Good films I watched this weekend (Vol 2)
Discussion
blindswelledrat said:
Bit of an oldie this, and one that I would never have expected to like:
Precious.
I won't bore you with the synopsis because it will only make it sound a bit crap, but it is brilliant.
The acting, charachters and ongoing struggle were all perfect. Utterly absorbing and very emotional film but without sinking into violins and overacting.
Pretty sure this won a number of oscars and deservedly so. Suprisingly good acting from Maria Carey in it too. I didnt even realise it was her until the credits.
Watch it.
8.7/10
Great film - will have you in a rage at the protagonist's complete fPrecious.
I won't bore you with the synopsis because it will only make it sound a bit crap, but it is brilliant.
The acting, charachters and ongoing struggle were all perfect. Utterly absorbing and very emotional film but without sinking into violins and overacting.
Pretty sure this won a number of oscars and deservedly so. Suprisingly good acting from Maria Carey in it too. I didnt even realise it was her until the credits.
Watch it.
8.7/10
kbucket of a mother.Watched September Dawn - despite John Voight and Terence Stamp, an almost TV movie style depiction of an interesting event (mountain meadows massacre). 4/10
Rough Riders. The story of the 1st USVC, and more centrally, an early Theodore Roosevelt. Although not technically a straight film (mini-series), John Milius directed. Whilst there are plenty of dramas out there centred on Korea, WWI & II, The Civil War, even 1812 (see 'The Buccaneer'), the Spanish-American war is rarely touched upon.
The first American war to have motion cameras present, a number of historical clips intersperse at the start. Considering that Milius is almost fanatical about guns, then the accuracy and detail present (witness the relative fetish when an enemy machine gun is captured and instructions relayed on it's use) mean that this is an excellent catch for those who enjoy war films. There is a wide cast, and everyone from President McKinley to a young Pershing (the regimental quartermaster who'll one day make his inexorable rise to the top of the General Army - you have to catch his reference to 'tank' in amidst the zinging action) is captured. But the centrifugal force quite literally is Roosevelt, played well by Tom Berenger. He ably captures a physically thoughtless, yet deep thinking man. Part intellect, part warrior, to some Americans he's considered a renaissance man, and between the Postbellum era and the outbreak of WWI, he was a pivotal figure.
The Buccaneer. The only directed film by Anthony Quinn (pub quiz - didn't know that!), tells the story of the Battle of New Orleans during 1812, with Yul Brynner as a tight panted pirate dandy whom Andrew Jackson needs to help the battle against the dastardly Brits. Visually stunning in high definition, but the plot carries too much water.
Firepower. A laconic James Coburn lounges through this brutal action/thriller with Sophia Loren and OJ Simpson. Scenery drifts from New York to Antigua, involving thrashed Renaults, plenty of scenes on a 40ft plus seaplanes and helicopters. Plenty of toys, lots of death and murder, but hard to follow at times.
Judge Dredd. Stallone is on record as saying he has real regret that this just didn't click when made in 1995. For all sorts of reasons. Saving graces: firing up the ABC Warrior (Hammerstein?) and Diane Lane. I'm sure she's doing some sort of lycra bodysuit-off with Sandra Bullock (in 'Demolition Man'). Keep getting the two films mixed up in my sleep.
Heaven Can Wait. Huge fan of Warren Beatty, and this languid, easy, light comedy is one of my favourites. Must be something about the atmosphere of the early morning, sunny, sports practice sessions that make me wistful, or a deadpanning Charles Grodin, but can happily watch this another twenty times. Good fun.
The first American war to have motion cameras present, a number of historical clips intersperse at the start. Considering that Milius is almost fanatical about guns, then the accuracy and detail present (witness the relative fetish when an enemy machine gun is captured and instructions relayed on it's use) mean that this is an excellent catch for those who enjoy war films. There is a wide cast, and everyone from President McKinley to a young Pershing (the regimental quartermaster who'll one day make his inexorable rise to the top of the General Army - you have to catch his reference to 'tank' in amidst the zinging action) is captured. But the centrifugal force quite literally is Roosevelt, played well by Tom Berenger. He ably captures a physically thoughtless, yet deep thinking man. Part intellect, part warrior, to some Americans he's considered a renaissance man, and between the Postbellum era and the outbreak of WWI, he was a pivotal figure.
The Buccaneer. The only directed film by Anthony Quinn (pub quiz - didn't know that!), tells the story of the Battle of New Orleans during 1812, with Yul Brynner as a tight panted pirate dandy whom Andrew Jackson needs to help the battle against the dastardly Brits. Visually stunning in high definition, but the plot carries too much water.
Firepower. A laconic James Coburn lounges through this brutal action/thriller with Sophia Loren and OJ Simpson. Scenery drifts from New York to Antigua, involving thrashed Renaults, plenty of scenes on a 40ft plus seaplanes and helicopters. Plenty of toys, lots of death and murder, but hard to follow at times.
Judge Dredd. Stallone is on record as saying he has real regret that this just didn't click when made in 1995. For all sorts of reasons. Saving graces: firing up the ABC Warrior (Hammerstein?) and Diane Lane. I'm sure she's doing some sort of lycra bodysuit-off with Sandra Bullock (in 'Demolition Man'). Keep getting the two films mixed up in my sleep.
Heaven Can Wait. Huge fan of Warren Beatty, and this languid, easy, light comedy is one of my favourites. Must be something about the atmosphere of the early morning, sunny, sports practice sessions that make me wistful, or a deadpanning Charles Grodin, but can happily watch this another twenty times. Good fun.
really nice.Ted was alright. I find that comedy films nowadays are so hit and miss. Undoubtedly there's some very funny bits but also lots of dross to get through as well.
Then again, my favourite sort of humour is Spinal Tap. It can be watched a thousand times and every viewing lets you see something you didn't notice before. Stuff today is just in your face.
Then again, my favourite sort of humour is Spinal Tap. It can be watched a thousand times and every viewing lets you see something you didn't notice before. Stuff today is just in your face.
caduceus said:
Agreed with the bad 'Total Recall' (2012) reviews. Its was crap...
The only good bits were Kate in her undies, and the 'two weeks' woman gag. Other than that, rubbish.
2/10
I'm very surprised at these very low scores for the Total Recall remake! I was expecting to hate it but, actually thoroughly enjoyed it from start to finish. I think I rated it 8/10 earlier in the thread. Probably would have been higher if I'd had a fruit & nut bar too but, I had no snacks at all unfortunately The only good bits were Kate in her undies, and the 'two weeks' woman gag. Other than that, rubbish.
2/10
Still, its always nice to see a variety of tastes and reviews here - that is what the thread is all about
Speckle said:
caduceus said:
Agreed with the bad 'Total Recall' (2012) reviews. Its was crap...
The only good bits were Kate in her undies, and the 'two weeks' woman gag. Other than that, rubbish.
2/10
I'm very surprised at these very low scores for the Total Recall remake! I was expecting to hate it but, actually thoroughly enjoyed it from start to finish. I think I rated it 8/10 earlier in the thread. Probably would have been higher if I'd had a fruit & nut bar too but, I had no snacks at all unfortunately The only good bits were Kate in her undies, and the 'two weeks' woman gag. Other than that, rubbish.
2/10
Still, its always nice to see a variety of tastes and reviews here - that is what the thread is all about
Red. I think this has been out for a while now but we watched this on DVD for the first time (I'd never even heard of it) and the beginning was a real WTF! Then the plot and characters develop into a really fun action / thriller with some good humour thrown in.
A very "starry" cast including Morgan Freeman, Bruce Willis, John Malkovitch and many others.
One of the best of this type of film I've seen in a long time. I'll give it a 9/10.
A very "starry" cast including Morgan Freeman, Bruce Willis, John Malkovitch and many others.
One of the best of this type of film I've seen in a long time. I'll give it a 9/10.
SWoll said:
No, it's for pointing out how stupid you are for giving a very average action film 8/10.
It was average only in your opinion, which you are entitled to precisely as much as I am entitled to mine. Neither one is more valid or correct than the other (because they are just opinions and are therefore subjective, see how that works?) Interesting that you rate films you consider average at 2/10goldblum said:
Perhaps you could tell us why you think it's worthy of 8/10?
Simply put, because I enjoyed it and I tend to rate films based on that gut feeling and whether I feel like I've been entertained (which in this case, I did). I thought the action and the pace of the film were good. I thought the effects were good (and Kate Beckinsale looked hot!) I thought the performances were good and I found myself totally immersed in the fiction. It had been long enough since seeing the original not to recall the finer points of the plot. Plus, I'm a sucker for effect laden sci-fi movies All imho...
Opinions are most definitely not all subjective. If I asked for your objective appraisal of both Recall films, in other words your unbiased opinion (sucker for effect laden movies etc aside) as a comparison of the two, would you not be capable of doing that?
You see if everyone posted on here to say "Battleship" 8/10, but I'm a sucker for guns! Or Taken 9/10, but I'm a sucker for bad acting!..Then where would we be?
You see if everyone posted on here to say "Battleship" 8/10, but I'm a sucker for guns! Or Taken 9/10, but I'm a sucker for bad acting!..Then where would we be?
goldblum said:
Opinions are most definitely not all subjective. If I asked for your objective appraisal of both Recall films, in other words your unbiased opinion (sucker for effect laden movies etc aside) as a comparison of the two, would you not be capable of doing that?
You see if everyone posted on here to say "Battleship" 8/10, but I'm a sucker for guns! Or Taken 9/10, but I'm a sucker for bad acting!..Then where would we be?
Of course opinions are subjective.You see if everyone posted on here to say "Battleship" 8/10, but I'm a sucker for guns! Or Taken 9/10, but I'm a sucker for bad acting!..Then where would we be?
My unbiased opinion would still be my opinion and would most likely (it seems) differ from yours.
I rated the film highly and you did not. Neither of us are incorrect because we both subjectively rated the film.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
I'm sure it does.
You might like to read the link and educate yourself. http://www.differencebetween.net/language/differen...
The link explains in (mainly) short words how one can have a subjective opinion of a movie. An opinion upon which, when posted in this thread, others may feel they can base a decision as to whether they watch the movie or not.
You might like to read the link and educate yourself. http://www.differencebetween.net/language/differen...
The link explains in (mainly) short words how one can have a subjective opinion of a movie. An opinion upon which, when posted in this thread, others may feel they can base a decision as to whether they watch the movie or not.
goldblum said:
I'm sure it does.
You might like to read the link and educate yourself. http://www.differencebetween.net/language/differen...
The link explains in (mainly) short words how one can have a subjective opinion of a movie. An opinion upon which, when posted in this thread, others may feel they can base a decision as to whether they watch the movie or not.
Erm, I understand that objective and subjective are different things, thank you. You might like to read the link and educate yourself. http://www.differencebetween.net/language/differen...
The link explains in (mainly) short words how one can have a subjective opinion of a movie. An opinion upon which, when posted in this thread, others may feel they can base a decision as to whether they watch the movie or not.
You've basically just said the same thing that I said (that the opinions posted here are subjective) so, if it'll stop you being all pointlessly pedantic, I agree.
Shall we move on...
goldblum said:
Opinions are most definitely not all subjective.
Er, they are really otherwise they're facts rather than opinions. It is never possible to say whether a film is 'factually' good since everyone who sees it will have a different view/opinion. You could try to develop an objective view of a film by attempting to consider how a number of different people might perceive it but there will always be a large element of subjectivity since you are not the other people so don't really know what they would think.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff