Films I watched this week
Discussion
The Founder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX2uz2XYkbo
The story of how Ray Kroc, pretty much stole McDonalds from the 2 brothers (Dick and Maurice McDonald)
Its very well acted, the story is well written. I didn't come away thinking Kroc was a complete arse though. More that the brothers could and should have had more savvy about them. They could have been millioniares if they'd gone with Kroc. But it would have meant changing things and they weren't reluctant to change.
8/10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX2uz2XYkbo
The story of how Ray Kroc, pretty much stole McDonalds from the 2 brothers (Dick and Maurice McDonald)
Its very well acted, the story is well written. I didn't come away thinking Kroc was a complete arse though. More that the brothers could and should have had more savvy about them. They could have been millioniares if they'd gone with Kroc. But it would have meant changing things and they weren't reluctant to change.
8/10
Snubs said:
Given the hype around Blade Runner 2049, I thought it was about time I watched the original. Safe to say, I'm in the same camp as the original critics that didn't think much of it. Why wasn't I keen? Well...
...Firstly it suffers from the same problem as all futuristic films, which is that they're a reflection of the time they were made. For example, the product placement for Pan Am airways, computers that look like a BBC micro, CRT TVs etc etc.
Then there's another common issue for 'robots gone bad' films whereby, for unexplained reasons, these supposedly near-perfect human imitation robots are actually immune to extreme heat/cold/radiation/suffocation, have super human strength and a perfect knowledge of every martial art going for no apparent reason. But, of course, they have a 'though shalt not harm humans' caveat programme into them, so what could possibly go wrong?
Then it has the long standing American-friendly safety net of a baddie who isn't American.
As for the film itself, it was fine right up until the final showdown with the baddie, who started howling like a wolf against a backdrop of lighting whilst running around in his underpants. I was seriously considering turning it off at that point, but I'm glad I didn't as the rest of the ending was much better.
That scene aside, the rest of it was a good film, but couldn't match the hype for me. Weirdly, it actually made me appreciate the more timeless quality of Star Wars, which I think stands the test of time much better in as much as there's nothing in the film like computers, technology, brand names and so on that dates it in the same way.
I'd still be interested to see 2049 to see how the two compare.
Interestingly I too watched the original BR yesterday - was left thinking it's ok, but certainly no masterpiece. That said I loved Rutger Hauer's soliloquy after he was done running around in his skiddies (IIRC that was all/mostly improv)...Firstly it suffers from the same problem as all futuristic films, which is that they're a reflection of the time they were made. For example, the product placement for Pan Am airways, computers that look like a BBC micro, CRT TVs etc etc.
Then there's another common issue for 'robots gone bad' films whereby, for unexplained reasons, these supposedly near-perfect human imitation robots are actually immune to extreme heat/cold/radiation/suffocation, have super human strength and a perfect knowledge of every martial art going for no apparent reason. But, of course, they have a 'though shalt not harm humans' caveat programme into them, so what could possibly go wrong?
Then it has the long standing American-friendly safety net of a baddie who isn't American.
As for the film itself, it was fine right up until the final showdown with the baddie, who started howling like a wolf against a backdrop of lighting whilst running around in his underpants. I was seriously considering turning it off at that point, but I'm glad I didn't as the rest of the ending was much better.
That scene aside, the rest of it was a good film, but couldn't match the hype for me. Weirdly, it actually made me appreciate the more timeless quality of Star Wars, which I think stands the test of time much better in as much as there's nothing in the film like computers, technology, brand names and so on that dates it in the same way.
I'd still be interested to see 2049 to see how the two compare.
The Wedding Crashers was on so I watched it again - really can't understand the love for this film, it's ok at best.
Edited by irocfan on Sunday 8th October 04:04
Mr Gearchange said:
Been on a plane again so caught up on a couple of things I wanted to see.
Baby Driver - enjoyed it, not much of a plot to be honest but it was reasonably entertaining. 7.5/10
Yes, watched it last night, and having heard some bad reviews I was expecting the worst, but it was pretty good entertainment, without too much off the stupidly impossible car chase stuff. Baby Driver - enjoyed it, not much of a plot to be honest but it was reasonably entertaining. 7.5/10
7/10
Snubs said:
Given the hype around Blade Runner 2049, I thought it was about time I watched the original. Safe to say, I'm in the same camp as the original critics that didn't think much of it. Why wasn't I keen? Well...
Then there's another common issue for 'robots gone bad' films whereby, for unexplained reasons, these supposedly near-perfect human imitation robots are actually immune to extreme heat/cold/radiation/suffocation, have super human strength and a perfect knowledge of every martial art going for no apparent reason. But, of course, they have a 'though shalt not harm humans' caveat programme into them, so what could possibly go wrong?.
The replicants are extremely dangerous to humans which is why they are illegal on Earth and why Bladerunners kill them. Leon and Battty are combat models and Zorha was trained for a kick murder squad. Then there's another common issue for 'robots gone bad' films whereby, for unexplained reasons, these supposedly near-perfect human imitation robots are actually immune to extreme heat/cold/radiation/suffocation, have super human strength and a perfect knowledge of every martial art going for no apparent reason. But, of course, they have a 'though shalt not harm humans' caveat programme into them, so what could possibly go wrong?.
I know what you are thinking but its not one of the films that complies with Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
Sully.
Despite so-so ratings I really enjoyed it. Wondered how they'd stretch out a 5 minute plane flight in to a film, but it worked well. Also interesting how some tried to hang him out to dry, presuming this element isn't fiction.
As I understand it, its not fiction, but it is highly inaccurate. The director (Clint Eastwood) seems to have exaggerated his own world view of “Coperate America and Big Government picking on the quiet American hero”. Despite so-so ratings I really enjoyed it. Wondered how they'd stretch out a 5 minute plane flight in to a film, but it worked well. Also interesting how some tried to hang him out to dry, presuming this element isn't fiction.
SpudLink said:
As I understand it, its not fiction, but it is highly inaccurate. The director (Clint Eastwood) seems to have exaggerated his own world view of “Coperate America and Big Government picking on the quiet American hero”.
From my understanding everything was pretty accurate just a bit of theatrics on the crash team investigations side to add drama, which i don't think detracts from the film. For example the process was drawn out but the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) questioned his decision aboyut the landing on the hudson.LuS1fer said:
Cloud Atlas
None the wiser, terrible making up of the same core of actors, a few hours of my life I won't get back.
I read the book in July whilst on holiday, then watched the film a couple of weeks ago. A few pennies dropped when watching the film which I had not twigged in the book (I'm blaming the cheap Rosé wine). But overall I agree. I score it Meh out of 10, both the book and the film. Drivel. Wanted to enjoy it, but ultimately can't say I did.None the wiser, terrible making up of the same core of actors, a few hours of my life I won't get back.
Snubs said:
Given the hype around Blade Runner 2049, I thought it was about time I watched the original. Safe to say, I'm in the same camp as the original critics that didn't think much of it. Why wasn't I keen? Well...
...Firstly it suffers from the same problem as all futuristic films, which is that they're a reflection of the time they were made. For example, the product placement for Pan Am airways, computers that look like a BBC micro, CRT TVs etc etc.
Then there's another common issue for 'robots gone bad' films whereby, for unexplained reasons, these supposedly near-perfect human imitation robots are actually immune to extreme heat/cold/radiation/suffocation, have super human strength and a perfect knowledge of every martial art going for no apparent reason. But, of course, they have a 'though shalt not harm humans' caveat programme into them, so what could possibly go wrong?
Then it has the long standing American-friendly safety net of a baddie who isn't American.
As for the film itself, it was fine right up until the final showdown with the baddie, who started howling like a wolf against a backdrop of lighting whilst running around in his underpants. I was seriously considering turning it off at that point, but I'm glad I didn't as the rest of the ending was much better.
That scene aside, the rest of it was a good film, but couldn't match the hype for me. Weirdly, it actually made me appreciate the more timeless quality of Star Wars, which I think stands the test of time much better in as much as there's nothing in the film like computers, technology, brand names and so on that dates it in the same way.
I'd still be interested to see 2049 to see how the two compare.
For some of us, the world that Ridley Scott created (the angular buildings, the rain, the darkness, the weird hybrid languages, all punctuated by vangelis) has been part of my cinema history for 30 years....Firstly it suffers from the same problem as all futuristic films, which is that they're a reflection of the time they were made. For example, the product placement for Pan Am airways, computers that look like a BBC micro, CRT TVs etc etc.
Then there's another common issue for 'robots gone bad' films whereby, for unexplained reasons, these supposedly near-perfect human imitation robots are actually immune to extreme heat/cold/radiation/suffocation, have super human strength and a perfect knowledge of every martial art going for no apparent reason. But, of course, they have a 'though shalt not harm humans' caveat programme into them, so what could possibly go wrong?
Then it has the long standing American-friendly safety net of a baddie who isn't American.
As for the film itself, it was fine right up until the final showdown with the baddie, who started howling like a wolf against a backdrop of lighting whilst running around in his underpants. I was seriously considering turning it off at that point, but I'm glad I didn't as the rest of the ending was much better.
That scene aside, the rest of it was a good film, but couldn't match the hype for me. Weirdly, it actually made me appreciate the more timeless quality of Star Wars, which I think stands the test of time much better in as much as there's nothing in the film like computers, technology, brand names and so on that dates it in the same way.
I'd still be interested to see 2049 to see how the two compare.
Yes, there are CRT screens and clacky keyboards, but there are also video processing tellys which you can feed a 2d photograph and it'll extrapolate all the faces in the room using 3 axes analysis.
Few films (especially of that age) that more completely prepare and occupy a world for the story to play out in. That's why it's stood the test of time.
I haven't seen 2047 yet but I get the feeling it is similarly rich in it's execution.
I saw Blade Runner 2049 on Saturday night.
Brilliant. A worthy successor. Didn't try to be the original. It told a new story, well, in the same universe. It expanded on that Universe and told us much more about it.
I thought the cast were fantastic.
And all the better because Ridley Scott didn't direct it.
Brilliant. A worthy successor. Didn't try to be the original. It told a new story, well, in the same universe. It expanded on that Universe and told us much more about it.
I thought the cast were fantastic.
And all the better because Ridley Scott didn't direct it.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff