What have you watched recently? 3D!

JOJO Rabbit


Imagine if Wes Anderson directed the boy in the striped pajamas
Moving and poignant , yet hilarious and wacky at the same time. Might be one of the best anti war films ever. Enjoyed it. Sam Rockwell , Alfie Allen and Scarlett Johansen star.



9/10

For a few dollars more

A while since I've watched one of the "Dollars" movies all the way through as they're always on late at night, but stuck with it this time and it's still a total classic.

Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef and assorted dubbed Italian actors along with Ennio Morricone's iconic soundtrack and Sergio Leone's operatic direction creating one of the greatest westerns of all time (though Leone's "The Good, the bad and the ugly" and "Once upon a time in the West" are better still).

When the chimes end, pick up your gun...

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Felt it dragging along somewhere in the middle slightly but a very enjoyable film with probably the most satisfying fight scene I've seen. Despite it dragging on I forgave it as all the suspense / buying into the characters and world of the film it paid off completely.


The jump cuts with the two actors on set discussing not getting picked for previous roles just completely took me out of the film for a minute. Not sure why but it just didn't work for me which was a shame. Felt a bit like when you hear an out of place wilhelm scream

Would still rate it very highly though

Watched portrait of a lady on fire which is the latest offering from Celine Sciamma (who made girlhood a few years back, which i loved). Stunning period drama, with for all intents and purposes only 4 characters. Shot beautifully on a tiny island in Brittany (i think), it's an incredibly slow burner,very austere yet incredibly warm, but keeps drawing you in and mesmerises with its gentle sensuality.

Absolutely beautiful 9/10 from me. Loved it!

Holy Motors - I started watching it soon after it came out - pretty sure it was after reading a review on here from johnny_ultimate. Always meant to go back to it because I was really enjoying it but never got around to it. Just looking now and that was probably 7 years ago or more!

Is it still on Netflix? I remember seeing it pop up there a while back.

Parasite

phenomenal!!!

Wild Rose – 8/10

Jessie Buckley plays a fresh out of jail Scottish mother who has ambitions to go to Nashville and become a country singer. The movie Co-stars Julie Walters as the Grandmother who has had to raise the kids in the absence of their mother.

I’ve never seen a relationship between mother and children done like this in a film. The children are side-lined for the first half of the film, you almost don’t even notice they exist. They come more into play as the film progresses and the titular ‘Wild Rose’ starts to face up to reality.

Jessie Buckley puts in an incredibly moving performance and shows just how phenomenally talented she is. Her singing is even more impressive than her note perfect Scottish accent. A film that portrays the working class struggles in a tasteful and humane manner whilst also having a strong message about the importance of family and how the grass isn’t always greener.

briany wrote: »

Right you are. Where did I get Harmony Korine from? I'll edit that.

Korine wrote 'Kids' and 'Ken Park' for Clark. So a mix up is forgivable.

'1917'

If you can overlook the stupidity of the central premise of Sam Mendes' '1917', there's a good bit to enjoy about it. But, it can be difficult to ignore the idea that any General, worth his salt, would send two men through seemingly abandoned enemy lines to pass on a message to another position, when there is air power that can be utilised instead that would have a much better chance of success and at a speedier rate too. But the hook which Mendes hangs his narrative coat on sees two British Army non-coms, Tom Blake (Dean Charles Chapman) and Will Schofield (George MacKay), being "volunteered" to bring an important communique to the 2nd Batt. Devonshire Reg. to hold off on an attack on German lines south of Arras, on the Western Front in April 1917. The Germans have "retreated" (presumably to the Hindenburg Line) and the British believe that they have "the hun on the run". However, aerial reconnaissance has shown that this is not the case and sixteen hundred men are possibly heading into a trap. The mission also has a special added importance for Lance Corporal Blake as his brother is in the regiment that's set to go "over the top".

The fanciful set up of '1917' is certainly not anything we haven't seen in war movies before. Reducing the story down to a few individuals on a mission is a staple of war movies, as there is always the danger of audience confusion of who's who when confronted by too many characters, and armies, whether at platoon, battalion, brigade or whatever level have so many characters.to keep track of. So 1917's "men on patrol behind enemy lines" is familiar territory, even if the war it's taking place in hasn't been the subject of too many movies. There were, of course, "runners" who were used to send messages back and forth between the forward and rear trenches during the First World War (a certain Adolf Hitler was one) and it was an extremely dangerous job. But their utilisation here is a complete flight of fancy. But, if one ignores the unrealistic set up, there is enough realism to be found elsewhere for those of a certain bend toward that direction.

Of course, no war movie has ever been a truly realistic depiction of man's most awful pursuit, but the little details that '1917' gets right are pretty admirable in that regard. The long scene at the beginning of teh film detailing Blake and Schofield's meandering trek through their own forward trench shows us a decent representation of what it was like on the British front line. Likewise, the uniforms the two wear are quite accurate, including the badge on Lance Corporal Blake's Brodie helmet and the leather jerkins that were a common sight on "Tommies" during the period.

In fact, from a technical perspective, '1917' does an admirable job indeed and seen on a big screen it's a fairly immersive experience, especially if you have a interest in the war. It's just the story that lets it down, while not completely sinking the whole picture and, perhaps, if it wasn't so well produced, it wouldn't be getting the high praise that it has received upon its release, not to mention the Oscar nods. Obviously, central to this praise has the set design by Dennis Gassner and Roger Deakins' excellent cinematography, which has rightly been lauded, even though I wasn't that impressed by the pseudo one shot gimmick he employed. Curiously though, it's up for a Best Writing award too.

It's directed well enough, without any kind of revelations in that respect and it's acted decently by the two leads. There are also a number of familiar faced cameos to spot as well, for people who want to play that game.

'1917' is a pretty good movie, while never being amazing, and it has some gruelling battlefield scenes that can be wince inducing in a commendable way. It also offers some views of the First World War that are rarely seen in movies about that conflict as the story strays from the trenches that we are all familiar with and associate with that particular conflict. So, while I wouldn't expect to be bowled over by any of it, it's two hours are a relatively entertaining way to pass the time even if it's all rather predictable.

7/10