What have you watched recently? 3D!

pixelburp

The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020)


There's something almost perverse about that subgenre in American cinema, charting the country's consistent failure to live up to its own ideals of justice; yet a genre that also frames itself as a noble David v Goliath fight, a cast the audience should lionise as they fight a system seemingly forever broken. It can be captivating cinema when it works, but it's one thing to cheer the firefighters, when the real question is maybe: why does the house keep catching fire in the first place?

Anyway, to the film itself. I can't speak to the veracity of the adaptation in regards the actual Chicago 7, but I can't resist Aaron Sorkin's slick, barnstorming dialogue and styling either. It was noteworthy in being his second attempt at directing though, so to that end I thought he stepped it up from Molly's Game; nothing revelatory mind you, but there were a few more interesting choices made, a little more zip and energy in the method to push past "generic social conscience movie". Dunno why Hollywood writers love pivoting to the directors chair so often, but at least this felt like Sorkin was learning on the job

mikhail

pixelburp wrote: »

Dunno why Hollywood writers love pivoting to the directors chair so often...

I guess if you see your beautiful script butchered often enough, you start to hanker after a little more control.

Del.Monte

"The Dig" (2021) on Netflix

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZQz0rkNajo

Decided to give this a whirl last night to see if it lived up to the hype - it did. 10/10.

News of the World 2021 The unlikely combination of Hanks Greengrass and a Western was a more then enjoyable Sunday afternoon watch. Hanks is a former army captain who travels around reading the news from the national and regional newspapers for 10 cents a listener. On his way he finds an abandoned German girl who had been living with the Indians and it becomes his task to bring her home.
Hanks does his thing effortlessly in this and fits right in to the character and setting. Directed beautifully by Greengrass. A nice change of pace.

mikhail

How's the camerawork? Even a mention of Greengrass generally makes me feel seasick. I have to give the man credit for his commitment to hiring cameramen from the community suffering from Parkinson's disease.

mikhail

mikhail wrote: »

How's the camerawork? Even a mention of Greengrass generally makes me feel seasick. I have to give the man credit for his commitment to hiring cameramen from the community suffering from Parkinson's disease.

This definitely isn't Jason Bourne style. Slow and steady western, sweeping camera work.

SimonTemplar

Saint Maud

Very impressive debut feature film by 31 year old Rose Glass. A psychological horror about religious devotion and social isolation with an awards worthy lead performance by Morfydd Clark.

It is only 83 minutes which is good because it doesn't feel the need to pad the runtime with unnecessary scenes or subplots. There is a ratcheting of tension throughout the film which ends with a very memorable (blink and you'll miss it) final shot.

I would have loved to have seen this in the cinema but that's not an option at the moment. I was released to Google Play and Apple for rent / purchase this week.

DVDM93

Palmer

One of the best films I've seen in a while. Justin Timberlake was excellent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jVuOheTNGQ

DVDM93

The Little Things

Denzel Washington, Rami Malek & the synopsis looked OK.

I thought I couldn't go too much wrong throwing this on but was left disappointed. It had potential but it was just a mess tbh. Over two hours long & it felt every bit of it, it was a drag towards the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HZAnkxdYuA

flasher0030

Unhinged

Watched this last night. Russell Crowe film where he's having a bad day. Thought it would be better. I'm easy going enough when watching films. But this was way overboard. If it was that easy to go around in broad daylight killing and torturing people, without getting nailed immediately by the cops, it would be a tough world. Wouldn't recommend. Much better action films out there. I'd give it a 4/10.

shrapnel222

one night in miami

was a bit weary about this one, but turns out i really enjoyed it. Great chemistry between the 4, very well shot, very well balanced between the 4. This is a very strong debut for King.

DVDM93

flasher0030 wrote: »

Unhinged

Watched this last night. Russell Crowe film where he's having a bad day. Thought it would be better. I'm easy going enough when watching films. But this was way overboard. If it was that easy to go around in broad daylight killing and torturing people, without getting nailed immediately by the cops, it would be a tough world. Wouldn't recommend. Much better action films out there. I'd give it a 4/10.

On the off chance that you haven't seen Falling Down I'd highly recommend it. It's on Netflix at the moment.

Michael Douglas has a bad day in this one.

Fuascailteoir

DVDM93 wrote: »

Palmer

One of the best films I've seen in a while. Justin Timberlake was excellent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jVuOheTNGQ

Not his fault but he just doesn't have a voice for acting.

flasher0030

DVDM93 wrote: »

On the off chance that you haven't seen Falling Down I'd highly recommend it. It's on Netflix at the moment.

Michael Douglas has a bad day in this one.

Saw it a long long time ago. Can't remember any of it except the basic premise that he was having a bad day and went mad. Think he was ex-army.
I remember it was good anyway.

Homelander

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Saint Maud

Very impressive debut feature film by 31 year old Rose Glass. A psychological horror about religious devotion and social isolation with an awards worthy lead performance by Morfydd Clark.

Was fortunate enough to see this in the cinema in December, thought it was an excellent watch.

I wouldn't advise anyone watch it expecting a conventional horror, it's more a psychological drama but it is truly haunting and "horror" in the best sense of the word in my opinion.

al87987

flasher0030 wrote: »

Unhinged

Watched this last night. Russell Crowe film where he's having a bad day. Thought it would be better. I'm easy going enough when watching films. But this was way overboard. If it was that easy to go around in broad daylight killing and torturing people, without getting nailed immediately by the cops, it would be a tough world. Wouldn't recommend. Much better action films out there. I'd give it a 4/10.

Gave this a watch and enjoyed it more than i thought. Nothing spectacular but exactly what it says on the tin. 6.5/10

Zak Flaps

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Saint Maud

Very impressive debut feature film by 31 year old Rose Glass. A psychological horror about religious devotion and social isolation with an awards worthy lead performance by Morfydd Clark.

It is only 83 minutes which is good because it doesn't feel the need to pad the runtime with unnecessary scenes or subplots. There is a ratcheting of tension throughout the film which ends with a very memorable (blink and you'll miss it) final shot.

I would have loved to have seen this in the cinema but that's not an option at the moment. I was released to Google Play and Apple for rent / purchase this week.

+1 for Saint Maud. Very impressed.

Mad_maxx

Birds of Prey with Margot Robbie

had to bail after forty five minutes , just too daft and i like Margot Robbie

SimonTemplar

Homelander wrote: »

Was fortunate enough to see this in the cinema in December, thought it was an excellent watch.

I wouldn't advise anyone watch it expecting a conventional horror, it's more a psychological drama but it is truly haunting and "horror" in the best sense of the word in my opinion.

Horror is such a broad genre, but I agree, it is a psychological drama. I'd probably put it in the same sub-genre as Rosemary's Baby.

4Ad

DVDM93 wrote: »

The Little Things

Denzel Washington, Rami Malek & the synopsis looked OK.

I thought I couldn't go too much wrong throwing this on but was left disappointed. It had potential but it was just a mess tbh. Over two hours long & it felt every bit of it, it was a drag towards the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HZAnkxdYuA

SPOILER
It was enjoyable in the beginning (it reminded me of a Harry Bosch book) but the ending was rubbish..
2/10

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Birds of Prey with Margot Robbie

had to bail after forty five minutes , just too daft and i like Margot Robbie

I enjoyed Birds of Prey. I'm not a big fan of the overly serious comic book adaptations, so this was right up my street. There was, unsurprisingly, some studio interference involved too, but all in all I found it a lot of fun.

If anyone is a fan of the character, the new Harley Quinn animated series is really good. Definitely not suitable for kids.

crushproof

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

The Matador

Pierce Brosnan is brilliant, weird, sinister, sleazy, hilarious, broken and just his best role. Greg Kinnear and him bounce off each other so well throughout the film. It's great fun and I think it flew under an awful lot of people's radars.

Got round to watching this, very enjoyable and great energy between the two leads. Pierce looking fantastic too.
Appreciate it's a comedy but some of the lines though, the missus wasn't too impressed "Isn't she a bit too prepubescent for you?" "Oh I'll make an exception for her" :eek:
Can't imagine that would fly nowadays!

pixelburp

Gangs of New York (2002)

Rewatching this during my accidental Scorcese marathon, I wondered: are the early 2000s the last great era of those epic, expansive sets that would span whole studio lots? Alongside Scorcese's epic, one had contemporaneous productions in the Lord of the Rings trilogy; the Harry Potter series; the Pirates of the Caribbean and so on. Sure, CGI had already started to creep into aesthetics but by and large, the locations we visited still had a tactile, lived-in quality, that sprawling physicality hinting of a world continuing past the frame - and now often lacking in more CGI accentuated times. So it seemed with Gangs of New York; and while some locations felt stagier than others - thinking here of a barbershop on a slightly fake-looking rocky outcrop - by and large the film swept around a "real" handful of square kilometres of old New York (in actuality, somewhere in Italy). As the hoary saying goes, it was a feast for the eyes.

As to the film: says a lot to the man's legacy, that apparently lower-grade Scorcese still has such an entertaining punch. While arguably also being the best overall movie featuring the worst overall accents. Diaz & DeCaprio's blather constantly jarred my ears, the latter often simply forgetting to try, while the former played the role a bit too twee by half. Of course, it's Day-Lewis that dominated the conversation at the time. His performance remained an utterly absorbing one of madness, and something that constantly skirted around the rim of scenery-chewing - without ever falling in. The film just came alive every time he swaggered into a scene, his posture bristling with violent potential energy. Not just a great movie villain, but a magnetic, intoxicating one.

A half star removed though for that closing song by U2

buried

Been trying to find a online rental or streaming service for 'Gangs of New York' that doesn't include amzonprime but can't get it. Would like to see it again, mainly for the Bill the Butcher performance which was top off the wall stuff. But I also always thought Scorcese was kind of influenced by the great TV series 'Deadwood', especially with some of the characters and the set designs for this film and would like to see it again to delve into that theory of mine further. Maybe he would have preferred to make this into some sort of series, because the film seemed too packed and rushed even though it was what, near 3 hours long?

Tony EH

'The History of Iron Maiden'

A three part (early) history of one of metal's premier acts, 'The History of Iron Maiden' covers the band from its humble pub origins through to the massive (and sometimes ridiculous) arena period and up to them releasing 'Seventh Son of a Seventh Son' and headlining Donnington at the end of the 80's. Basically the first 15 years of the bands existence.

Iron Maiden are the quintessential 70's heavy metal band that had its greatest successes throughout the 80's, when all other bands of that type and era fell by the wayside. All of the NWOBHM bands faded within a relatively short time, but Steve Harris's lot continued to survive and even grow, despite not changing the formula to any great degree, like many other bands have had to regardless of what music they played.

This is expanded upon in the documentary which explains that Iron Maiden is very much Harris' band, who has a strict vision of what it should be and sticks to it with an admirable determination, it must be said. But, inevitably this led to numerous line up changes throughout the years and only Steve Harris is the one that has stayed in the band since its formation in 1975. The documentary features past members and gives them a chance to air their stories and experiences, but there doesn't seem to be any animosity. At least not at the time of recording. Although, I wonder just how amicable everyone truly is. Getting kicked out of a band and then watching it become a behemoth without you can't be all that great for one's mental stability. Just ask Dave Mustaine. But Iron Maiden is a business, first and foremost, and one that has gathered around it a tight knit company of people who pursue their goals with great clarity, in spite of the various comings and goings that are bound to happen over the course of 45 years.

'The History of Iron Maiden' is interesting for fans and non-fans alike as it's a great exposure on what it was to be in those types of mega bands in the 80's and just how crazy and "big" things could get. Up to and including some 'Spinal Tap' moments, which the band, themselves, were and still are very much aware of. Although the documentary certainly isn't a litany of drink and drug fuelled excess and farce, and Iron Maiden actually come across as one of the more level headed bands of the era which, perhaps, has a lot to do with the fact that they still play today to huge crowds 30 years after the period covered in part 3 of the documentary ended.

Arguably, though, Iron Maiden's greatest stretch was from 1982 to 1988, where they garnered millions of devoted fans around the world and produced their best material, which they still play live and this is where the most interesting section of the documentary lies, although the three parts all hold the interest quite easily.


8/10

Fysh

I caught Lost Soul, the documentary about Richard Stanley and The Island Of Dr Moreau (which I have never seen, and frankly now never will - my other half has seen it and has nothing good to say for it). Really interesting examination of how film production works and how unchecked diva nonsense from big-name actors can doom a project. I suspect that even without Kilmer's high-on-the-smell-of-his-own-farts nonsense, Stanley would never have gotten Brando to behave enough to deliver a coherent version of his intended film. Whether that would have been preferable to getting kicked off the project is another matter, but I would guess that seeing the end result has probably helped Stanley adopt more of a philosophical perspective on matters.

flasher0030

Tony EH wrote: »

'The History of Iron Maiden'

A three part (early) history of one of metal's premier acts, 'The History of Iron Maiden' covers the band from its humble pub origins through to the massive (and sometimes ridiculous) arena period and up to them releasing 'Seventh Son of a Seventh Son' and headlining Donnington at the end of the 80's. Basically the first 15 years of the bands existence.

Iron Maiden are the quintessential 70's heavy metal band that had its greatest successes throughout the 80's, when all other bands of that type and era fell by the wayside. All of the NWOBHM bands faded within a relatively short time, but Steve Harris's lot continued to survive and even grow, despite not changing the formula to any great degree, like many other bands have had to regardless of what music they played.

This is expanded upon in the documentary which explains that Iron Maiden is very much Harris' band, who has a strict vision of what it should be and sticks to it with an admirable determination, it must be said. But, inevitably this led to numerous line up changes throughout the years and only Steve Harris is the one that has stayed in the band since its formation in 1975. The documentary features past members and gives them a chance to air their stories and experiences, but there doesn't seem to be any animosity. At least not at the time of recording. Although, I wonder just how amicable everyone truly is. Getting kicked out of a band and then watching it become a behemoth without you can't be all that great for one's mental stability. Just ask Dave Mustaine. But Iron Maiden is a business, first and foremost, and one that has gathered around it a tight knit company of people who pursue their goals with great clarity, in spite of the various comings and goings that are bound to happen over the course of 45 years.

'The History of Iron Maiden' is interesting for fans and non-fans alike as it's a great exposure on what it was to be in those types of mega bands in the 80's and just how crazy and "big" things could get. Up to and including some 'Spinal Tap' moments, which the band, themselves, were and still are very much aware of. Although the documentary certainly isn't a litany of drink and drug fuelled excess and farce, and Iron Maiden actually come across as one of the more level headed bands of the era which, perhaps, has a lot to do with the fact that they still play today to huge crowds 30 years after the period covered in part 3 of the documentary ended.

Arguably, though, Iron Maiden's greatest stretch was from 1982 to 1988, where they garnered millions of devoted fans around the world and produced their best material, which they still play live and this is where the most interesting section of the documentary lies, although the three parts all hold the interest quite easily.


8/10

Brilliant. Didn't know this existed. Going to try to find that somewhere to watch.
Other than what was produced in '90s, they have some catalogue. Real return to form over the past 20 years.

Sugarlumps

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Birds of Prey with Margot Robbie

had to bail after forty five minutes , just too daft and i like Margot Robbie

I lasted 20 minutes, utter drivel.

IAMAMORON

Watched Saint Maud last night and I must admit I found it slightly awkward turning off the lights and locking up the house after... a genuinely creepy thought provoking horror.

And for anyone saying that is not a horror movie you need to check your genres. I don't shiver when I pick up my chainsaw, I just go and cut some wood with it, carefully and with gloves on, but you catch my drift.

But flickering candlelight, double meanings, bibles, things that go bump in the night, palliative care - they all scare the phuck out of me - bigtime.

They leave it nice and open and mysterious at the end also. I like that , I want to not know what the phuck happened to such and such plotline, was it , wasn't it ? I want the mystery, it makes it more believable.

pixelburp

buried wrote: »

Been trying to find a online rental or streaming service for 'Gangs of New York' that doesn't include amzonprime but can't get it. Would like to see it again, mainly for the Bill the Butcher performance which was top off the wall stuff. But I also always thought Scorcese was kind of influenced by the great TV series 'Deadwood', especially with some of the characters and the set designs for this film and would like to see it again to delve into that theory of mine further. Maybe he would have preferred to make this into some sort of series, because the film seemed too packed and rushed even though it was what, near 3 hours long?

Yes, just a few minutes shy of 3 hours. Now that you say it, it was a film that might have benefitted from being a mini-series all right - and had the script knocked about a little longer, maybe that would have been its destiny (given Scorcese eventually ended up working with Netflix). Gangs... was packed with story and character around the margins (such as the scene with competing Fire Departments fighting each other), with the last act's introduction of class riots a plot unto itself.

The accents did regularly threaten to sink my enjoyment though.