What have you watched recently? 3D!

pixelburp

Klaus (2019)

Among the Hallmark style knock-offs Netflix are producing for Christmas, this was a sweet, gorgeous little animated tale, and one that might get lost amongst the driftwood - which would be a shame. It was sweet & sentimental, but without ever being saccharine or forced, while often being quite funny. The little moments of loss and tragedy also surprised, adding more depth than would have otherwise been expected. The film also looked quite beautiful; a CGI feature, but had a picture-book aesthetic, rendered at an intentional lower frame rate to give it the look of an illustration come to life (similar to what "Spiderverse" did itself).

Depending on ones tolerance for Christmas movies, this would make an enjoyable one for everyone IMO; my wife started watching it while I was doing other things, but just found myself getting sucked in.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

Motherless Brooklyn 2019 Norton has sold this well on his podcast tour, but it doesn't stand up to his glowing praise of his own work. I said to my friend during the film "Bruce Willis can't act anymore', to which he replied, 'he never could'. His scenes at the start really let the whole thing down, he is badly miscast.
There is some lovely technical work in the film, the sound and music are excellent, but it is slowwww and drags on and on, and meanders around the place. You really just want to get up an leave while the last scene is playing out, and I found myself hoping for the end to come quicker then it did.
Baldwin and Norton are both excellent in the acting department, and Norton is very very funny sometimes, but it doesn't hide the fact that this movie is ultimately pretty boring, and likely is going to epically bomb financially.

Damn. That's a shame.

But, yeh, Bruce Willis could never act. Never understood the draw he has for some folk.

TheIrishGrover

Ad Astra.

Not bad Sci-Fi movie. Gave off a "Poor-man's Christopher Nolan Movie" vibe.

Brad Pitt's performance was understated to say the least but this is an element of the story. As a matter of fact everyone was understated in the movie. I don't know if it was direction or due to the movie's obsessiveness with emotional state. It was almost as if the director said "I want everyone to be monotone in this movie so let's write something in about that"

It was also quite episodic: He does this (great start) thing here... Then he goes there and this happens... Then he goes there and that happens and then... and then... and then....

So, not a bad movie but quite throw-away. While Interstellar had its flaws (Anne Hathaway miscasting), it was always interesting visually, and thematically. This was... Well.... it was fine. You'll watch it and say "OK.... who wants a cuppa". It won't stay with you as the credits roll.

Sleepy

Last night really was a night to be at home in front of the fire so we got through a few thing!

Klaus (2019) - a really sweet film and one I can see becoming a regular feature of our family's Christmas viewing

Seven Up! (1964)
7 Plus Seven (1970)
21 Up (1977)

Got through the first three instalments of the incredible Michael Apted series following the lives of 14 British kids from wildly disparate backgrounds through their lives, checking in with them every seven years. Originally shot with the assumption that each child's social class would predetermine their future, it's an utterly fascinating exploration of the Jesuitical motto "Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man". It's demonstration of the role of socio-economic background in determining future success in life (at least as far as I've gotten in the series so far) would, IMHO, should make this required viewing for anyone pursuing a degree in the realm of sociology or politics.

Mizu_Ger

Fermat's Room

Gave this a go as I read a few good reviews. Was disappointed. Basically, a number of people are trapped in a room and need to solve puzzles to escape. I didn't find it suspenseful or thrilling. The puzzles weren't great (some are already well known) and the film gradually lost interest in them in favour of the characters, who were not particularly interesting. It's short at 90 mins, but needed to build the characters up more to increase the suspense.

Tony EH

'Thunderball'

James Bond's fourth adventure doesn't quite live up to the best of Connery's output, 'Goldfinger', but it's entertaining to a certain degree, if you just go with it. But, it requires the viewer just to sit back and not try an think too much. Although, that can be said about any Bond adventure. Here though, the ridiculous is slightly less pronounced than in other Bond movies, especially the Roger Moore era, where the series plummeted almost into a parody of itself. In comparison, Thunderball's story of SPECTRE stealing British nuclear bombs is almost plausible.

However, the film is overlong, takes an age to get into gear and you can also see that Connery is getting tired of the formula too. But when it does get going it's a relatively enjoyable ride, with some generally pleasing underwater sequences, including a largish battle during the film's climax. The film also has one of Bond's better femme fatale's, in the shape of Fiona Volpe (Luciana Paulci).

5/10


'You Only Live Twice'

The fifth Bond instalment is where the series really delves into the realms of the absolute absurd for the first time, as we see Blofeldt (Donald Plesance) launching rocket eating spaceships from his underground volcano super base, that Bond has to infiltrate and destroy before WW III kicks off. Bond has always been silly, of course, but with 'You Only Live Twice', we're treated to a real crazytown script.

Like a lot of Bond film's, 'You Only Live Twice' is generally good fun to watch, but the central plot, written by Roald Dahl no less, is completely outrageous, especially in the second half of the movie. Also, because of Japan's fixation with Bond films during the 60's, much of it is set there and is a little too on the nose with its ninjas and silly Japanese tropes.

'You Only Live Twice' plays out almost like an Austin Powers movie and has all the ingredients for one. But it very much feels like the departure lounge for Sean Connery as Bond, and it's understandable why he wanted out at that point. Of course, Connery would "persuaded" to come back for 1971's 'Diamonds Are Forever', after George Lazenby decided that one Bond movie was enough for him.


4/10


'Ad Astra'

Bradley spends two hours flying through space to see his daddy, Tommy, in a story that could have been a half hour long. But besides that, 'Ad Astra' looks the business and sounds great too. It's one of the finest looking films I've seen in ages, but it's story is the weakest link without a doubt. It's a film that requires a lot of patience to sit through and can be disappointing if you go into it expecting to be blown away. It's also hampered a bit by a rather silly ending, which was unnecessary and unfortunate.

Pitt is fine in his role, but he's not given much to do here expect look moody. Frankly, I've never found him to be anything more than a pretty face in most things, but he's as good here as he has been in anything else really. Tommy Lee Jones turns up and says his lines and everyone else is...fine? There's nothing outstanding in terms of acting from anyone in the film.

'Ad Astra' is really a film watched for it's visuals and on those grounds, it works very well. Set in the near future, so 50+ years, the tech looks good and doesn't feel ridiculously advanced. For instance, equipment on the spaceships are still button based, so it does away with the nonsense of touch screen tech that we see in the likes of 'Prometheus'. You can't swipe when you have a space suit on, but you can press a large button. So, everything feels generally realistic. There's a nice scene on a moon port and a colony on Mars which they don't come across as entirely illogical and the space travel sequences have a genuine atmosphere to them.

There are one or two tense moments that almost feel tacked on, but they play out in a relatively pleasing manner, so as not to derail Brad's journey too much. There is also a scene involving Pitt's character and a sewer full of water that just didn't add up. But, really, I cannot stress how thin the script is and I can imagine that there were a lot of disappointed viewers walking out of this.

6/10 (maybe a 7 on another day) <- mainly for how it looks, Hoyte Van Hoytema did a great job.

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

Seven Up! (1964)
7 Plus Seven (1970)
21 Up (1977)

Got through the first three instalments of the incredible Michael Apted series following the lives of 14 British kids from wildly disparate backgrounds through their lives, checking in with them every seven years. Originally shot with the assumption that each child's social class would predetermine their future, it's an utterly fascinating exploration of the Jesuitical motto "Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man". It's demonstration of the role of socio-economic background in determining future success in life (at least as far as I've gotten in the series so far) would, IMHO, should make this required viewing for anyone pursuing a degree in the realm of sociology or politics.

Watched 28 Up (1984) last night, which is the film from the series that Roger Ebert included in his top ten films of all time and referred to as "an inspired, even noble, use of the film medium" commenting that the film "penetrates to the central mystery of life".

It's the first in the series to see the drop out of any of the participants with both, imo, somewhat unsurprisingly two of the poshest cohort being the first to drop out of a series that really highlights the inequality caused by the British class system.

Being shot in 1984, at the height of Thatcher's England it's not surprising to see the class struggle mentioned frequently though I've read elsewhere that one of the contributors

Peter, actually lost his job as a consequence of his criticism of the Tory government in this documentary. Though, to be fair, he comes across as the least inspired school teacher ever and I can't imagine I'd have wanted him teaching my kids either

Dades

Tony EH wrote: »

'You Only Live Twice' plays out almost like an Austin Powers movie and has all the ingredients for one.

This is an odd statement to make! Bond cemented its own tropes, among which were evil lairs and bad guys in tunics. Parodied in endless movies since - most notably Austin Powers.

Tony EH

Dades wrote: »

This is an odd statement to make! Bond cemented its own tropes, among which were evil lairs and bad guys in tunics. Parodied in endless movies since - most notably Austin Powers.

That's my point. It's so ridiculous, it hands parody movies their scripts on a plate.

Dades

It's meant to be a bombastic spy thriller. Probably only seems ridiculous now due to the lack of the cold war relevance and 60's effects.

Parodies aren't always born of something regrettable. Just memorable.

pixelburp

Ah no, come one. I maintain a fondness for some of the excess of the Moore era, but likewise You Only Live Twice was completely over the top; Roald Dahl's tongue had to have been somewhat in his cheek at the time. I do particularly "like" the part where Bond goes incognito in rural Japan as a local, donning a disguise that consists of a wig & squinting his eyes. Now THAT part hasn't aged too well lol

Tony EH

Dades wrote: »

It's meant to be a bombastic spy thriller. Probably only seems ridiculous now due to the lack of the cold war relevance and 60's effects.

Parodies aren't always born of something regrettable. Just memorable.

I'm not disagreeing. The issue, however, with 'You Only Live Twice' is that the premise is so absurd, there's not much left for the maker of the parody movie to do, but add in a few laughs here and there.

Dahl's script is utterly ridiculous, even for the series in general, that coming up with a parody of it would have been relatively easy.

Dades

pixelburp wrote: »

I do particularly "like" the part where Bond goes incognito in rural Japan as a local, donning a disguise that consists of a wig & squinting his eyes. Now THAT part hasn't aged too well lol

It is pretty inconceivable now, in a age where no member of one 'race' can attempt to masquerade as another race without the world imploding in outrage. :P

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Anna and the Apocalypse

It's basically a zombie apocalypse Christmas musical.

Obviously won't be everyone's cup of tea but I really enjoyed it. The songs are really great, even if some of them feel like they belong in a different musical and some of them don't quite fit into the narrative as well as others do, but all in all it's a nice little alternative Christmas film to pass an evening.

Sleepy

Watched 28 Up (1984) last night, which is the film from the series that Roger Ebert included in his top ten films of all time and referred to as "an inspired, even noble, use of the film medium" commenting that the film "penetrates to the central mystery of life".

It's the first in the series to see the drop out of any of the participants with both, imo, somewhat unsurprisingly two of the poshest cohort being the first to drop out of a series that really highlights the inequality caused by the British class system.

Being shot in 1984, at the height of Thatcher's England it's not surprising to see the class struggle mentioned frequently though I've read elsewhere that one of the contributors

Peter, actually lost his job as a consequence of his criticism of the Tory government in this documentary. Though, to be fair, he comes across as the least inspired school teacher ever and I can't imagine I'd have wanted him teaching my kids either

Got to 35 up (1991) last night. This really is a remarkable series but I'm not sure how suited it is to binge watching as the bits from the past films can get quite repetitive.

There's one rather tragic exception (and quite a harrowing example of mental illness) but it is utterly astonishing how accurately the films demonstrate the maxim that the child at 7 shows you how they'll be as an adult.

As a vehicle to demonstrate the changes British society underwent from the mid sixties to the present day, the series is a fantastic achievement in film-making.

pixelburp

Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)

3 attempts and it should be clear enough, Americans shouldn't make Godzilla movies. Takes some effort to make a Kaiju movie too stupid to live. An astonishing waste of everyone's time and effort.

Jurgen The German

Watched BlackkKlansman last night, enjoyed it. Denzil's young fella is very very watchable, decent watch.

Also watched His Name was Dolomite recently. I was aware of the movie Dolomite but not the history of it, very enjoyable movie.

al87987

Uncut gems - 8/10

Safdie Bros. are very interesting directors. Really liked Good time. Sandler is quite good also and a surprisingly good turn from Kevin Garnett.

The Report - 7/10 - Enjoyed this, Adam Driver is great. America is fu**ed up!

6 Underground - A load of sh*te, Michael Bay's most Michael Bay film. Explosions, senseless fights and edit after edit after edit.

bnt

I watched the three Godfather movies over the last week, in order. Of the three, I still think the first is best, with the shocking, unlikely, but somehow inevitable transformation of Michael Corleone from the "nice boy" of the family to Mafia boss. The sheer length of the second one counts against it slightly: it doesn't need to be that long, in my opinion, the story isn't all that complex and e.g. the Cuba subplot didn't really add all that much.

I agree with Francis Ford Coppola's assessment of The Godfather Part III as an epilogue that didn't really need to be made. The financial part of the plot, the deal between Michael Corleone and the Vatican, wasn't explained very well in the film: so it was a swindle in the end, but who was being swindled - Michael or the Vatican Bank - and how? Much has been written about Sofia Coppola's gawky teenage acting in this, but since she went on to write and direct Lost In Translation and more, all is forgiven and then some.

Sleepy

I always felt that The Godfather Part III gets a little more criticism than it deserves due to the brilliance of the first two parts. It's by no means as good as Parts 1 or 2 but it's still a very serviceable film and, arguably a better one, than a lot of gangster flicks that get a lot of critical praise imho.

bnt

Just finished 1941, Steven Spielberg's blockbuster comedy about people in LA going nuts immediately after the Pearl Harbor attack. I think I saw it many years ago, but so much happens so quickly that it was a bit of a blur back then.

This time it was the Director's Cut with quite a lot of restored footage, nearly 2½ hours total. According to articles like this, major cuts made the original release incoherent, and while the new version isn't quite as schizoid, it's still a lot to take in. I watched it in two sittings with an overnight intermission.

John Belushi was clearly coked up to the eyeballs, which suited his character perfectly - or it may be the case that Spielberg just gave him full rein and leave it all up on the screen. There's a running joke in the submarine with the captain (Toshirō Mifune) constantly arguing in Japanese with the observing Nazi captain (Christopher Lee) who only speaks German. There's no translator, yet they never have any trouble understanding each other:

• Colonel Akiro Mitamura: All of our navigational equipment is inoperable. It's all crap! What kind of submarine did your government sell us?
• Captain Wolfgang von Kleinschmidt: The instruments on this vessel are the finest Swiss-made. The problem is with your crew. Even children in the Hitler youth learn by the age of ten how to operate a simple compass. I suggest you return to your homeland and leave the American continent to our Superior Reich Navy.

The special effects are excellent, with no CGI at the time (1979).

santana75

little women(2019)

I'm still trying to process what I saw earlier today. A movie which to me was about absolutely nothing but yet it had a cinema full of women in tears????? I kept waiting for the plot to kick in......it never did. Instead I sat there for over 2 hours surrounded by crying women wondering what exactly was happening. The acting is solid and it's well directed but this is a film that only women will know what it's about. Avoid if you're a bloke. Avoid like it was the black death itself.

al87987

Knives out - 8.5/10

Maybe even a 9/10.

Loved this film, been a fan of Rian Johnson since Brick. Best film to date, great ensemble cast, solid who dunnit story and Daniel Craig really enjoying himself playing a Southern Hercule Poirot.

Highly recommended. Up there with Parasite as movie of the year

Fingers Mcginty

"The Lighthouse" Loved it

Dades

Watched Once Upon a Time in Hollywood last night.

Really enjoyed it. Wasn't much in the way of a plot, but it looked amazing (especially if you like old cars!)
The ending was a great unexpected payoff for the meandering story.

Only criticism is the scene at the hippie ranch dragged on waaay too long.

Tony EH

'The Lighthouse'

Robert Eggers follow-up to 2015's 'The Witch', sees him tackle a surrealist psychological nightmare set in a New England Lighthouse at the turn of the century. Thomas Wake (Willem Defoe) is an elderly, cantankerous, senior lighthouse keeper who has been sent Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a "wickie" that is to labour under his tutelage. Without wanting to give too much away, things quickly go awry and all is certainly not how it should be, as the two characters appear to descend into madness.

'The Lighthouse' is definitely not going to be to everyone's taste. But for what it is, it's a very good effort at telling an offbeat story that's disturbing, engrossing and bizarre. It may feel over long for some and the technical aspects can be off-putting, but Eggers is to be commended for putting out a film that doesn't even remotely resemble the vast majority of modern cinema fare and for telling a story that wouldn't get a green light from any major studio. And while the story will please fans of odd horror and readers of H.P. Lovecraft, it's the excellent performances by the two leads that is the film's heartbeat. Defoe is absolutely brilliant as the old sea dog who grunts his way through, ostensibly, period dialogue and is thoroughly convincing as the deeply unpleasant head keeper. Pattinson, too, has well and truly thrown off the shackles of sparkly vampires and throws himself into his role revealing himself to be an actor that has completely outgrown his twee 'Twilight' introduction.

Atmosphere is oppressive from the very beginning and the sound design by Damian Volpe adds an immense amount to the picture. The subtle soundscapes provide a sense of unease and dread that become almost a character in itself. It's as mad as the two lighthouse occupants and as gloomy as the island the glowing fixture sits upon.

The black and white cinematography, by Jarin Blaschke, is delightfully crisp and has a stark beauty, emulating late 19th Century photography and everything looks remarkably authentic. Just like with its sonic values, visually, it's superb...but with personal reservations. The film, while looking great, is shot in an aspect ratio of 1.19:1 which creates almost a square shape that, I have to admit, was extremely irritating for me. And while I am aware of the reasons for directors wanting to use narrower ratios, which is becoming more and more of a gimmick for some these days, 'The Lighthouse' would have lost nothing if it had been shot in 1.85:1 and would have retained the claustrophobic nature that Eggers was trying for in his choice of 1.19:1. Although, I will say that I am generally not a fan of 4:3 in the majority of cases and find the arguments for its use unconvincing, but your mileage may vary.

'The Lighthouse' is a very good and intense film, that will leave viewers thinking about just exactly what it was they saw for a long time after the credits roll. It's hard to pin down and may be a bit rough to digest. But, it'll be worth the time spending a while with its two nutcases on its miserable rock.

8/10

Del.Monte

"Kingsman: The Secret Service" (2014) - on Netflix.
Allegedly a comedy spy film. 10 minutes and off. Utter tripe 0/10.

"Fury" (2014) on Netflix.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNHuK1rteF4

The experiences of an American tank crew fighting in Germany during the last weeks of the war. Never flags in all of its 135 minutes. Second time of viewing and it's pretty well faultless. 10/10

Mad_maxx

hotel mumbai

thought it was very good

Decuc500

Under The Silver Lake

David Robert Mitchell’s follow up to It Follows is an LA set mystery about a man’s attempt to find his missing neighbour. It’s a sprawling, quirky and imaginative film. Quite long and rambling but there’s so much going on here.

The story itself isn’t really important and the ending was quite unsatisfactory (particularly if you want everything explained) but there are so many memorable scenes and moments. There’s a David Lynch vibe to the weirdness and some dream-like scenes are as unsettling as It Follows.

I was very impressed with this. Not everybody’s cup of tea as the early hysterical and self-indulgent reviews I read proved.

Ruben James

Eddie The Eagle, the story of underdog ski jumper Michael Edwards competing in the Olympics was on some channel there over Christmas.

It's not an amazing film but it's a fun feel good movie with a few nice laughs. I really enjoyed it.