Last Movie you Watched?

1629630632634635966

Comments

  • Posts: 235
    I'm really not a Jackie Chan fan. Not to say he an awful martial artist he good. The reason I'm such a Seagal fan is he not an actor first off he got ask to be an actor since he an incredible martial artist same thing how he became a police officer.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Den of Thieves (2018)
    xSzKnkO.jpg
    I was looking forward to this film and it delivered. Far better than the reviews would have you believe. Once again, they are wrong.

    There are two ways to simply assess this film:

    1. A low rent Heat ripoff
    2. A cracking heist 'cops and robbers' actioner

    Both descriptions are accurate. Gerard Butler and Pablo Schreiber are no Al Pacino or Robert De Niro respectively, but they are decent enough. The latter in particular is quite impressive actually and would make a great Bond villain. The film has a lengthy running time of 2:30 hrs, but it's quite engaging throughout.

    The only knock is that the characters aren't as well developed as they were in Heat, and perhaps that will be a real problem for some. The earlier film had richly textured personalities who one cared about. Here one could be forgiven for not caring at all about any of these individuals. Additionally, the domestic drama feels forced and falls flat unlike in the landmark Mann effort, and perhaps could have been dispensed with entirely. I certainly wouldn't have missed it.

    To be fair though, that's not really what this film is about. Rather it's about Butler doing his macho testosterone filled thing. If that's your cup of tea, then you'll be quite happy. The shootout at the beginning and the one at the end are definitely 'Mann worthy' although there's surprisingly not much in the way of action in between. Well worth a viewing.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,513
    @bondjames, was sad to see the beginning and the end were the only action-driven scenes, as well, but they made up for it, particularly the finale.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I didn't realize you'd seen it too @Creasy47. Yes, I expected more in that regard but it was surprisingly well done on the whole. I guess my expectations were low enough. This is the 2nd Butler film in a row which has impressed me more than I expected, the other being Geostorm.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,692
    @bondjames and @Creasy47, what score would you give Den of Thieves, on a scale from 1 to 10? And your score for The Commuter, @bondjames , as I'll be finally seeing it tomorrow?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,513
    bondjames wrote: »
    I didn't realize you'd seen it too @Creasy47. Yes, I expected more in that regard but it was surprisingly well done on the whole. I guess my expectations were low enough. This is the 2nd Butler film in a row which has impressed me more than I expected, the other being Geostorm.

    I could've gone without the last five minutes, too. That whole bit didn't do anything for me. Inject another solid action sequence or two, trim the fat here and there, remove the last five minutes, and it would've gone much better for me. I'd probably give it a 6, maybe 6.5 out of 10. Better than I had expected. Still eager to see The Commuter.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I didn't realize you'd seen it too @Creasy47. Yes, I expected more in that regard but it was surprisingly well done on the whole. I guess my expectations were low enough. This is the 2nd Butler film in a row which has impressed me more than I expected, the other being Geostorm.

    I could've gone without the last five minutes, too. That whole bit didn't do anything for me.
    I agree. It didn't work for me either.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'd probably give it a 6, maybe 6.5 out of 10. Better than I had expected. Still eager to see The Commuter.
    Yes, I agree. I'd give Den of Thieves a 7 out of 10 just for being better than I expected.

    The Commuter unfortunately didn't quite hit the spot. Nothing specifically wrong with it, Liam is awesome as always, and it is definitely an entertaining entry, but perhaps my expectations were too high. It's a bit predictable & some of the charismatic actors are underused, so I caution everyone to go in prepared. I'd give that a 6 out of 10.

    Enjoy @DaltonCraig007 and let us know how it went.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    Thor Ragnarok

    Great fun. Doesn't take itself seriously and is actually funny. Good performances all round and Care Blanchett is seriously sexy!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Thor Ragnarok

    Great fun. Doesn't take itself seriously and is actually funny. Good performances all round and Care Blanchett is seriously sexy!
    One of my favourites of last year. An excellent entry from Marvel.
    ----

    Darkest Hour (2017)
    h4OJFO5.jpg

    This is the third biopic I’ve seen recently (the others being LBJ & Professor Marston & The Wonder Women). Directed by Joe Wright (Atonement, Pride & Prejudice), it stars Gary Oldman (almost unrecognizable under makeup) in an academy award nominated performance as Winston Churchill, the Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during most of World War 2. The film focuses on Churchill’s early days as leader, starting with him succeeding Neville Chamberlain (who loses the confidence of his party in 1940). The film concludes with the evacuation at Dunkirk which happened just a few weeks after Churchill takes office. This limited timeline focus enables Wright to concentrate on the character of his famous protagonist. Oldman is outstanding in the role and effortlessly showcases Churchill’s indomitable outward spirit & his oratorical power, while also letting the viewer see his private insecurities. Those quieter moments of self doubt are where the film really shines in my view, and are facilitated by great scenes with the always excellent Ben Mendelsohn as King George VI, Kristin Scott Thomas as wife Clementine & Lilly James as secretary Elizabeth. We also see the battles with Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup) and Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane), who Churchill famously clashed with and outmaneuvered.

    The film reminds me a lot of LBJ which I viewed just last week. Both are limited scope biopics which focus on larger than life leaders of historical consequence. Both similarly rely heavily on exceptional performances by the lead actor. What elevates Darkest Hour above LBJ in my view is the screenplay & direction, which allow a bit more insight into the personality & character of the leader. The score by Dario Marianelli (this is a man who should be considered for Bond) & the cinematography by Bruno Delbonnel (which gives the film a shadowy effect) are also both first class. It’s an interesting film and Oldman is so good that he might just win the big prize this year. If he does, it will certainly be well deserved.
  • Posts: 12,281
    So awesome to see The Shape of Water getting tons of Oscar nominations. It’s well-deserved, and it’s my top pick for the Best Picture of the year.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,496
    Just watching an Oscars run down of nominations on YouTube, yet to see The Shape of Water not familiar with the lead actress.
  • Posts: 12,281
    Sally Hawkins is incredible in the film. All of it is great. I’m actually especially interested in the Oscars this time.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,496
    I am usually hit and miss with The Oscars, it airs early morning in the UK so often forget it's on.

  • Posts: 12,281
    I wish Logan got some more love, but it still snagged a big nomination for the writing. I’m rooting for shape of water in most categories, like actress, picture, and director, but I hope Deakins gets the Oscar for cinematography.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,496
    Just watching Collider movie talk discussion on the nominations, for once I am interested in seeing the majority of the Best Picture nominations. Patrick Stewart was fantastic in Logan also a very well made film though a type of film that the Academy often snub.
  • Posts: 12,281
    I agree. Stewart deserved a nomination, and he was the best part of that great movie.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,496
    Plus Stewart deserves the recognition for what he has achieved, the whole voting system is daft. The Academy often vote for what they want to push
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I didn't like Logan at all. I will be checking out The Post & Phantom Thread within the next week.
  • Posts: 12,281
    Plus Stewart deserves the recognition for what he has achieved, the whole voting system is daft. The Academy often vote for what they want to push

    I agree the Academy is very flawed, and I really feel like they choose winners via political reasons many times. Shape of Water has some political themes involved, but they sit in the background where they belong behind the main story.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,496
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Plus Stewart deserves the recognition for what he has achieved, the whole voting system is daft. The Academy often vote for what they want to push

    I agree the Academy is very flawed, and I really feel like they choose winners via political reasons many times. Shape of Water has some political themes involved, but they sit in the background where they belong behind the main story.

    The Oscars should have a public vote, the nominations would be different I suspect, it will never happen it's such a archaic institution.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    There are the People's Choice Awards and MTV Awards for direct public vote. The rest are industry vote.

    In a way the music business is more transparent that way, with The American Music Awards being driven by public vote.
  • Posts: 12,281
    Drive (2011). This was GOOD. Super intense.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    The House by The Cemetery (1981) dir. Lucio Fulci. Third in the 'Gates of Hell' trilogy featuring Catriona MacColl. Have to say, typical Fulci and probably the weakest of the GoH films. Miss MacColl is as lovely as ever and there is some 'good' gore, but probably not a film for the casual viewer.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,594
    @FoxRox
    I saw that one in theatres and loved it! Great movie, not just good. Great.

    @Lancaster007
    I rather like that one. Great atmoshere; very ominous. But I agree it's not the best of the bunch.
  • Posts: 372
    What i find astonishing about this years Oscars is that even with #metoo and general complaints about the lack of female directors being nominated for awards is that the FEMALE director of the years biggest commercial hit,Wonder Woman, isnt deemed worthy of even a nomination. The Academy out of touch with the public yet again
  • Posts: 12,281
    Happy Death Day (2017). This was a totally watchable film, but not very exceptional. I like that it was kind of like a blend of Groundhog Day and Scream, but it wasn't as great as either of those individual films. It was serviceable. Good for a casual watch, but definitely not among the year's best.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,496
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Happy Death Day (2017). This was a totally watchable film, but not very exceptional. I like that it was kind of like a blend of Groundhog Day and Scream, but it wasn't as great as either of those individual films. It was serviceable. Good for a casual watch, but definitely not among the year's best.

    Is it a comedy I saw a trailer a few months back, it looked fun in a mindless sense.
  • Posts: 12,281
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Happy Death Day (2017). This was a totally watchable film, but not very exceptional. I like that it was kind of like a blend of Groundhog Day and Scream, but it wasn't as great as either of those individual films. It was serviceable. Good for a casual watch, but definitely not among the year's best.

    Is it a comedy I saw a trailer a few months back, it looked fun in a mindless sense.

    It was far more comedy-oriented than horror-oriented. I wasn't scared once. I chuckled a couple times, but to be honest the comedy is sort of hit-and-miss. It's a totally acceptable film, but lacks originality. If you want to watch it as a horror movie, you will be disappointed. As a comedy, a little better; honestly it's sort of a drama film too in some ways.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited January 2018 Posts: 8,135
    Sleepy Hollow (1999)

    Very underwhelmed. Played out more like a miniseries than a motion picture. The characters were all pretty basic, which made it hard to understand the attempted injections of drama into the narrative. Could have been an offbeat slasher comedy, or a spooky horror romance but can't make it's mind up.

    6/10
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,496
    FoxRox wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Happy Death Day (2017). This was a totally watchable film, but not very exceptional. I like that it was kind of like a blend of Groundhog Day and Scream, but it wasn't as great as either of those individual films. It was serviceable. Good for a casual watch, but definitely not among the year's best.

    Is it a comedy I saw a trailer a few months back, it looked fun in a mindless sense.

    It was far more comedy-oriented than horror-oriented. I wasn't scared once. I chuckled a couple times, but to be honest the comedy is sort of hit-and-miss. It's a totally acceptable film, but lacks originality. If you want to watch it as a horror movie, you will be disappointed. As a comedy, a little better; honestly it's sort of a drama film too in some ways.

    I don't my a bit of schlock on occasion, some horror comedy's can be amusing if you just want a film to switch off too. I'll see if it's on any of the streaming services.
Sign In or Register to comment.