Films I watched this week
Discussion
6th Gear said:
Victoria
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/apr/03/victo...
Shot over two hours in a single take.
Great film.
8/10.
Want to watch that - apparently they filmed the whole thing 3 times and picked the best onehttps://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/apr/03/victo...
Shot over two hours in a single take.
Great film.
8/10.
Youth with Michael Caine, Harvey Keitel, Rachel Weisz and one or two others...
Rubbish. I must have missed the point of it. Old-people films are often melancholic and "wandery" but this seemed to struggle to get to the point.
I blame the people who make the trailers really - it appeared to be a comedy of sorts but it wasn't. All the characters were painfully self-centred neurotics - I couldn't identify or even *like* any of them.
Wouldn't watch it again or recommend it anyone.
1/10 because of a lovely pair of boobs.
Rubbish. I must have missed the point of it. Old-people films are often melancholic and "wandery" but this seemed to struggle to get to the point.
I blame the people who make the trailers really - it appeared to be a comedy of sorts but it wasn't. All the characters were painfully self-centred neurotics - I couldn't identify or even *like* any of them.
Wouldn't watch it again or recommend it anyone.
1/10 because of a lovely pair of boobs.
Adam B said:
6th Gear said:
Victoria
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/apr/03/victo...
Shot over two hours in a single take.
Great film.
8/10.
Want to watch that - apparently they filmed the whole thing 3 times and picked the best onehttps://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/apr/03/victo...
Shot over two hours in a single take.
Great film.
8/10.
Sister D wanted to go see 'Nice Guys' which looked crap and I want to see The Avengers. I lost, (sulked a bit) then we ended up seeing Nice Guys.
Jesus, I haven't laughed at a film that much in ages, (however I think the humour was lost on a lot of the American audience).
Hilarious 8.5/10
Jesus, I haven't laughed at a film that much in ages, (however I think the humour was lost on a lot of the American audience).
Hilarious 8.5/10
Brother D said:
Sister D wanted to go see 'Nice Guys' which looked crap and I want to see The Avengers. I lost, (sulked a bit) then we ended up seeing Nice Guys.
Jesus, I haven't laughed at a film that much in ages, (however I think the humour was lost on a lot of the American audience).
Hilarious 8.5/10
Is that the Russell Crowe one? It looks fantastic, and is by Kiss Kiss Bang Bang man so it should be!Jesus, I haven't laughed at a film that much in ages, (however I think the humour was lost on a lot of the American audience).
Hilarious 8.5/10
te. Might see that despite himHalb said:
Brother D said:
Sister D wanted to go see 'Nice Guys' which looked crap and I want to see The Avengers. I lost, (sulked a bit) then we ended up seeing Nice Guys.
Jesus, I haven't laughed at a film that much in ages, (however I think the humour was lost on a lot of the American audience).
Hilarious 8.5/10
Is that the Russell Crowe one? It looks fantastic, and is by Kiss Kiss Bang Bang man so it should be!Jesus, I haven't laughed at a film that much in ages, (however I think the humour was lost on a lot of the American audience).
Hilarious 8.5/10
Finally got to see X-Men Apocalypse
What a stinking turd of a film. I'll admit I was naïve going in to this, I didn't realise it was a full on reboot so the backfill of characters we already know from the first 3 films of the early 2000s is played out again, only differently. The story completely undermines what has happened in the previous ones by occurring at some point in the 80s, it does however explain Xaviers bald head.
It felt weak, very weak. The original X men seemed to have a level of grittiness to it but this was flatter than a nuns chest. It was entertaining for a little while but then when the action should have ramped up the excitement, it seemed to just drag on and on and on with levels of predictableness that would have pleased Mystic Meg (who should be an X man, looking at her she probably is).
This felt as bad as the last Harry Potter film where they dragged one film out long enough to make two, thus making the first episode pointless. Clearly franchise setting up but the icing on the cake was when they revealed wolverine again, only keeping it as Hugh Jackman - thus utterly undermining the fairly good story of the previous films as to his development.
I thought 2001 a Space Odyssey was my benchmark as to whether I would agree with someone or not on films, but this takes the utter arse biscuit.
What a stinking turd of a film. I'll admit I was naïve going in to this, I didn't realise it was a full on reboot so the backfill of characters we already know from the first 3 films of the early 2000s is played out again, only differently. The story completely undermines what has happened in the previous ones by occurring at some point in the 80s, it does however explain Xaviers bald head.
It felt weak, very weak. The original X men seemed to have a level of grittiness to it but this was flatter than a nuns chest. It was entertaining for a little while but then when the action should have ramped up the excitement, it seemed to just drag on and on and on with levels of predictableness that would have pleased Mystic Meg (who should be an X man, looking at her she probably is).
This felt as bad as the last Harry Potter film where they dragged one film out long enough to make two, thus making the first episode pointless. Clearly franchise setting up but the icing on the cake was when they revealed wolverine again, only keeping it as Hugh Jackman - thus utterly undermining the fairly good story of the previous films as to his development.
I thought 2001 a Space Odyssey was my benchmark as to whether I would agree with someone or not on films, but this takes the utter arse biscuit.
PH XKR said:
Finally got to see X-Men Apocalypse
What a stinking turd of a film. I'll admit I was naïve going in to this, I didn't realise it was a full on reboot so the backfill of characters we already know from the first 3 films of the early 2000s is played out again, only differently. The story completely undermines what has happened in the previous ones by occurring at some point in the 80s, it does however explain Xaviers bald head.
It felt weak, very weak. The original X men seemed to have a level of grittiness to it but this was flatter than a nuns chest. It was entertaining for a little while but then when the action should have ramped up the excitement, it seemed to just drag on and on and on with levels of predictableness that would have pleased Mystic Meg (who should be an X man, looking at her she probably is).
This felt as bad as the last Harry Potter film where they dragged one film out long enough to make two, thus making the first episode pointless. Clearly franchise setting up but the icing on the cake was when they revealed wolverine again, only keeping it as Hugh Jackman - thus utterly undermining the fairly good story of the previous films as to his development.
I thought 2001 a Space Odyssey was my benchmark as to whether I would agree with someone or not on films, but this takes the utter arse biscuit.
You have seen X-Men First Class and X-Men Days of Future Past yes?What a stinking turd of a film. I'll admit I was naïve going in to this, I didn't realise it was a full on reboot so the backfill of characters we already know from the first 3 films of the early 2000s is played out again, only differently. The story completely undermines what has happened in the previous ones by occurring at some point in the 80s, it does however explain Xaviers bald head.
It felt weak, very weak. The original X men seemed to have a level of grittiness to it but this was flatter than a nuns chest. It was entertaining for a little while but then when the action should have ramped up the excitement, it seemed to just drag on and on and on with levels of predictableness that would have pleased Mystic Meg (who should be an X man, looking at her she probably is).
This felt as bad as the last Harry Potter film where they dragged one film out long enough to make two, thus making the first episode pointless. Clearly franchise setting up but the icing on the cake was when they revealed wolverine again, only keeping it as Hugh Jackman - thus utterly undermining the fairly good story of the previous films as to his development.
I thought 2001 a Space Odyssey was my benchmark as to whether I would agree with someone or not on films, but this takes the utter arse biscuit.
irocfan said:
Adam B said:
6th Gear said:
Victoria
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/apr/03/victo...
Shot over two hours in a single take.
Great film.
8/10.
Want to watch that - apparently they filmed the whole thing 3 times and picked the best onehttps://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/apr/03/victo...
Shot over two hours in a single take.
Great film.
8/10.
Alex said:
PH XKR said:
I thought 2001 a Space Odyssey was my benchmark as to whether I would agree with someone or not on films, but this takes the utter arse biscuit.
2001: A Space Odyssey being one of the greatest films ever made, you mean?Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff