Films I watched this week (Vol 2)
Discussion
Antony Moxey said:
Read it, remembered the scene. Remembered also not splitting my sides laughing whilst at the same time thinking how close to the truth it was. Yep, truly darkly comic. Presumably you're the one with imagination then, as you can't see how anyone could possibly not find that riotously funny, whereas I must lack imagination because having watched the film from start to finish - a film I was looking forward to seeing too after reading numerous positive reviews - I thought it to be a load of old pony. Ah well.
I don't think think "side splitting laughter" or "Riotously funny" and "dark humour" ever go together. Because I have the imagination to know that humour can be dark, painful, and not laugh out loud, as well as also being custard pie, man walking-with-ladder belly laugh slapstick at times too. This was a bit like, you know, Blood Simple, Fargo, that kind of thing. Maybe a little too sophisticated 
???I understand Frances McDormand was encouraged to read the script and take the part by Joel Coen and it had much of the feel of a Coen brothers film.
A few from me...
Mission Impossible, Fallout
This is one of the best ones in the series - good bad guys, good stunts, good locations, good use of established characters. Whether you like Tom Cruise or not this backs up that he cares about and is good at his craft, entertaining movies. Well worth 2 hours of your time.
7/11
Roman J Israel, Esq
Popped up on Sky and I'm a big fan of Denzel, interesting story of an immensely principled but socially immature lawyer pushed out of a life of back office comfort into cut throat law. Denzel is, as always, great to watch, supported pretty well by Colin Farrell and Carmen Ejogo. Not a happy ending but a very believable story.
6/9
The Equalizer 2
Another Denzel vehicle, quite similar to the first film in content so you know what you're getting here. Enjoyable for the ultra violence, but not quite as good as the first.
12/19
Fantastic Beasts - the Crimes of Grindlewald
Was very much looking forward to this and had high hopes, the first in this series had been a charming opener. Result ? Not a spot on the first or the other harry potters. People being resurrected who'd died in the last one, invention of new family members of previously well documented familiies ? It tries to rush through too many side stories, relies a bit too much on whooshy magic effects and only really the final act holds your attention. A disappointing 5/10 from me.
Solo: A Star Wars Story
A little telegraphed in places - this prequel story of Lando, Han and Chewie essentially established the story of Han being a rebel and the "kessel run in 12 parsecs" fable. Quite enjoyable; not as fresh as Rogue One, but still a lot better than The last Jedi (though that's not hard) 6/11
Mission Impossible, Fallout
This is one of the best ones in the series - good bad guys, good stunts, good locations, good use of established characters. Whether you like Tom Cruise or not this backs up that he cares about and is good at his craft, entertaining movies. Well worth 2 hours of your time.
7/11
Roman J Israel, Esq
Popped up on Sky and I'm a big fan of Denzel, interesting story of an immensely principled but socially immature lawyer pushed out of a life of back office comfort into cut throat law. Denzel is, as always, great to watch, supported pretty well by Colin Farrell and Carmen Ejogo. Not a happy ending but a very believable story.
6/9
The Equalizer 2
Another Denzel vehicle, quite similar to the first film in content so you know what you're getting here. Enjoyable for the ultra violence, but not quite as good as the first.
12/19
Fantastic Beasts - the Crimes of Grindlewald
Was very much looking forward to this and had high hopes, the first in this series had been a charming opener. Result ? Not a spot on the first or the other harry potters. People being resurrected who'd died in the last one, invention of new family members of previously well documented familiies ? It tries to rush through too many side stories, relies a bit too much on whooshy magic effects and only really the final act holds your attention. A disappointing 5/10 from me.
Solo: A Star Wars Story
A little telegraphed in places - this prequel story of Lando, Han and Chewie essentially established the story of Han being a rebel and the "kessel run in 12 parsecs" fable. Quite enjoyable; not as fresh as Rogue One, but still a lot better than The last Jedi (though that's not hard) 6/11
gavsdavs said:
Antony Moxey said:
Read it, remembered the scene. Remembered also not splitting my sides laughing whilst at the same time thinking how close to the truth it was. Yep, truly darkly comic. Presumably you're the one with imagination then, as you can't see how anyone could possibly not find that riotously funny, whereas I must lack imagination because having watched the film from start to finish - a film I was looking forward to seeing too after reading numerous positive reviews - I thought it to be a load of old pony. Ah well.
I don't think think "side splitting laughter" or "Riotously funny" and "dark humour" ever go together. Because I have the imagination to know that humour can be dark, painful, and not laugh out loud, as well as also being custard pie, man walking-with-ladder belly laugh slapstick at times too. This was a bit like, you know, Blood Simple, Fargo, that kind of thing. Maybe a little too sophisticated ???I understand Frances McDormand was encouraged to read the script and take the part by Joel Coen and it had much of the feel of a Coen brothers film.
ker? You liked the film, I didn’t, apparently this makes you more imaginative and, by the tone of your post, a better person. I’ll remind myself to consult you in future as to, after watching a film, what my thoughts should be on that film.That scene probably has more impact in the US especially the bible belt states than in the UK. I'd say it was darkly sarcastic rather than humorous.
Someone asked what they were missing from the ending, not sure what you are missing but it was obviously deliberately ambiguous. In my opinion The bloke they were going after did do it. There was no point in shop/threat scene otherwise, and as everything else is there because it needed to be, that combined with the bar scene, it had to be him.
The DNA did implicate him, the black Chief was lying or had been lied to. Someone was protecting the soldier because he was valuable in some way to those in control. Probably related to his work in somewhere with lots of sand.
It doesn't really matter though, it was mostly about Dixon and his redemption.
Someone asked what they were missing from the ending, not sure what you are missing but it was obviously deliberately ambiguous. In my opinion The bloke they were going after did do it. There was no point in shop/threat scene otherwise, and as everything else is there because it needed to be, that combined with the bar scene, it had to be him.
The DNA did implicate him, the black Chief was lying or had been lied to. Someone was protecting the soldier because he was valuable in some way to those in control. Probably related to his work in somewhere with lots of sand.
It doesn't really matter though, it was mostly about Dixon and his redemption.
Bullett said:
That scene probably has more impact in the US especially the bible belt states than in the UK. I'd say it was darkly sarcastic rather than humorous.
Someone asked what they were missing from the ending, not sure what you are missing but it was obviously deliberately ambiguous. In my opinion The bloke they were going after did do it. There was no point in shop/threat scene otherwise, and as everything else is there because it needed to be, that combined with the bar scene, it had to be him.
The DNA did implicate him, the black Chief was lying or had been lied to. Someone was protecting the soldier because he was valuable in some way to those in control. Probably related to his work in somewhere with lots of sand.
It doesn't really matter though, it was mostly about Dixon and his redemption.
He wasn't redeemed, that's why the second half of the movie is a dithering mess.Someone asked what they were missing from the ending, not sure what you are missing but it was obviously deliberately ambiguous. In my opinion The bloke they were going after did do it. There was no point in shop/threat scene otherwise, and as everything else is there because it needed to be, that combined with the bar scene, it had to be him.
The DNA did implicate him, the black Chief was lying or had been lied to. Someone was protecting the soldier because he was valuable in some way to those in control. Probably related to his work in somewhere with lots of sand.
It doesn't really matter though, it was mostly about Dixon and his redemption.
popeyewhite said:
He wasn't redeemed, that's why the second half of the movie is a dithering mess.
Eh? He starts off as a racist homophobe incompetent policeman and by the end he has reconciled with his nemesis and done something brave and clever to help the case.Willoughbys suicide note also leads to redemption (copied from wiki as I couldn’t remember details):
“Dixon is there to read Willoughby's letter to him, which advises him to let go of hate and learn to love, as the only way to realize his wish to become a detective“
He also apologises to the marketing guy he throws out the window after realising the error of his ways.
Whether they find and kill the murderer is irrelevant to this.
Edited by Adam B on Monday 19th November 08:35
Antony Moxey said:
Do you have to be such a patronising wker? You liked the film, I didn’t, apparently this makes you more imaginative and, by the tone of your post, a better person. I’ll remind myself to consult you in future as to, after watching a film, what my thoughts should be on that film.
.....Back the original quote:ker? You liked the film, I didn’t, apparently this makes you more imaginative and, by the tone of your post, a better person. I’ll remind myself to consult you in future as to, after watching a film, what my thoughts should be on that film.Antony Moxey said:
Then that says more about you that you lack the imagination to think people can have a different opinion on something rather than about those who do hold a different opinion I think. I'd seen plenty written - mostly on here - about the film so was looking forward to its release on Sky Movies. However, having seen it, and not following the crowd, I thought it dreadful. The female lead was dreadful too and as wooden as the billboards she hired. The only decent performance was from the excellent as usual Sam Rockwell.
I can comprehend that others liked it, but it wasn't for me. And as for labelling it a dark comedy, I really don't see that at all.
Take that angry chip off your shoulder sonny. You first stated someone else of lacking imagination (which was my point). You didn't see it as a dark comedy because you weren't rolling around laughing. You have an unusual understanding of what a dark comedy is.I can comprehend that others liked it, but it wasn't for me. And as for labelling it a dark comedy, I really don't see that at all.
My opinion is no better than yours, I guess I just got what I expected, and you didn't.
Adam B said:
popeyewhite said:
He wasn't redeemed, that's why the second half of the movie is a dithering mess.
Eh? He starts off as a racist homophobe incompetent policeman and by the end he has reconciled with his nemesis and done something brave and clever to help the case.Willoughbys suicide note also leads to redemption (copied from wiki as I couldn’t remember details):
“Dixon is there to read Willoughby's letter to him, which advises him to let go of hate and learn to love, as the only way to realize his wish to become a detective“
He also apologises to the marketing guy he throws out the window after realising the error of his ways.
Whether they find and kill the murderer is irrelevant to this.
Edited by Adam B on Monday 19th November 08:35
popeyewhite said:
Firstly that is not 'redemption', he's actively trying to atone for sins, and secondly whether they find and kill the murderer is entirely relevant as the manner in which the plot goes about this is plodding, mistimed and mars what could have been a really good movie.
Let's agree to disagree - he is certainly redeemed by most of the viewers - he transforms from a character you dislike who is a figure of fun to one you admire for his brave act and smart thinking, and he makes peace with Mildred.I don't mind films with a subtle or ambiguous ending- its a welcome relief from the tied-up-with-a-pretty-bow, baddie loses, goodie wins of most Hollywood movies
rasto said:
Made the mistake of watching The Ballad of Buster Scruggs on Netflix. I usually like the Coen brothers films but this one just didn't work for me, it really dragged despite being 6 'short' films. It did have a few good moments but these didn't make up for the rest of it. 4 out of 10
Re-watched Prisoners with my youngest daughter on Friday as she is very much into psychological thrillers and really enjoyed it. A great story with no plot holes and great acting. 8 out of 10
Re-watched Prisoners with my youngest daughter on Friday as she is very much into psychological thrillers and really enjoyed it. A great story with no plot holes and great acting. 8 out of 10
Interesting, I rather enjoyed it! Not the finest of the Coens' works, but still very high quality I thought.
I'm a big fan of their version of 'True Grit', and 'Ballad' struck me as a more light hearted approach to that kind of tale.
Except the vignette of the limbless chap and the chicken - that was rather too accurate of a satirical allegory for comfort. Very effective, disturbingly so in fact.
wtf?Boy Erased
Joel Edgerton's new movie based on Garrard Conley's book of his own experience of gay conversion therapy in the USA.
Great performances all round. Especially from (new generation future movie star to be) Lucas Hedges in the central role, and Russell Crowe and Nicole Kidman as his parents.
Worth staying for the end credits where there is a real kicker!
8/10
Joel Edgerton's new movie based on Garrard Conley's book of his own experience of gay conversion therapy in the USA.
Great performances all round. Especially from (new generation future movie star to be) Lucas Hedges in the central role, and Russell Crowe and Nicole Kidman as his parents.
Worth staying for the end credits where there is a real kicker!
8/10
'Er indoors is a fan of Radiohead/Thom Yorke so last night we went to see "Suspiria", the sort-of remake of a 1977 cult classic (which I haven't seen), as everyone's favourite bog-eyed crooner did the soundtrack.
Jesus wept... there was only about 10 people in the cinema, and half of them walked out - I tried to make eye contact with them and convey the message "take me with you, please!" but it was too dark, so I was there for the 2.5 hours running time.
Basically, a young dancer from the US travels to Berlin (in 1977) and joins an all-female dance company. Very early on, and rather matter-of-factly, its revealed they are a coven of witches, and most of the plot revolves around why some of the former students have disappeared, whats happened to them, and what is happening to the coven in terms of who is going to be in charge ongoing. At the same time there is a substory about an old (male) psychiatrist who suspects something is up at the dance company, and also terrorist activities across Germany.
Have you ever seen A-Level performing arts students doing desperately-modern modern dance? All angular moves and ernest facial expression? Imagine that for nearly 3 fking hours. The last 30 mins are hilariously bad, with exploding heads reminiscent of "The Fury" (1978), and it reaches peak "up-its-own-arse-ness".
Tilda Swinton plays 3 roles, for no good reason. 2 of them are behind rubber masks, so surely anyone could have played them? Maybe they just couldn't convince anyone else to be involved.
Plus points? Theres quite a gruesome scene early on where a woman is thrown around a room and contorted by an unseen force seemingly in parallel with the new girl doing her first dance - its very well done and quite hard to watch (though actually reminded me of a very similar scene in obscure 2008 horror movie "100 Feet")
Actually, that's pretty much it. 0.5/10
Jesus wept... there was only about 10 people in the cinema, and half of them walked out - I tried to make eye contact with them and convey the message "take me with you, please!" but it was too dark, so I was there for the 2.5 hours running time.
Basically, a young dancer from the US travels to Berlin (in 1977) and joins an all-female dance company. Very early on, and rather matter-of-factly, its revealed they are a coven of witches, and most of the plot revolves around why some of the former students have disappeared, whats happened to them, and what is happening to the coven in terms of who is going to be in charge ongoing. At the same time there is a substory about an old (male) psychiatrist who suspects something is up at the dance company, and also terrorist activities across Germany.
Have you ever seen A-Level performing arts students doing desperately-modern modern dance? All angular moves and ernest facial expression? Imagine that for nearly 3 f
king hours. The last 30 mins are hilariously bad, with exploding heads reminiscent of "The Fury" (1978), and it reaches peak "up-its-own-arse-ness".Tilda Swinton plays 3 roles, for no good reason. 2 of them are behind rubber masks, so surely anyone could have played them? Maybe they just couldn't convince anyone else to be involved.
Plus points? Theres quite a gruesome scene early on where a woman is thrown around a room and contorted by an unseen force seemingly in parallel with the new girl doing her first dance - its very well done and quite hard to watch (though actually reminded me of a very similar scene in obscure 2008 horror movie "100 Feet")
Actually, that's pretty much it. 0.5/10
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff