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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

Drumpot

Damn it, wasn’t planning on watching anything for long but flicked on tv and the dark knight was on, I can’t get over what a superb movie it still is on repeat viewings. Easily the best comicbook movie and comfortably in my top 5 of all time... The only movie I’ve ever been looking forward for ages before it was released only for it to blast all expectations out of the park. absolutely love it, I don’t think it will ever be topped in its genre.

4Ad

Del.Monte wrote: »

"Cold Pursuit" (2019)

On my Annual FREE Amazon Prime trial.

Liam Neeson revenge thriller and well worth a watch. Based on the Norwegian thriller "In Order of Disappearance" which is also a must see.

Violent and very funny in places - shades of Fargo. 10/10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0phuNQQ_gHI

Was that not a Spanish film ??
If it's the same one it was brilliant !!

Fysh

al87987 wrote: »

Agreed watched it a few nights ago and quite enjoyed it 7.5/10.

Watched Sleep tight last night a Spanish film from a few years back. Highly recommended, about a concierge in a hotel who is not all he seems. Decent thriller 8/10.

Luis Tosar is one terrifying mofo in that film. Fun fact - its Spanish title is "Mientras Duermes", which can cause idiots of a certain type (*coughcough*thisguy*coughcough*) to confuse it with While You Were Sleeping (the English translation of that title, but also the actual English title of a Sandra Bullock romcom). Which can lead to some great confusion - and entertainment! - when recommending it to friends...

al87987

barrymanilow wrote: »

Freaks (2019)

Thoroughly enjoyed. A fantasy / sci-fi kind of picture. Something along the lines of midnight special / Akira / M. Night Shyamalans stuff but doing its own very original thing too. I imagine it will have slipped under many a radar. Check it out.

9/10

Agreed watched it a few nights ago and quite enjoyed it 7.5/10.

Watched Sleep tight last night a Spanish film from a few years back. Highly recommended, about a concierge in a hotel who is not all he seems. Decent thriller 8/10.

Fysh

I finally got around to watching my copy of Phantom Boy last night, and I really enjoyed it, as expected given how much I liked A Cat In Paris, the previous animated feature by the same directing team. The art style is wonderful - leaning into its cartooniness with elements like the malleability of the Phantom's limbs, or the villain's disfigured face.

The English dub isn't too bad, as these things go, but I still much preferred watching it in French with subtitles - amongst other things the younger sister is given an irritatingly "cutesy" voice in the English dub while in the French version she just sounds like a normal small child.

barrymanilow

Freaks (2019)

Thoroughly enjoyed. A fantasy / sci-fi kind of picture. Something along the lines of midnight special / Akira / M. Night Shyamalans stuff but doing its own very original thing too. I imagine it will have slipped under many a radar. Check it out.

9/10

shrapnel222

lucky Day

Was kind of surprised when i accidentally came across this movie as it's the latest offering of a man who i'd completely forgotten about. Roger Avary. the man who co-wrote Pulp fiction, and the man who made killing zoe in the 90s, a film which i loved at the time, and still have very fond memories of now.

The movie in itself is quite OTT, and almost a pastiche of the "cool" robbery/revenge movie of the 90s, but it has some great performances and some brilliant scenes. It left me feeling a little disappointed as a whole, but still had plenty going for it.

In any event, it's nice to see him back making movies again

Tom Mann Centuria

The Frighteners. Brilliant Peter Jackson/Fran Walsh comedy thriller/horror-ish with Michael J Fox. Clever film with an excellent supporting cast.

Del.Monte

"Cold Pursuit" (2019)

On my Annual FREE Amazon Prime trial.

Liam Neeson revenge thriller and well worth a watch. Based on the Norwegian thriller "In Order of Disappearance" which is also a must see.

Violent and very funny in places - shades of Fargo. 10/10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0phuNQQ_gHI

D'Agger

The Irishman:

Long, slow, plodding. The story was there and was relatively well tied together. The fact that there was never dialogue with his daughter and then

he's asking her to 'just talk' when he's nearly at the end of his life

seemed odd to me, there was a chance to show another dimension of the character there and it just seemed left out. Pesci was fantastic but overall it wasn't that enjoyable a watch (6.5/10)

Joker:

Brilliant. Pheonix is fantastic, it's well shot, thought his scenes with DeNiro were brilliant also. (9/10)

Once upon a time in Hollywood:

I really enjoyed it, thought Di Caprio & Pitt were excellent, some nice cameos (Lewis playing McQueen), some great nods to cinema and the Hollywood of old, some parts of the story seem a bit odd and the overall story being told is a bit clunked together rather than fluid but an enjoyable watch (8/10)

buried

The Irishman

Absolutely loved this to bits. Just such a great piece of work, the sequential art and editing is just something else altogether. Loved the sets, the whole work gone into the design of all the scenes, the mannerisms of the characters, its like watching actual history on screen. Just next level stuff. Hard to know who was doing the best here in terms of acting, everybody is just so brilliant. Thought Pesci's character was on another level of sinister while not even showing it in the overboard loud kind of way he portrayed his characters in both Goodfellas and Casino. A scene in this, he has a look in his eyes of total cold calculated evil, it was frightening.
Just brilliant work. Best Scorsese's ever done for me.

10/10

barrymanilow

Teen Spirit

This is a "will the troubled underdog triumph" drama music film but it’s different in that although the plot is a fairly standard idea the film is served up in an attractive arty style. You could take that quirky whelans girl that dresses like an ironic granny to see it in the lighthouse cinema but trish the big kodaline fan from accounts would also enjoy it too. Enjoyable feel good stuff with a bit of art college edge.

8/10

Tony EH

*Possible spoilers.

'The Irishman'

Martin Scorsese gets to play around in his gangster sandpit for, what's probably, the last time and drags along Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci for one last hurrah.

'The Irishman' channels all the right vibes from his past gangster epics, like 'Goodfellas', 'Casino' and to a lesser extent 'Mean Streets' and tells the story of a dodgy paddy hitman, Frank Sheeran, as he makes his way through the snake pit of East coast organised crime syndicates and corrupt teamsters of the 50's, 60's and 70's and travels on up to Sheeran's time in a nursing home in the early 2000's.

Scorsese's excitable project has been knocking around in so called "development hell" for some time now, but I have to say that it was well worth the wait. It feels rich and realistic, while spanning numerous decades relatively successfully. Everyone brings their best to their roles, while not exactly embodying their real life counterparts to a tee. But they don't really have to. The audience never forgets that it's watching De Niro, Pacino and Pesci as the events unfold on screen, but they all carry on in such a pleasing way that it doesn't matter.

Out of the three, Pesci stands out as crime boss, Russell Bufalino. However, he is in a more staid mode in 'The Irishman' than what audiences are used to. People who are waiting around for Joey LaMotta, Tommy DeVito or even Vinny Gambini to turn up may be in for a bit of a surprise, as Pesci's character is cool and calm while still exerting a quiet, but clearly, menacing power.

Pacino, as the infamous Jimmy Hoffa, gets a role he can chew on, but in a good way and the "hoo hahs" of recent times have been kept out. He has fun blowing up in anger at certain points and is key to the success of a number of scenes, as is Merseyside actor Stephen Graham who is excellent in support as Tony "Pro" Provenzano.

Finally De Niro, as Frank Sheeran, plays a completely serviceable role, while never really being outstanding. It's, no doubt, his best turn in a long, long, time and it's nice to see him and Scorsese collaborate again.

The much talked about (and main reason for delays and budget increases) de-ageing effects from ILM do present a problem at first, but after a while you don't notice them, which is testament to the great work that ILM do. But it's also due to Scorsese's direction and a genuinely interesting story, which keeps the viewer engaged despite a very lengthy run time of three and a half hours. There are moments of "uncanny valley" here and there and as has been said elsewhere, De Niro's mid 70's frame can look "off", especially in scenes where he's supposed to be in his 40's.

Other criticism involves the period settings which, despite being well shot and produced, can result in a mild confusion as to what exact year events are taking place. Certain years are marked with well known occurrences, like the Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961, Kennedy's assassination in November 1963 (which the movie makes the claim of mob involvement), and Hoffa's "disappearance" in July 1975. But there's a vagueness involved, so that scenes from the 60's can feel like the 50's and scenes from the 70's can feel like 60's and so on. This is largely due to the film having to approximate the period setting as opposed to being filmed in it, of course. Scorsese's use of period music, too, feels a little underwhelming here and isn't as inspiring or capable of invocation as the tracks used in the likes of 'Goodfellas'.

Lastly, story wise, it may help if the viewer knows a little something about the times, Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters, as not doing so can perhaps lead to a "what's happening now?" situation. 'The Irishman' also jumps between its time periods, too, which could possibly compound such matters. But, like 'Goodfellas' and 'Casino', it's not really essential to do a crash course before you see the film.

All in all, though, these critical points don't distract too much from the film and if you're a fan of anyone of the majors involved here, or gangsters epics (whether helmed by Martin Scorsese or not), it's well worth seeing.

8.5/10

Carcharodon

Queen & Slim

Absolutely dreadful, one of the worst movies I’ve seen in a while.
Also one of the most frustrating movies I’ve seen as it had huge potential, the lead actress is excellent but wasted.
So many things in the movie were just cringingly bad
It’s like a poor mans Thelma and Louise, I wanted to leave but my girlfriend wouldn’t because there were a lot of black people there and she was afraid we would offend them, I told her I was offended by this movie.

4/10

CastorTroy

I thought it was better than the second part of the Tim Curry one, but that wasn't hard to beat.
I felt it went on too long and could've finished sooner than it did. A lot of padding

Dades

barrymanilow wrote: »

IT Chapter Two

I thought this was God awful.

Much as I hate to say it, I completely agree.

I really liked the first. I have no idea why this was so mundane. After watching it I struggled to put my finger on why it wasn't good, but couldn't. It just wasn't.

Still at a loss.

shrapnel222

matrole wrote: »

Hardest hitting film I've seen in a long time was the strangely titled "Dragged Across Concrete". Came to it completely cold, having absolutely no idea about it whatsoever which I find is really helpful in enjoying a film. Hype and preconceptions are not the film fan's friend.

In that case check out his first 2 films also. Bone tomahawk is a very hard hitting western and Brawl in cell block 99 is a pretty brutal prison movie. Both are great btw.

Fysh

I caught Blue Story tonight and thought it was very good - perhaps lacking a certain polish in some aspects of the direction, but a story told well with good performances, and the bridging sequences add to the sense of location - both through the rap narration and the use of real-world phone footage of gang fights and attacks. Sort of like a more authentic and perhaps nastier sibling to Kidulthood.

matrole

Hardest hitting film I've seen in a long time was the strangely titled "Dragged Across Concrete". Came to it completely cold, having absolutely no idea about it whatsoever which I find is really helpful in enjoying a film. Hype and preconceptions are not the film fan's friend.

chrislad

barrymanilow wrote: »

Once upon a time in Hollywood

I disliked the Hateful eight so much that I swore I'd never sit through another Tarantino. But in fairness this was a very entertaining film and it wasn't overcooked too much with his trademark over the top nerdy fanboy cinema stylishness. It's star packed but it all works well enough on screen that it doesn't need to be very plot driven.Worth a watch.

I didn't quite dislike the Hateful 8 as much as that, but I was not a big fan. I recently watched this on a plane (not ideal) but it was fairly decent. Not up their with his strongest work, it was a bit slow and plodding in places, but the characters were decent. The last 20 minutes were intense, and did somewhat make up for the slower sections. It's not one I'd watch again, but for very different reasons to Hateful 8.

Outlaw Pete

Seen Perfect Nanny at the French Film Festival in the IFI.

Eh, bit mad but worth watching all the same.

Also seen On a Magical Night right after it and hated that with a passion. Imaginative but dreadful.

Would have walked out only for the fact that in Screen 1 in the IFI now if you are on the far side you have to walk down to the front row to get out as there's no room behind the back row anymore.

Homelander

Climax on Netflix. Good film, very unsettling and trippy, watched it after seeking out films in the same vein as the excellent Midsommar. Climax is definitely a bit abstract but a captivating watch, acting is really good considering the entire cast apart from one or two are amateurs. It also has a conventionally conclusive ending, a lot of films of this type often don't and I was wondering whilst watching.

I would give it a 7/10.