What film did you watch last night?

Permabanned
Joined
25 Jan 2013
Posts
4,277
@DrToffnar to the credit of Hannibal, I think that Julianne Moore was a far better Clarice than Jodie Foster.


To an extent I agree. Whilst Foster is a little too soft in the SotLs I think it fits quite well. She's not quite got the chops for it in some scenes but she gets most of it spot on. Moore certainly suits Starling in Hannibal more then Foster would have.

Regardless I just think Hannibal commits the sin of being too boring. Looks lovely, but the pace is too flimsy. At least Red Dragon plods along well enough. Manhunter is the only one that gets close to being as good as SotLs in my opinion.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
17,854
Location
London
It's quite an odd movie. They do lots of 'one take' shots, following the characters through and around, giving it almost a documentary feel at times (I've just read this was a little what the director was after). It's like they did the long take of '1917', but not trapping themselves in the gimmick of 'the hole movie in one shot', so I feel it works really well, much better than 1917.
The cinematographer (Emmauel Lubezki) sort-of re-invented the "oner" technique. Or rather made it popular again. Children of Men I think is one of the first he did it, and he went on to do Birdman (like 1917 made to look like one single take) and The Revenant. The opening scene in The Revenant is stunning.

Alfonso Cuaron (his friend and colleague) used the technique a lot in Roma. EL was supposed to shoot Roma with him but couldn't.. I can't remember why.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Jun 2004
Posts
2,786
Ad Astra,

Utter Nonsense and totally crap

I think the script and the idea was written by a 3 year old...

Love sci-fi and slow burners aswell...But this was just laughable out loud cringe crap nonsense.

3/10

Echoes my thoughts exactly re: Ad Astra - complete nonsense, a waste of time and effort to watch!!
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
17,854
Location
London
@Scam Do you know if Lubezki had anything to do with the spectacular one shot sequence in season 1 of True Detective?
It was hard to find out, but that apparently was Adam Arkapaw. Cary Fukunaga was the director though, he's just done Bond 25/No Time to Die.

I must admit I've seen that shot, but never got past the 2nd episode of TD because my girlfriend complained she "couldn't understand them" :rolleyes: That's now on the pile of timeless aborted watches due to girlfriend issues, with Breaking Bad :(
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Sep 2007
Posts
15,660
Location
Limbo
It was hard to find out, but that apparently was Adam Arkapaw. Cary Fukunaga was the director though, he's just done Bond 25/No Time to Die.

I must admit I've seen that shot, but never got past the 2nd episode of TD because my girlfriend complained she "couldn't understand them" :rolleyes: That's now on the pile of timeless aborted watches due to girlfriend issues, with Breaking Bad :(

I hope Fukunaga can salvage Bond, I haven't been impressed with Mendes run at it.

Try and find the time to watch at least the first season of True Detective without the missus around, it's very very good.
 
Caporegime
Joined
22 Nov 2005
Posts
45,167
The Old Guard 6/10

So much wasted potential as usual with these types of films.

The cast was pretty decent although I found the marine annoying and Andy's look reminded me too much of trinity from the matrix.

Worth a watch if your struggling to find a decent film otherwise I'd give it a miss

It's almost like a 30minute plot turned in to a 2hour long movie and for people who supposedly lived so long they didn't seem that experienced.

modern setting is pretty meh as well, would have been more interesting to just follow the life of Andy.


for anyone whos read the graphic novel does it feature the past more?
 

JRS

JRS

Soldato
Joined
6 Jun 2004
Posts
19,497
Location
Burton-on-Trent
Rush - 9/10

Hadn't seen this in ages, but it popped up on TV the other week so I recorded it.

The bad

Historical inaccuracies abound. Some events are compressed, shifted around or glossed over entirely, including pretty important stuff like Hunt's first GP win for Hesketh ('75 Dutch GP).

The good

Quite literally everything else about the film. The cast are excellent, it's visually stunning and it gets enough of the history right to properly tell the story of what Grand Prix racing was like back then.
 
Caporegime
Joined
22 Nov 2005
Posts
45,167
Alien
10/10 (would have gave it probably a 9 if it wasn't such an old movie, I think it aged really well)

Aliens
8.5/10

Alien 3
6/10


I thought I had seen Alien as a child at about 7 years old or so but it must have been Aliens.

I kinda liked alien 3 but it got boring pretty fast although it did seem quite promising with a pretty strong cast imo.


I can only imagine if these films were made in the last 10 years all the actors would be at-least half the age which is one of the reasons I dislike a lot of modern films, too many young beautiful cast members make everything a lot less believable unless it's a movie similar to gattaca. (although I don't remember how beautiful the cast of that was or how young)
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
14 Sep 2007
Posts
15,660
Location
Limbo
Alien
10/10 (would have gave it probably a 9 if it wasn't such an old movie, I think it aged really well)

Aliens
8.5/10

My man :D

I have some long drawn out fun debates with mates on the merits of Alien over Aliens and always come back to Alien being my favourite. I've had the luck of watching both again in the cinema in the last two years which has cemented my love for Alien over Aliens even further.

Objectively...they're pretty even movies in quality, it ultimately comes down to preference. Aliens is a perfect sequel, it expands on the story and adds new ideas without recycling anything from Alien, the main character has progression, I could go on but it's been discussed over and over ;)

I think the real thing that shows the age in these movies is the computers, remove that element and it's suddenly not so apparent how old they are.
 
Caporegime
Joined
22 Nov 2005
Posts
45,167
I think the real thing that shows the age in these movies is the computers, remove that element and it's suddenly not so apparent how old they are.
with modern readouts and computers I don't think the atmosphere of the films would work anywhere near as well as they do.

I think we can count ourselves fortunate that the first 2 movies were made at the time they were rather than after the 90s/00s
 
Associate
Joined
4 Jan 2020
Posts
912
Rush - 9/10

Hadn't seen this in ages, but it popped up on TV the other week so I recorded it.

The bad

Historical inaccuracies abound. Some events are compressed, shifted around or glossed over entirely, including pretty important stuff like Hunt's first GP win for Hesketh ('75 Dutch GP).

The good

Quite literally everything else about the film. The cast are excellent, it's visually stunning and it gets enough of the history right to properly tell the story of what Grand Prix racing was like back then.

Watched this last night, fantastic movie and definitely is visually stunning. Also agree with your good and bad points.

Alien
10/10 (would have gave it probably a 9 if it wasn't such an old movie, I think it aged really well)

Aliens
8.5/10

Alien 3
6/10


I thought I had seen Alien as a child at about 7 years old or so but it must have been Aliens.

I kinda liked alien 3 but it got boring pretty fast although it did seem quite promising with a pretty strong cast imo.


I can only imagine if these films were made in the last 10 years all the actors would be at-least half the age which is one of the reasons I dislike a lot of modern films, too many young beautiful cast members make everything a lot less believable unless it's a movie similar to gattaca. (although I don't remember how beautiful the cast of that was or how young)

I agree, Alien holds a dear place in my heart. That music too!

 
Back
Top Bottom