of Suzanne Collins massively successful dystopian vision. Indeed, the atypical degree of respect Hollywood has shown to the source material here is admirable. So while I'll keep it secrets for the benefit of those who have not read the books, I can say that few great achievements are ever realised without sacrifice of course and young Katniss is destined to pay a terrible price if she is to put a end to these awful 'games' she detests so ...

    As our teen triumvirate of Katniss, Peeta and Gale battle their way through the capital's exceptionally vicious defences this final instalment at times inevitably becomes much more of a war film in style, rather than the beguiling mix of combat and science fiction we saw back in the original film. However, although I may be a tad prejudiced I don't detect much sign of creeping 'sequelitis' here because all 4 HG films follow a logical and perfectly satisfactory 'story arc' that justifies their individual existence I think - even if the additional money-making potential of splitting the final book into two films cannot be denied.

    It will be interesting to see how many of the (mostly young) 'Hunger Games' cast go on to enjoy long and successful acting careers. I can certainly see Jennifer Lawrence at least going very far in the business - if becoming that type 'Victor' is what she really wants that is.


  10. Default What films are you watching?

    The Big Short - very good indeed. Re-enforces all built on sand and greed and banks and taking the p1ss. The Blackjack hand analogy pretty useful to simplify what boll0cks it all was/is.no mention of Gordon Brown and lavish public sector spending.

    Great cast
    Last edited by whelk; 16-01-2016 at 10:01 AM.

  11. #2011

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    George Sander's sweet cesspool
    Posts
    5,943

    Default

    "The Witch"

    17th century New England. Thinking that their pilgrim settlement (or "Plantation") is not quite puritanical enough for their religious tastes a family with five young childen depart the relative security of the stockade in order to make a new life for themselves alone in the vast woodland wilderness that lays before them. Soon baby Samual goes missing in circumstances that seem supernatural to their way of thinking and this family - deeply immersed in the religious fundamentalism of the age - start to turn on each other ...

    Most reviewers are categorizing this exceptionaly powerful example of modern cinema as a horror film, but you won't find many cheap thrills here because this film is more interested in exploring a different type of terror. In a strange way the film it most reminded me of was Stanley Kubrick's "The Shinning" - that same slow pace, sense of a isolation and darkley oppressive atmosphere.

    If you are thinking of seeing it for yourself I should warn you that this film is a intense experience and in truth pretty heavy going at times too. It is also one of those films that will remain in the memory long after you have left the cinema.

    https://youtu.be/YjBN0ByAqDk

  12. #2012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whelk View Post
    The Big Short - very good indeed. Re-enforces all built on sand and greed and banks and taking the p1ss. The Blackjack hand analogy pretty useful to simplify what boll0cks it all was/is.no mention of Gordon Brown and lavish public sector spending.

    Great cast
    Having watched the cause, may I recommend the aftermath in the form of '99 homes', which is about foreclosures and money made by some on the back of people losing their homes. Solid film.

  13. #2013

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    George Sander's sweet cesspool
    Posts
    5,943

    Default

    I saw the new sci-fi film '10 Cloverfield Lane' yesterday.

    By no means a remake of the original 2008 Cloverfield film but kind of set in the same world if you get my drift. After being involved in a car crash a young women (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) wakes to find herself the unwilling 'guest' of John Goodman's character in his sealed underground bunker. But is she the prisoner of a violent and controling psychopath, or has she just been saved from the terrors of a alien invasion?

    For most of this film there is not a lot of action going on as the plot plays itself out within the claustrophobic confines of the bunker. But that limitation does not mean that this film is at all a dull one as it manages to successfully keep the viewer guessing as to what is really going on until almost the final 15 minutes - when the truth finaly becomes apparent. John Goodman does a very nice line in creepy characters and he is in fine form here, while Winstead makes a engaging counterfoil to his overpowering personality.

    Not a great film perhaps, but one that I certainly did enjoy.

  14. #2014

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Gotham City
    Posts
    22,668

    Default

    Just seen The Jungle Book

    absolutely fantastic movie. Keeps you captivated throughout. Did not deviate from the original really but added a new take on it.
    The choices for the voices were fantastic, Bill Murray as Baloo and Ben Kingsley as Bagheera were just perfect
    Idris Elba makes Shere Khan very sinister.


    The CGi is superb and efforlessly brings this film together with so many nods to the original cartoon
    highly recommended

  15. #2015

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    It's grim oop north
    Posts
    5,658

    Default

    So I finally got round to watching the new Star Wars film the other day, after a few people told me it was surprisingly good.

    I thought it was every bit as sh*te as I expected it to be when it was first announced. Full of tired old cliches, massive plot holes, far too 'safe' (as you would expect a Disney film to be) and essentially just exactly the same story as the first film.

  16. #2016

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    George Sander's sweet cesspool
    Posts
    5,943

    Default

    Not really my kind of thing normaly, but I did take the boy to see the new 'X Men' film last weekend - X Men: Apocalypse. What, I ask myself, is there left to say that is remotely orginal about Hollywood superhero films?

    On the positive side this movie had a strong cast for sure. James McIlvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult - the viewer certainly had plenty of top class young acting talent to both see and enjoy. Somehow the cast even manage to take this stuff seriously - while awaiting a huge pay off to arrive in the post no doubt. As is nearly always the case now with big budget Hollywood action movies the production values and special effects are beyond any real critism. But as for the plot ... well all these superhero films are essentially the same aren't they? Yet another regulation combination of angst, a seemingly unstoppable super villian, and a climatic punch-up with a outcome that will be utterly predictable to anyone who has ever seen this type of stuff before.

    So methinks you really don't need to see this film ... unless that is a few hours of mindless superhero mayhem happens to float your boat I suppose.

  17. #2017

    Default

    I watched 'out of the furnace' starring Woody Harrelson the other night and didnt understand the ending, Anybody care to enlighten me?

  18. #2018

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    George Sander's sweet cesspool
    Posts
    5,943

    Default

    A Street Cat Named Bob.

    Salvation may come in many forms I suppose, for some it may be the discovery of religious faith, for others perhaps the love of a good women. It turns out that for one young lad reduced to busking for a living on the mean streets of London hope arrives in the form of a ginger tom called 'Bob'. The (Human) hero of our story James (the excellent Luke Treadaway) is certainly a troubled and vulnerable young man. Homeless and estranged from his family, like so many other young people who find themselves in that situation he is also in the grip of drug addiction. So his future looks pretty bleak. However, one dedicated social worker sees something worthwhile in him and fights, against the all the odds, to get James off the streets and into a grotty council flat. No sooner has he moved in when the aforementioned street cat turns up and adopts him - like cats sometimes do with people. What ensues is certainly not all 'plain sailing' by any means, but caring for Bob, and it turn profiting from him, turn this almost broken Human life around.

    Based of a true story apparently - and featuring the real Bob too I understand - this is one of those films any experienced film goer can easily 'read' almost before it has started. It might also have been a even better film had it sought to explore why so many British people display a level of affection for animals that far exceeds any love they might show for their fellow Human Beings. Nevertheless, what this movie may lack in surprise and ambition it more than makes up for in warmth and charm. Indeed, methinks this is one of those very rare films that almost anyone should be able enjoy.

    Recommended.

  19. #2019

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    George Sander's sweet cesspool
    Posts
    5,943

    Default

    I saw that living legend Clint Eastwood's latest film the other day - 'Sully' the story of how a stricken Airbus A320 airliner ended up landing in the Hudson River a few years ago.

    Before seeing it I had wondered how this film would manage to extend a incident, that in reality lasted only a minute or two, into a full feature-length story. Well it turns out that I need not have worried because this film had no trouble at all in holding my attention. According to this account while pilot Chesley 'Sully' Sullenberger (played by Tom Hanks) was widely hailed to be a hero by the public the crash investigators of the NTSB alleged that he could/should have managed to land his aircraft safely at one of the nearby New York airports - this despite the small matter of both engines being shut down following a catastrophic bird strike. I suspect that the script may have helped itself to a few typically 'Hollywood' style liberties with the truth here, but the drama is nevertheless absorbing whether we totally buy it or not. Away from the aftermath of the incident, the actual crash sequence itself is a wonderfully realised - to the extent that this film is probably inadvisable as your next in-flight movie!

    When you go to see any film directed my Clint Eastwood you are unlikely to find yourself being entertained by some highly stylish example of outrageous film making because that is not what he is about. Eastwood is a no-nonsense film maker. But if you seek a good story well told then he's your man - indeed I can't remember the last time I left a cinema feeling quite so satisfied that both my time and money had been so well spent.

  20. #2020

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    George Sander's sweet cesspool
    Posts
    5,943

    Default

    I've just seen the first instalment in what I understand is set to become Disney's so-called Anthology Series - 'Star Wars: Rogue One' - and much enjoyed it. Set immediately before George Lucas's original 1977 'Star Wars' epic this movie tells the story about how the crucial plans for the Galactic Empire's fearsome 'Deathstar' first came into the hands of the Rebel Alliance.

    Okay, all these films are more than a bit 'popcorn' escapist entertainment in nature, and methinks that those seeking out truly good science fiction should probably look elsewhere. But a diet of good quality popcorn every now and again won't do you too much harm I suppose and this cinematic meal is a tasty treat indeed. In fact I actually enjoyed 'Rogue One' more than last year's slightly disappointing 'The Force Awakens' as this film does at least go to the trouble of telling fans a different story, rather than simply repeating what went before but with the benefit of modern special effects and a huge promotional budget. With no direct sequel required this time 'Rogue One' is also free to show the legions of Star Wars fans out there that great achievement seldom occurs without great sacrifice either. For all its stunning special effects and family friendly mission statement in some ways this is perhaps the darkest and most adult film of the entire series so far.

    The infamous Darth Vader making a comeback here came as a welcome, but nevertheless expected, treat for this fan. This is a straightforward enough matter as the actor playing the role is invisible behind the famous Vader mask and James Earl Jones is still around to provide THAT voice. But seeing the (long dead of course) Peter Cushing reprise - in a sense - his role in the original film was in its own way a wonderful thing to behold. I recall seeing the (impressive at the time) first steps into this brave new CGI created world many years ago in the highly successful children's film 'Toy Story' - but the tech has evolved to such an advanced state now where is becoming quite hard to tell if what you are seeing is real, or some artfully created illusion. A young looking Carrie Fisher also makes a brief cameo style appearance as do R2D2 and C3PO. Indeed, I suspect that at least half the audience in the cinema with me yesterday never even realised that much of what they are seeing is impossible.

    So splendid Xmas entertainment in every way then.
    Last edited by CHAPEL END CHARLIE; 24-12-2016 at 04:18 PM.

  21. #2021

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Leybourne, Kent
    Posts
    330

    Default

    Just seen Tarka the Otter on Talking Pictures TV. Excellent stuff, including two cameo glimpses of Reg Lye and Stanley Lebor. They don`t make films like that any more.

    Happy Christmas one and all.

  22. #2022

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Leybourne, Kent
    Posts
    330

    Default

    Talking Pictures TV are currently showing `Dulcima` a classic 1970s film based on a novella by HE Bates. It stars the late John Mills and the late Carol White, one of the most compelling actresses of that era - Cathy Come Home was perhaps her most memorable role. She was dubbed `The English Bardot` because of her stunning looks and she went to Hollywood where, sadly, she developed problems with drugs and alcohol and died far too young at just 48. `Dulcima` was filmed in Gloucestershire - there is even a sequence in a bus heading for Forest Green - and is at one level an almost typically pastoral tale of country life; but it also has real drama, plot, sub-plot, intrigue and a climax which leaves the viewer shocked in the realisation of the counterpoint between rural tranquillity and human frailty. There`s a beautiful musical score by Johnny Douglas including a haunting theme and cameo appearances from the late and much missed Dudley Foster and also Kristin Hatfield. Look out for it - it`s well worth seeing.

  23. #2023

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    George Sander's sweet cesspool
    Posts
    5,943

    Default

    I saw 'Ghost in the Shell' yesterday - a new science fiction film set in the near future staring Scarlett Johansson. Our star plays 'Major' - a young women who's body has been destroyed but who's brain lives on within the machine body of a cyborg. Using her impressive new powers to the full she is employed to fight the evil 'terrorists' who threaten the (rather grim) future metropolis. But Major soon finds that the enemy she fights may actually have a point and the corporation that supposedly saved her life has its own agenda ...

    The film is certainly decent enough entertainment overall and visually highly impressive. But like so many other modern sci-fi efforts it is also reminiscent of other films that have gone before it - think 'Robocop' meets 'Blade Runner' and you will get the idea.

    PS - after buying our tickets me and my friend were wondering why I had been charged less than she had. It turns out that I had been admitted as a Senior - and I'm still a young man of only 54!

  24. #2024

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    George Sander's sweet cesspool
    Posts
    5,943

    Default

    I bet not many of you have ever seen this odd 1970 'made for TV effort' : https://youtu.be/VqxZoVLn6Tg - which by the way is not to be confused with the later teen horror of the same title.

    This film is (loosely) based on a real WWII incident involving a lost B-24D Liberator bomber - search "Lady be Good" for more details.

  25. #2025

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Saw Trainspotting2 the other day and really liked it. Kept it in tune to the 1996 film effectively with well used flashbacks in vision and sound that was well balanced, not over the top, but just right.

    Watched Prometheus again too in anticipation for Covenant and it was better after a second viewing. It's not perfect but the moviemaking craftsmanship is second to none.

  26. #2026

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    George Sander's sweet cesspool
    Posts
    5,943

    Default

    Being a big fan of Ridley Scott and the series I just had to go and see the great director's latest film "Alien Covenant" of course - and I must say it was worth the effort.

    Set a decade or so after the enigmatic and mildly disappointing "Prometheus", the action here starts aboard a massive colony ship (the "Covenant" of the title) carrying a cargo of hibernating humans and the usual android or "synthetic" crew member "Walter" (Michael Fassbender) to their new home world far away in deep space. Much as in the original 1979 "Alien" film before reaching its objective the ship receives a mysterious message that prompts the crew to divert from their planed mission and investigate the signal's origin on a stormy uncharted planet - with disastrous results for all concerned naturally!

    Without giving too much of the plot away, if you have seen "Prometheus" you will remember that that film ended with the last surviving human from the mission Dr Elizabeth Scott and the dismembered android "David" (Fassbender again), setting off to discover why the statuesque alien race that genetically created mankind from their own DNA long ago in the Earth's prehistory (the so-called "Engineers") were so intent on destroying us - employing H. R. Giger's fearsome predatory monsters as their chosen tool. I don't really think this film answers that key question for some reason - but we do soon meet "David" again and although he may have been reassembled by the (now deceased) Dr Scott, that does not mean he is perfectly well ...

    In a way "Covenant" is a significantly more satisfactory film than "Prometheus" because the action here is tighter and the plot rather more easily comprehensible. On the other hand you can perhaps see the influence of previous films in this series a little too clearly at times and apart from the David/Walter "synthetic" characters the rest of the (largely unknown) cast seem sketchily drawn and primarily there to provide a ready supply of victims for the aliens to slaughter in their usual brutal and uncompromising manner - you certainly can't compare the "Dany" character in this film to Sigourney Weaver's iconic "Ripley" for instance. As for the production design and special effect aspects of the film they are as fantastic as they nearly always are now with big budget Sci Fi movies - we live in a age of cinematic wonders that we take for granted.

    That said, watching "Covenant" is a intense and exciting experience that should leave most devotees of series feeling well satisfied I would think - indeed I can hardly wait for the next instalment.

  27. #2027

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Covenant didn't sit very well with me. Was gee'd up with my renewed appreciation of Prometheus only for this one to **** it all away. We see a remake of Alien unfolding (which is no bad thing) but then Aliens, Prometheus and Frankenstein crammed in there, a bit weakly. Nice to see an original alien and facehugger again but relied too heavily on iffy CGI and we saw too much of the main creature, so effectively subtle and genuinely terrifying in the original. Bit corny, in parts, silly and it felt rushed. It'll possibly satisfy me better when I see it again though...as Prometheus did.

    That aside, Ridley makes beautiful looking and pulsating films and his alien universe is still fantastic to explore.

  28. Default

    Dunkirk superb. Think won't get same feel not seeing at cinema. Sound plays big part in making it so powerful. And to bring in at 12A credit to Nolan I think.

  29. #2029

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whelk View Post
    Dunkirk superb. Think won't get same feel not seeing at cinema. Sound plays big part in making it so powerful. And to bring in at 12A credit to Nolan I think.
    We watched it in Imax at Leisure World.....superb!

    Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

  30. #2030

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    22 Acacia Avenue
    Posts
    9,956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whelk View Post
    Dunkirk superb. Think won't get same feel not seeing at cinema. Sound plays big part in making it so powerful. And to bring in at 12A credit to Nolan I think.
    Brilliant film. ( Didn't notice initially that the heard, but unseen, RAF flight commander was voiced by Michael Caine ).

  31. #2031

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badgerx16 View Post
    Brilliant film. ( Didn't notice initially that the heard, but unseen, RAF flight commander was voiced by Michael Caine ).
    I thought it was him when I heard it. (Just as I knew it was Ed Sheerin on Game of Thrones when he started singing and spat my beer all over myself when he came onto camera)

    Dunkirk. Stunning.

  32. #2032

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    A hole in the sky
    Posts
    13,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LVSaint View Post
    I thought it was him when I heard it. (Just as I knew it was Ed Sheerin on Game of Thrones when he started singing and spat my beer all over myself when he came onto camera)

    Dunkirk. Stunning.
    I know GoT is meant to be tits and swords but they are upping their game with a pop star cum shot!

  33. #2033

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Stylish as f*ck
    Posts
    12,314
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I was disappointed with Dunkirk

    Also, that nipper never did get to have his sh1t

  34. #2034

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    George Sander's sweet cesspool
    Posts
    5,943

    Default

    I too have seen 'Dunkirk' - and left the cinema feeling rather more irritated than impressed with it.

    At this distance in time from the event it is admittedly a difficult task to make what should be a entertaining and historically accurate war film, especially if the budget available isn't a huge 'Hollywood blockbuster' style one. Nevertheless, if you are going to make any serious film about this crucial aspect of our national story then there is surely a implicit duty on the film-maker to get the film as faithful to the actual wartime event as it possibly can be. I don't think Director Christopher Nolan and his collaborators achieved than aim satisfactory.

    The film is divided into three sections dealing with the how the battle was experienced from the differing perspectives of young British soldiers trapped on the beach, RAF Spitfire pilots attempting to provide them with some degree of air-cover, and one of those iconic civilian small boat crews engaged in the rescue operation - the latter of course our defining national image of Dunkirk.
    Dealing with these aspects of the story in turn, for some reason our solders are all depicted as venal types hell-bent on securing their own personal survival at almost any cost. OK, I suppose 'looking after number one' is a valid enough human behaviour in war (or any other) time. But methinks soldiers can also be disciplined, courageous and even self-sacrificing at times - not that you would comprehend that truth by seeing this film. Another serious flaw with 'Dunkirk' is that at no time did it look like there were hundreds of thousands of men stranded on that beach as there were in reality. Too often the director chose to employ panoramic long shots that while attractive from a cinematic viewpoint only served to betray the lack of resources available to him. Modern CGI effects might have been employed more to make it appear that more men, ships and aircraft were on screen, but presumably were unaffordable. Blatantly including modern container handling cranes in a film set in the 1940 is inexcusable I my view.

    The air battles depicted are crippled by the small number of WWII aircraft available to film makers now, for example the same lone Heinkel bomber is shot down about a dozen times. I must also add that - as superb as it undoubtedly was - in reality the Spitfire did not field the seemingly inexcusable supply of ammunition depicted in this film! If you have ever seen the older 'Battle of Britain' film then you will know how air warfare really should be depicted on film. Much the same problem exists with attempting to realistically portray 1940 era warships - the small boats seen are fine but to work around the lack of authentic warships post-war vessels are tarted up to vaguely resemble their WWII counterparts - many may not mind this but the resultant mock-ups look so unrealistic they irritated me no end.

    This film isn't all bad of course, indeed despite being constantly annoyed by it 'Dunkirk' will entertain many and it did hold my attention throughout. Many of the big set-piece scenes are quite effective - the sinking of the hospital ship alongside the mole for instance - and Mark Rylance is always worth watching. However, the overwhelming impression this film left me with is one of disappointment. 4/10.

  35. #2035

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Leybourne, Kent
    Posts
    330

    Default

    Not sure I could sit through Dunkirk. I was born in 1939 and my Dad was taken prisoner at Dunkirk and spent the next five years in Stalag V111B in Lamsdorf. I didn`t see him until I was six.

  36. Default

    I thought Dunkirk was an excellent film. I can see why it has the marmite effect on people though.

  37. #2037

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    22 Acacia Avenue
    Posts
    9,956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CHAPEL END CHARLIE View Post
    for example the same lone Heinkel bomber is shot down about a dozen times......
    Is it not the case that it is shot down only once, but the way the 3 timelines are interwoven means we see the same scene from several different perspectives.

    The point about the Spitfire's ammo is exactly one that I made to my wife on leaving the cinema, I also commented on the inaccurate appearence of the warships depicted. However, I think that pulling the whole thing apart and marking it down on technical historical accuracy is obscuring the fact that people don't generally go to the ciname to watch documentaries.

    I also understand that the director deliberately avoided any use of CGI.
    Last edited by badgerx16; 26-08-2017 at 07:56 PM.

  38. #2038

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    George Sander's sweet cesspool
    Posts
    5,943

    Default

    More re the air fitting scenes depicted in Dunkirk:

    https://youtu.be/_Yivl41NgXs

  39. #2039

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Winchester
    Posts
    2,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CHAPEL END CHARLIE View Post
    I bet not many of you have ever seen this odd 1970 'made for TV effort' : https://youtu.be/VqxZoVLn6Tg - which by the way is not to be confused with the later teen horror of the same title.

    This film is (loosely) based on a real WWII incident involving a lost B-24D Liberator bomber - search "Lady be Good" for more details.
    Just had a read around this: really interesting and saddening story.

    Will take a look at the film later.

  40. #2040

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    22 Acacia Avenue
    Posts
    9,956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suhari View Post
    Just had a read around this: really interesting and saddening story.

    Will take a look at the film later.
    Youtube is telling me the video is not available.

  41. #2041

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    It's grim oop north
    Posts
    5,658

    Default

    Went to see Bladerunner 2049 last night.

    Wow.

    I was very dubious when I heard there was a sequel in production, but I was absolutely blown away by it. A totally absorbing cinematic experience and I can't fault a single aspect of it. I think this could be the first time I have ever given a film 10/10.
    Last edited by Bexy; 06-10-2017 at 10:09 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •