RugbyRebels

Numbers wrote:Eventually got around to watching John Wick, hilariously bad.

Discussed this in the pub recently, my declaring I much preferred The Crow if that's what's wanted was much derided. I don't think there's intended to be a film as such in John Wick, just a very simple set of action sequences, and in fairness it might be the first time I've seen someone go on such revenge for the killing of a dog, normally it's a wife and/or children

Really liked the Irishman but major flaw in Deniro's character they really needed to use a younger actor for the early scenes (a la godfather) pesci and Pacino are excellent. Its about 15 minutes too long

Just watched table 19..
Craig Robinson is a quality actor.

kk67 wrote:Just watched table 19..
Craig Robinson is a quality actor.

I love Craig Robinson, I'm yet to see him anything bad (perhaps Hot Tub Time Machine 2 is the weakest thing I've seen him in).

Numbers wrote:

kk67 wrote:Just watched table 19..
Craig Robinson is a quality actor.

I love Craig Robinson, I'm yet to see him anything bad (perhaps Hot Tub Time Machine 2 is the weakest thing I've seen him in).

Like eli wallach or Dave bautista, if a scene can be stolen they will take it.

I was watching 'Once upon a time in the west' and Jack Elam has the shortest co-star role in film history. Bronson kills him as the opening credits end.

Creed. I thought it might be a step beyond the stupid 80s style of Rocky but that's my mistake. Quite entertaining in places though.

The Torture Report. Very well made, but always feels odd watching these semi-documentary (supposedly) semi-drama things. Good to see Adam Driver in something that wasn't total shit though.

paddy no 11 wrote:Really liked the Irishman but major flaw in Deniro's character they really needed to use a younger actor for the early scenes (a la godfather) pesci and Pacino are excellent. Its about 15 minutes too long

I thought it was an excellent film, personally I didn’t have an issue with the characters ageing. Would 15 minutes less have made much difference in a 220 minute film?

Gog wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:Really liked the Irishman but major flaw in Deniro's character they really needed to use a younger actor for the early scenes (a la godfather) pesci and Pacino are excellent. Its about 15 minutes too long

I thought it was an excellent film, personally I didn’t have an issue with the characters ageing. Would 15 minutes less have made much difference in a 220 minute film?

Lol. I feel like that statement alone suggests it might be too long. I thought there were some great moments but felt slightly like a collage of previous Scorsese/de Palma/Sopranos bits and pieces at times. I did find the age effects distracting at times, particularly when 70 year old de Niro playing a 40 year old was on screen with a 40 year old actor playing an 80 year old.

What we do in the shadows - hilarious vampire capers from new Zealand

Thunder road - written directed and lead role by the same fella - great effort

paddy no 11 wrote:Thunder road - written directed and lead role by the same fella - great effort

I stumbled across this and was left literally open-mouthed at the opening scene. I’d never seen anything like it. I think it was a theatre piece on its own beforehand which probably explains that.

The film overall is wobbly to say the least, but a few incredible moments made it very worthwhile* for me.

*As a person that likes wanky, mopey, indie shit.

Yeah opening scene is amazing

Watch the vampire caper you'll love it

paddy no 11 wrote:What we do in the shadows - hilarious vampire capers from new Zealand

This is good fun, have you seen the BBC TV Series? It's directed by Taika Waititi who is the writer and star of the film and is better imo, Jojo Rabbit looks like it's going to be good as well. Also see Hunt for the Wilderpeople, it's great.

Cheers

paddy no 11 wrote:What we do in the shadows - hilarious vampire capers from new Zealand

Watched it the other day, very good film. Didn't really get into the TV series but film was excellent. "We're werewolves, not swear-wolves".

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Jojo rabbit, a bit meh really was hoping for more caper really. The anne frank/boy in striped pyjamas stuff has been covered already

Oldboy (again) I guess if we didn't have dross then we wouldn't have masterpieces like this

As a tribute ... Life Of Brian remains my favourite film ever. Rip TJ.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

I don't feel at home in this world anymore.

What. The. Fuck.

Watched a film called "Jexi" on Amazon last , following being ill and having watched everything know to man (presumably), has some guy I always thought a dick head in it, but the sarcastic/sadistic/evil phone had me in stitches at times....

AL. wrote:Watched a film called "Jexi" on Amazon last , following being ill and having watched everything know to man (presumably), has some guy I always thought a dick head in it, but the sarcastic/sadistic/evil phone had me in stitches at times....

I watched that last night and thought it was ok. The phone was definitely the star [emoji23]

I like Adam Devine. I think Workaholics is one of the funniest shows ever!

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

AL. wrote:Watched a film called "Jexi" on Amazon last , following being ill and having watched everything know to man (presumably), has some guy I always thought a dick head in it, but the sarcastic/sadistic/evil phone had me in stitches at times....

?Have you seen the Pacific Warriors documentary on Prime, it's excellent (tho quite painful to watch at times as a Welshman)

I watched Uncut Gems on Netflix last night, it has Adam Sandler in it but, despite that it's rather good, he is much better when he isn't trying to be funny.

1917 - dire beyond measure.

I can see why it won the Oscar for best cinematography as the complexity of capturing such bewildering movement in the famous 'single shot' style is impressive, however:

the performances of the entire cast are either wooden (MacKay), hammed (Cumberbatch, Firth, Strong, Scott and Madden in particular) or simply bad (Chapman, particularly);

the plot is incredible (As in not remotely credible). Mendes says the storyline lodged with him when he was a child, and this makes sense as it is naively infantile;

chapters are blatantly filched from Cold Mountain (The French girl with a hungry baby in the ruins of Écoust), Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (The escape by jumping into the river - a river that is sluggish at the point at which the principal first crosses it and yet has become a fast-raging torrent, complete with Niagara Falls, by the time he jumps into it at the other end of the village) and any teen horror flick in which the central character is chased through a darkened forest/building/maze/ruin by a murderous bogeyman;

the absence of historical continuity/accuracy. The journey of the 2 main characters (Both lance corporals) begins in a peaceful glade where they are sunning themselves, passes through a fairly accurate if desperately telescoped depiction of a trench system up to the front line (A fault that is repeated later in the film when within the space of a few yards we are passed back from the shell-shattered front line to another quiet glade where the Regimental Aid Post has been set up in an immaculate canvas tent village) where they are casually briefed by a major general on a the requirement to run a message up to a forward battalion that is about to put in an attack against the new defensive system to which the dastardly Hun has deliberately withdrawn. We are told that one of the 'runners' brother is with the doomed battalion and hence the need to get the message through to call off the attack. This was unnecessary drama, such messages were run a thousand times a day on the Western Front - but I would venture never off the back of a personal briefing by the major general commanding the Division.

The opening titles tell us that this is April 1917, the month in which the British fought the Battles of Vimy Ridge and Arras, and in which the Germans withdrew to the Hindenburg line - all of this is correctly captured in the film, right down to the chalk that was such a visible geological feature. What is less accurate is the portrayal of the no mans land immediately in front of the British position. The film was clearly inspired by images of Passchendaele, a battle that didn't begin until June 1917, and didn't become the horror of mud for which it is infamous until the Autumn of that year.

Cashing in historical accuracy for political correctness. I acknowledge that today's British Army is not doing as well as it should in terms of recruiting and retaining enough soldiers from the BAME community, but it is simply ludicrous to put a black or an Asian face in an English county regiment during the Great War. Mendes does both and not infrequently or surreptitiously. If he was aiming to send a message then fair enough, but it must be acknowledged that in doing so he has substantially compromised historical integrity.

The BAFTAs giving it just about every award in its cupboard is ludicrous. Its shyte!