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

First topic message reminder :

I watch two films over the last few days

Seventh Son: Absolute tosh, it felt like a bad D&D film from SyFy

The Wedding Ringer: It was a fun movie, predictable but fun, "Who the hell are these guys, it's like the Goonies grew up and became r@pists"

Presumably Adam was going for "fave" rather than "face".

For his sake I'm glad he mistyped - otherwise I would have had to smash his fave in with my knee.

Who knows with that c*ntfaved git?

I watched Xmen: Apocalypse last Monday and I have to say it bored me to tears. Lots of amazing visual effects and a few good lines, but it's as though they poured all the budget into the effects and did bugger all with the storyline.

It doesn't help that James McAvoy comes across (unintentionally) as REALLY creepy when he's talking to/about Rose Byrne's character. Or maybe it is intentional and McAvoy's just really creepy full stop.

As usual, it's the battle of good against evil with younger actors playing the characters - you practically know what's going to happen most of the time. Also the new characters surely aren't meant to be as irritating as they are? The new Jean Grey is so bland and uninteresting - at least Famke Janssen had expressions to play with and looked a bit unusual. Whenever Sophie Turner emotes, it looks much like she's taking a dump rather than reading your mind. As for the Scott Summers character - well I just wanted to punch the whiny little twonk - even when he unleashed his laser beam eyes. Fassbender looks bored in this. The new Storm and Nightcrawler are utterly faceless, shoehorned in bit-parts. In fact the only actor with any charisma in this film is Evan Peters as Quicksilver who seems to get the good lines. Oh, and Jennifer "In Everything" Lawrence obviously didn't have much time to be made up much in this film as she's mainly not blue. She phones her role in.

I dare say the comic bookers will love it and pick holes in it at the same time, but it left me cold. 5.5/10.

Can't be bothered with X-Men anymore, I lack the capacity to recall what happened before in order to make what's happening now make any sense....seems the directors/writes suffer from the same thing. My allegiance is firmly with the Avengers although this is basically down to Scarlett Johansson and nothing to so with movies or successful comic book adaptations of stuff. I just like her!

Keep your eye out for the live action "Ghost in the Shell" SERIAL, sounds like it should be up your Scarlett street

I blame it all on these f**king Easter Eggs.
It's depressing when you look up a movie to get a taster of what it might be like, and what hits you is "760 Glorious Easter Eggs that you probably missed the First Time!!!!"

Let's try an adult script (even kids love them -seriously) first, guys - then the f**king Easter Eggs.

Saw X-Men last night. I have stopped trying to look for the continuation in the series and now watch them as stand alone films, it's easier that way. For some reason, the events of X-Men Apocalypse take place after the assassination attempt on the president in X-Men Days of Future Past, but before Wolverine wakes up in the same film.

Finally caught Captain America civil war. Brilliant. That is all

Atila wrote:Saw X-Men last night. I have stopped trying to look for the continuation in the series and now watch them as stand alone films, it's easier that way. For some reason, the events of X-Men Apocalypse take place after the assassination attempt on the president in X-Men Days of Future Past, but before Wolverine wakes up in the same film.

Wolverine is found by Stryker at the end of Days of Future Past and is then reinforced with Adamantium so the continuity is ok on that one, the biggest issue was Quicksilver who made no mention of getting Magneto out of jail.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Atila wrote:Saw X-Men last night. I have stopped trying to look for the continuation in the series and now watch them as stand alone films, it's easier that way. For some reason, the events of X-Men Apocalypse take place after the assassination attempt on the president in X-Men Days of Future Past, but before Wolverine wakes up in the same film.

Wolverine is found by Stryker at the end of Days of Future Past and is then reinforced with Adamantium so the continuity is ok on that one, the biggest issue was Quicksilver who made no mention of getting Magneto out of jail.

At the end of DOFP, Wolverine is found by Mystique who is impersonating Stryker.

Ahhh yes I forgot that bit, in DOFP he doesn't have Adamantium claws so was the only explanation I could think of.

Ultimately Apocalypse was a bit of a disappointment, nowhere near as good as it could/should have been, the ease with which Jean defeated him was a bit silly considering he's immortal in the comics.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ahhh yes I forgot that bit, in DOFP he doesn't have Adamantium claws so was the only explanation I could think of.

Ultimately Apocalypse was a bit of a disappointment, nowhere near as good as it could/should have been, the ease with which Jean defeated him was a bit silly considering he's immortal in the comics.

Doesn't help that it followed Civil War. This might be the year that MCU breaks the proverbial back of it's opponents

Have long since given up following the timeline but the whole premise of Apocalypse is ridiculous as we're supposed to wonder if they can save the day and they clearly f*cking do as we have a load of young versions of the X-Men we've already met years ago

Watched X-Men Apocolypse. What a cack finale. "Don't destroy the world" "Oh ok, I'll try in a few years time"

I watched a bit of Macbeth last night, the one with Fassbender. It was late though so I didn't watch all of it. It seemed like it was a bit all over the place. What's the verdict on that one?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ahhh yes I forgot that bit, in DOFP he doesn't have Adamantium claws so was the only explanation I could think of.

Ultimately Apocalypse was a bit of a disappointment, nowhere near as good as it could/should have been, the ease with which Jean defeated him was a bit silly considering he's immortal in the comics.

In the future of DOFP he has his claws, that's set after the Wolverine movie, in which he lost his adamantium claws. That was confusing for me.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ahhh yes I forgot that bit, in DOFP he doesn't have Adamantium claws so was the only explanation I could think of.

Ultimately Apocalypse was a bit of a disappointment, nowhere near as good as it could/should have been, the ease with which Jean defeated him was a bit silly considering he's immortal in the comics.

In the future of DOFP he has his claws,  that's set after the Wolverine movie, in which he lost his adamantium claws. That was confusing for me.

Another thing about the Wolverine film. He goes to Japan, fights the Silver Samurai and at the end of the film, he met by Prof X and Magneto at the airport who tell him that they need his help and this seems to be a normal world. But when DOFP starts, it seems to be set in a totally different universe, a world that's dark and they're all being chased by Sentinels.

Atila wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ahhh yes I forgot that bit, in DOFP he doesn't have Adamantium claws so was the only explanation I could think of.

Ultimately Apocalypse was a bit of a disappointment, nowhere near as good as it could/should have been, the ease with which Jean defeated him was a bit silly considering he's immortal in the comics.

In the future of DOFP he has his claws,  that's set after the Wolverine movie, in which he lost his adamantium claws. That was confusing for me.

Another thing about the Wolverine film. He goes to Japan, fights the Silver Samurai and at the end of the film, he met by Prof X and Magneto at the airport who tell him that they need his help and this seems to be a normal world. But when DOFP starts, it seems to be set in a totally different universe, a world that's dark and they're all being chased by Sentinels.

Who knows, maybe that was Professor X being sent to the past from the future? I was always under the impression that the war took place shortly after that scene at the airport. You even see a Trask commercial whilst we're there.

Independence Day 2: Was a huge fan of the first film so went in to this expecting a lot, was pretty disappointed. Visually great, but none of the characters were really worth getting invested in. Jeff Goldbloom probably the stand out performer and even he wasn't anywhere close to his original performance. Tried to be funny but failed a lot of the time. The long haired doctor from film 1 was particularly annoying/unfunny. The ending left a massive opening for a 3rd film which if this once performs well financially there could well be. Would need to be a huge improvement on this film though.

4.5/10

Apparently it sucks balls. It's not often you hear film critics says "Without Will Smith, this film is doomed!"

Started watching "Clear History" Larry David plays a marketing executive who quits the firm he's a shareholder in after telling his boss/friend that he cannot sell an electric car called "the Howard" The car goes on to be a best seller and he loses about $1 billion. He changes his identity and moves to a tiny little island where he lives a decent life...that is until his old boss builds a house and moves there.

So far, so good, a bit like an extended episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" but if you like that show then you'll be happy.

Also watched "The Last Heist" Absolutely nothing to write home about but did have Henry Rollins playing a serial killer who cuts out his victim's eyes so again, I was happy.

Independence day was pretty crap, so bad in fact I fell asleep near the end.

Can understand someone falling asleep, not really an edge of your seat sort of movie to get the juices flowing. The last 20/30 minutes were particularly ridiculous even for a sci-fi movie. Also the whole Hive Queen premise could have been lifted straight out of the book Ender's Game!

The whole harvesting planets thing seemed a rip off of Mass Effect whilst the sphere was too absurd for words.

So they literally just plagiarized several different sci-fi sources and pieced together a pretty poor film.... And will no doubt make a very handsome profit regardless! Yes that was pretty stupid, and can only imagine how insane the 3rd film could/will be based on the last few minutes of the film.

Possible sequel[edit]
In an interview with Empire magazine, director Emmerich revealed that a third film would be made depending on the success of the second one. He also said that audiences would not have to wait as long as they did for the second in the series.[89] According to the director, the third film will be an intergalactic journey and it'll be set maybe a year or two later since he wants to maintain the same group of people, especially the young characters.[90]

Dirty Grandpa

Better than i though it would be.
Pretty funny.

Have to concur with Independence Day. What an utter pile of sh*te. Even Jeff Goldblum couldn't be bothered to save it.

I fell asleep a few times and Mrs Windows kept nudging me awake. After the third time, I told her to leave me asleep as the film was that terrible that I didn’t care about wasting the money. And for a northerner to say that tells you all you need to know.

It was so sh*te I am refusing to actually rate it and if I ever meet Roland Emmerich, I am going to headbutt him right in his stupid face. Or alternatively, I will write a strongly worded letter to Cineworld demanding they refund me.

Shockingly bad film.

Watched Deliver us from evil - Eric Bana. A possession type horror / thriller movie.

Really enjoyed it. Something a bit different.

What did people expect from Independence Day? A Shakespeare type film? Go back and watch the original, it's a switch your brain off disaster movie, and the sequel is no different. Personally enjoyed it, killed 2 hours anyway.

Watched the Batman vs Superman extended version as enjoyed the theatrical cut, this extra added in answered a few questions that were left hanging originally due to WBs decision to take a machete to the film.

Central Intelligence, if you like The Rock and Kevin Hart you'll like it. If you don't then don't watch it. Simple.

PaulHv2 wrote:What did people expect from Independence Day? A Shakespeare type film? Go back and watch the original, it's a switch your brain off disaster movie, and the sequel is no different. Personally enjoyed it, killed 2 hours anyway.

Watched the Batman vs Superman extended version as enjoyed the theatrical cut, this extra added in answered a few questions that were left hanging originally due to WBs decision to take a machete to the film.

Central Intelligence, if you like The Rock and Kevin Hart you'll like it. If you don't then don't watch it. Simple.

Bloody hell, are you michaels in disguise?  A film doesn't have to be complete sh*t to be entertaining.  And not sure exactly what a "Shakespeare-type film" is, seems to be a stock phrase fans of crap films use to deflect criticism.  I'm not a big fan of sci-fi but Aliens, the original Total Recall and some of the Star Wars managed to be a good switch-your-brain-off watch, the resolution of the original Independence Day was an insult to intelligence.

I saw Independence Day: Regurgitation as well. I have decided not to go back to the cinema this week in case it leaks out into the screens that are showing something else.

So, SO bad.

PaulHv2 wrote:What did people expect from Independence Day? A Shakespeare type film? Go back and watch the original, it's a switch your brain off disaster movie, and the sequel is no different. Personally enjoyed it, killed 2 hours anyway.

Watched the Batman vs Superman extended version as enjoyed the theatrical cut, this extra added in answered a few questions that were left hanging originally due to WBs decision to take a machete to the film.

Central Intelligence, if you like The Rock and Kevin Hart you'll like it. If you don't then don't watch it. Simple.

Have downloaded this and may just give it another whirl as I wasn't aware the original had been hacked to pieces

I watched it this weekend Dave. It's still rubbish, is just longer.

I'm guessing the extended version doesn't enable you to see what the hell is going on.

I've been on a JVCD binge as of late and had forgotten just how bad some of his films really were. Legionairre which I was obsessed with as a kid was an utter pile of crap, Double team with Dennis Rodman, was switched off 10 mins into it as the acting by all was woeful. (I still maintain a bad film can look half decent with good acting, whereas a great film with bad acting is still gonna feel pants (Not that it's a great film btw).

Bloodsport is still af avourite although i tend to skip to the fight scenes now, Cyborg whilst chewing the scenery bad is good for a laugh. I still enjoyed AWOL as a forgettable actiong movie, Universal Soldier, Timecop and Hard Target are all brilliant (U.S the return is a waste of time and makes less sense than the original)

Oh and somehow The Order with Heath Ledger got watched too, was pretty pants and *spoiler - Maybe I'll never understand why as 'revenge' people kill the person that wants to actually die.

Jan Claude in Hamlet was the best.

I can't say enough bad things about Van Damme

Galted wrote:

PaulHv2 wrote:What did people expect from Independence Day? A Shakespeare type film? Go back and watch the original, it's a switch your brain off disaster movie, and the sequel is no different. Personally enjoyed it, killed 2 hours anyway.

Watched the Batman vs Superman extended version as enjoyed the theatrical cut, this extra added in answered a few questions that were left hanging originally due to WBs decision to take a machete to the film.

Central Intelligence, if you like The Rock and Kevin Hart you'll like it. If you don't then don't watch it. Simple.

Bloody hell, are you michaels in disguise?  A film doesn't have to be complete sh*t to be entertaining.  And not sure exactly what a "Shakespeare-type film" is, seems to be a stock phrase fans of crap films use to deflect criticism.  I'm not a big fan of sci-fi but Aliens, the original Total Recall and some of the Star Wars managed to be a good switch-your-brain-off watch, the resolution of the original Independence Day was an insult to intelligence.

Please point out where I said a movie had to be complete crap to be entertaining. What I don't get is why people bother to watch a film that you know exactly what you're going to get, just to bitch and moan about it. Take Transformers for example, there have been 4 of those films so you know exactly what you're going to get yet people still watch them and are disappointed that it wasn't some epic story telling adventure.

Go watch the Shepherd Dave, at the very least you can spend your time wondering if it's VD's acting face or whether he's wondering how he managed to be in a movie starring one of Emmerdales stars and Jace who used to be in Eastenders.

PaulHv2 wrote:

Galted wrote:

PaulHv2 wrote:What did people expect from Independence Day? A Shakespeare type film? Go back and watch the original, it's a switch your brain off disaster movie, and the sequel is no different. Personally enjoyed it, killed 2 hours anyway.

Watched the Batman vs Superman extended version as enjoyed the theatrical cut, this extra added in answered a few questions that were left hanging originally due to WBs decision to take a machete to the film.

Central Intelligence, if you like The Rock and Kevin Hart you'll like it. If you don't then don't watch it. Simple.

Bloody hell, are you michaels in disguise?  A film doesn't have to be complete sh*t to be entertaining.  And not sure exactly what a "Shakespeare-type film" is, seems to be a stock phrase fans of crap films use to deflect criticism.  I'm not a big fan of sci-fi but Aliens, the original Total Recall and some of the Star Wars managed to be a good switch-your-brain-off watch, the resolution of the original Independence Day was an insult to intelligence.

Please point out where I said a movie had to be complete crap to be entertaining. What I don't get is why people bother to watch a film that you know exactly what you're going to get, just to bitch and moan about it. Take Transformers for example, there have been 4 of those films so you know exactly what you're going to get yet people still watch them and are disappointed that it wasn't some epic story telling adventure.

Hey I was roped into watching the third instalment of Transformers... I said two was enough but these people wouldn't listen. Thank f**k I haven't seen the fourth movie. TMNT - again, Michael Bay ruining my childhood classics. Got a lot of hate for this guy!

PaulHv2 wrote:

Galted wrote:

PaulHv2 wrote:What did people expect from Independence Day? A Shakespeare type film? Go back and watch the original, it's a switch your brain off disaster movie, and the sequel is no different. Personally enjoyed it, killed 2 hours anyway.

Watched the Batman vs Superman extended version as enjoyed the theatrical cut, this extra added in answered a few questions that were left hanging originally due to WBs decision to take a machete to the film.

Central Intelligence, if you like The Rock and Kevin Hart you'll like it. If you don't then don't watch it. Simple.

Bloody hell, are you michaels in disguise?  A film doesn't have to be complete sh*t to be entertaining.  And not sure exactly what a "Shakespeare-type film" is, seems to be a stock phrase fans of crap films use to deflect criticism.  I'm not a big fan of sci-fi but Aliens, the original Total Recall and some of the Star Wars managed to be a good switch-your-brain-off watch, the resolution of the original Independence Day was an insult to intelligence.

Please point out where I said a movie had to be complete crap to be entertaining. What I don't get is why people bother to watch a film that you know exactly what you're going to get, just to bitch and moan about it. Take Transformers for example, there have been 4 of those films so you know exactly what you're going to get yet people still watch them and are disappointed that it wasn't some epic story telling adventure.

.

That wasn't really what he was arguing though. His point was the minute anyone criticises a big budget action blockbuster affair, someone always comes back with 'what did you expect Shakespeare' just because a film is not Shakespeare or likely to clear up come awards season doesn't mean it has to be an insult to the intelligence.

An action or sci-Fi film can still have characterisation, a script that makes sense, some level of acting ability or a storyline with wit, intelligence and originality. None of this is or should be considered to be making unrealistic demands of the film.

die hard being a example. action films can be good

Romeo and Juliet.

What a pile of sh*te that was. No aliens, no robots that turn into cars, loads of proper acting, a script, characterisation, wit, intelligence.

Loads of Shakespeare type guff in it as well.

0/10.

Has any of you olden geezers (like me) seen the new TMNT films, my lad wants to watch them but i don't want to sully the memories.

(On a side note, i remember getting a 'pirate' copy in my younger days that had the scene where April put the nunchucks on the table, we never got that in the UK one first)

Finally got to see The Hateful Eight this evening. I am not a massive Tarantino fan, but I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed it. There's good dialogue, plenty of stars (including QT mainstreamers Jackson, Roth & Madsen) and although most of the action takes place in an Inn in snowbound Wyoming, it's gripping, bloody and highly amusing.

It's pretty long at 2 3/4 hours, but I found that it flew by, which is the mark of a good film in my book. I actually enjoyed it more than Django Unchained, which I found to be a little too polished for a Western. The Hateful Eight is gritty, ugly, gory, funny, downright dirty and mean. 9/10

PS Do not watch if easily shocked!!

Mr Bounce wrote:

PS Do not watch if easily shocked!!

A bit late for that warning Bounce. Most of us are 606 veterans - 'shock' has become an obsolete concept.

Warcraft-you don't have to spend Saturdays in a white dwarf shop to enjoy it.
Superman vs batman-great action scenes but a right mess of a story.
CA civil war/Avengers 3-Superb. Loved the spider and Ant man cameos
10 Cloverfield lane-Decent enough suspense but the ending could've been better.
13 hours-One of the best Michael bay films in a while but does get a bit call of dutyish.

Despite my stance that I wouldn't watch this, I went to see the new Ghostbusters last night. I expected to not like it but thought there would be some redeeming features.....there weren't

I will say a lot of people owe apologies to the four women though, they came in for a lot of criticism since it first got announced, and I can honestly say they were not the problem with this movie, Paul Feig was. This has to be the laziest and one of the poorest scripts I have ever seen in a film. Poor jokes throughout. I genuinely cringed at Leslie Jones, who was so typecast as a generic black character. One saving grace probably would be Chris Hemsworth but his character got tired fast

Where the original still gets quoted today, I can't say 30 years from now anybody will remember this. I think with a good script, the girls have enough chemistry that they could make it work, just need the right tools to do the job

1/5

gazzyD wrote:Despite my stance that I wouldn't watch this, I went to see the new Ghostbusters last night. I expected to not like it but thought there would be some redeeming features.....there weren't

I will say a lot of people owe apologies to the four women though, they came in for a lot of criticism since it first got announced, and I can honestly say they were not the problem with this movie, Paul Feig was. This has to be the laziest and one of the poorest scripts I have ever seen in a film. Poor jokes throughout. I genuinely cringed at Leslie Jones, who was so typecast as a generic black character. One saving grace probably would be Chris Hemsworth but his character got tired fast

Where the original still gets quoted today, I can't say 30 years from now anybody will remember this. I think with a good script, the girls have enough chemistry that they could make it work, just need the right tools to do the job

1/5

Not my kind of movie - even the original was watched just to list it down as one watched.  
Yet in the interests of balance and in memory of the original cast - and bearing in mind I don't think Bill Murray was ever that funny - I'm sure in these movies that the actors read the lines and either go with the rough rhythms of a dumb script or they find the rhythm isn't sitting right with them.  How much of the original movie adhered to the script and how much of the one liners and stuff were improvised in the moment?  If the actors in this present movie felt they were being given a thrash script to work with why didn't they fight their corner and insist on uplifting it?  They're comedic actors - that's their job.

Gods of Egypt:
F.uck the actors
F.uck the director
F.uck the Screenwriter
F.uck the marketing team
F.uck the producers
F.uck them all.

What an unspeakably bad film. And I'm saying this having Watched XMen Apocalypse. So So So poor.

Wouldn'Muppet/10