The Last Film watched (CONTAINS A LOT OF SPOILERS)

First topic message reminder :

superflyweight wrote:

Scott is Back wrote:"Thor - Ragnarok"

Tino memorial rating : 7.5874 - Not seen any of the previous Thor's, but this one looked all new and shiny, so thought i would give it a whirl.

GSoE: 8.6

HH Scale of Accurate Titling: 8/10 – Thor Ragnarok - Well the main man is ol' Thor, God of Thunder & all that jazz....so thats a good start. Ragnarok as a word features quite heavily, still no overly sure what it was, but it was mentioned a lot.

Michaels scale of tits OR war: Tits - one topless scene where God of Pecs shows off his rippling torso, and the Hulk gets his dimply arse-cheeks out. Not sure if i would class it as a war, but some fisty-cuffs ensued, and there was a winner, so i suppose it could be a war.... who knows, certainly not me!

Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 5/10 - The wife was sent to sainsburys for some steak, and returned with the film, so it didnt cost me anything, but the Scott household took a hit of £9.99.

TattieSconesRRN-Q: "Piss off Ghost" - Said in a South African/Australian Accent, i couldnt tell which (is this racist?)

If Barry Norman had done his reviews like this he wouldn't be dead now.  

Was he murdered due to his substandard movie reviewing technique?

I filmed a bit of it on my phone, and the review fits.

Galted wrote:I filmed a bit of it on my phone, and the review fits.

Nonce.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Galted wrote:I filmed a bit of it on my phone, and the review fits.

Nonce.

The rest of it I filmed on my shoe camera.

Leave The World Behind

Just goes nowhere. Stellar cast who are mostly fine with exception of Julia Roberts who is annoying(on purpose but still) but it's so lame and ending leave you thinking what, is that it!

Could have been so much better.

Rebel Moon

Tino memorial rating : 0.15 - Daario Naharis lives in a hobbit set with a bunch of oirish accented agricultural types. Everything is lovely until Daario Naharis turns up in his Winkle substitute wearing his favourite Nazi uniform.


GSoE: 0.003 Given the benefit of the doubt because I can't tell you if it gets any better after the 5 minutes I lasted

HH Scale of Accurate Titling: 7/10 – It may be a moon and you can tell they are going to rebel.

Michaels scale of tits OR war: Tits - Who knows or cares. War seems very likely, especially when you have a goody ex killer robot who has found the way of peace. My bet is it gets fighty, but I don't care.

Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 5/10 - We have Netflix already. I pity the fool who went to see this in the cinema - it's much too obvious when you walk out.

TattieSconesRRN-Q: Oh f*ck knows

Heroes of Telemark

Tino memorial rating : 9.3 -The Norwegian knitwear classic. A true tale of heroism and endurance gets a Holywood adaptation that is occasionally not completely inaccurate

GSoE: 8 It is of its time, but well made with great pacing

HH Scale of Accurate Titling: 9/10 – It is set in Telemark and the main guys are obviously heroes.

Michaels scale of tits OR war: Tits -Some groping in knitwear, lots of war but in true 1965 every gun sounds like it's from a western and no blood is ever seen, way.

Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 10/10 - It's on youtube for nowt. An ad blocker is recommended though

TattieSconesRRN-Q: 'You know what to do? Press this little thing here and the bullets come out there.

It's not great but IMDB hasn't got many quotes from this film. If you are interested in the real story then Ray Mears is your man.

Killers of the Flower Moon

Tino memorial rating : 7.193. It takes far too long to get going and at one point the really long running time seems to pan out before you like an endless desert of pointless nothingness while you watch DiCaprio have a go at struggling to act like a m*ng.  About halfway through the film picks up considerably (really from the point at which the FBI shows up) and either DiCaprio finally cracks the performance or you just accept that he might be a m*ng in real life.  Still, he's a hell of a lot better than Nicholson was in The Departed so it's not the worst performance in a Scorsese film.  

GSoE: 7/10 - the second half of the film is doing a lot of heavy lifting for the film to get this score and without that significant improvement this could have been looking at a 3 or a 4.  The film also loses marks because Scorsese didn't manage to shoe-horn Gimme Shelter into it which I think probably marks the first time he's failed to do that since The Last Temptation of Christ (where he opted for Jumpin Jack Flash instead).    

HH scale of accurate titling: 6/10 - It is about some killers but the Flower Moon reference is too vague.  I'd have called it "Injun Killers".  

Michaels Scale of t*ts OR war: 6/10 - can't remember any t*ts but there might have been some as trying to remember the film is like trying to remember the span of my entire life (although I can remember seeing some t*ts in my own life - and not always because I paid to see them).  There's some occasional and bloody shooting.  

Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 5/10 - it's on Apple+ and Mrs Superfly didn't cancel it at the end of the free trial and we now pay full whack for it.  

TSRRN-Q: N/A - there's nothing worth quoting

Tilda Swinton Manner of Death: N/A

LiW Is it a Film: yes it's a film.

Beautiful review, Supes. That's how it should be done.

I'm never going to watch it as I can't even get through Finding Nemo but I don't need to now.

Bravo.

Just think of the time I've saved you. You can now get on with whatever it is you do these days.

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

Tino memorial rating : 6.421/10. Enjoyable load of boll*cks.  Doesn’t deviate from the Indiana Jones formula of outrageous chases and fights, annoying lady sidekick, drownable kid sidekick and a bit of magic disguised as history – with little time to catch your breath in between scenes.  There was a sad moment when Indiana spoke about going back in time to save his son’s life, until you remember that his son was Shia Labeouf.  If the rest of the film was a bit far-fetched, the climax was beyond the pale yet very watchable and quite funny.

GSoE: 6/10 – did a good job on the digital de-ageing of Harrison Ford, far better than de Niro’s doddery fight scenes in The Irishman, though it is a bit odd how Ford and Clint Eastwood appear to be interchangeable in old age.  Phoebe Waller-Bridge did a good job as the know-it-all female accompaniment who can apparently knock out any amount of bad guys and **spoiler alert** Indiana Jones with a single wave of the arm (was probably a bit unfair referring to her as a 'sidekick' earlier as she does most of the graft).

HH scale of accurate titling: 7/10 – Jury’s out on ‘Dial of Destiny’ but a more accurate description would have required a substantial amount of reading, which no-one watching an Indiana Jones film wants.  The ‘Indiana Jones’ bit of the title was spot on.

Michaels Scale of t*ts OR war: 6/10 – no tits, but I would very much like to ejaculate on Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s voice.  Jones was fighting the Nazis again so references to war, plus some decent action from **spoiler alert** the Siege of Syracuse.

Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 5/10 – Have been inspired by Tino to subscribe to Disney + so wasn’t quite free but not expensive either.  

TSRRN-Q: ‘how did they know they’d find them there?’ - couldn’t really follow the dialogue as Galtova kept asking stupid Who/How/Why questions.  I don’t f*cking know, I’m watching exactly the same film you are, unless you think the tv’s beaming the director’s cut into my head.

Tilda Swinton Manner of Death: n/a, but would most likely have been by falling out of an aeroplane or being impaled by a ballista bolt.

LiW Is it a Film?: it is definitely a film.

Great stuff, Galted. Enjoyed that one. Couple of observations though,one good and one bad.

Good - "ejaculate on Phoebe Waller-Bridge's voice" is not a comment I expected to read today. Well played.

Bad - putting the film title in large, bold letters is unnecessary and doesn't add to the review. Let the body of the post do the heavy lifting. Don't forget where you come from, flower.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Great stuff, Galted. Enjoyed that one. Couple of observations though,one good and one bad.

Good - "ejaculate on Phoebe Waller-Bridge's voice" is not a comment I expected to read today. Well played.

Bad - putting the film title in large, bold letters is unnecessary and doesn't add to the review. Let the body of the post do the heavy lifting. Don't forget where you come from, flower.

Thanks for the constructive feedback. I went for the oversized title to reinforce the fact that I'd added the title, in the hope that I'd be renowned as someone who never forgets to add the title of the film being reviewed.

The Beekeeper.

The usual The Stath fare but that's what we like. Kills everyone, bullet proof and can penetrate the toughest security set up.

He's always good value.

Flowers of the Killer Moon.

Meh, way too long.
Decent enough but deserving of all the praise and awards? Not so sure.

mountain man wrote:Flowers of the Killer Moon.

Meh, way too long.
Decent enough but deserving of all the praise and awards? Not so sure.

Did it get much praise? It didn't seem like it was in the cinema long.

mikey_dragon wrote:

mountain man wrote:Flowers of the Killer Moon.

Meh, way too long.
Decent enough but deserving of all the praise and awards? Not so sure.

Did it get much praise? It didn't seem like it was in the cinema long.

It was only released for a short run at the cinema to make it award season eligible. It was primarily an Apple TV release.

10 Oscar nominations, a ton of critical praise etc.

I was distinctly underwhelmed.

Oh lots of reasons why Killers of the Flower Moon is rated. But it does just feel exceptionally long.

Sounds like somewhat similar views to how I felt about The Revenant. It was s**t. The bear attack looked cool but I lost suspension of disbelief once the main character survives that. There is no investment in the characters as they are abjectly developed. Take that away, you're left with stunning landscape shots and actors grunting with their face pressed up to a camera. If want to see a landscape, I'll walk up a hill. If I want to hear someone grunt next to a camera, I'll watch poorly shot amateur porn. It was a pile of w**k.

I actually started laughing at the point when he rode off the cliff on a horse then climbed inside it like the tauntaun in Star Wars.

king_carlos wrote:Sounds like somewhat similar views to how I felt about The Revenant. It was s**t. The bear attack looked cool but I lost suspension of disbelief once the main character survives that. There is no investment in the characters as they are abjectly developed. Take that away, you're left with stunning landscape shots and actors grunting with their face pressed up to a camera. If want to see a landscape, I'll walk up a hill. If I want to hear someone grunt next to a camera, I'll watch poorly shot amateur porn. It was a pile of w**k.

I actually started laughing at the point when he rode off the cliff on a horse then climbed inside it like the tauntaun in Star Wars.

The Revenant was a very boring film, they just gifted Leo that Oscar because he's missed out on so many occasions. He definitely should have had one for Shutter Island.

Soul Requiem wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

mountain man wrote:Flowers of the Killer Moon.

Meh, way too long.
Decent enough but deserving of all the praise and awards? Not so sure.

Did it get much praise? It didn't seem like it was in the cinema long.

It was only released for a short run at the cinema to make it award season eligible. It was primarily an Apple TV release.

I've always refused Apple TV, pay a subscription and then pay for the shows and films! I suppose Amazon are doing it now too, and both corporations already get enough money from me. There doesn't seem to be anything good on Apple TV, even that show with Jason Momoa was bad.

Have you watched Slow Horses? Absolutely fantastic.
That's on Apple TV.

mountain man wrote:Have you watched Slow Horses? Absolutely fantastic.
That's on Apple TV.

But it is not a film

king_carlos wrote:Sounds like somewhat similar views to how I felt about The Revenant. It was s**t. The bear attack looked cool but I lost suspension of disbelief once the main character survives that. There is no investment in the characters as they are abjectly developed. Take that away, you're left with stunning landscape shots and actors grunting with their face pressed up to a camera. If want to see a landscape, I'll walk up a hill. If I want to hear someone grunt next to a camera, I'll watch poorly shot amateur porn. It was a pile of w**k.

I actually started laughing at the point when he rode off the cliff on a horse then climbed inside it like the tauntaun in Star Wars.

'And then it got worse' It's how me and my son summarized that film. So many things wrong with it, from multishot pistols to the Pawnee being the subject of raids from white men. Then somehow Hugh Glass manages to recover from his significant injuries enough in his travels (with no supplies) to have a fight at the end.

The real story is incredible, but then having someone crawling 200 miles after having their back ripped open by a bear isn't quite as cinematic.

lostinwales wrote:

mountain man wrote:Have you watched Slow Horses? Absolutely fantastic.
That's on Apple TV.

But it is not a film

No but Mikey said he couldn't find anything he wanted to watch so I suggested a series. He did say shows and films, not just films.

mountain man wrote:Have you watched Slow Horses? Absolutely fantastic.
That's on Apple TV.

If it can only be accessed via Apple TV then no. I had never heard of it up to now, but seems like it would be interesting. I've almost finished The Sopranos. I know I'm late, so late that a lot of the crew have since passed away!

lostinwales wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Sounds like somewhat similar views to how I felt about The Revenant. It was s**t. The bear attack looked cool but I lost suspension of disbelief once the main character survives that. There is no investment in the characters as they are abjectly developed. Take that away, you're left with stunning landscape shots and actors grunting with their face pressed up to a camera. If want to see a landscape, I'll walk up a hill. If I want to hear someone grunt next to a camera, I'll watch poorly shot amateur porn. It was a pile of w**k.

I actually started laughing at the point when he rode off the cliff on a horse then climbed inside it like the tauntaun in Star Wars.

'And then it got worse' It's how me and my son summarized that film. So many things wrong with it, from multishot pistols to the Pawnee being the subject of raids from white men. Then somehow Hugh Glass manages to recover from his significant injuries enough in his travels (with no supplies) to have a fight at the end.

The real story is incredible, but then having someone crawling 200 miles after having their back ripped open by a bear isn't quite as cinematic.

Not sure what you're getting at with the raids, but I remember those scenes being very bad. A fun gunshots being heard in the background, whilst occasionally you saw three Pawnee on horse back riding past up on the hill and down by the river - they must have used CGI to repeat the same riding sequence as I seen the exact scene a few times, it looked terrible but on the whole it was a terrible film.

mikey_dragon wrote:

mountain man wrote:Have you watched Slow Horses? Absolutely fantastic.
That's on Apple TV.

If it can only be accessed via Apple TV then no. I had never heard of it up to now, but seems like it would be interesting. I've almost finished The Sopranos. I know I'm late, so late that a lot of the crew have since passed away!

Without suggesting anything illegal(perish the thought) there are ways and means *cough pirate thing*

The Outfit

Tino memorial rating : 8.623/10. Solid dialogue driven whodunnit, with some great acting and an excellent script, main twist is not the most surprising but there are enough twists and turns to make it interesting.

GSoE: 8/10 – Great period setting, and apparently the main actor spent a few months on Saville Row actually learning how to look like he knows what he is doing.  Script is very Guy Ricthie/Tarantino esque and well delivered.

HH scale of accurate titling: 10/10 – He makes Outfits and has a plot driven by "The Outfit" so can't really fault it.

Michaels Scale of t*ts OR war: 6/10 – No tits, some war going on offscreen, and a fair bit of onscreen claret being spilled onscreen

Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 10/10 – On Netfilx which the missus pays for

TSRRN-Q: ‘Get that marble out of his stomach and stitch him up’

Tilda Swinton Manner of Death: n/a, but would probably be death by marble in the stomach.

LiW Is it a Film?: it is definitely a film.

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Sounds like somewhat similar views to how I felt about The Revenant. It was s**t. The bear attack looked cool but I lost suspension of disbelief once the main character survives that. There is no investment in the characters as they are abjectly developed. Take that away, you're left with stunning landscape shots and actors grunting with their face pressed up to a camera. If want to see a landscape, I'll walk up a hill. If I want to hear someone grunt next to a camera, I'll watch poorly shot amateur porn. It was a pile of w**k.

I actually started laughing at the point when he rode off the cliff on a horse then climbed inside it like the tauntaun in Star Wars.

'And then it got worse' It's how me and my son summarized that film. So many things wrong with it, from multishot pistols to the Pawnee being the subject of raids from white men. Then somehow Hugh Glass manages to recover from his significant injuries enough in his travels (with no supplies) to have a fight at the end.

The real story is incredible, but then having someone crawling 200 miles after having their back ripped open by a bear isn't quite as cinematic.

Not sure what you're getting at with the raids, but I remember those scenes being very bad. A fun gunshots being heard in the background, whilst occasionally you saw three Pawnee on horse back riding past up on the hill and down by the river - they must have used CGI to repeat the same riding sequence as I seen the exact scene a few times, it looked terrible but on the whole it was a terrible film.

The Pawnee are the people Hugo Glass was living with in the flashbacks. They had quite distinctive lodges that they lived in. They tended to cooperate with white men (acting as scouts etc) so really didn't get the same aggro that other tribes did. Didn't stop the film maker go down the 'wife getting killed by nasty white men' route.

Historically the Native Americans the trappers ended up fighting were the Arikara. Glass died when he was ambushed by these guys a few years later

KATE & LEOPOLD Kate & Leopold

Tino memorial rating : 1/10. Tino would have hated it, were he still alive. Some people say he is still alive and that they saw him at a haberdashery, but there is no photographic evidence of this.

GSoE: 6/10 – Hugh Jackman is, of course, excellent, as he is in everything he does. And it's always nice to see Meg Ryan on screen. It is let down by a script which, for a romantic comedy, has a rather dull romance and not much comedy. The time-travelling '19th century man in the 21st century' theme was much better done in Hallmark's classic 'A Timeless Christmas'. Overall, it was worth watching for the two stars, especially Hugh Jackman.

HH scale of accurate titling: 10/10 – It is literally about Kate & Leopold. Probably the most accurate titling since Romeo & Juliet, or Beavis & Butthead.

Michaels Scale of t*ts OR war: 0/10 – No tits, no war (what is it good for?)

Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 10/10 – On Sky Movies, comes free as part of paying for other stuff.

TSRRN-Q: 'Behold, rising before you, the greatest erection on the continent! The greatest erection of the age! The greatest erection on the planet!'

Tilda Swinton Manner of Death: ~No-ones dies.

LiW Is it a Film?: Yes. Yes it is.

lostinwales wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Sounds like somewhat similar views to how I felt about The Revenant. It was s**t. The bear attack looked cool but I lost suspension of disbelief once the main character survives that. There is no investment in the characters as they are abjectly developed. Take that away, you're left with stunning landscape shots and actors grunting with their face pressed up to a camera. If want to see a landscape, I'll walk up a hill. If I want to hear someone grunt next to a camera, I'll watch poorly shot amateur porn. It was a pile of w**k.

I actually started laughing at the point when he rode off the cliff on a horse then climbed inside it like the tauntaun in Star Wars.

'And then it got worse' It's how me and my son summarized that film. So many things wrong with it, from multishot pistols to the Pawnee being the subject of raids from white men. Then somehow Hugh Glass manages to recover from his significant injuries enough in his travels (with no supplies) to have a fight at the end.

The real story is incredible, but then having someone crawling 200 miles after having their back ripped open by a bear isn't quite as cinematic.

Not sure what you're getting at with the raids, but I remember those scenes being very bad. A fun gunshots being heard in the background, whilst occasionally you saw three Pawnee on horse back riding past up on the hill and down by the river - they must have used CGI to repeat the same riding sequence as I seen the exact scene a few times, it looked terrible but on the whole it was a terrible film.

The Pawnee are the people Hugo Glass was living with in the flashbacks. They had quite distinctive lodges that they lived in. They tended to cooperate with white men (acting as scouts etc) so really didn't get the same aggro that other tribes did. Didn't stop the film maker go down the 'wife getting killed by nasty white men' route.

Historically the Native Americans the trappers ended up fighting were the Arikara. Glass died when he was ambushed by these guys a few years later

Ah I see, good knowledge, thank you. Probably another opportunity to say "straight white man bad" I guess? On the whole I think it's awful what happened to the Cree, Shawnee, Pawnee and the various others. There is a distinct history and perhaps a different outcome for each tribe and I don't have knowledge of all of it. I have to say, since living in that part of the world and learning a bit more, I no longer have that much empathy for them.

JuliusHMarx wrote:KATE & LEOPOLD Kate & Leopold

Tino memorial rating : 1/10. Tino would have hated it, were he still alive. Some people say he is still alive and that they saw him at a haberdashery, but there is no photographic evidence of this.

GSoE: 6/10 – Hugh Jackman is, of course, excellent, as he is in everything he does. And it's always nice to see Meg Ryan on screen. It is let down by a script which, for a romantic comedy, has a rather dull romance and not much comedy. The time-travelling '19th century man in the 21st century' theme was much better done in Hallmark's classic 'A Timeless Christmas'. Overall, it was worth watching for the two stars, especially Hugh Jackman.

HH scale of accurate titling: 10/10 – It is literally about Kate & Leopold. Probably the most accurate titling since Romeo & Juliet, or Beavis & Butthead.

Michaels Scale of t*ts OR war: 0/10 – No tits, no war (what is it good for?)

Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 10/10 – On Sky Movies, comes free as part of paying for other stuff.

TSRRN-Q: 'Behold, rising before you, the greatest erection on the continent! The greatest erection of the age! The greatest erection on the planet!'

Tilda Swinton Manner of Death: ~No-ones dies.

LiW Is it a Film?: Yes. Yes it is.

We need another section - does it contain a massive c*nt? This would clearly score 10/10. Along with Wolverine and The Greatest Showman.

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Sounds like somewhat similar views to how I felt about The Revenant. It was s**t. The bear attack looked cool but I lost suspension of disbelief once the main character survives that. There is no investment in the characters as they are abjectly developed. Take that away, you're left with stunning landscape shots and actors grunting with their face pressed up to a camera. If want to see a landscape, I'll walk up a hill. If I want to hear someone grunt next to a camera, I'll watch poorly shot amateur porn. It was a pile of w**k.

I actually started laughing at the point when he rode off the cliff on a horse then climbed inside it like the tauntaun in Star Wars.

'And then it got worse' It's how me and my son summarized that film. So many things wrong with it, from multishot pistols to the Pawnee being the subject of raids from white men. Then somehow Hugh Glass manages to recover from his significant injuries enough in his travels (with no supplies) to have a fight at the end.

The real story is incredible, but then having someone crawling 200 miles after having their back ripped open by a bear isn't quite as cinematic.

Not sure what you're getting at with the raids, but I remember those scenes being very bad. A fun gunshots being heard in the background, whilst occasionally you saw three Pawnee on horse back riding past up on the hill and down by the river - they must have used CGI to repeat the same riding sequence as I seen the exact scene a few times, it looked terrible but on the whole it was a terrible film.

The Pawnee are the people Hugo Glass was living with in the flashbacks. They had quite distinctive lodges that they lived in. They tended to cooperate with white men (acting as scouts etc) so really didn't get the same aggro that other tribes did. Didn't stop the film maker go down the 'wife getting killed by nasty white men' route.

Historically the Native Americans the trappers ended up fighting were the Arikara. Glass died when he was ambushed by these guys a few years later

Ah I see, good knowledge, thank you. Probably another opportunity to say "straight white man bad" I guess? On the whole I think it's awful what happened to the Cree, Shawnee, Pawnee and the various others. There is a distinct history and perhaps a different outcome for each tribe and I don't have knowledge of all of it. I have to say, since living in that part of the world and learning a bit more, I no longer have that much empathy for them.

Pretty much. The film does attempt some kind of 'eco' message (plus 'white men bad') by making Glass out to be more in tune with nature than his fellows. All just helps it to be even more of a mess.

No.1 son developed one of those in depth interests in Native American history when he was younger so I picked up a few things by association. One of the interesting facts that came out of that was that none of the blankets and metal tools (knives and those combined tomohawk/ pipe things) that you associate with NA culture were made by them. They were all goods traded, mainly for fur. Where were those goods made? Metal tools from Sheffield, blankets from mills in Lancashire and beyond.

Watched The Marvels.
Was alright I thought. Some bits were a bit weird.

Overall it was fine. For what it was.

Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning Part 1.

Hmm, a bit formulaic. Yes I know they all are but this was particularly so. Running out of ideas was was first impression.
Some good stuff and Cruise at 60 is pretty remarkable but think series is trundling to a slow standstill unforunately as some of the earlier ones were properly good.

Out of Darkness

Tino memorial rating : 0/10. I'm not dead.

GSoE: 6.567994/10 - tough one to score. Parts of it I really enjoyed, parts of it were a bit rubbish. It was pretty atmospheric and in some ways, quite original, but I saw the twist coming a mile off. The acting was decent enough but it was hardly tough. Some quite violent scenes and plenty of tension. Credit for learning a 'new' language but they could have been talking any old sh*te and I wouldn't have noticed. Still made more sense than Interstellar. It was part Predator, part Planet of the Apes and part Pitch Black. All in all, a worthwhile experience but I wouldn't watch it again unless it was a choice between watching again or watching a Hugh J*ckman film. Any Hugh J*ckman film.

HH scale of accurate titling: 5/10 – right down the middle. Literally some darkness but everyone gets out of darkness when morning arrives. Unless one is blind. In which case, you shouldn't be allowed near children. Maybe it was metaphorical? In which case, just call the film 'A really bad experience that gets worse before it eventually gets a tiny bit better although that is subjective '. It would have scored a 10 had it done so.

Michaels Scale of t*ts OR war: 7/10 – No t*ts and no 'war' in the traditional sense, but a sh*t load of violence and some it quite brutal so it gets a decent score for that.

Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 6/10. Went to the pictures with 2 of the kids so was expecting to have to sell one of them to a grooming gang from Rotherham to make some money back, which I'd have happily done, but apparently Tuesday nights are a cheap night for tickets. The pick n mix is still a f*cking outrage. I've bought drugs cheaper than that. Although the pick n mix does get you higher than crack so shouldn't complain too much.

TSRRN-Q: no idea, it was in a made up language and I can't remember any of the subtitles. It was set 43,000 years ago but I'm sure one of them still managed to call Hugh J*ckman a c*nt.

Tilda Swinton Manner of Death: she isn't in it. If she had been, I imagine a rock to the skull would have been the manner of death.

LiW Is it a Film?: Yes.

Does it contain a massive c*nt?: not really. A couple of the characters were a bit irritating but that's it. Hugh J*ckman is not involved in any capacity.

Top reviewing Tina. I particularly enjoyed the suggestion that blind people will try to nonce up kids.

Not really. I'd rather a more straight forward review but each to their own.

Ignore the haters, Tino, great review.

Yeah I've ignored her, riCko. Some people just can't recognise genius when they see it.

rIck_dAgless wrote:Ignore the haters, Tino, great review.

Hater? Not at all, just a different opinion or is that not allowed?

Yes it is, though if you need full clarification on forum rules, I would probably ask a mod, I'm not qualified.

mountain man wrote:

rIck_dAgless wrote:Ignore the haters, Tino, great review.

Hater? Not at all, just a different opinion or is that not allowed?

Not allowed, but that's just my opinion.

Good review Tino, but I was disappointed you didn't continue my use of '~' when referring to the Tilda Swinton Manner of Death.

Are you looking forward to Deadpool 3?

rIck_dAgless wrote:Yes it is, though if you need full clarification on forum rules, I would probably ask a mod, I'm not qualified.

Why do I need clarification on forum rules? Could you explain that please.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Good review Tino, but I was disappointed you didn't continue my use of '~' when referring to the Tilda Swinton Manner of Death.

Are you looking forward to Deadpool 3?

Thanks, Jules. I did consider using '~' but I prefer a more straight forward use of a tilde. Yours had a bit too much fun attached for my taste.

I can't wait for Deadpool 3. Almost as much as mountain man can't wait for my review.

mountain man wrote:

rIck_dAgless wrote:Yes it is, though if you need full clarification on forum rules, I would probably ask a mod, I'm not qualified.

Why do I need clarification on forum rules? Could you explain that please.

No, I'm not qualified.

rIck_dAgless wrote:

mountain man wrote:

rIck_dAgless wrote:Yes it is, though if you need full clarification on forum rules, I would probably ask a mod, I'm not qualified.

Why do I need clarification on forum rules? Could you explain that please.

No, I'm not qualified.

I think Julius is qualified. He's got a GCSE and a first aid certificate, which is more than any of us have got.

Duty281 wrote:

rIck_dAgless wrote:

mountain man wrote:

rIck_dAgless wrote:Yes it is, though if you need full clarification on forum rules, I would probably ask a mod, I'm not qualified.

Why do I need clarification on forum rules? Could you explain that please.

No, I'm not qualified.

I think Julius is qualified. He's got a GCSE and a first aid certificate, which is more than any of us have got.

I don't have a first aid certificate but I do have a stolen blue badge for my car.