Films I watched this week
Discussion
Frimley111R said:
TREMAiNE said:
Poisson96 said:
The Revenant 7.5/10
Room 6/10
Daddy's Home -10/10
Really?Room 6/10
Daddy's Home -10/10
Revenant a 7.5, Room a 6 but daddy's home a 10?
I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion... But that is just wrong.
Revenant is a 9. Room is a 9. Daddy's Home is a 4.
Nothing great about it? It has some of the best cinematography of all time.
A revenge epic, massive in scope with next to no dialogue and yet its still captivating throughout.
And that opening battle sequence alone is incredible.
"Many of the survival scenes are laughable too. The Gray with Liam Neeson in was much better and more realistic."
Hugh Glass was real. After the bear attack he was just as injured as in the film adaptation, with exposed ribs and lacerations everywhere. In real life he dragged himself hundreds of miles to get back to base.
The only plot points that are fictitious are Glass' Native American son and the fact that in real life Glass didn't kill Fitzgerald, he spared his life and only hunted him down to retrieve his rifle which Fitzgerald had stolen.
TREMAiNE said:
No... I just have to disagree.
Nothing great about it? It has some of the best cinematography of all time.
A revenge epic, massive in scope with next to no dialogue and yet its still captivating throughout.
And that opening battle sequence alone is incredible.
"Many of the survival scenes are laughable too. The Gray with Liam Neeson in was much better and more realistic."
Hugh Glass was real. After the bear attack he was just as injured as in the film adaptation, with exposed ribs and lacerations everywhere. In real life he dragged himself hundreds of miles to get back to base.
The only plot points that are fictitious are Glass' Native American son and the fact that in real life Glass didn't kill Fitzgerald, he spared his life and only hunted him down to retrieve his rifle which Fitzgerald had stolen.
Haven't seen the film yet, is this a spoiler?Nothing great about it? It has some of the best cinematography of all time.
A revenge epic, massive in scope with next to no dialogue and yet its still captivating throughout.
And that opening battle sequence alone is incredible.
"Many of the survival scenes are laughable too. The Gray with Liam Neeson in was much better and more realistic."
Hugh Glass was real. After the bear attack he was just as injured as in the film adaptation, with exposed ribs and lacerations everywhere. In real life he dragged himself hundreds of miles to get back to base.
The only plot points that are fictitious are Glass' Native American son and the fact that in real life Glass didn't kill Fitzgerald, he spared his life and only hunted him down to retrieve his rifle which Fitzgerald had stolen.
Halb said:
TREMAiNE said:
No... I just have to disagree.
Nothing great about it? It has some of the best cinematography of all time.
A revenge epic, massive in scope with next to no dialogue and yet its still captivating throughout.
And that opening battle sequence alone is incredible.
"Many of the survival scenes are laughable too. The Gray with Liam Neeson in was much better and more realistic."
Hugh Glass was real. After the bear attack he was just as injured as in the film adaptation, with exposed ribs and lacerations everywhere. In real life he dragged himself hundreds of miles to get back to base.
The only plot points that are fictitious are Glass' Native American son and the fact that in real life Glass didn't kill Fitzgerald, he spared his life and only hunted him down to retrieve his rifle which Fitzgerald had stolen.
Haven't seen the film yet, is this a spoiler?Nothing great about it? It has some of the best cinematography of all time.
A revenge epic, massive in scope with next to no dialogue and yet its still captivating throughout.
And that opening battle sequence alone is incredible.
"Many of the survival scenes are laughable too. The Gray with Liam Neeson in was much better and more realistic."
Hugh Glass was real. After the bear attack he was just as injured as in the film adaptation, with exposed ribs and lacerations everywhere. In real life he dragged himself hundreds of miles to get back to base.
The only plot points that are fictitious are Glass' Native American son and the fact that in real life Glass didn't kill Fitzgerald, he spared his life and only hunted him down to retrieve his rifle which Fitzgerald had stolen.
World's End; started off ambivelent about this, then loved this...and then hated it.
Once the film got going I started to forgive the horrible mentally ill protagonist, and it yielded some absolutely hysterically wonderful dialogue. 'f
k off back to legoland ya .' OK it doesn't read like Swift but was perfect in it's context. And I was starting to think the film was near perfect at the dénouement, until the last few minutes when I thought they spunked everything they'd earned into a bucket. I may watch it again and stop the film a few minutes short, or I may just never bother with it and watch Shaun of the Dead instead.I absolutely LOVED the World's end right up until the bathroom fight where you find out that they're all synths (or whatever they are). It just felt a bit silly.
All the stuff before that - mates reuniting and going to the pub was great, the banter was great - I just didn't care for anything that happened from then on.
All the stuff before that - mates reuniting and going to the pub was great, the banter was great - I just didn't care for anything that happened from then on.
I watched "Inside Out" a couple of weeks ago.
The trailer shows the parents' brains battling, which is really quite funny, but most of the film is a kids film, focussing on the child's brain (look up the trailer if this is making no sense!)
It was fun and an interesting idea for an animation, but I won't pretend I didn't wish it'd been more like the trailer.
I guess that'll teach me to watch children's films
M.
The trailer shows the parents' brains battling, which is really quite funny, but most of the film is a kids film, focussing on the child's brain (look up the trailer if this is making no sense!
)It was fun and an interesting idea for an animation, but I won't pretend I didn't wish it'd been more like the trailer.
I guess that'll teach me to watch children's films
M.
ever so slightly.....
i picked up the book its based on [same name] over xmas. really great read. haven't seen the film yet to compare but disappointed they had to include the son/revenge element. in the book the fact he didn't kill him after all he went through was quite a testament to glass's character.
i picked up the book its based on [same name] over xmas. really great read. haven't seen the film yet to compare but disappointed they had to include the son/revenge element. in the book the fact he didn't kill him after all he went through was quite a testament to glass's character.
TREMAiNE said:
No... I just have to disagree.
Nothing great about it? It has some of the best cinematography of all time.
A revenge epic, massive in scope with next to no dialogue and yet its still captivating throughout.
And that opening battle sequence alone is incredible.
"Many of the survival scenes are laughable too. The Gray with Liam Neeson in was much better and more realistic."
Hugh Glass was real. After the bear attack he was just as injured as in the film adaptation, with exposed ribs and lacerations everywhere. In real life he dragged himself hundreds of miles to get back to base.
The only plot points that are fictitious are Glass' Native American son and the fact that in real life Glass didn't kill Fitzgerald, he spared his life and only hunted him down to retrieve his rifle which Fitzgerald had stolen.
It may have had some amazing photography but I didn't notice any. The opening sequence? You mean the attack by Indians? Average. The bear scene? CGI-tastic. I appreciate it was based on a real story but come on, for example he gets soaking wet after being in the river, sleeps in a dead horse (possible I suppose) and in the morning his thick fur coat is bone dry, not frozen solid??!!Nothing great about it? It has some of the best cinematography of all time.
A revenge epic, massive in scope with next to no dialogue and yet its still captivating throughout.
And that opening battle sequence alone is incredible.
"Many of the survival scenes are laughable too. The Gray with Liam Neeson in was much better and more realistic."
Hugh Glass was real. After the bear attack he was just as injured as in the film adaptation, with exposed ribs and lacerations everywhere. In real life he dragged himself hundreds of miles to get back to base.
The only plot points that are fictitious are Glass' Native American son and the fact that in real life Glass didn't kill Fitzgerald, he spared his life and only hunted him down to retrieve his rifle which Fitzgerald had stolen.
TREMAiNE said:
I absolutely LOVED the World's end right up until the bathroom fight where you find out that they're all synths (or whatever they are). It just felt a bit silly.
If you'd like to learn how to use spoiler tags, click quote on this post - I've shown you how it's done. If you wouldn't like to learn how to use spoiler tags, then perhaps refrain from posting spoilers.
ClockworkCupcake said:
If you'd like to learn how to use spoiler tags, click quote on this post - I've shown you how it's done.
If you wouldn't like to learn how to use spoiler tags, then perhaps refrain from posting spoilers.
I thought tags were only for new(ish) films and that films that were several years old were fair game? My bad!If you wouldn't like to learn how to use spoiler tags, then perhaps refrain from posting spoilers.
TREMAiNE said:
I thought tags were only for new(ish) films and that films that were several years old were fair game? My bad!
Apologies - I came across far more sarky than I had intended. 
It's just it's a film I have not got round to watching, and it was on telly last night and I recorded it with a view to watching it tonight.
marcosgt said:
I watched "Inside Out" a couple of weeks ago.
The trailer shows the parents' brains battling, which is really quite funny, but most of the film is a kids film, focussing on the child's brain (look up the trailer if this is making no sense!)
It was fun and an interesting idea for an animation, but I won't pretend I didn't wish it'd been more like the trailer.
I guess that'll teach me to watch children's films
M.
I've not seen Inside Out (I wanna), but I reckon some of Pixar's back catalogue; Toy Story 3, The Incredibles, Up, Wall-E are films that are the equal of any film that might be deemed 'above' children. I'm not sure what constitutes a kid's film (it's nebulous I think), but they can be among the best films, and Pixar have a decent track record.The trailer shows the parents' brains battling, which is really quite funny, but most of the film is a kids film, focussing on the child's brain (look up the trailer if this is making no sense!
)It was fun and an interesting idea for an animation, but I won't pretend I didn't wish it'd been more like the trailer.
I guess that'll teach me to watch children's films
M.
Edited by Halb on Monday 22 February 16:40
DrTre said:
It's not really ruined anything, there's no lead up to that event so it's still fine to watch.
(Although I really think it's a piss poor film but that's another matter)
It's a deeply unlikeable film, zero empathy for Pegg's character. Weakest film in the cornetto trilogy by a long long way. (Although I really think it's a piss poor film but that's another matter)
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff