nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What have you watched recently? 3D!

johnny_ultimate

You people just keep on watching films, don't you?

We have reached the contractually-mandated 10,000 post limited in thread 2, so here's another one. It's like the first two, but with gimmicky 3D added and a no-name director taking over from the well-known one who directed the first two.

Here's the first thread: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055488699
And the second: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056732038

So... what have you watched recently?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Dades

F&F: Hobbs & Shaw.

Watched it last night. Great fun enjoyed it. The trailer suggested Idris Elba was some sort of superhero which put me right off, but the movie wasn't that. Popcorn nonsense with likeable leads.

Crawl
Loved this. I like a monster movie and I do love Kaya Scodelari. She is so good in anything. Smashing bit of action/tension. Alligators looked great. I don't know what the budget was compared to Avengers: Endgame... but this was better cinema for me.

Liamalone

Dades wrote: »

F&F: Hobbs & Shaw.

Watched it last night. Great fun enjoyed it. The trailer suggested Idris Elba was some sort of superhero which put me right off, but the movie wasn't that. Popcorn nonsense with likeable leads.

Crawl
Loved this. I like a monster movie and I do love Kaya Scodelari. She is so good in anything. Smashing bit of action/tension. Alligators looked great. I don't know what the budget was compared to Avengers: Endgame... but this was better cinema for me.

Had the choice of these two tonight, went for Crawl unfortunately. All of us thought it was awful, comically so. Sometimes the alligators ripped folk to shreds, other times they seemed to have dentures on. Glad to see the end, which was a tad abrupt also.

Tony EH

'Angel Heart'

Alan Parker's noirish, occult, tale set in 1950's New Orleans is a mixed bag for sure. One the one hand it's a fairly gripping suspense and on the other a laughable yarn who's climax is signposted from the very outset.

Everyone is having fun though and its obvious limitations aside, it's a joy to watch a pre-ugly mug Mickey Rourke inhabit the scruffy persona of Harry Angel as he's hired by the immediately sinister Louis Cyphre to investigate the whereabouts of a crooner called Johnny Favorite, because Cyphre is afraid that the contract he and had with the singer may longer be upheld.

The conclusion of 'Angel Heart' should be extremely clear to all, except the most clouded and innocent of minds. Perhaps being of such a nature would be a boon when watching the film, because when the journey stops at its inevitable last station, it's nothing but a let down.

'Angel Heart' is all about the journey though and in that regard there's a lot to be said for it. Aside from Rourke, everyone else jumps into their roles with great relish and Robert De Niro clearly enjoys his turn as Mr. Cyphre. Parker's direction is ok, but then it always is just ok. So, if you have ever seen any of his films, you'll know what to expect from that point of view.

'Angel Heart' is an odd film. Not awful, but not successful either and yet fully deserving of one's time if you're in the mood.

6.5/10

'The Shining'

Upon release, like John Carpenter's 1982 classic 'The Thing', Stanley Kubrick's 1980 foray into the horror genre met with very mixed critical reception indeed. But also like Carpenter's effort, it's subsequent reappraisal has seen it soar to the heights it fully deserved when it was originally shown in cinemas.

These days, 'The Shining' rightly holds its head up high and resides on many an aficionado's top horror movie list. A film of considered pacing and deliberate creepiness, Kubrick charges the film with an uncomfortable feel throughout, not just in the foreground, but also in the background as was befitting a man of his meticulous (and dare I say it somewhat autistic) nature. Nothing is on the screen by accident. Everything is placed and misplaced with purpose. That chair that goes missing during a single take...done on purpose. Jack's typewriter changing model between shots...done on purpose. Little Danny's Big Wheel trike making those on carpet/off carpet sounds as he traverses the Overlook Hotel...done on purpose. Never knowing whether what's happening is in Jack Torrance's head or whether it's real...done on purpose. That David Hicks hexagon carpet design...done on purpose. Every single item that makes it to the camera is as a result of Kubrick wanting it there. Everything is framed for a purpose. Everything is shot in the way he dictated it to be shot. Even the famous "All work and no play" manuscript was fully typed out across thousands of pages, across multiple languages.

In addition to Kubrick's hand, there's also a brilliant score by Wendy Carlos, which punctuates the scenery perfectly. Her crash/smash soundscapes capture the horror of the Wendy and Danny Torrance's ordeal as the Overlook Hotel slowly closes in around them. The vocal sections of her soundtrack complement Wendy Torrance's screams and hang in the air during the final act as if the ghosts of the Overlook are around every corner.

The script, which came in for much damnation from Stephen King - who wrote the original novel - veers away from from what King wrote and goes its own path. So much so as to be an entirely different tale. The essential plot is the alike, in which Jack Torrance is charged to act as a caretaker of a rural hotel where the winter months see the establishment abandoned and over the course of his and his family's stay, creepy events start to occur. King hated what Kubrick did with his story and especially despised Jack Nicholson and Shelly Duvall in the roles of Jack and Wendy Torrance. To be fair to King, he's not wrong. Nicholson and especially Duvall's characters are nothing like their written counterparts. But, instead they are their own creations and are just as compelling of not more so.

Shelly Duvall's limp, lank haired, but awfully good natured Wendy looks like a human skeleton that has had skin stretched too tight over its frame. We feel sorry for her when Jack berates her and he clearly hates her as much a Stephen King does. With her shaky collapse in the last reel, her character comes full circle and she is fascinating to watch. Remarkably, and unjustifiably, poor Shelly Duvall got nominated for a Razzie Award. But she is now considered one of the best victims in all of horror cinema.

Jack Nicholson's portrayal of Jack Torrance eschews any attempt at nuance from the get go in another deliberate move by Kubrick. He's a real piece of shit, who disregards his family and perhaps there was a bit of loathing from King, because he probably saw a lot of himself in both the literary and the cinematic Jack Torrance, with Nicholson's barely concealed malice for his family's welfare mirroring King's own familial problems due to his struggles with alcohol and other drug addictions.

Finally, Danny Lloyd plays a cute kid in the shape of Danny Torrance. A boy who has the supernatural ability to reach others through his mind and is susceptible to the Overlook's scary going's on before anyone else. This supernatural ability is shared by the cook at the hotel who explains to Danny and the audience what the ability is and gives it a name.

'The Shining' should be seen at least once by all fans of horror films and film in general and it's an eternal shame upon the forces of critical opinion pieces that they just didn't get what made the film so great in the first place. It's an absolute masterpiece of subtle, creepy, horror that would be lost on most film makers today. It's clever, without being knowing or pretentious. It's scary without resorting to boo! And it never feels bloated or in a rush to get to its money shots, so it's fully deserving of its rare 10/10 score.

10/10

'Dr. No'

James Bond's first dip into cinematic history and the start of a 50+ year career as the screens premier secret agent, 007, is a curiously quaint start to a long tenure. Made in 1962, the largely British production boasted high budgets, exotic locales, and plenty of action in an absurd plot (even for its day) based on the pulpy novels of Ian Flemming, who made a tidy living knocking out one ridiculous Bond adventure after another.

Sean Connery, who beat out Cary Grant and Richard Johnson for the title, is perfect as Bond and he is clearly loving the role that made his name at this point, which ceased to be the case some time around 1967 as he got increasingly desirous to get away from it. Connery's Bond is not the suave sophisticate that Roger Moore's was and is, instead, a more rough and tumble sort, who despite fitting well into a dinner jacket, seems to never be at home in it or with the company that goes along with such attire. Connery's Bond will coldly and causally dispatch his enemies, without the obligatory wisecrack (although they appeared in force by the time of 'Goldfinger') and he's much more of a serious businessman that his other famous 1970's successor, who's outings were always firmly in camp territory.

But, unfortunately, it's the story of 'Dr. No' that's the real let down here, which is unfortunate, because until the titular character makes his appearance, Bond's investigation is quite compelling. But, once we get to the the baddies secret underground base that's the location of his operation for world domination, the film fizzles out.

'Dr. No' is far from awful, but most of its pleasure is derived these days from seeing where Bond's movie history began and for someone who couldn't possibly call themselves a Bond fan, it was just about ok.

A final curious note, however, is that I saw that the mouth of Bernard Lee's "M" clearly state that Bond is in MI6 (British foreign intelligence), while the audio says MI7, which was a strange pause for me during the viewing.

5/10

'From Russia With Love'

Connery's second outing as Flemming's spy hero is an altogether more accomplished affair than the previous 'Dr. No' and features a far more grounded plot, even if Blofeld's ridiculous SPECTRE organisation makes an appearance as the primary antagonist. In this story, Bond is tasked with securing an Enigma-like device, called the Lektor, a cryptographic machine that is of great importance to British Intelligence. This device is to be handed to him by Tatiana Romanova (an awful Daniella Bianchi), who is a SMERSH agent recruited by Blofeld's No.3, Rosa Klebb (a great Lotte Lenya). Of course, Tatiana is unable to resist Bond's charms and falls head over heels for him and buggers up SPECTRE's plans.

'From Russia With Love' is often hailed as the best James Bond film, but I have to confess a wonder as to why it's held in such high esteem. Sure, it's better than 'Dr. No' and probably better, in many respects, than most of the other Connery Bond films, although 'Goldfinger' is the more enjoyable film, even if its story is more absurd. But, it's terribly tedious in many of its scenes, especially the gypsy section which has always been a crashing bore.

Where 'From Russia With Love' excels, though, is in its baddies. Aside from the already mentioned Rosa Klebb, Robert Shaw appears as Red Grant, who is generally considered to be one of the greatest Bond villains of all time and Shaw is perfect in the role, with the famous train scrap being one of the very best fight scenes in any Bond film.

Over all, it's worth a look, but like 'Dr. No' it's vintage can render it very old fashioned to modern tastes.

6/10

'Goldfinger'

Without a doubt the best of the early James Bond efforts, the third film, 'Goldfinger', is where all the familiar Bond tropes come together for the first time. All of the usual Bond things come into play, like the gadgets, the one liners, and the cool car - this time in the shape of the wonderful Aston Martin DB5 that regularly tops the greats list for Bond fans and car fans alike.

If Red Grant is James Bond's best hard man, then Auric Goldfinger is its best arch villain, played perfectly by the great German actor Gert Frobe. Goldfinger's preposterous plan is to set off an atomic device in Fort Knox and reduce America's gold bullion reserve to a heap of radioactive junk for 58 years, thus elevating his own reserves many times over and causing a certain amount of chaos in the west that will have him in good stead with the east. It's less ludicrous than a lot of Bond villain plans, but still laughable in its silliness, while never scuppering the whole endeavour.

Apart from Goldfinger and his crazy scheme, Bond also has to deal with another great Bond baddie, Oddjob, Goldfinger's mute Korean henchman who sports some killer headgear and a strength that would put every heavyweight to shame.

The obligatory Bond girl, if she can really be called that, comes in the shapely form of Honor Blackman, a sassy semi-villainess, who works for Goldfinger, while never seeming to be totally on his side. The smoky voiced Blackman is a smart foil for Connery's Bond, to whose charms she's "immune". For a short amount of time anyway.

'Goldfinger' plays out at a pleasing pace and its 1 hour 50 minute run time is never wasted. All the Bond elements come together in a pleasing fashion and they suit its 1960's period much better than in the later films, where they just come off as camp. But, even after 55 years, it's still very enjoyable.

7/10

'Midsommar'

Ari Aster is quickly making a name for himself as one to watch for genre fans and hot on the heels of 'Hereditary', he has followed up with 'Midsommar'. A film about some Americans who never saw 'Hostel' and really should have stayed at home, instead of going to attend a bizarre traditional pagan festival in rural Sweden.

Aster has obviously seen and is a great fan of 'The Wicker Man', as is clear from the many parallels between his film and the 1973 classic, which both feature naive protagonists who meet their fate at the hands of a group of weirdos who are visibly out of their time.

Like 'Hereditary', 'Midsommar' is a fine movie, but also like the 2018 film, it features a somewhat tired and played out genre antagonist that will be, at once familiar to fans of horror. But where Hereditary's coven stays relatively concealed for most of the film, Midsommar's equally hokey pagans show their hand far too quickly, as to kill the film's suspense to a large degree. But, this doesn't really matter, as the film plays out in an uneasy and skin crawling way, which is its main charm.

'Midsommar' isn't really scary or frightening, as some viewers may be expecting, but it does hold the attention very well despite those shortcomings. However, it's about 30 minutes too long and can come across as a bit indulgent. It has a few genuinely shocking moments, for sure, and some great gore effects, too, which should please the fans of the red stuff.

With two hits under his belt, fans of horror with certainly be keeping a keen eye on Aster's future efforts.

8/10

Dades

Liamalone wrote: »

Had the choice of these two tonight, went for Crawl unfortunately. All of us thought it was awful, comically so. Sometimes the alligators ripped folk to shreds, other times they seemed to have dentures on. Glad to see the end, which was a tad abrupt also.

Ha... to each their own! I did profess my leanings towards creature features, so inconsistency in alligator feeding behaviour doesn't register with me. SyFy channel is a regular in my house.

[Deleted User]

beauf wrote: »

Shōgun 1980 mini series

Based on 1975 novel by James Clavell, who was executive producer of mini series. People tend to remember it for the actor Richard Chamberlain.

Filmed on location entirely in Japan. About englishman stranded in Japan in 1600 his experiences and political intrigues in feudal Japan in the early 17th century.

Loved this at the time. Got it on Blu-ray it's in 4:3 and another very 80s production. If you can get past that it's very informative. Great cast and I would say decent acting for the period.

I've never read the book, but after watching this again I will.

8/10

I'd score it higher only some might not find it accessible and might not get past the 80s production.

Watched an episode or two of this a few months ago, but didn't get to the end. A lot of great qualities, but a little bit of a slog I thought.

Just finished watching Marco Polo from 1982 a mini series in a similar vein, which I thought was better. Dated a bit in places with Italian spaghetti western style directing in a lot of the shots that can often seem a bit forced, but as a spectacle, and following Marco Polo's journey is pretty spectacular and well worth a watch. Theres some scenes in locations just watching local culture for a few minutes, and I found myself getting really absorbed in them. Its pretty amazing these guys walked to China from the middle east, at a time when the Mongols were tearing up the world!

barrymanilow

I always enjoyed Labyrinth staring David Bowie so i was surprised that I had never heard of this before.

Its amazing what Jim Henson and co managed to pull off with just puppets and costumes. Its from 1982 but it puts a lot of the CGI based stuff that's coming out at the rate of two a minute to shame.

Its hard to believe this is a kids film. Some of it is intensely dark. The "Baddies" are pure nightmare fertilizer.

Some great creative use of costume and puppetry , hats off.

But avoid at all costs the new Dark Crystal series on Netflix though , the writing is painfully bad although visually it looks well.

8/10

Tony EH

barrymanilow wrote: »

Its hard to believe this is a kids film. Some of it is intensely dark.

I remember seeing this as a kid and I loved every second of it.

Adults need to stop worrying about what a "kids" film is. They're more robust than we give them credit for.

CastorTroy

Yeah I never worry what's a kid's film. If entertaining, I can watch it. Like just watched Teen Titans Go vs Teen Titans last night. That was fun. Stupid fun.
Clearly they had watched Turtles Forever before making it

Tony EH

CastorTroy wrote: »

Yeah I never worry what's a kid's film. If entertaining, I can watch it. Like just watched Teen Titans Go vs Teen Titans last night. That was fun. Stupid fun.
Clearly they had watched Turtles Forever before making it

Well, I meant the kids, not the films.

Homelander

Liamalone wrote: »

Had the choice of these two tonight, went for Crawl unfortunately. All of us thought it was awful, comically so. Sometimes the alligators ripped folk to shreds, other times they seemed to have dentures on. Glad to see the end, which was a tad abrupt also.

Do agree about Crawl. It's entertaining but absurd, and not entirely in a good way. Very much 6/10 for me.

Del.Monte

Death Wish (2018)

Remake of the 1974 Charles Bronson movie about an ordinary man who becomes a vigilante after his family are attacked. I remember the original and while this is a satisfying movie in many ways, Bruce Willis is no Charles Bronson. 7/10

Open Range (2003)

A realistic and (ultimately) feel-good Western starring Robert Duvall, Kevin Costner and Michael Gambon. Faultless performances throughout as one would expect from actors of this calibre. 9/10

Both available on YouTube.

barrymanilow

I enjoyed this.

Joacquin Phoenix as a deeply traumatized hired goon who recovers kidnapped children for cash.

Explores the impact of intense childhood trauma.

Think Man on Fire , The Equalizer or Taken but then turn the artyness up a good few notches.

8/10

El Duda

barrymanilow wrote: »

I enjoyed this.

Think Man on Fire , The Equalizer or Taken but then turn the artyness up a good few notches.

8/10

What a way to talk down a phenomenal film. It's nothing like anything you've listed imo.

Fysh

I caught "The Law Of Desire" on Mubi just before it left as part of the continuing Almodovoar season, and really liked it. Having not seen his earlier stuff I wasn't aware of how provocative it was; looking at it now it's easy to see those aspects of his work as part of a wider reactionary movement that finally started to find a voice in Spain in the 80s after Franco's death. It's also interesting to note the visual echoes of his earlier films that were included in Pain & Glory.

It's also eye-opening to see early Antonio Banderas performances like this, because I've mainly seen him in later US stuff where he was poorly used.

Having said that, the third act does feel a bit constrained by a need to conform to certain structural aspects of thriller films, which is not bad exactly but less interesting than the character focused moments.

Del.Monte

Really scraping the bottom of the barrel these days and dredged up "Beau Geste" (1966) on YouTube this evening.

I've seen it several times and it's bit of harmless 'fun' starring Telly Savalas.
6/10

I'll be returning to the excellent "Hornblower" ITV series tomorrow - sadly only 8 episodes in total. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornblower_(TV_series)

Dades

Watcher Stuber over the weekend.

Pretty entertaining as long as you check your brain in at the lobby. Laughed quite a lot. I like Bautista a lot, but his character in this was terribly written which is a shame. He's just stupid. Kumail Nanjiani has all the best lines, and makes the movie. Think Short Circuit... but with someone actually from that part of the world.

Kingp35

In The Tall Grass (2019)

Watched this Netflix original the other night. It's from the director of The Cube and based on a novella by Stephen King. Entire premise is based on various people getting lost in tall grass who experience weird happenings however the timeline etc is not linear and just ends up being confusing. It's a bit of a mess really, not an awful lot happens and it's far too convoluted for it's own good. Disappointing.

5/10

johnny_ultimate

Marriage Story - the second Great Netflix Movie (c).

I sometimes am baffled by Noah Baumbach. He seems to fluctuate between mini masterpieces like Frances Ha and messy quirk-fests. This is in the former category, but without the mini (you lose the mini tag when you go over 120 minutes).

Possibly his very best film. On one hand it’s a devastating, venomous film about a divorce. When the voices are raised, they’re raised HARD. Littered with moments of heartbreak and hopelessness.

But it’s a more complex film than simply a grim-fest. There’s a core compassion for the characters - and Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver are both god-tier - that really means there’s no ‘sides’ to be had. This pair care for each other and their son, and there are flashes of genuine affection that undercut the nastiness. It’s about privileged people locked in a battle that costs absurd amounts of money, but doesn’t feel as elitist or tone deaf as a Woody Allen film or even some of Baumbach’s own films. And then it’s often really, laugh out loud funny - including a bit with a knife that’s just too good.

Shout out to Ireland’s own Robbie Ryan behind the camera - in particular for the way he uses the physical space between the characters to underline important dramatic moments. There’s also these lovely editing flourishes - sometimes a mere second or two unusual shot choice that perfectly punctuates a particular emotion.

El Duda

In Bruges – 9/10

Not many films make use of location quite like this. Bruges is a great backdrop for such a dark story. I’ve seen this many times, but it never fails to make me belly laugh. It’s such a great piece of original writing with so many quotable lines. I can never make my mind up as to who puts in my favourite performance. This time I’d go with Ralth Fiennes, whose slow introduction into the plot is masterful. He injects so much life into the final act of the film.

The thing I like the most is how watertight the script is. Every little detail is set up or given an explanation and there are no glaring plot holes. It’s sharp, witty and its disregard for politically correct humour is to be applauded.

After this and Three Billboards, I cannot wait to see what Martin McDonagh does next. His ability to write gripping dialogue is comparable with Tarantino and he has a real eye for structure.

johnny_ultimate

Portrait of a Lady on Fire - goddamn. You better believe the hype for this one is real.

I remember going to see Water Lilies in the IFI 10-11 years ago, when going to see things in the IFI was still a bit of a weird novelty for me. I was surprised and fascinated by the film, and in years after was great to see the new films by the director Celine Sciamma get more attention and more acclaim. But what a pleasure to see such a talented filmmaker throw out a no-question masterpiece.

This is basically a love story: two women - the excellent Noémie Merlant alongside the ever reliable Adèle Haenel, boasting electric chemistry together - meet in less than ideal circumstances, and start falling for each other. It’s a straightforward foundation but Sciamma has such a masterly sense of control over the images, the glances, the silences, the needle drops... It’s packed full of long, powerful moments of quiet, but also spectacularly lush and romantic images designed to sear into the characters’ minds alongside the viewers’. It has as perfect an ending as any film has ever had.

It’s a period piece full of fussy costumes, but the film’s not at all stuffy. It starts slow, but the rewards arrive quickly and are plentiful. Just great all round TBH.

Dades

Just rewatched Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets.

Huge SF fan, with The Fifth Element being up there for me with the best of them.

Enjoyed it more the second time around. Yep, there's fat around the middle. The whole Rhianna bit seems forced and unnecessary, but nobody makes movies like this anymore. Pure unadulterated fun sci fi.

They were no Bruce and Milla, but the leads worked for me. Cara Delevingne steals the show. Luc Besson may not have lived up to previous fare, but at least he's trying to entertain.

santana75

Abomniable

Saw this today on a rainy sunday afternoon not expecting much but ended up really enjoying it. Its basically ET, but thats a good thing. It looks incredible but it also has some depth. Good character evolvement and not sickly sweet or cringy. Some genuine moments that hit in the feels.

pixelburp

In the Shadow of the Moon (2019)

Another one of those mid-budget genre schlock films Netflix seems to be wiling to embrace, yet another whose superficial hooks and respectable production values belied a flimsy plot that crumbled the moment any inspection was applied. Now, to be fair, few scripts ever manage to construct a time travel plot without some trailing ends in the logic - making those who do manage the feat all the more remarkable - but this film drew attention to its gapping flaws by a gear-shift into open jargon via a portentous voiceover, a blunt infodump that stripped any mystery from the film, not to mention its respectability.

johnny_ultimate

The King - I've seen four films with the Netflix logo in the cinema over the past two weeks, and this is the only one I should have stayed at home for. A tedious historical epic that's lumpen and narcoleptic. Occasionally comes to life, but seems built around the build up to the big battle scene (although tbh you're better sticking with Chimes at Midnight for muddy Falstaff-infused battling).

I like Timothée Chalamet, but he doesn't have what's necessary for this role. Who does stand out here, though, is the ever reliable Robert Pattinson, who shows up with a farcical, ludicrous French accent in the latter half of the film. He's in a different film entirely, but he's the amusing, OTT spark I needed to push me through to the end credits.

barrymanilow

Upgrade ,

8/10

Pretty good low budget kind of trashy action sci fi

Doesn't take itself too seriously but at the same time has a stab at the themes like advanced A.I , automation and what it will mean for humanity.

Think Ex Machina , Her with Joaquin Phoenix and taken rolled into one

Captain Red Beard

Farming. About a young Nigerian boy who runs with skinheads, based on the life of Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje. Some great performances in a pretty crazy story.

Drumpot

Fight club

Absolutely loved it when it was released but decided to switch it on (amazon prime Ireland). It’s actually better then I remembered. Like I mean 9 or 10 out of 10 better. It’s so f**king good, I feel like I’m watching it for the first time!

ButtersSuki

Drumpot wrote: »

Fight club

Absolutely loved it when it was released but decided to switch it on (amazon prime Ireland). It’s actually better then I remembered. Like I mean 9 or 10 out of 10 better. It’s so f**king good, I feel like I’m watching it for the first time!

You’ve already broken the first and second rules.

Tony EH

Drumpot wrote: »

Fight club

Absolutely loved it when it was released but decided to switch it on (amazon prime Ireland). It’s actually better then I remembered. Like I mean 9 or 10 out of 10 better. It’s so f**king good, I feel like I’m watching it for the first time!

Yeh, 'Fight Club' is just one of those films that gets better and better every time you sit down to it.

I remember seeing it for the first time and I went in thinking it was just some silly film about idiots bonding by having scraps in basements. :rolleyes:

How wrong was I.

Of course, it is a silly story, but it's an excellent one and if you don't know what it is, all the better.

santana75

Official secrets

Saw this tonght and thought it was a bit meh. Lots of people shouting at each other, tension trying to be drained out of scenes that had no tension in the first place. The subject matter is an SJWs dream and people who love to protest about everything will probably really like it. It just seemed forced or something though. Like I was always aware that I was watching keira knightley and everyone else, acting. Not once was I lost in the story because it all seemed much ado about nothing really.