The Last Film watched (CONTAINS STAR WARS SPOILERS!!)

First topic message reminder :

Quite enjoyed rec 3 although it's not really much to do with the first 2 films.

If it had been a standalone film, I think the critical response would have been better. For me it was really entertaining.

I watched the dark knight the other night for the first time.

I used to like the old Batman tv series but always disliked the films and stopped watching them.  
After reading some review I thought I'd give the dark knight a go. Its been hailed as one of the best films of the last decade or so and after watching it I would agree. It is nearly flawless. The star of the show is Heath Ledger's (RIP) joker. One of the best villain performances in any film and will be remember for a long time.

The action scenes were great. They had plenty of varity and innovation. In fact the whole film was like that! I don't watch or get any of the marvel stuff but at least Batman is grounded in reality, not fantasy and he uses advanced technology to do super things. So if you're not a fan of fantasy you would still like this.

A+

Rush (the story of James hunt/niki lauda). Was pretty good. Good acting and I was amazed at how much of the events were true (simply because it seemed so farfetched). Thought to begin with that a lot of creative license had been used. Overall a good watch. 7/10.

Outlander. A big budget sci fi film from a few years back that I had no idea existed! For the money spent the picture/effects quality wasn't great. A lot of the acting was suspect. However, I liked the premise (big sci fi fan) and thought the story was decent.

For a normal person- 3.5/10
Sci fi fan- 6/10

3 recent films:

Jurassic World. Went with Mrs Bounce as she loves the JP movies (and Chris Pratt). It's effectively just another Jurassic Park movie with more CGI, but this time where the park has been completed and is actually open. So they then "build" a hybrid dinosaur because a 50ft T-rex is not scary enough. Whaaaaat? Anyway, cue escaped dinosaurs, much chaos, and lots of potential lawsuits as several park visitors and staff are picked off.
It's great fun if nothing else. 7/10

People who don't make it...:

Mr Holmes: A very interesting look into the later life of Sherlock Holmes with Sir Ian McKellan playing the post war Holmes in the final stages of his life. It's a wonderful film which focusses on the acting and storyline rather than any special effects. It's well worth a look if you're not insistent on all-action. Ian McKellan is fantastic in the role. 8.5/10

Horns: Daniel "Harry Potter" Radcliffe plays Ig, a young man whose long-term girlfriend is murdered and everyone in the town thinks it's him who did it. He inexplicably grows a pair of horns and realises that he can use the power of suggestion to make people do things. They will also tell him the absolute truth. This film a wonderfully dark comedy and Ig's use of his power to find out the truth is very well depicted.

My favourite use of this power:

It's an off-the-wall unusual film that I imagine was very difficult to market, hence why it wasn't very big. We pretty much worked out who the killer was in the first 20 minutes, but that's not the point of the film. Great acting from Radcliffe, with some wonderfully dark bits in it. As an aside it's also amusing to see Harry Potter with a potty mouth. An oddball film, but a good one. 8/10

Rush
Not bad for a sports movie, sporting drama and cinema often don't mix very well unless the hero is a likeable no-hoper doomed to glorious failure.

The race scenes were very believable without being overused but the interaction between Lauda and Hunt was a bit cheesy and belonged in a WWE build-up.

Made for a decent one-off viewing but I was left feeling a bit underwhelmed, it came across as a made-for-tv dramatisation of a sporting event, with some t1ts, puking and swearing thrown in.

Watched three films over the weekend. Firstly, Hunger Games, Catching Fire. Didn't think it was anywhere near as good as the first Hunger Games movie, and was an obvious placeholder for the next installments.

Secretary starring Maggie Gyllenhaal and James Spader. Wasn't really to my taste, but was extremely well acted, and had some funny dark comedy.

The best film I saw was Nightcrawler, which starred Maggie's brother Jake, as an LA hustler who goes around filming accidents/crime incidents and sells the videos on to a local TV station.

It's a good watch, and Gyllenhaal is particularly watchable as the skeevy main character, although I did spend a lot of the movie thinking the part had been written specifically for Christian Bale. Although there's a couple of dark comic moments, there aren't enough for the film to be considered a black comedy. There's an overriding message about what people want from the news, but the script lacks the biting satire of Network.

incontinentia wrote:

John wrote:anyone seen fury? genuinely great or just another hype job/oscars job, because it's the americans?

Yep, seen it yesterday. Very good film, I'd give it 8/10.

Also seen a trailer for 'Whiplash', looks brilliant!

Trailer for 'The Imitation Game' looks pretty sweet too.

I thoroughly enjoyed it, Brad Pitt is awesome in it, Not as good as Sniper but still a good film.

I thought Fury was your typical 'look at us' American war film, heard so many good things about it but upon watching it realised it was crap.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I thought Fury was your typical 'look at us' American war film, heard so many good things about it but upon watching it realised it was crap.

I'd second the latter part of that, it was a giant dose of the smelliest of faeces.  Hope it doesn't sound like I'm standing on a soapbox but it would be more tolerable if fictitious wars were invented for inane films like this as they're a monumental insult to the people who suffered.

Snitch - 7/10

A surprisingly humble performance from The Rock, who despite appearing to be physically intimidating actually played the weedy small business owner role very well. Going in with zero expectations, it was actually very enjoyable, albeit with a very predictable ending. The political message is strong and having been based on true events, it felt real, rather than scripted for effect. A good effort.

Minions. This had the potential to be really funny, but instead it's essentially just a kids' film with a poor plot and a few mildly amusing jokes. Shame really - could've been much better. 5.5/10

Ain't Minions a kids film though?

How would kids rate it?

SecretFly wrote:How would kids rate it?

With crayons? Or maybe a ceebeebies phone vote?

SecretFly wrote:Ain't Minions a kids film though?

How would kids rate it?

I know it's a kids film, but previous films from the same studio have very cleverly written in jokes for adults that the kids wouldn't understand. There was none of that in this film. They've sold out and gone for the merchandising money. All I'm saying is it had the potential to be better than it was. Maybe it was rushed into the cinemas??

Oh I know what you were getting at, Bounce.  I was just being mischievous with the meaning of 'Kid's film'.

I haven't seen the new one but I really enjoyed the minions in Despicable Me.  They kinda brought much needed life and mayhem.

But I was listening to Mark Kermode (a guy I didn't like at all in his earlier years but have come to really respect as a movie critic and usually like the same kind of movies he does for the same reasons) - he was saying there was quite a lot of knowing little allusions and visuals that allowed adults to sink their teeth into things.  But I guess the final test will be when I see it for myself... and for that I guess I'll wait for TV....!

Watched tomorrowland which was a really good film. Really thought provoking children's film.

Is clooney ever had in a film? Yes he is in bad films but he never is.

Adam D wrote:Watched tomorrowland which was a really good film. Really thought provoking children's film.

Is clooney ever had in a film? Yes he is in bad films but he never is.

He was dreadful in Batman and Robin mate.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I thought Fury was your typical 'look at us' American war film, heard so many good things about it but upon watching it realised it was crap.

Fury is awful, was massively disappointed

Midnight in Paris - 4/10

Typical Woody Allen boolacks, Owen Wilson looking baffled by the terrible script writing. Did not like.

Surprised there aren't any reports on the new Terminator movie yet!

Adam D wrote:Watched tomorrowland which was a really good film. Really thought provoking children's film.

Is clooney ever had in a film? Yes he is in bad films but he never is.

Was this the same Tomorrowland I saw? I thought it was a Party Political Broadcast by the Disney Party. Some good ideas but a real let down I thought.

The Saint wrote:Surprised there aren't any reports on the new Terminator movie yet!

Seeing it Monday

Mr Bounce wrote:

The Saint wrote:Surprised there aren't any reports on the new Terminator movie yet!

Seeing it Monday

Come back and give your verdict! It's a terminator movie, with Arnold Schwarzenegger.. So surely it'll be good....

Are we sure, Saint? That dodgy looking CGI freefall jump in the trailer looked comical.... so maybe the new Terminator is a slapstick version of the long running franchise

Watched This is 40 and Pain and Gain over the last couple of days.

Was pleasantly surprised by This is 40. Thought it was pretty fun.

Pain and Gain was pretty dire.

Dwayne Johnson was pretty funny in Pain and Gain tbf. The rest of the film was meh.

watched mad max fury road, after many positive reviews and a score on imbd suggesting its one of the best films of all time i found it all very uninspiring.

yes there's lots of crashes and explosions but thats about it, there no character development what so ever. so you couldn't care less whether any of them make it or die. tom hardy just mumbles all the way through it, i could barely understand what he was saying, i understood bane more and everybody complained about that.

its a ok film dont get me wrong, the type of film you can just turn your brain off. but certainly nowhere near as good as people have made out. its more on the lines of a fast and furious film than being rated in the top 50 of all time on imbd

6/10 for me, and that's merely due to the action. which isnt enough to carry the film

Adam D wrote:Watched tomorrowland which was a really good film. Really thought provoking children's film.

Is clooney ever had in a film? Yes he is in bad films but he never is.

He was pretty mediocre in O Brother Where Art Thou? though that is comparative as the rest of the very strong cast was excellent.

Clooney.  I'd rank him in the same department as Johnny Depp - all face and pretend depth but, when under constant observation, the genuine depth is hard to find amidst all the copyrighted self-conscious twitches and mannerisms.  I mean even in allegedly ultra serious 'adult' movies (to exhibit supposed range) Clooney can't help doing the Matinee Idol Clooney-Time bona fide classic grimace/smile....just to remind us all that's it's still your favourite TV doc playing a blinder in de serious movies now innit.

Oh and just to be fair to him, his O Brother Where Art Thou role is positively Shakespearean when compared to the emotionless metronomic chit-chat ghost of Gravity.  The Million Dollar smile made an appearance there too as I recall

I like Clooney, he is extremely charismatic and for most of his roles that works really well.

Yeah, well that's the beauty of life, incontinentia - it's all about personal taste in the end.

Don't get me wrong, I think he's a divil of a man (likeable).  I think he's genuinely a nice guy and I think he'd be a lot of fun to be around in real life.  I like him.  And I actually really liked him in Brother.  
Just think he can often become overly self conscious that he's 'Clooney' - and that knowingness can come across in movies and often spoils the illusion of him being someone else.

He ain't alone...and he's in good company!  I'd put De Niro and Pacino in the same category - too conscious of the audience watching and often over-performing as a result.

the thing with clooney is he isnt in any truly great films, he's in alright ones like oceans 11 but nothing that gets anywhere near my top 50

certainly cant say the same about de niro and pacino

You cannot put Clooney in the same category as De Niro and Al Pacino, focusing more on De Niro he has recently been a few films where over acting was a requisite for the job like in Analyse This/That. Godfather II, Heat, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Casino, Midnight Run, Deer Hunter, Taxi Driver, Cape Fear and Mean Streets he was brilliant, yes the majority of that is type cast but seeing him as anything but a tough man in a film would be ludicrous.

For the record only Jack Nicholson comes close to De Niro and he too has had a penchant for the over the top performance in his later years.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You cannot put Clooney in the same category as De Niro and Al Pacino, focusing more on De Niro he has recently been a few films where over acting was a requisite for the job like in Analyse This/That. Godfather II, Heat, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Casino, Midnight Run, Deer Hunter, Taxi Driver, Cape Fear and Mean Streets he was brilliant, yes the majority of that is type cast but seeing him as anything but a tough man in a film would be ludicrous.

For the record only Jack Nicholson comes close to De Niro and he too has had a penchant for the over the top performance in his later years.

De Niro is a Great actor - no doubts.  

Yes, you might call the repeat mannerisms type-casting, you might even call it over-familiarity on the audience's part due to his long career - but I'd prefer to class it as technique uncovered and perhaps at times overused, even in serious movies.
Example of Trademark persona in action:  When his characters are seriously annoyed - seriously annoyed! - in serious realistic movies - a classic De Niroism is invoked to illustrate it.  He interrogates ( "Look at me!") - and the interrogation usually involves him repeating a very distinct question as the victim splutters and tries evasion.  As intensity rises, the question repeats itself quicker and doesn't even allow a response.  Most of that is usually De Niro ad-libbing to create the denouement tension.  But it's ad-libbing that is almost banking on audiences wanting to see it.  After all, he was born as a star by looking at a mirror and interrogating it too.  Thus my point that some traits are too repetitive in a trademark sense.  If I were a brave director wanting something new and different from De Niro - in a realistic film - I'd evade the improvised interrogation ritual.

For me, De Niro's three strongest movies, where he absolutely shines, is:
Deer Hunter (dripping with quiet charisma, especially in the earlier Pennsylvania section that can sometimes be forgotten).  I'd actually have been more interested in seeing more of that lonely and brooding civilian mountain hunter.
Heat (yes, 'Look at me' is in there - but I think his dangerous contained menace is stronger and more convincing there than in any of his other gangster roles).
And I think his very best role, where he shows his total range with a deftness of touch and empathy that is a joy to watch every time - real anger/comic anger, vulnerability, humour timing, pathos, inner depth and yet perhaps one of his least De Niro-like performances - is Jack Walsh in Midnight Run.  The subtle beauty of the conversational acting between Grodin and himself is for me his very best work - period.

Anyway, back to the actual thread topics!

I have seen Terminator Genisys; Given the previous two Terminator films (which dropped the ball badly), I was not expecting it to be that great. However, someone has obviously suggested that they went back to basics to avoid the criticism of the previous films. This is a full-on reboot, taking the baton from the awful Terminator Salvation and not mentioning any of it. Timelines have been re-written (quite cleverly this time) which sees Kyle Reese arrive back in 1984 to protect Sarah Connor, only to encounter a T-1000, two Arnie T-800s and a streetwise Connor.

The plot thickens throughout with different timelines, surprises and an unlikely ally. There are nods to the first two films and the Sarah Connor Chronicles tv series but it doesn't dwell too long on them - there's just enough in there to make you think "Ooh - that bit reminds me of...".

If I am being overly critical some bits of the plot are a little too convenient, but overall it's well polished, the effects are fantastic and Arnie is suitably amusing as an aging T-800 complete with grey hair. Whoever cast Emilia Clarke was a genius as she not only sounds like the Connor from T2, she is pretty similar looks-wise as well. Jason Clarke is a fantastic John Connor and Matt "Dr Who" Smith is in there as well in an unusual role. Jai Courtney for me is the only weak link in this - he's not really Kyle Reese, looking too much like a "dumb thug" rather than the battle hardened and street-savvy Michael Biehn was back in 1984 when the original was released. He does ok though he is outshone by his on-screen companions.

I am very happy with what they've done here. It'll never be a T2 (I don't think this franchise could ever reach those heights again) but it's a pretty good stab at it. Go and watch it if you enjoyed the first two.

7.5/10

The Hitcher....still brilliant after all these years. For me it's Rutger Hauer's best film.

Even beating Blade Runner?

Watched Dracula:Untold which was essentially Batman Begins.

Avoid it!

Ted 2. 2 hours of bad taste jokes, drug abuse, nods to other films, cameos and utter stupidity. I loved it! 7/10

Horrible bosses 2. Got this as I thought that the original was decent enough with some pretty good laughs. My oh my, doesn't the sequel ever fail. It is dreadful. The 3 main characters - who the film follows - are awful and act like bumbling buffoons the entire way through. Whilst I don't expect movies to be 100% realistic, some of the antics in this were plain daft. It's a shame as there is an excellent cast and some great cameo performances (Aniston and Spacey to name 2). Unfortunately the script seems weak and the jokes were generally poor.

Have watched the first half of The Homesman.  I thought the only way you could f*ck up a western was to involve Kevin Costner but it seems you can do the same by having it revolve around a bunch of women.

It's pretty much about 3 mental ladies being taken across the wilderness in a wagon by another who cries every few minutes on account of how she is a sensitive human being despite her rough life.  Hope it picks up in the second half whenever I get around to watching it.  Hilary Swank is playing the sensitive one, I normally enjoy her performances but she's been a let-down in this so far.

Galted wrote:Have watched the first half of The Homesman.  I thought the only way you could f*ck up a western was to involve Kevin Costner but it seems you can do the same by having it revolve around a bunch of women.

It's pretty much about 3 mental ladies being taken across the wilderness in a wagon by another who cries every few minutes on account of how she is a sensitive human being despite her rough life.  Hope it picks up in the second half whenever I get around to watching it.  Hilary Swank is playing the sensitive one, I normally enjoy her performances but she's been a let-down in this so far.

Watched it a while back...didn't mind it but the second half won't improve your mood Galted. Watched The Loud and the Ridiculous. ..sorry Fast and Furious. ..just so you know, the most realistic action sequence is The Rock being blown out of a building, falling forty feet onto the roof of a car and surviving. On your own head be it.

Finished finished watching The Homesman, second half was as bad as the first.  Nonsensical story, pointless characters, weak acting and every scene looked like a f*cking postcard.

Have subsequently watched The Book Thief which was even worse.  Godawful story, non-dimensional characters, every scene more vomit-inducing than the previous.  More endings than Lord of the Rings, all of them sh1t.  And it's narrated by death.  Would've had as much credibility were it narrated by a prolapsed rectum with a f*cking moustache.

Back to School starring Rodney Dangerfield.

Worthy.

Ant Man - the most fun in a Marvel movie since the first Avengers movie. Its fresh and witty. A lot better than I ever expected it would be

Michael Pena steals the show as well even though he's only got about 15 minutes of screen time

If anybody bothers going to see it, there are two post movie scenes, one mid credits and one at the very end

But is it as fun as Rodney Dangerfield going to college?

Watched Terminator:Genisys

Think Doctor Who meets Quantum Leap crossed with I-Robot.

superflyweight wrote:But is it as fun as Rodney Dangerfield going to college?  

What is Superfly?

Two by Two, proper kids film and is on as part of the Odeon Kids club deal so anyone with nippers might want to take them as it kept my 2 busy for the better part of an hour and a half.
The ending is pretty clever but other than that it's not great.

Hey guys, i realise this thread is for last film watched but i gather that most of you posting here will of watched your fair share of films.

I have always loved watching films however i want to watch more, i haven't seen as many as most people probably have.

I feel i am open minded and i tend to like a variety it's just that i feel if someone was to ask me what genre i have seen the most of it is probably crime/cop type movies.

Basically i am looking for any suggestions you may have?

Felon with Stephen Dorff, absolutely fantastic film