/ April Film Thread
A good start to April... I thought this was a B movie initially but of course it was just Wheatley doing Tarrantino and Carpenter and....
Crazy black comedy on the insantity of guns.. basically one masssive shoot out where everyone seems destined to lose. Far from flawless as it lacks the artistisc flourish of his earlier films and its maybe about 10 minutes too long.
I didn't engage with it at all. Armie Hammer was fun and there were a few wisecracks but it felt so so so long. I get that that was meant to be the point. I like to think I "got" the film, and it simply didn't work.
I was unimpressed with Kill List too, but I really liked Sightseers. Not racing to see High Rise but A Field in England looks potentially interesting.
I think it would be nice if you named the film rather than making us wait until we reach the end of the Rotten Tomatoes URL.
I like a Wheatley! Not always great, but reliably fun. I haven't seen it but will do at some point - didn't know about it, so thanks for keeping these threads going.
Took my grand daughters (9 and 7) to see "Peter Rabbit"
Really enjoyed it!
> I like a Wheatley! Not always great, but reliably fun. I haven't seen it but will do at some point - didn't know about it, so thanks for keeping these threads going.
It’s not a current cinema release, it came out nearly a year ago. In case you start looking for it in cinema listings.
I just love how picky you can be.... even though the URL title says it all. No mystery with you I guess ;-). Lets remember we started this series as mainly positive recommendations from any media and time knowing that people have different tastes, viewing habits and budgets.
In reply to Jon Stewart
Twas unexpected good fun but not a patch on Force Majeure.
I'm hoping that is the film and not the bold HVS slab on Curbar... kids films these days are so often well made.
> I just love how picky you can be.... even though the URL title says it all.
Writingly politely and respectfully...didnyou read my post? I wasn’t being picky. I simply stated that it would be nice not to have any “mystery” on these things . You are free to continue your format of course . On an individual personal level, I don’t like it. But I am only one voice. I choose to do these posts as “name the film at the start”. Maybe that annoys you. Let me know. I won’t change my format though
It's a brilliant film. Not certain I'll ever be able to shoot and skin a rabbit again though....
Really liked Sightseers as well! It would be good to see more of the Horrible History's team in the movies.
High Rise isn't bad, as long as you've read the book and can follow what is supposed to be going on.
A Field in England sounded great but thought it was a bit of a non event in the end.
Ready player one, is well worth seeing if you were into your eighties movies and early gaming. I got reluctantly talked into it by my grandson who wanted to see it and ended up enjoying it more than him. fast paced action from the very beginning and loads of other movie references to try and spot.
I watched Ready Player One. This is the latest Speilberg blockbuster so I knew it was gonna be rather cheesey and not to expect too much from it. But as it's a highly visual film I thought the thing that might make is special was seeing it on a big screen so I saw it in IMAX.
The film is set in a dystopian 2045 when the world has largely gone to sh*t. People have pretty much given up on the real world and instead focus all their time and energy playing an online video game with very life like VR technology. As a basic concept I thought this was brilliant with lots of potential. However being a Spielberg film the endless possible scenarios to explore were largely ignored. Although I didn't expect it to be intellectual in anyway I found this disappointing because the use of a great concept was sadly wasted.
However that wasn't what made the film necessarily bad . The main problem was all the holes and things that just didn't add up. Some could be ignored without spoiling the film too much but others were just plain annoying. For instance the main character, who was made out to be fairly smart, fell in love with someone in the game when it was already obvious he knew he didn't actually know the first thing about them in the real world.
All in all it was visually stunning on the big screen but too many holes with the story spoiled it for me. 6/10 for a big screen viewing.
Another film I saw this week was 'You Were Never Really Here'. This was the story of war veteran making a living by finding and rescuing abducted young girls. Described like that it's easy to imagine something like Taken or Leon but this film is nothing like those.
Very interesting directing that was more focused on the protagonists messed up state of mind. This is film with very little dialogue that relies on visuals, sounds and an interesting atmospheric score to convey feelings and emotions.
I don't think it was a great film but the original directing style makes it well worth watching and the story did keep me hooked from beginning to end. 6.5/10
Life of Crime, currently on player. Really enjoyed it, much better than the lukewarm reviews suggest. Great characterisation and well cast with low key nods to the style of the Coens. Not perfect but well worth your time if you like this sort of thing.
I agree with both those scores, maybe I gave the Joaquin Phoenix 7/10. "Grim downbeat Leon" is about right, although some interpretations go deeper (I took it at face value)
Lots and lots of problems with Spielberg's film. I'll PM you about those so as not to put spoilers in. It was a shame, I often slag off Spielberg but when I saw the trailers for RP1 I really thought he was going to pull something special out of the bag.
A rather strange film viewing experience:
Lead characters that give you no reason to root for them as protagonists;
A barely-there "plot";
Nothing original story-wise
And yet it was weirdly compelling due to great casting and performances, and a certain minimalist style (probably 80% of the film is just two characters talking in a perfectly judged 'slightly heightened/stylised' dialogue which simultaneously feels natural and believable because of the setting. It's not exactly the abstract heightened Mamet dialogue style but it's not aiming for that.
Basically two vaguely and only mildly troubled, extremely privileged rich bitch high school girls discuss the possibility of murdering the stepfather of one of the girls. That's literally the plot.
And it kind of works. Loses some points for clearly not being sure whether to throw occasional comic relief into the otherwise "play it dead straight" presentation, and for various other minor meanderings.
However overall, it's really good and the lazy review comparisons to other films involving teenage girls and murder plots are just that - LAZY. This one is a bit different.
Also, the editing, score, and cinematography are surprisingly good for a film that doesn't really need these things to be brilliant.
A Quiet Place
6/10, a real shame as I'd like to big it up a bit more due to lots of great aspects. It starts brilliantly and boldly, without spoon-feeding the audience, and maintains this for about 45 minutes; also some rather good performances (notably Krasinski and Simmonds) but then the whole second half descends into standard tropes and you realise you aren't massively bothered about the fate of the characters.It would have been bolder if they had had no incidental score.
My 6/10 is not even taking into account various plot holes etc - I am being forgiving of those.
It is technically very well made - the flaws are in story structure.
And oddly, although Emily Blunt is a strong screen presence and is "good enough" in this, and somewhat provides the film's "money scene", by the end of the film you are left feeling that she was just kind of "in it" and is effectively just a device to allow Krasinski some expository dialogue WITHOUT spoon-feeding the audience.
All a bit "meh" really
> Ready player one, is well worth seeing if you were into your eighties movies and early gaming...
I was bored of this within 5 minutes and it didn't improve. Like a 2 hour video game advert.
If the best thing you can say about a film is the plentiful references to other, better, films; it's not saying much.
Another film that smelt like a B movie sequel and yet captivated despite the rather bizarre ride; and surpise surprise it's by Hertzog. Maybe Cage was really over his bad patch. I still prefer the original but this is how brave reboots should be.
> Another film that smelt like a B movie sequel and yet captivated despite the rather bizarre ride; and surpise surprise it's by Hertzog. Maybe Cage was really over his bad patch. I still prefer the original but this is how brave reboots should be.
I did like that film, it was indeed bold in its approach. As for Cage, check Lord of War and Adaptation, arguably made at the tail end of his "bad patch", a bit earlier than Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call, New Orleans.
Then look at what he did afterward - more "bad patch" stuff. I think his "bad patch" goes farther back and forward than you might realise, but still peppered with gems throughout. He's still alternating between stuff like "Mud" (not seen, but heard very good things about it) and various "straight to DVD" pablum.
I have a feeling that he hasn't really given a shit what people think of his films, since about 1985, and just does whatever looks like a fun shoot...fair play to him
Also, you have made me want to watch it again - saw it in the cinema but I shockingly now realise that this was nearly 8 years ago! So thanks for that.
I mostly remember a psychedelic shot of some lizards, and that famous "shoot him again" line. Was there even any plot ? (being a Herzog, that IS "optional" I know!)
> Crazy black comedy on the insantity of guns..
> A good start to April... I thought this was a B movie initially but of course it was just Wheatley doing Tarrantino and Carpenter and....
> Crazy black comedy on the insantity of guns.. basically one masssive shoot out where everyone seems destined to lose. Far from flawless as it lacks the artistisc flourish of his earlier films and its maybe about 10 minutes too long.
Sorry, thought it was awful. I was reluctant to watch it as the reviews I saw were pretty poor. In the end it didn't even pass for diverting entertainment.
I read Cage admitted that for a long period he did any film offered to him for the money with no other considerations.
Thats the whole point of such threads as this. Opinions are normally divided in anything, so say what you think (preferably liked) and more importantly why. UKC is full of 'x is shit' threads (ie not 'I found x shit') with no rationalle, which makes one wonder why they need to post at all really, unless its uncontrollable rage. Almost as annoying as the brainless 'dislikers'.
Maybe one quiet week when I'm injured the Cage quality plot needs to be done; loved Lord of War.
> Thats the whole point of such threads as this. Opinions are normally divided in anything, so say what you think (preferably liked) and more importantly why. UKC is full of 'x is shit' threads (ie not 'I found x shit') with no rationalle, which makes one wonder why they need to post at all really, unless its uncontrollable rage. Almost as annoying as the brainless 'dislikers'.
OK and indeed I was offering said opinion. I will expand a little: Thought there was very little character development or sense of what drove any of them to do what they did (other than being macho ass-holes or wack jobs) Also I thought the whole 'combustible situation gets out of hand' thing has been done so many times before so much better.
Earlier this evening I predicted a score of 5.5/10. I was close, it just is mildly better than that, let's call it 6/10 (after some late flourishes which promised a rare upgrade from 6.5 to 7.5, followed by a failure to reach 7.5, and a drop to 6.0)
An overambitious muddle that thinks it is a lot smarter than it really is. Some of my favourite films are overambitious muddles (e.g. Until the End of the World) but they DON'T have clever-clever pretensions that fall utterly flat. Ghost Stories does, and it's a shame because I like to see things that try to be a bit different, and I usually don't mind if they fall flat, but here, naaaah. Too much of it didn't work.
Co-writer and co-director Andy Nyman really shouldn't have taken the lead role - he's rather wooden. Arguably the whole thing needed better direction of actors (Freeman and Lawther excepted, as they were great). Good film directing is NOT merely horror-film lighting tricks and suspense-horror shallow depth of field.
A few other reviewers have mentioned that the "three story structure" felt less like a portmanteau film and more like something that needed to take more time - a 3-part mini-series or linked episodes of Twilight Zone or Tales of the Unexpected. Squeezing them into 100 minutes including the bookends, was a bit much.
Still worth a look but don't go in with high hopes.
I'd have watched Isle of Dogs instead but it's already relegated to a single 2.20pm screening per day at my local.
Isle of Dogs, is really good.
Is it just me that had a barely controllable urge to 'dislike' this post?
Good to see that the sunshine has stopped people from sitting around watching movies
I guess I'll be posting a confused and meandering review about how I couldn't keep track of who was doing what in Avengers: Infinity War, within the week. Having disgraced my intellectual capabilities by getting confused in Black Panther, and having forgotten the outcome of Civil War, I might be reduced to wondering where Black Widow gets her hair done and why the style gets more boring with time....
See what I mean?
and NOW it's a dull mousy straight blonde in the new one....
I saw Thelma, a Norwegian film about a girl with supernatural powers. I have to say I don't usually like supernatural films usually but this was really well made with the main emphasis on the girl, Thelma, and her relationship with her austere and controlling Christian parents. Great acting and score, well written and refreshingly nothing like a Hollywood film. It has subtitles but there's not that much dialogue so you don't miss the imagery by having to read all the time. 8/10
For instance the main character, who was made out to be fairly smart, fell in love with someone in the game when it was already obvious he knew he didn't actually know the first thing about them in the real world.
Just like in the book in fact!
Saw the film tonight and thought it an excellent adaptation of the book, which in itself is cheesy good fun.
Watched a film on player called Just Charlie about a teenager with a gender identity crisis.
Absolutely top level acting from the youth, his mum and dad characters.
Really good to see film of such quality filmed entirely in the north Midlands.
Away from the mayhem of the Eastern Edges, the Roaches enjoys a unique atmosphere of its own. Amongst this mind-boggling cluster... Read more
In this series of articles, Tom Ripley interviews some well-known climbing partnerships to dig up their dirty secrets and find... Read more
An uncompromisingly technical climbing pack, the Montane Ultra 38+5 is stripped to its most efficient minimum. Designed to be as... Read more
Berghaus has joined forces with an international expedition team as part of a women's product development initiative.... Read more
Eliot Stephens has returned from a fantastic two week trip to Magic Wood where he climbed , a Bernd Zangerl 8B+. Eliot also... Read more