I watched 'The Place Beyond The Pines'. It was a movie.
5 out of whatever.
I watched 'The Place Beyond The Pines'. It was a movie.
5 out of whatever.
Ryan Gosling didn't cut it for you, Rolo? ;)
Watched a couple of going on 50 year old flicks for the first time today, firstly Il Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo (better known as The Good, The Bad & The Ugly), and then Dr Strangelove or: HILTSWALTB. Both are absolutely masterpieces, it's amazing people were capable of making movies of that quality that long ago, and yet in this day and age half of the stuff that comes out in cinemas and makes truckloads of cash is such absolutely repetitive unoriginal CGI laced garbage. The only disappointment in viewing either of those films was that Metallica didn't come out on stage after The Ecstasy of Gold finished playing.
Rounding up ■■■■ said above, Now You See Me needs a second watching to see if there were clues earlier on that make the ending make sense (like the guy yelling out Freeze), but I really can't be arsed rewatching so it can't have been that good. The Prestige is a far superior film, but that's Nolan for you.
Elysium is very good but not even close to Film of the Year, and Silver Linings Playbook which was better was actually last year. Oblivion is also very good, really liked it.
And Affleck will be fine if he fucks up Batman, he just won an Oscar for Argo, and before that got quite a few various award nominations for The Town so his currency will be pretty good right now. Hopefully he can improve on Daredevil ;)
Watched a couple of going on 50 year old flicks for the first time today, firstly Il Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo (better known as The Good, The Bad & The Ugly), and then Dr Strangelove or: HILTSWALTB. Both are absolutely masterpieces, it's amazing people were capable of making movies of that quality that long ago, and yet in this day and age half of the stuff that comes out in cinemas and makes truckloads of cash is such absolutely repetitive unoriginal CGI laced garbage. The only disappointment in viewing either of those films was that Metallica didn't come out on stage after The Ecstasy of Gold finished playing.
Rounding up **** said above, Now You See Me needs a second watching to see if there were clues earlier on that make the ending make sense (like the guy yelling out Freeze), but I really can't be arsed rewatching so it can't have been that good. The Prestige is a far superior film, but that's Nolan for you.
Elysium is very good but not even close to Film of the Year, and Silver Linings Playbook which was better was actually last year. Oblivion is also very good, really liked it.
And Affleck will be fine if he farks up Batman, he just won an Oscar for Argo, and before that got quite a few various award nominations for The Town so his currency will be pretty good right now. Hopefully he can improve on Daredevil ;)
Do you really think it's amazing that people were making high-quality films fifty years ago? I'm not having a go at you, but I was amazed when I read that. What made those two films great was the quality of the thought behind them, the imagination of the makers, the originality of the ideas. All that's changed in 50 years of moviemaking is the technology, and that's been as much a curse as a blessing. Mostly what the technological advances have meant is that originality of thought and intelligence of writing have been largely pushed to one side by films that feature spectacular special effects as their central, and often only, attraction.
The technological changes aren't bad in themselves, and in fact the way films can now be preserved is a huge advance because a vast number of excellent old films are now unwatchable because the film stock has deteriorated so badly. There's also nothing wrong with special effects when they're needed. The problem is that the mass audience seems to eat up as many explosion-filled blockbusters and comic-book knockoffs as Hollywood cares to produce, so films like Dr Strangelove, a science-fiction film with virtually no special effects at all, find it hard to get made.
Watched a couple of going on 50 year old flicks for the first time today, firstly Il Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo (better known as The Good, The Bad & The Ugly), and then Dr Strangelove or: HILTSWALTB. Both are absolutely masterpieces, it's amazing people were capable of making movies of that quality that long ago, and yet in this day and age half of the stuff that comes out in cinemas and makes truckloads of cash is such absolutely repetitive unoriginal CGI laced garbage. The only disappointment in viewing either of those films was that Metallica didn't come out on stage after The Ecstasy of Gold finished playing.
Rounding up **** said above, Now You See Me needs a second watching to see if there were clues earlier on that make the ending make sense (like the guy yelling out Freeze), but I really can't be arsed rewatching so it can't have been that good. The Prestige is a far superior film, but that's Nolan for you.
Elysium is very good but not even close to Film of the Year, and Silver Linings Playbook which was better was actually last year. Oblivion is also very good, really liked it.
And Affleck will be fine if he farks up Batman, he just won an Oscar for Argo, and before that got quite a few various award nominations for The Town so his currency will be pretty good right now. Hopefully he can improve on Daredevil ;)
Do you really think it's amazing that people were making high-quality films fifty years ago? I'm not having a go at you, but I was amazed when I read that. What made those two films great was the quality of the thought behind them, the imagination of the makers, the originality of the ideas. All that's changed in 50 years of moviemaking is the technology, and that's been as much a curse as a blessing. Mostly what the technological advances have meant is that originality of thought and intelligence of writing have been largely pushed to one side by films that feature spectacular special effects as their central, and often only, attraction.
The technological changes aren't bad in themselves, and in fact the way films can now be preserved is a huge advance because a vast number of excellent old films are now unwatchable because the film stock has deteriorated so badly. There's also nothing wrong with special effects when they're needed. The problem is that the mass audience seems to eat up as many explosion-filled blockbusters and comic-book knockoffs as Hollywood cares to produce, so films like Dr Strangelove, a science-fiction film with virtually no special effects at all, find it hard to get made.
2001 is a magnificent film, and its special effects still stand up today. Kubrick was a genius
Watched a couple of going on 50 year old flicks for the first time today, firstly Il Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo (better known as The Good, The Bad & The Ugly), and then Dr Strangelove or: HILTSWALTB. Both are absolutely masterpieces, it's amazing people were capable of making movies of that quality that long ago, and yet in this day and age half of the stuff that comes out in cinemas and makes truckloads of cash is such absolutely repetitive unoriginal CGI laced garbage. The only disappointment in viewing either of those films was that Metallica didn't come out on stage after The Ecstasy of Gold finished playing.
Rounding up **** said above, Now You See Me needs a second watching to see if there were clues earlier on that make the ending make sense (like the guy yelling out Freeze), but I really can't be arsed rewatching so it can't have been that good. The Prestige is a far superior film, but that's Nolan for you.
Elysium is very good but not even close to Film of the Year, and Silver Linings Playbook which was better was actually last year. Oblivion is also very good, really liked it.
And Affleck will be fine if he farks up Batman, he just won an Oscar for Argo, and before that got quite a few various award nominations for The Town so his currency will be pretty good right now. Hopefully he can improve on Daredevil ;)
Do you really think it's amazing that people were making high-quality films fifty years ago? I'm not having a go at you, but I was amazed when I read that. What made those two films great was the quality of the thought behind them, the imagination of the makers, the originality of the ideas. All that's changed in 50 years of moviemaking is the technology, and that's been as much a curse as a blessing. Mostly what the technological advances have meant is that originality of thought and intelligence of writing have been largely pushed to one side by films that feature spectacular special effects as their central, and often only, attraction.
The technological changes aren't bad in themselves, and in fact the way films can now be preserved is a huge advance because a vast number of excellent old films are now unwatchable because the film stock has deteriorated so badly. There's also nothing wrong with special effects when they're needed. The problem is that the mass audience seems to eat up as many explosion-filled blockbusters and comic-book knockoffs as Hollywood cares to produce, so films like Dr Strangelove, a science-fiction film with virtually no special effects at all, find it hard to get made.
I said it's amazing that 50 years ago we were capable of making incredible movies like those two I mentioned, yet in this day and age most of the stuff that comes out and makes money is absolute garbage. ■■■■ knows how things have regressed so badly, both on the production side of things and the audience side of things. Yesterday I watched a couple of modern movies, Detachment (with Adrian Brody & Marcia Gay Harden) and Margaret (with Anna Paquin, Matt Damon & Mark Ruffalo). Both had some great acting in them but were absolute train wrecks, and an incredible ordeal to get to the end of, despite going for half the time of TG, TB & TU. It seems a lot of the art of making a great movie is lost these days, though there are occassional notable exceptions that probably make ■■■■ all at the box office.
Don't forget that there wasn't as much chance 50 years ago to be repetitive or derivative.
An example is Citizen Kane...you watch it today and it's a bit ho-hum but there were quite a few filming devices that were used for the very first time...and it introduced a new group of actors, from a playgroup in Chicago...Joseph Cotten and Agnes Moorehead amongst them.
I get bored with a lot of new films, because there's no depth to them at all. Sometimes you just have to go into independent or foreign films just to get any interpersonal depth at all.
Don't forget that there wasn't as much chance 50 years ago to be repetitive or derivative.
An example is Citizen Kane...you watch it today and it's a bit ho-hum but there were quite a few filming devices that were used for the very first time...and it introduced a new group of actors, from a playgroup in Chicago...Joseph Cotten and Agnes Moorehead amongst them.
I get bored with a lot of new films, because there's no depth to them at all. Sometimes you just have to go into independent or foreign films just to get any interpersonal depth at all.
Wasn't Citizen Kane the first movie to put the camera at the actors feet, so as to make him look tall?
There is good and bad points about movies now.Special effects are way better, but then films rely on them to make the movie. Instead of crafting proper characters that make you care about them.
Too many reboots and remakes now.
When one particular genre comes out and makes a lot of money, everyone copies it- vampires, zombies, hand held footage films.
3D in a way has made Hollywood more $ driven. A lot of the blockbusters now are converted to 3D, but they look terrible- it's just used to bump up the revenue.
Watched a couple of going on 50 year old flicks for the first time today, firstly Il Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo (better known as The Good, The Bad & The Ugly), and then Dr Strangelove or: HILTSWALTB. Both are absolutely masterpieces, it's amazing people were capable of making movies of that quality that long ago, and yet in this day and age half of the stuff that comes out in cinemas and makes truckloads of cash is such absolutely repetitive unoriginal CGI laced garbage. The only disappointment in viewing either of those films was that Metallica didn't come out on stage after The Ecstasy of Gold finished playing.
Rounding up **** said above, Now You See Me needs a second watching to see if there were clues earlier on that make the ending make sense (like the guy yelling out Freeze), but I really can't be arsed rewatching so it can't have been that good. The Prestige is a far superior film, but that's Nolan for you.
Elysium is very good but not even close to Film of the Year, and Silver Linings Playbook which was better was actually last year. Oblivion is also very good, really liked it.
And Affleck will be fine if he farks up Batman, he just won an Oscar for Argo, and before that got quite a few various award nominations for The Town so his currency will be pretty good right now. Hopefully he can improve on Daredevil ;)
Do you really think it's amazing that people were making high-quality films fifty years ago? I'm not having a go at you, but I was amazed when I read that. What made those two films great was the quality of the thought behind them, the imagination of the makers, the originality of the ideas. All that's changed in 50 years of moviemaking is the technology, and that's been as much a curse as a blessing. Mostly what the technological advances have meant is that originality of thought and intelligence of writing have been largely pushed to one side by films that feature spectacular special effects as their central, and often only, attraction.
The technological changes aren't bad in themselves, and in fact the way films can now be preserved is a huge advance because a vast number of excellent old films are now unwatchable because the film stock has deteriorated so badly. There's also nothing wrong with special effects when they're needed. The problem is that the mass audience seems to eat up as many explosion-filled blockbusters and comic-book knockoffs as Hollywood cares to produce, so films like Dr Strangelove, a science-fiction film with virtually no special effects at all, find it hard to get made.
I said it's amazing that 50 years ago we were capable of making incredible movies like those two I mentioned, yet in this day and age most of the stuff that comes out and makes money is absolute garbage. fark knows how things have regressed so badly, both on the production side of things and the audience side of things. Yesterday I watched a couple of modern movies, Detachment (with Adrian Brody & Marcia *** Harden) and Margaret (with Anna Paquin, Matt Damon & Mark Ruffalo). Both had some great acting in them but were absolute train wrecks, and an incredible ordeal to get to the end of, despite going for half the time of TG, TB & TU. It seems a lot of the art of making a great movie is lost these days, though there are occassional notable exceptions that probably make fark all at the box office.
Fair enough, I misunderstood you.
There are still good movies being made today, it's just that there aren't very many of them.
Nothing's really changed there, though. The proportion of good movies to bad movies has never been high. If you could go back to 1960 or whenever it was that Dr Strangelove was made and could find a list of all the movies made in Hollywood that year, 90% would have quite properly disappeared without trace and another 7 or 8% would be just OK. Only a very few would be worth watching now.
If anyone wants to watch some stuff that doesn't feature computer generated aliens and monsters being destroyed by rockets and lasers whilst entire cities are destroyed around them, I'd recommend checking out these few flicks: People Like Us, Safety Not Guaranteed, Robot & Frank and Perks of being a Wallflower. No massive budgets here, just good movies well acted & directed, and they're four of my favourite movies I've seen this year. I guess not all of the CGI/Aliens/Superheroes/Monsters/Zombies flicks are terrible, I must admit to enjoying Elysium, Oblivion, World War Z & Star Trek Into Darkness thoroughly, but boy are you a fantastic chance (about 80% I reckon) of seeing absolute garbage if you head to a cinema to see a movie from those blockbuster genres these days.
I'm looking at viewing Primer and then the new film by that director.
Someone want to tell me whether or not I should bother?
Perks of being a wallflower was great 9/10
Perks of being a wallflower was great 9/10
The Way Way Back is in the similar vein. Worth a look as well
I have recently watched Mantera (that's MAN Transformable Exo Robotic Armour to you) and The Purge (Lena Headey, Ethan Hawke, some chick who was on Neighbours a while ago plus some violence). Both passed the time.
More like, Mehlysium.
Saw RED 2 tonight. Never takes itself slightly seriously and has a heap of chases and gratuitous killings.
Bruce Willis, Mary Louise Parker, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Byung Lee(?), Neal McDonough, Anthony Hopkins, Catherine Zeta-Jones star.
Neal McDonough is always a solid contributor. Doesn't get enough credit for his work.
I just gave Bad Milo a look.
As far as monsters-from-with-a-human-bowel movies go it was okay. Could have been funnier.
I watched Olympus Has Fallen last night.
Never pretended to be anything other than a dumb action flick. Lots of violence and swearing, but very distinct lack of boobs and Steven Seagal. 8/10
I made the questionable choice of watching I Spit On Your Grave 2 last night. Nasty, pointless little film. Although there was a vaguely amusing testicles-in-a-vice scene towards the end.