Films I watched this week (NO SPOILERS) (Vol 3)

[Bullett]

ajprice said:

Watching the Pitch Meeting of a film you don't really want to watch because it's going to be crap is tight!

Seriously though, it's a good way of seeing a bad film in 10 minutes instead of 2 hours, and it's funnier. I did Madame Web, Borderlands, Megalopolis and Red One that way .

I watched the pitch meeting after writing this review, it was super easy, barely and inconvenience.

[bloomen]

I did Mickey 17 down the cinema today.

Not bothered about the politics, which were rather basic.

Compared to the book which had some real pace, this felt leaden in comparison and I don't get why the quasi antagonist of the book was replaced with odd caricatures.

Not a win for me, but still great to see some original IP on screen.

[Lordbenny]

thegreenhell said:

For a second I thought that was another film.

Me too!

[stemll]

Lordbenny said:

thegreenhell said:

For a second I thought that was another film.

Me too!

Sadly it's a documentary.

[C5_Steve]

stemll said:

C5_Steve said:

Oh I'm not saying I didn't enjoy the last few years (I enjoy EVERY year) but nothing you mentioned I would describe as a cinematic classic. And I LOVED several of the films you mentioned. But they've not changed the landscape not spawned any copies. Many of them clearly draw influence elsewhere.

My point was more around true innovation. But I guess as CC points out even things like The Matrix draw their ideas from elsewhere.

(Ps the fact you missed Dune Part 2 off that list for last year is an actual crime )

Not discussing my opinion of both parts of Dune, CC will tell me off again . But now you mention it, Chalamet's performance is the crime regardless of what the film is.

Not sure how you can claim innovation when you have Goldeneye (generic Bond in every way) and the third Die Hard of a series of very similar films (all good and With a Vengeance is possibly the best but it's not innovative). I will grant you that I had the seventh Alien and fifth Mad Max and Indiana Jones on my list

Gibson has even said Braveheart was inspired by Dancing With Wolves.

True innovation in cinema is rare now. Of your list, I'd only say that Toy Story was innovative.

As for not spawning any copies, it's a little early to say that none of them will do that

Sorry I think I confused the situation but listing successful films that are considered classics that all came out in that year and then talked about innovation. I was in no way suggesting those you pointed out were anything new, just massive films all the same year. My point around innovation was that we now see more and more the top ten highest grossing lists almost entirely filled with sequels or spin offs. That's what I find frustrating and I think we broadly agree.

But I'm glad we agree on Chalamet Dune preferences aside

[C5_Steve]

Heat (4k)

Mentioned I wanted to give this a whirl after Collateral. Purely from a technical perspective, this is a must but if you're into 4K. One of the best transfers/restorations I've seen and it brings SO MUCH to the visuals and sound. It might be my favourite looking 4k it's that good and this is a film I've seen untold times. It's that good.

The film, well, masterpiece gets thrown around alot but I think this is a perfectly acceptable word for this film. My biggest thought watching it was just how well balanced it is. That theme of balance/opposition is woven throughout the narrative in everything you're presented with and the new transfer really enhances that. From the day/night scenes, each beautifully lit and shot (Mann really is a master of shooting at night, I want to beat the House of the Dragon crew to death with this disc I swear to god) to the individual narratives for Vincent and Neil of their own lives away from their "jobs", to how each deals with their own wants and needs. It's just incredible. The score; perfection. No notes.

Everyone in this is outstanding and that's no mean feat when you've got Pacino absolutely chewing threw the script giving one of his best performances. De Niro is the perfect counter to him, with his cold calculated approach to everything but doing more with a look than many could hope to portray with a page of dialogue. His last minute decision in the car on the way to his out is a great example of this as he wrestles with his priorities.

I really don't know what they're going to do with the sequel but it's been so long who knows. Nothing will ever change how great a film this is.

10/10

Anora

Jumped on the hype train with this one and caught it at the cinema. There's a lot to like here. The story is fun and heartbreaking at the same time. Mikey Madison is great, the soundtrack is excellent and it feels small and intimate.

Did I love it? No. I just didn't connect with it in the way others seem to. I liked it don't get me wrong, but there was no part I thought was a stand out. Just good al around.

Was Madison the best performance I saw from the nominations? Again, no not in my eyes. I think overlooking Moore in this instance was a shame and I thought she was incredible in The Substance.

Was it the best picture? Again, not in my eyes but even objectively there were better in that category.

Does any of that matter? No. The Oscars are and always have been weird in their selection of recipients so I think using the awards as a measure of anything is a lost cause. I'd wanted to see this film before it won but it did perhaps prompt me to see it in the cinema rather than at home.

I'd say it's worth seeing but I doubt it'd even make my top ten for the year. It's funny (more than I expected) but has a sentimental core. I can see how you could fall in love with the character, but if you don't make that connection I think it's hard to forgive the rest of the film just being very decent but not outstanding.

7/10

[macron]

C5_Steve said:

Heat (4k)

Nothing will ever change how great a film this is.

10/10

That.

Literal textbook for weapons handling on screen.

Anyway,

Mississippi Burning

Another Gene Hackman classic with Willem Defoe being truly excellent too. Should have been Oscar gold, but 1989, Rain Man, Dangerous Liaisons, Working Girl, Big, even A Fish Called Wanda. Now that was a really good year.

[9/10]

[Halmyre]

Get Carter

Saw it on the BBC2 schedule the other night. "I'm not watching that", I thought. "I've seen it often enough. I know it back to front and inside out."

So, yes, I watched it. Again. And I'll probably watch it next time I see it's on. In fact, I might just watch it on iPlayer shortly...

[Unreal]

Halmyre said:

Get Carter

Saw it on the BBC2 schedule the other night. "I'm not watching that", I thought. "I've seen it often enough. I know it back to front and inside out."

So, yes, I watched it. Again. And I'll probably watch it next time I see it's on. In fact, I might just watch it on iPlayer shortly...

Top film. Caine never better.

[lauda]

macron said:

That.

Literal textbook for weapons handling on screen.

Anyway,

I remember reading somewhere that they employed Andy McNab of Bravo Two Zero fame for the weapons training, hence why it's so realistic.

[Legacywr]

Unreal said:

Halmyre said:

Get Carter

Saw it on the BBC2 schedule the other night. "I'm not watching that", I thought. "I've seen it often enough. I know it back to front and inside out."

So, yes, I watched it. Again. And I'll probably watch it next time I see it's on. In fact, I might just watch it on iPlayer shortly...

Top film. Caine never better.

Although I didn’t watch it this time, I’ve probably seen it 10+ times.

Terrific film.

[yellowjack]

lauda said:

macron said:

That.

Literal textbook for weapons handling on screen.

Anyway,

I remember reading somewhere that they employed Andy McNab of Bravo Two Zero fame for the weapons training, hence why it's so realistic.

I wonder if he knows what colour the boathouse door is at Herrford . . .

[Unreal]

yellowjack said:

lauda said:

macron said:

That.

Literal textbook for weapons handling on screen.

Anyway,

I remember reading somewhere that they employed Andy McNab of Bravo Two Zero fame for the weapons training, hence why it's so realistic.

I wonder if he knows what colour the boathouse door is at Herrford . . .

It's a great film but my recollection is a lot of aiming very high and wondering how the shots were hitting car panels two feet off the ground.

[272BHP]

macron said:

Literal textbook for weapons handling on screen.

Forgive me, but why on earth would anyone care about that?

[Legacywr]

272BHP said:

macron said:

Literal textbook for weapons handling on screen.

Forgive me, but why on earth would anyone care about that?

The IT guy in The Office would, Gareth too, probably…

[Clockwork Cupcake]

272BHP said:

Forgive me, but why on earth would anyone care about that?

What an odd comment to make; mocking someone for caring about accuracy.

[200Plus Club]

Conclave
Wasn't looking forward to this at the cinema if honest despite the rave reviews, but the wife wanted to see it.
Glad we went in the end and sat mesmerised by the acting for 2hrs or whatever it was!
Lots of sighing and breathing with the weight of their actions but a great insight into how its done etc.
As a big fan of Father Ted I suspect I wasn't their target audience but I did enjoy it throughout!
9/10

[C5_Steve]

Unreal said:

yellowjack said:

lauda said:

macron said:

That.

Literal textbook for weapons handling on screen.

Anyway,

I remember reading somewhere that they employed Andy McNab of Bravo Two Zero fame for the weapons training, hence why it's so realistic.

I wonder if he knows what colour the boathouse door is at Herrford . . .

It's a great film but my recollection is a lot of aiming very high and wondering how the shots were hitting car panels two feet off the ground.

McNab and a Special Forces instructor Mick Gould (sp) did the training yeah. It's used as a perfect example of moving under fire, there's a brilliant feature on it included on the disc about how it was made and shot.

As for the aiming, its a lot of low camera angles shooting up plus the road is curved and the targets at distance. Doesn't look odd when you watch it I don't think.

One of my favourite bits of how they made it was placing mics all over the set to capture the sound of gunfire echoing around the buildings. On the 4k it's exquisite.

[C5_Steve]

Mickey 17

I went in with none of the expectations that some have towards this film given the director and whilst it's not a bad film by any means, I find myself feeling the same way I did about Anora. Good, but not great.

A couple of things. The plot given away in the trailer isn't really a big part of the film. As in they don't really do anymore exploration of Mickey dying, the previous versions etc. It's all very high level and done via exposition which is I have to say, overdone. It feels like half the film happens via exposition. The actual plot of the film focuses on the colonization of a distant world and yes, the political overtones aren't remotely subtle. I have no issues with this but it does mean it's not clever or subversive and this means the audience doesn't have to do much thinking. Much like using exposition so much. You're spoon fed.

Robert Pattinson is outstanding, as always IMO. It's a version of him we've not seen (well, one version) and he's brilliant in it. Highlight of the film for me. The rest of it is fine but I just felt like it was very surface level. There seems to be a much deeper, much richer version of this film hiding that would allow us to explore more about the world they're in but we're never given the chance.

It's all well put together and produced and I certainly can't say it's not a good film, I just didn't connect with it. My girlfriend, who's not a sci-fi fan liked it more than me so perhaps that's an aspect of it.

I have to say... (Spoilers for Moon)

so the book Mickey 7 came out way after the film Moon. There are very strong similarities. I know I've spoken about originality etc in film and I've not read the book so can't say how influenced it is or not but if you want a film about what it means to be a copy of yourself, watch Moon. I feel that Moon deals with this so much better than Mickey 17 ever approaches, and it's the far superior film all told to be honest. I appreciate the drive of the plot is different, Mickey 17 focusing more on the differences in class, political aspects etc however Moon does this as well but in a far more subtle way. Moon focuses on the individual, Mickey 17 seems to be trying to focus on the world view through this one guy but it just doesn't work. Honestly, go and watch Moon. It's outstanding.

Overall it's competent and there's certainly stuff for people to enjoy but it's not something I see myself rushing back to.

7/10


Side note: I went and saw this at an Everyman cinema, my first time going to one. It was awful Why would anyone want to sit on a velour sofa that's clapped out (it was a new venue as well but I spent the entire time at and angle as the middle was sunken), second most uncomfortable I've ever been and that's saying something. I dunno, maybe I can see the appeal for going on your own but after the leather recliners at my local I just don't get it. Maybe I'm not hipster enough but it was expensive and annoying. That's my take away.

[gavsdavs]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

272BHP said:

Forgive me, but why on earth would anyone care about that?

What an odd comment to make; mocking someone for caring about accuracy.

I didn't think it was a mocking comment, I had the exact same reaction. Because #humblebrag, innit.