Bad Films I watched this weekend
Discussion
The Bling Ring.
Based on the true story of a bunch of spoilt kids who would go and rob wealthy celebrity's houses while they were away. The wife chose it, and from the trailer I thought it'd be a satire on wealth, celebrity, and the grotesque reality that some people have so much stuff that they don't even notice when huge chunks of it goes missing. Kind of like the TV show Episodes.
It was bloody awful. The first twelve hours of it follow this format:
1. It's night time.
2. Shot of kids opening an unlocked window/door.
3. Montage of them picking up jewellery and saying "oh my god" a lot.
4. Cut to bar scene where laugh and take selfies.
5. Repeat. Over and over.
At the very least you'd think the burglary scenes might have some tension but the film doesn't even try beyond the lad half-heartedly saying, "we should leave" every now and again (which is barely acknowledged).
I've since read that the film's superficial style is itself a satire on the superficial nature of its subject but that's utter b
ks, and a lazy attempt to justify a dull and witless film with no character, style or ideas.
Perhaps being directed by somebody who grew up in that world means she was unable to see the absurdity of it.
And the wife hated it too.
Based on the true story of a bunch of spoilt kids who would go and rob wealthy celebrity's houses while they were away. The wife chose it, and from the trailer I thought it'd be a satire on wealth, celebrity, and the grotesque reality that some people have so much stuff that they don't even notice when huge chunks of it goes missing. Kind of like the TV show Episodes.
It was bloody awful. The first twelve hours of it follow this format:
1. It's night time.
2. Shot of kids opening an unlocked window/door.
3. Montage of them picking up jewellery and saying "oh my god" a lot.
4. Cut to bar scene where laugh and take selfies.
5. Repeat. Over and over.
At the very least you'd think the burglary scenes might have some tension but the film doesn't even try beyond the lad half-heartedly saying, "we should leave" every now and again (which is barely acknowledged).
I've since read that the film's superficial style is itself a satire on the superficial nature of its subject but that's utter b
ks, and a lazy attempt to justify a dull and witless film with no character, style or ideas.Perhaps being directed by somebody who grew up in that world means she was unable to see the absurdity of it.
And the wife hated it too.
Efbe said:
Insurgent.
dull, dull dull. This is the sequel to divergent, which I didn't mind too much. But this one is completely different, with the same characters, it managed to lose any interest, character intrigue, just anything.
Trying to read the book at the minute. Finding it very hard to maintain interest. dull, dull dull. This is the sequel to divergent, which I didn't mind too much. But this one is completely different, with the same characters, it managed to lose any interest, character intrigue, just anything.
I do like the occasional independent horror film with actors you've never heard of before, even if the acting is terrible (Sharknardo terrible) as you can never predict who will survive or when someone you thought might be a main character gets wiped out early. But, avoid Muck (<-- trailer there). It has no beginning that ever gets explained, it has no end and the least said about the middle the better.
On the positive side there's no CGI.
On the positive side there's no CGI.
Agonised about this one a bit - Life of Pi.
I think it was the disappointment more than anything. It's made out to be this great story of trial and adversity and survival and it's not. It looks lovely, it's well written and acted but some of the cgi animals are a bit ropey (and some look fab).
its the "it was all a dream" ending that did for me in the end. Ok, not a dream but a fantasy he made up to overcome the horror of reality which he fired out without any encouragement. I know there a lot of allegory in there with the multiple religions and the carnivorous island bit but it just made a brilliant survival story a bit dull
4/10
I think it was the disappointment more than anything. It's made out to be this great story of trial and adversity and survival and it's not. It looks lovely, it's well written and acted but some of the cgi animals are a bit ropey (and some look fab).
its the "it was all a dream" ending that did for me in the end. Ok, not a dream but a fantasy he made up to overcome the horror of reality which he fired out without any encouragement. I know there a lot of allegory in there with the multiple religions and the carnivorous island bit but it just made a brilliant survival story a bit dull
4/10
Bullett said:
Agonised about this one a bit - Life of Pi.
I think it was the disappointment more than anything. It's made out to be this great story of trial and adversity and survival and it's not. It looks lovely, it's well written and acted but some of the cgi animals are a bit ropey (and some look fab).
its the "it was all a dream" ending that did for me in the end. Ok, not a dream but a fantasy he made up to overcome the horror of reality which he fired out without any encouragement. I know there a lot of allegory in there with the multiple religions and the carnivorous island bit but it just made a brilliant survival story a bit dull
4/10
I might be muddling things up with the book, but I only watched the film once when it was released, and read the book once years before that - wasn't the "it's all a dream" revelation only one interpretation? Doesn't Pi tell two different versions of how he survived and leave it up to the listeners to decide which one they wanted to believe? I chose to believe the version with Richard Parker that we'd just watched.I think it was the disappointment more than anything. It's made out to be this great story of trial and adversity and survival and it's not. It looks lovely, it's well written and acted but some of the cgi animals are a bit ropey (and some look fab).
its the "it was all a dream" ending that did for me in the end. Ok, not a dream but a fantasy he made up to overcome the horror of reality which he fired out without any encouragement. I know there a lot of allegory in there with the multiple religions and the carnivorous island bit but it just made a brilliant survival story a bit dull
4/10
Although I might just have revealed to everybody that in fact I just didn't get it.
I've recently watched The Great Outdoors starring Dan Aykroyd and John Candy.
I shouldn't have bothered because I've never liked anything with Dan Aykroyd in (Trading Places I thought was a bit crap, ditto Blues Brothers)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Outdoors_(...
It seemed like a good premise but it was utterly unfunny. The only interesting comment was when Roman (played by Aykroyd) made a comment about Candy's character dying of heart disease, and Candy was indeed dead of a heart attack about five years later.
I shouldn't have bothered because I've never liked anything with Dan Aykroyd in (Trading Places I thought was a bit crap, ditto Blues Brothers)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Outdoors_(...
It seemed like a good premise but it was utterly unfunny. The only interesting comment was when Roman (played by Aykroyd) made a comment about Candy's character dying of heart disease, and Candy was indeed dead of a heart attack about five years later.
RobinBanks said:
I've recently watched The Great Outdoors starring Dan Aykroyd and John Candy.
I shouldn't have bothered because I've never liked anything with Dan Aykroyd in (Trading Places I thought was a bit crap, ditto Blues Brothers)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Outdoors_(...
It seemed like a good premise but it was utterly unfunny. The only interesting comment was when Roman (played by Aykroyd) made a comment about Candy's character dying of heart disease, and Candy was indeed dead of a heart attack about five years later.
So you didn't like Blues Brothers, Trading Places, Spies Like Us or Ghostbusters?I shouldn't have bothered because I've never liked anything with Dan Aykroyd in (Trading Places I thought was a bit crap, ditto Blues Brothers)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Outdoors_(...
It seemed like a good premise but it was utterly unfunny. The only interesting comment was when Roman (played by Aykroyd) made a comment about Candy's character dying of heart disease, and Candy was indeed dead of a heart attack about five years later.
You sir have no soul.
BB is definitely an acquired taste so can understand that one, but TP a 5/10? It might not have aged particularly well but Jamie Lee Curtis's breasts are surely worth a 6/10 on their own? 
Classic film IMHO and far better than the majority of supposed comedies that get released nowadays.
Classic film IMHO and far better than the majority of supposed comedies that get released nowadays.
Jupiter Ascending
It was bought as a gift so I had to sit through it all. A form or torture.
One of the silliest plots imaginable, but that alone would not be enough to condemn it. The special effects are not too bad, the script is worse than the plot - and that it a problem for me.
The acting was quite good but there was nothing for them to do. They didn't change, there was no development, and no depth. The villains, well I've seen scarier snails.
If it had been shorter, it would not have been so bad.
It was impossible to 'get into'.
Tomorrow we have Interstellar. I'll let you know, but hopefully not on this thread.
It was bought as a gift so I had to sit through it all. A form or torture.
One of the silliest plots imaginable, but that alone would not be enough to condemn it. The special effects are not too bad, the script is worse than the plot - and that it a problem for me.
The acting was quite good but there was nothing for them to do. They didn't change, there was no development, and no depth. The villains, well I've seen scarier snails.
If it had been shorter, it would not have been so bad.
It was impossible to 'get into'.
Tomorrow we have Interstellar. I'll let you know, but hopefully not on this thread.
downstairs said:
I might be muddling things up with the book, but I only watched the film once when it was released, and read the book once years before that - wasn't the "it's all a dream" revelation only one interpretation? Doesn't Pi tell two different versions of how he survived and leave it up to the listeners to decide which one they wanted to believe? I chose to believe the version with Richard Parker that we'd just watched.
Although I might just have revealed to everybody that in fact I just didn't get it.
Well. That is very much what they say word for word in the film. He tells two stories and it's up to you to decide which one you 'like'. The Richard Parker story is of course the better story but it's not the truth. Although I might just have revealed to everybody that in fact I just didn't get it.
Which is where I think we get to the bit about belief which is what the film is really all about.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff