I have just seen Little Miss Sunshine and have to concurr with Sam - it is brilliant the pay off is the best i have seen in ages. i left the cinema in tears.
no car chases and nothing blows up but still worth the entrance fee.
Also can i say to thoose who "borrow" things from friends (via the net) look out for Camp Out - it is a documentary about a gay bible camp - stick with me here - and the kids who go there. i expected it just to be interesting but it was really truely funny and we all alugh lots - so worth tring to find 9maybe not at a cinema near you but still!)
Full Version: Films
THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED
The plot: Maverick film-maker Kirby Dick goes on a mission to uncover the people on the board of the MPAA (the American equivalent of the BBFC - Film Classification). All the members are secret to protect their privacy and are all meant to be 'average American parents'. He hires a private detective to track down these people and unmask them. Along the way he interviews all sorts of directors (incl Kevin Smith, John Waters) to talk about the classification system and why it is a lot stranger in the U.S. Basically an 'NC-17' is the kiss of death to a film, whereas over here 18 certificates are sometimes valued highly by horror films to prove they are as scary as they make out (the Wicker Man remake being the best example).
The verdict: This is a good documentary, very much in the mould of Supersize Me and to some extent Michael Moore's films, the intrigue being more in the discussion of what should and shouldn't be allowed in films and at what age we are adjudged to be old enough to view scenes of sex, drugs or violence. It appears that the raters let violence through a lot easier than sex. Needless to say in a documentary of this sort (like Moore's films) they are incredibly biased and only show one opinion.
Good, if only for the questions it provokes when you leave the cinema, rather than the actual content (the private eye thing is a bit weird and a bit of a red herring).
Wait for the DVD
6.5/10
The plot: Maverick film-maker Kirby Dick goes on a mission to uncover the people on the board of the MPAA (the American equivalent of the BBFC - Film Classification). All the members are secret to protect their privacy and are all meant to be 'average American parents'. He hires a private detective to track down these people and unmask them. Along the way he interviews all sorts of directors (incl Kevin Smith, John Waters) to talk about the classification system and why it is a lot stranger in the U.S. Basically an 'NC-17' is the kiss of death to a film, whereas over here 18 certificates are sometimes valued highly by horror films to prove they are as scary as they make out (the Wicker Man remake being the best example).
The verdict: This is a good documentary, very much in the mould of Supersize Me and to some extent Michael Moore's films, the intrigue being more in the discussion of what should and shouldn't be allowed in films and at what age we are adjudged to be old enough to view scenes of sex, drugs or violence. It appears that the raters let violence through a lot easier than sex. Needless to say in a documentary of this sort (like Moore's films) they are incredibly biased and only show one opinion.
Good, if only for the questions it provokes when you leave the cinema, rather than the actual content (the private eye thing is a bit weird and a bit of a red herring).
Wait for the DVD
6.5/10
The Black Dahlia
Is based on the book by James 'LA Confidential' Ellroy which is a fictionalised account of the real-life murder of Elizabeth Short in the late 1940s. Two ex-boxer cops (Aaron Eckhart and Josh Hartnett) investigate the gruesome murder of Elizabeth (or 'The Black Dahlia' as the press start to call her). The case draws them into the seedy side of Hollywood (i.e. porn). There are also numerous sub-plot strands which are drawn into the main story, one of which involves Scarlett Johannson who pays Eckharts girlfriend and former gangster's moll.
The film looks great; it's obvious that great care has been taken over creating an authentic 1940s feel. In a way, that's part of the problem with the film. I spent much of the time thinking about the way things looked and the way people looked, whereas in LA Confidential the authenticity didn't dominate but simply made the film more believable. I agree with Kermode that the film is more style than substance. It also started off a bit slowly.
Another problem I had was with some of the performances. Aaron Eckhart was unconvincing. And, much as it pains me - a self-confessed Scarlett Johansson fanboy - to say, I didn't think she was that great in this. She wasn't given a massive amount to work with to be fair, but I would have expected more all the same. She still looked yummy though, and her voice is still as sordid as ever. Hilary Swank was okay as a high society girl who enjoyed slumming it with the plebs. That left it to Josh Hartnett to carry the film, which much to my surprise he managed to do fairly well. Keep up the good work fella. The stand out performance was probably from Mia Kershner as the dead girl. All we saw of her was from reels of her auditions for films and her performances in exploitative lesbian porn. Despite this, she managed to portray her convincingly as a screwed up, tragic figure and elicited sympathy from the audience.
So, in summary: stylish but lacking in substance, uneven performances (but some good ones nevertheless) and a welcome, peachy appearance by half of Hilary Swank's bum. It'll keep you entertained, but just don't expect another LA Confidential.
6.5/10
Is based on the book by James 'LA Confidential' Ellroy which is a fictionalised account of the real-life murder of Elizabeth Short in the late 1940s. Two ex-boxer cops (Aaron Eckhart and Josh Hartnett) investigate the gruesome murder of Elizabeth (or 'The Black Dahlia' as the press start to call her). The case draws them into the seedy side of Hollywood (i.e. porn). There are also numerous sub-plot strands which are drawn into the main story, one of which involves Scarlett Johannson who pays Eckharts girlfriend and former gangster's moll.
The film looks great; it's obvious that great care has been taken over creating an authentic 1940s feel. In a way, that's part of the problem with the film. I spent much of the time thinking about the way things looked and the way people looked, whereas in LA Confidential the authenticity didn't dominate but simply made the film more believable. I agree with Kermode that the film is more style than substance. It also started off a bit slowly.
Another problem I had was with some of the performances. Aaron Eckhart was unconvincing. And, much as it pains me - a self-confessed Scarlett Johansson fanboy - to say, I didn't think she was that great in this. She wasn't given a massive amount to work with to be fair, but I would have expected more all the same. She still looked yummy though, and her voice is still as sordid as ever. Hilary Swank was okay as a high society girl who enjoyed slumming it with the plebs. That left it to Josh Hartnett to carry the film, which much to my surprise he managed to do fairly well. Keep up the good work fella. The stand out performance was probably from Mia Kershner as the dead girl. All we saw of her was from reels of her auditions for films and her performances in exploitative lesbian porn. Despite this, she managed to portray her convincingly as a screwed up, tragic figure and elicited sympathy from the audience.
So, in summary: stylish but lacking in substance, uneven performances (but some good ones nevertheless) and a welcome, peachy appearance by half of Hilary Swank's bum. It'll keep you entertained, but just don't expect another LA Confidential.
6.5/10
36 Quai des Orfèvres
I hadn't wathched a French film in a while so...
'36' features Daniel Auteuil and Gérard Depardieu (France's answer to Pacino and De Niro) as two long serving policemen both of whom have a shot at becoming Chief of Police. Depardieu character is power hungry and will do anything to get the top job. Auteuil's character also has little regard for doing things by the book, but is motivated by catching criminals rather than by power. As a result, Auteuil's character is well respected within the force while Depardieu is almost universally despised.
The first half of the film is concerned with the search for a gang of armed robbers who have committed a string of hits on armoured security vehicles, leaving bodies of security personnel in their wake. It is made clear that whoever apprehends the gang will gain the top job. The second half of the film is concerned with what happens after the gang has been apprehended and the consequences of how the arrest was made. I won't say any more because I don't want give anything away.
The acting in this is top notch - Auteuil particularly (but then, he's always quality). My mention of Pacino and De Niro above is doubly relevant because the film owes a lot to Michael Mann's 'Heat' which starred those two. The style is very similar (as is the set up). Not that that detracts from the film at all; there's no shame in being influenced by a film as amazing as 'Heat'.
In short, '36' is highly recommended.
8.3/10
(p.s. Auteuil's wife is played by Valeria 'kiss me Topper; kiss me like you've never kissed me before' Golino of Hot Shots and Hot Shots Part Deux fame).
I hadn't wathched a French film in a while so...
'36' features Daniel Auteuil and Gérard Depardieu (France's answer to Pacino and De Niro) as two long serving policemen both of whom have a shot at becoming Chief of Police. Depardieu character is power hungry and will do anything to get the top job. Auteuil's character also has little regard for doing things by the book, but is motivated by catching criminals rather than by power. As a result, Auteuil's character is well respected within the force while Depardieu is almost universally despised.
The first half of the film is concerned with the search for a gang of armed robbers who have committed a string of hits on armoured security vehicles, leaving bodies of security personnel in their wake. It is made clear that whoever apprehends the gang will gain the top job. The second half of the film is concerned with what happens after the gang has been apprehended and the consequences of how the arrest was made. I won't say any more because I don't want give anything away.
The acting in this is top notch - Auteuil particularly (but then, he's always quality). My mention of Pacino and De Niro above is doubly relevant because the film owes a lot to Michael Mann's 'Heat' which starred those two. The style is very similar (as is the set up). Not that that detracts from the film at all; there's no shame in being influenced by a film as amazing as 'Heat'.
In short, '36' is highly recommended.
8.3/10
(p.s. Auteuil's wife is played by Valeria 'kiss me Topper; kiss me like you've never kissed me before' Golino of Hot Shots and Hot Shots Part Deux fame).
GOAL!
Got this on DVD the other day.
Goal! Is about a young mexican illegal immigrant living in California. 'Santiago' is trapped in the day to day grind of his fathers business. When he isn't working he goes to the park to play 'soccer' for this local team and is clearly the exceptional talent of the team.
He is soon spotted by an English Talent spotter (retired) played by that guy who does the yellow pages adverts who arranges a promise from the german manager of Newcastle United to give the kid a trial.
The film covers the expect problems of raising money to travel and a non-understanding father who thinks that soccer is a dead end pipe dream and hard work is the only way.
The rest of the film is fairly predictable.
The hype of this film is obviously the fact that it contains speaking parts for the superstars Shearer, Beckham, Zidaine, Raul and some other Madrid player. You do get a few seconds of 'wow' factor but it certainly isn't worth seeing just to see them.
The film is a decent throwaway evening movie, reasonably well acted - the manager - hard but fatherly - was my favourite character.
2.5/5
Got this on DVD the other day.
Goal! Is about a young mexican illegal immigrant living in California. 'Santiago' is trapped in the day to day grind of his fathers business. When he isn't working he goes to the park to play 'soccer' for this local team and is clearly the exceptional talent of the team.
He is soon spotted by an English Talent spotter (retired) played by that guy who does the yellow pages adverts who arranges a promise from the german manager of Newcastle United to give the kid a trial.
The film covers the expect problems of raising money to travel and a non-understanding father who thinks that soccer is a dead end pipe dream and hard work is the only way.
The rest of the film is fairly predictable.
The hype of this film is obviously the fact that it contains speaking parts for the superstars Shearer, Beckham, Zidaine, Raul and some other Madrid player. You do get a few seconds of 'wow' factor but it certainly isn't worth seeing just to see them.
The film is a decent throwaway evening movie, reasonably well acted - the manager - hard but fatherly - was my favourite character.
2.5/5
Clerks II
Ten years after the 'I'm not even supposed to be here today' day-in-the-life of Dante and Randal, Kevin Smith returns to see just how far the characters have moved (a bit like Before Sunset). The answer being: Not much. Dante would stil be in the Quck Stop if it hadn't burnt down in the first reel. As it is he and Randal are working for the local Mooby's Fast Food Joint, it's Dante's last day before he flits off to Florida with his fiance to 'start a new life', and it naturally turns out to be eventful; involving revelations, donky-loving and (of course) debates about LoTR vs Star Wars.
Frankly if you're a View Askiewniverse fan you don't need me to tell you to go see this (and if you're not etc.). I can tell you where in the table of Jay & SB-featuring films it comes however; and that is high. It's really very good. Funny, amusing and touching without being mawkish (it's close, but the dick jokes tug it back from the brink) this is essentially Clerks by a more assured, older director who's done the crazy overblown stuff and is ready to return to what he knows best; people talking about stuff while Jay dances round outside. All the acting is great (Raosario Dawson is a welcome addition to the cast) and although the cameos aren't really necessary, it's quite nice to see Jason Lee turn up with his Earl-tache and Ben Affleck doesn't hang around long enough to annoy.
So Clerks II; not as edgy as the first but at least it's in colour. And it's funny. I've still got a big grin off it.
4.5/5
Ten years after the 'I'm not even supposed to be here today' day-in-the-life of Dante and Randal, Kevin Smith returns to see just how far the characters have moved (a bit like Before Sunset). The answer being: Not much. Dante would stil be in the Quck Stop if it hadn't burnt down in the first reel. As it is he and Randal are working for the local Mooby's Fast Food Joint, it's Dante's last day before he flits off to Florida with his fiance to 'start a new life', and it naturally turns out to be eventful; involving revelations, donky-loving and (of course) debates about LoTR vs Star Wars.
Frankly if you're a View Askiewniverse fan you don't need me to tell you to go see this (and if you're not etc.). I can tell you where in the table of Jay & SB-featuring films it comes however; and that is high. It's really very good. Funny, amusing and touching without being mawkish (it's close, but the dick jokes tug it back from the brink) this is essentially Clerks by a more assured, older director who's done the crazy overblown stuff and is ready to return to what he knows best; people talking about stuff while Jay dances round outside. All the acting is great (Raosario Dawson is a welcome addition to the cast) and although the cameos aren't really necessary, it's quite nice to see Jason Lee turn up with his Earl-tache and Ben Affleck doesn't hang around long enough to annoy.
So Clerks II; not as edgy as the first but at least it's in colour. And it's funny. I've still got a big grin off it.
4.5/5
An Inconvenient Truth
Yes you've seen the trailers and you've flipped channels when they covered it on MTV but think again. This movie will have you crawling up the walls in fear of what we can expect to happen to the planet in the near future.
Set against the backdrop of Al Gore's life (and that too in rather heartwarming shades) this movie is based on a slide show Al Gore has been doing free-of-charge all over the world. Its based on how global warming works. Aside from the fact that it's a long film and that a much ridiculed US politician presents it, this film will actually have you glued to your seat. Its brilliant because what he does is simply present you with cold, hard and rather compelling facts (with wicked wicked pictures too). The pictures, stills and data take you around the world and traverses everything you ever wanted to know about why Katrina or the Tsunami happened. It answers every possible question on global warming, the facts, the doubts and the spin.
I would implore all of you to watch this film. It's scary stuff and been done so well that I'm on a personal mission to get everyone I know to watch it. I'm also taking whatever little action I can to get people to change their way of thinking on the environment. That's the only problem with the film - it makes a bit of a looney out of the viewer because it does get you to want to change the world even if at gunpoint. Well ok, maybe just me then.
If you've ever wondered about global warming or how pollution's affecting us, you can't miss this film. Even if you're going out on a limb to watch it, give it a go. If you want to do something about it too go here
Peace
4/5
Yes you've seen the trailers and you've flipped channels when they covered it on MTV but think again. This movie will have you crawling up the walls in fear of what we can expect to happen to the planet in the near future.
Set against the backdrop of Al Gore's life (and that too in rather heartwarming shades) this movie is based on a slide show Al Gore has been doing free-of-charge all over the world. Its based on how global warming works. Aside from the fact that it's a long film and that a much ridiculed US politician presents it, this film will actually have you glued to your seat. Its brilliant because what he does is simply present you with cold, hard and rather compelling facts (with wicked wicked pictures too). The pictures, stills and data take you around the world and traverses everything you ever wanted to know about why Katrina or the Tsunami happened. It answers every possible question on global warming, the facts, the doubts and the spin.
I would implore all of you to watch this film. It's scary stuff and been done so well that I'm on a personal mission to get everyone I know to watch it. I'm also taking whatever little action I can to get people to change their way of thinking on the environment. That's the only problem with the film - it makes a bit of a looney out of the viewer because it does get you to want to change the world even if at gunpoint. Well ok, maybe just me then.
If you've ever wondered about global warming or how pollution's affecting us, you can't miss this film. Even if you're going out on a limb to watch it, give it a go. If you want to do something about it too go here
Peace
4/5
fucking tree huggers...
;o)
;o)
When I saw you had responded to my entry I knew the words fuck, tree and hug would be in there somewhere - hahahaha.
Govi
Govi
QUOTE
I knew the words fuck, tree and hug would be in there somewhere - hahahaha.
Bet you were also expecting a big "x" too.
Will defo see the film though - at some point. Not exactly the film that needs to be seen at a cinema is it?
Children Of Men
It's 2027 and all women are infertile. The youngest person on the planet is 18 years old. All the civilised societies in the world have crumbled except for Britain which is hanging on to some semblance of normality through the use of strict and brutal border control. Illegal immigrants are herded into concentration camps for deportation.
A former political activist, Clive Owen, is contacted (by means of kidnapping) by his estranged wife, Julianne Moore. She is still politically active as the leader of a protest group called the Fishes. The Fishes have with them a girl named Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) who is pregnant. Moore wants Owen's help getting Kee to 'The Human Project', an organisation which may or may not be real, but which is believed to have a sanctuary containing scientists who may be able to keep the baby safe from harm.
Various twists and turns happen along the way with the result that Owen and the girl go on the run.
Directed by Alfonso Cuaron and based on a story by PD James, the film has one of the most immersive and, bizarrely, convincing visions of the future I have ever seen. Cuaron has a real eye for Britishness as he proved when directing Prisoner of Azkaban. 2027 London is instantly recognisable (save for an irritating Tate Modern/Battersea Power Station mix up), but this only serves to make the near war-like atmosphere even more shocking.
Despite the brutality of things, there is a dark seam of humour running through the movie which helped both to engage the audience with the characters and to further highlight the atrocities being committed. There are also moments of surrealism like a barn filled with giant gentically modified cows and a deer trotting through an abandoned school.
Clive Owen is quality and the scenes between him and Moore have a playfulness which I found convincing. (Clive Owen would have been the perfect Bond, but I'm glad it isn't him because in a way it would have been a waste). Claire-Hope Ashitey (who I confess I'd not heard of before this) is a revelation as Kee and there are very strong supporting turns from Michael Caine and Chiwetel Ejiofor and actually everyone else in the film.
All in all, it's been a while since I've seen a film this good.
See it. I insist.
It's 2027 and all women are infertile. The youngest person on the planet is 18 years old. All the civilised societies in the world have crumbled except for Britain which is hanging on to some semblance of normality through the use of strict and brutal border control. Illegal immigrants are herded into concentration camps for deportation.
A former political activist, Clive Owen, is contacted (by means of kidnapping) by his estranged wife, Julianne Moore. She is still politically active as the leader of a protest group called the Fishes. The Fishes have with them a girl named Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) who is pregnant. Moore wants Owen's help getting Kee to 'The Human Project', an organisation which may or may not be real, but which is believed to have a sanctuary containing scientists who may be able to keep the baby safe from harm.
Various twists and turns happen along the way with the result that Owen and the girl go on the run.
Directed by Alfonso Cuaron and based on a story by PD James, the film has one of the most immersive and, bizarrely, convincing visions of the future I have ever seen. Cuaron has a real eye for Britishness as he proved when directing Prisoner of Azkaban. 2027 London is instantly recognisable (save for an irritating Tate Modern/Battersea Power Station mix up), but this only serves to make the near war-like atmosphere even more shocking.
Despite the brutality of things, there is a dark seam of humour running through the movie which helped both to engage the audience with the characters and to further highlight the atrocities being committed. There are also moments of surrealism like a barn filled with giant gentically modified cows and a deer trotting through an abandoned school.
Clive Owen is quality and the scenes between him and Moore have a playfulness which I found convincing. (Clive Owen would have been the perfect Bond, but I'm glad it isn't him because in a way it would have been a waste). Claire-Hope Ashitey (who I confess I'd not heard of before this) is a revelation as Kee and there are very strong supporting turns from Michael Caine and Chiwetel Ejiofor and actually everyone else in the film.
All in all, it's been a while since I've seen a film this good.
See it. I insist.
Anyone who's read it might be interested, this is quite a gamble, seeing as only 2 of the 3 books have been written yet.
Eragon Trailer
Eragon Trailer
I know; it could so easily be Dungeons & Dragons all over again. The trailer didn't quite convince me it was a good idea...however, the book was good enough; they might not screw it up. (Note the lack of held breath.)
QUOTE
it could so easily be Dungeons & Dragons all over again.
What an horrific thought. Before I watched Dungeons and Dragons I had no idea that a film could be quite so awful. Jeremy Irons gives quite possibly the worst performance in any film ever in the history of mankind, but it's not that noticeable because of all the other people also struggling so horribly. Let's all pray to Richard Dawkins that it won't be Dungeons and Dragons all over again.
BTW, I haven't read the Eragon books - I take it that they are recommended?
QUOTE
Jeremy Irons gives quite possibly the worst performance in any film ever in the history of mankind
Well they've given him the chance to worser it (so to speak...like giving him the chance to better it, but worser) as he has a prominent role in Eragon as well (he's the mentor).
The books are certainly entertaining - swords, magic, dragons, quite the most stupid but noble hero ever written (he really is very dense). They owe much to Magician and its ilk but they have a timbre of its own. Worth a look then, even if it's to see how well a 15-19 year old can write.
QUOTE
BTW, I haven't read the Eragon books - I take it that they are recommended?
ehh, they're okay. The prose is quite...purple. But certainly entertaining.
Purple?
Ah: "11. full of exaggerated literary devices and effects; marked by excessively ornate rhetoric: a purple passage in a novel. "
The interweb is great at covering my inadiquicies. Inadaquaces, inadacw...um inadequacies...phew!
Ah: "11. full of exaggerated literary devices and effects; marked by excessively ornate rhetoric: a purple passage in a novel. "
The interweb is great at covering my inadiquicies. Inadaquaces, inadacw...um inadequacies...phew!
Little Miss Sunshine.
Pretty good I thought. The ending is very funny.
Pretty good I thought. The ending is very funny.
children of men
I must say, im a little disappointed.
I thought the war scenes were amazing. and shockingly realistic.
I just came out of the cinema thinking very little about the preceding 109mins...
to some it up....
meh?
I must say, im a little disappointed.
I thought the war scenes were amazing. and shockingly realistic.
I just came out of the cinema thinking very little about the preceding 109mins...
to some it up....
meh?
The Devil Wears Prada
Anne Hathaway gets a job working for the ultra-demanding editor of a top fashion mag despite knowing nothing about fashion. There follows all the usual stuff: she becomes as shallow as the people she used to mock, the job takes over etc. It's all fairly predictable, but it's also quite amusing. Not laugh-out-loud funny, but there are some good moments.
Anne Hathaway looks great (eyebrows and all) and strengthens her hold on the title of 'the next Julia Roberts'. Meryl Streep is good as the boss-lady, as is Emily Blunt as her assistant.
Just don't expect a satire - this film is nice
p.s. the guy who plays Hathaway's boyfriend is also in the TV series Entourage and all the women in my office think he's the mutt's nuts. I think he looks like Pete Sampras though; the scenes with him and Hathaway together were a feast of eyebrow action. Can any of the ladies explain the attraction?
p.p.s. I saw the trailer for Eragon and it's going to take something special to convince me that it won't be cack.
Anne Hathaway gets a job working for the ultra-demanding editor of a top fashion mag despite knowing nothing about fashion. There follows all the usual stuff: she becomes as shallow as the people she used to mock, the job takes over etc. It's all fairly predictable, but it's also quite amusing. Not laugh-out-loud funny, but there are some good moments.
Anne Hathaway looks great (eyebrows and all) and strengthens her hold on the title of 'the next Julia Roberts'. Meryl Streep is good as the boss-lady, as is Emily Blunt as her assistant.
Just don't expect a satire - this film is nice
p.s. the guy who plays Hathaway's boyfriend is also in the TV series Entourage and all the women in my office think he's the mutt's nuts. I think he looks like Pete Sampras though; the scenes with him and Hathaway together were a feast of eyebrow action. Can any of the ladies explain the attraction?
p.p.s. I saw the trailer for Eragon and it's going to take something special to convince me that it won't be cack.
QUOTE
p.s. the guy who plays Hathaway's boyfriend is also in the TV series Entourage and all the women in my office think he's the mutt's nuts. I think he looks like Pete Sampras though; the scenes with him and Hathaway together were a feast of eyebrow action. Can any of the ladies explain the attraction?
...yeah he's dark and smouldering with a nice fit bod - also - he doesn't dangle his tongue like a panting dog like pete sampras....
I didnt notice the eyebrows, although i dont think i'd mind as furryness generally doesnt bother me - unless it's popping out of a throbbing, oozing boil....then it's a no go...
Okay.
The Departed
The new Martin Scorsese film is a remake of the Hong Kong actioner Infernal Affairs except set in Boston and with an extra hour added on. (The set up, delt with in a ten-minute montage in the original, takes about 40 minutes.) It's typically bloody, with several headshots and a pavement dive in the mix, well acted and well shot. I enjoyed it muchly, even if I did spend half the movie thinking 'I've been there'.
TBC
4/5
The new Martin Scorsese film is a remake of the Hong Kong actioner Infernal Affairs except set in Boston and with an extra hour added on. (The set up, delt with in a ten-minute montage in the original, takes about 40 minutes.) It's typically bloody, with several headshots and a pavement dive in the mix, well acted and well shot. I enjoyed it muchly, even if I did spend half the movie thinking 'I've been there'.
TBC
4/5
The Departed: I agree, it's very good. It was very similar to the original, but was no less entertaining for that. One thing it had which the original didn't was quite a lot of laughs. Most of these were courtesy of Mark Wahlberg and Alec Baldwin.
I think your point needs an example Jonnyboy:
Martin Sheen - "We deal in deception... do you know what I mean when I say that?"
Leo - "As a matter of fact, I do. I... "
Marky Mark - "No, you don't know. Because if someone like you knew what we did it would make us bad at our job. If we were bad at our job that would make us c**ts. Are you calling us c**ts?"
(Edited for the work crowd)
I also think the standard of acting was better; you could sympathise with the triad mole in the original but Matt Damon's character was just a slimy git.
Martin Sheen - "We deal in deception... do you know what I mean when I say that?"
Leo - "As a matter of fact, I do. I... "
Marky Mark - "No, you don't know. Because if someone like you knew what we did it would make us bad at our job. If we were bad at our job that would make us c**ts. Are you calling us c**ts?"
(Edited for the work crowd)
I also think the standard of acting was better; you could sympathise with the triad mole in the original but Matt Damon's character was just a slimy git.
I liked this exchange:
Baldwin: Go f**k yourself.
Marky Mark: I'm tired from f**king your wife.
Baldwin: How is your mother?
Marky Mark: Good, she's tired from f**king my father.
Baldwin: Go f**k yourself.
Marky Mark: I'm tired from f**king your wife.
Baldwin: How is your mother?
Marky Mark: Good, she's tired from f**king my father.
LITTLE CHILDREN
The plot: Christ... er. Good question. The plot centres around 2 main threads. One is Sarah (Kate Winslet) and Brad (Patrick Wilson - of 'Hard Candy' fame) having extra marital nookie because, well, y'know, they're just a bit bored and that. The other thread surrounds a man who has just been released from jail having served time for exposing himself to children, and the ridicule he suffers from his neighbours. Add to that a bonkers ex-cop, Winslet's husband who has a fetish for random underwear, and a lot of time spent by the pool. Oh and it's also got Jennifer Connelly who is a saucy minx.
The verdict: This film is a strange one. First of all, I think if I was married to Jennifer Connelly, I would probably tell Winslet to find herself a bike, tell her to get on it, and cycle a long, long way away. If I was Winslet, I'd get myself a life and stop moping round the house like something out of a Jane Austen novel. The convict is very scary and there are a few 'watch-it-through-your-fingers-from-behind-the-sofa' moments, particularly towards the end. It's a bit of a mess to be honest - it is hard to be sympathetic to any of the characters, you come out of the film not really sure what the point of the whole thing was.
In short: muddled, confused, weird and pointless. Will be interesting to see what Kermode's take on it is.
Score: 5 out of 10 (1 for the cute kids, 1 for Patrick Wilson's performance, 2 points for Winslet's bazookas (one each), and 1 point for Connelly's bum, absolutely none for plot or execution)
The plot: Christ... er. Good question. The plot centres around 2 main threads. One is Sarah (Kate Winslet) and Brad (Patrick Wilson - of 'Hard Candy' fame) having extra marital nookie because, well, y'know, they're just a bit bored and that. The other thread surrounds a man who has just been released from jail having served time for exposing himself to children, and the ridicule he suffers from his neighbours. Add to that a bonkers ex-cop, Winslet's husband who has a fetish for random underwear, and a lot of time spent by the pool. Oh and it's also got Jennifer Connelly who is a saucy minx.
The verdict: This film is a strange one. First of all, I think if I was married to Jennifer Connelly, I would probably tell Winslet to find herself a bike, tell her to get on it, and cycle a long, long way away. If I was Winslet, I'd get myself a life and stop moping round the house like something out of a Jane Austen novel. The convict is very scary and there are a few 'watch-it-through-your-fingers-from-behind-the-sofa' moments, particularly towards the end. It's a bit of a mess to be honest - it is hard to be sympathetic to any of the characters, you come out of the film not really sure what the point of the whole thing was.
In short: muddled, confused, weird and pointless. Will be interesting to see what Kermode's take on it is.
Score: 5 out of 10 (1 for the cute kids, 1 for Patrick Wilson's performance, 2 points for Winslet's bazookas (one each), and 1 point for Connelly's bum, absolutely none for plot or execution)
ANCHORMAN
Jack Black punts dog off bridge
The End
1/5
Jack Black punts dog off bridge
The End
1/5
Borat
84 of the most excruciatingly embarrassing minutes you could possibly imagine. I could barely watch most of this. You have to admire him, if only for the sheer audacity. Was it funny? Yes, in parts. But it was also kind of pointless. Where the objects of his ridicule deserve it (the college boys in their trailer for example), you don't really need Borat there, because what they say is embarrassing and stupid enough already. However, there are parts where he is being just really f***ing rude to people who don't deserve it, which annoyed me a bit. I also think that unless you have a hatred of America that is epic in its proportions then the film is going to grate after about half an hour - it is relentless in it's pounding of all things U.S.A. I personally don't have that amount of bile in my reserves and so I soon wanted a break from America-bashing so that I could have a cup of tea and a biscuit.
Wait for the DVD and watch it in three roughly 30 min sessions - you'll be more likely to survive.
Click on these links (particularly the first one)
Tenacious D
Pan's Labyrinth
Also, Notes On A Scandal, adapted from the Zoe Heller novel and starring Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett is not far off from release. I seem to remember giving a rather favourable review to the book, so am looking forward to it.
84 of the most excruciatingly embarrassing minutes you could possibly imagine. I could barely watch most of this. You have to admire him, if only for the sheer audacity. Was it funny? Yes, in parts. But it was also kind of pointless. Where the objects of his ridicule deserve it (the college boys in their trailer for example), you don't really need Borat there, because what they say is embarrassing and stupid enough already. However, there are parts where he is being just really f***ing rude to people who don't deserve it, which annoyed me a bit. I also think that unless you have a hatred of America that is epic in its proportions then the film is going to grate after about half an hour - it is relentless in it's pounding of all things U.S.A. I personally don't have that amount of bile in my reserves and so I soon wanted a break from America-bashing so that I could have a cup of tea and a biscuit.
Wait for the DVD and watch it in three roughly 30 min sessions - you'll be more likely to survive.
Click on these links (particularly the first one)
Tenacious D
Pan's Labyrinth
Also, Notes On A Scandal, adapted from the Zoe Heller novel and starring Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett is not far off from release. I seem to remember giving a rather favourable review to the book, so am looking forward to it.
I am looking forward to both those films. The D looks absurd......ly brilliant.
The Prestige
Well acted, well shot, bonkers plot that keeps you guessing just like a magic trick. Worth seeing. 4/5
Well acted, well shot, bonkers plot that keeps you guessing just like a magic trick. Worth seeing. 4/5
Casino Royale
Newly assigned double O status James Bond upsets the plans of banker to terrorists, Le Chiffre, causing him to set up a high stakes poker game in Montenegro. Bond is sent along (with £10 mil of the Treasury's money) to make sure he doesn't win.
After a brutal black and white pre-credit sequence the film settles into the sort of country-hopping, huge set-piece stuff that could come from the Brosnan era: A spectacular parkour sequence, leading to humourous banter, the carribean and the foiling of a bomb plot that wouldn't be out of place at the end of any previous Bond.
Once you're settled in, though, the film clicks into a different, more low-key gear as the action shifts to the substance of the book and Eva Green's is added to the action. Her Vesper Lynd is a perfect foil for Bond; their interplay sizzling with tension: As Rossy said "Their one-liners have the faint hint of cordite, not the whiff of cheese." Daniel Craig's Bond is a different beast to all the others; not particularly suave and reserved, but rather a bruiser with scuffed knuckles, taste for a drink, an animal attraction and a heap of potential.
There are problems with the end; the film slows down a bit and tacks on a an unnecessary sinking building and quite frankly I'm still not quite sure what went down...if someone would llike to explain it to me I'd be most grateful. Or I could go see it again...yes I could do that. 'COs it's really good.
So why then did the audience seem non-plussed? Well, perhaps if I tell you that the Bond Theme doesn't actually make an appearence until the tale is all but done, that'll tell you what you need to know. Don't go expecting Goldeneye. Go expecting ...well, Casino Royale.
Very good. Down and dirty.
4.5/5
Newly assigned double O status James Bond upsets the plans of banker to terrorists, Le Chiffre, causing him to set up a high stakes poker game in Montenegro. Bond is sent along (with £10 mil of the Treasury's money) to make sure he doesn't win.
After a brutal black and white pre-credit sequence the film settles into the sort of country-hopping, huge set-piece stuff that could come from the Brosnan era: A spectacular parkour sequence, leading to humourous banter, the carribean and the foiling of a bomb plot that wouldn't be out of place at the end of any previous Bond.
Once you're settled in, though, the film clicks into a different, more low-key gear as the action shifts to the substance of the book and Eva Green's is added to the action. Her Vesper Lynd is a perfect foil for Bond; their interplay sizzling with tension: As Rossy said "Their one-liners have the faint hint of cordite, not the whiff of cheese." Daniel Craig's Bond is a different beast to all the others; not particularly suave and reserved, but rather a bruiser with scuffed knuckles, taste for a drink, an animal attraction and a heap of potential.
There are problems with the end; the film slows down a bit and tacks on a an unnecessary sinking building and quite frankly I'm still not quite sure what went down...if someone would llike to explain it to me I'd be most grateful. Or I could go see it again...yes I could do that. 'COs it's really good.
So why then did the audience seem non-plussed? Well, perhaps if I tell you that the Bond Theme doesn't actually make an appearence until the tale is all but done, that'll tell you what you need to know. Don't go expecting Goldeneye. Go expecting ...well, Casino Royale.
Very good. Down and dirty.
4.5/5
Very nice.
I thought I'd import some of the 'correction of spelling' vibe from the Food forum:
Either you're putting a deliberate mistake (two if you count 'unecessary') into every post now to see if Rosie picks up on it, or you've invented a word which is a cross between suave and swarthy.
And yes Dan, I have checked this post for errors.
I thought I'd import some of the 'correction of spelling' vibe from the Food forum:
QUOTE
Daniel Craig's Bond is a different beast to all the others; not particularly swarve and reserved
Either you're putting a deliberate mistake (two if you count 'unecessary') into every post now to see if Rosie picks up on it, or you've invented a word which is a cross between suave and swarthy.
And yes Dan, I have checked this post for errors.
Can't be arsed to talk about spelling but I do agree entirely with Mike's write up on Casino Royale (without cheese). I loved it and yet was disapointed with the bit towards the end. I was left feeling that maybe a scene had been accidentally missed out because I also felt quite confused as to what was going on. However, I am willing to overlook that and say it's a hotty of a film. I would say don't expect your SUAVE and accomplished Bond, this is 'Bond in the making' and I can't wait for the next.
Oh and Daniel Craig is FIT.
P.s. All men - cross your legs for the torture scene, it's rough!
Oh and Daniel Craig is FIT.
P.s. All men - cross your legs for the torture scene, it's rough!
Definately the invention thing...or the other. I was worried about how to spell suave but I couldn't find my dictionary...unnecessary was just a typo; come on nobody's prefect.
Swarve!
Brilliant.
Say what you see. Whats Mr Chips doing? Its good but its not right.
Brilliant.
Say what you see. Whats Mr Chips doing? Its good but its not right.
King, we were talking about this one on Saturday, and you said you never remember the films you want to add to your rental list when you are sctuslly in front of a computer - so here you are...
Coffee and Cigarettes and Sidewalks of New York.
Anyone who hasn't seen either of these should. I liked them. Particularly the one with Bill Murray in Coffee and Cigarettes.
Coffee and Cigarettes and Sidewalks of New York.
Anyone who hasn't seen either of these should. I liked them. Particularly the one with Bill Murray in Coffee and Cigarettes.
Excellent stuff, well done.
PS I'd like to point out my 'nobody's prefect' joke...I thought it was quite good.
PS I'd like to point out my 'nobody's prefect' joke...I thought it was quite good.
QUOTE
PS I'd like to point out my 'nobody's prefect' joke...I thought it was quite good.
It was indeed. Was 'definately' a joke too? Sorry, I'll stop now.
Yes, yes it was; I thought it'd add symmetry to the concept...
Shaolin Soccer
Entertaining concept; use funky, badly CG'd kung-fu to win a football tournament whilst over-acting and being badly dubbed.
Fun in principle but you're better off watching the more refined Kung-Fu Hustle.
2.5/5
Shaolin Soccer
Entertaining concept; use funky, badly CG'd kung-fu to win a football tournament whilst over-acting and being badly dubbed.
Fun in principle but you're better off watching the more refined Kung-Fu Hustle.
2.5/5
Ray
The life of Ray Charles as told by Jaimie Foxx:
1. See your younger brother drown in a washtub (apparently this is a BAD THING)
2. Go blind for no apparent reason (apparently this isn't a BAD THING if your mother is hard enough on you)
3. Learn the piano by being blind (you listen better see?)
4. Go to Seattle, get noticed and get paid in singles ('cos you're blind), become famous.
5. Struggle with drugs ('Cos you saw your brother die & live in darkness see?)
6. Shag women, get married, shag more women, have kids by two different women
7. Stop playing in segregated venues thereby ridding the world of racism
8. Have your mistress die of an overdose
9. Give up drugs cold turkey by promising so to your dead mother
10. Become even more famous & celebrated & blind and be impersonated by me, Jamie Foxx
11. Hurrah.
PS You know he was blind right?
2/5 - Foxx really does a great impression of Mr Charles but other than that we've seen it all before...all 2hrs 20 of it.
The life of Ray Charles as told by Jaimie Foxx:
1. See your younger brother drown in a washtub (apparently this is a BAD THING)
2. Go blind for no apparent reason (apparently this isn't a BAD THING if your mother is hard enough on you)
3. Learn the piano by being blind (you listen better see?)
4. Go to Seattle, get noticed and get paid in singles ('cos you're blind), become famous.
5. Struggle with drugs ('Cos you saw your brother die & live in darkness see?)
6. Shag women, get married, shag more women, have kids by two different women
7. Stop playing in segregated venues thereby ridding the world of racism
8. Have your mistress die of an overdose
9. Give up drugs cold turkey by promising so to your dead mother
10. Become even more famous & celebrated & blind and be impersonated by me, Jamie Foxx
11. Hurrah.
PS You know he was blind right?
2/5 - Foxx really does a great impression of Mr Charles but other than that we've seen it all before...all 2hrs 20 of it.
Brick
I can't get my reviewing head round this one. Maybe something will come later, but in the meantime it were great. 4/5
Transporter 2
Seems like they took everything that was great about the first film and threw it away, added some CG (causing further damage) and bringing back a comedy Frenchman. All the more terrible for the sullying of a potentially great, brainless but fun franchise. RIP Frank. 1.5/5 (Loses a point for the whole sullying thing...it was better than Ray)
I can't get my reviewing head round this one. Maybe something will come later, but in the meantime it were great. 4/5
Transporter 2
Seems like they took everything that was great about the first film and threw it away, added some CG (causing further damage) and bringing back a comedy Frenchman. All the more terrible for the sullying of a potentially great, brainless but fun franchise. RIP Frank. 1.5/5 (Loses a point for the whole sullying thing...it was better than Ray)
you cant surely be saying that transporter 2 is better than ray...
if that is what you're saying, i will have to rip your head of and throw it at your nuts....
em and i saw jackass two yesterday....
piss funny if you like jackass, if you dont, then screw you
if that is what you're saying, i will have to rip your head of and throw it at your nuts....
em and i saw jackass two yesterday....
piss funny if you like jackass, if you dont, then screw you
Well that is what I said but not exactly what I meant; Ray is undoubtedly a better film, (what with all the acting and whatnot) I found it dull and slightly derivative though; and while T2 was also completely derivative, it had more kicking and the odd car chase.
Besides you know we can't agree on any film Woz.
Besides you know we can't agree on any film Woz.
fair point...
QUOTE
piss funny if you like jackass, if you dont, then screw you
I just go screw myself then.
Brick was quality, but I totally understand why you had trouble.
I particularly remember enjoying two scenes.
- The one when he trips the guy up
- The one with the orange juice pouring by the 'Pin's mum.
Class.
I particularly remember enjoying two scenes.
- The one when he trips the guy up
- The one with the orange juice pouring by the 'Pin's mum.
Class.
Yes and yes
PAN'S LABYRINTH
The plot: Set in Franco's Spain of 1944, the story surrounds a girl called Ofelia, who, surrounded by the violence, revolution and general Nazi-ness around her, retreats into her books and the fantasy world (or is it?) of Pan's Labyrinth. She is (according to the faun) a lost princess who needs to complete 3 dangerous tasks before she proves herself to be the true princess.
The verdict: This film is great. I wouldn't go as far as Kermode because he claimed it blew his mind, turned his world upside down (insert endless superlatives here), nonetheless it is a challenging film. It is a contrast between the grown-ups fairy tale of the labyrinth and the bone-crunchingly violent regime carried out by 'El Capitano' and his minions in the real world. The violence is brutal and quite shocking, but juxtaposes quite nicely with Ofelia's fantasy world. Her 3 tasks are really creepy and bonkers (large slimey toads and crazy tall skinny monsters with eyes for hands anyone?)
Worth watching if you're ready for what you're going to get.
8 out of 10
PS Jonnyboy you will like this
The plot: Set in Franco's Spain of 1944, the story surrounds a girl called Ofelia, who, surrounded by the violence, revolution and general Nazi-ness around her, retreats into her books and the fantasy world (or is it?) of Pan's Labyrinth. She is (according to the faun) a lost princess who needs to complete 3 dangerous tasks before she proves herself to be the true princess.
The verdict: This film is great. I wouldn't go as far as Kermode because he claimed it blew his mind, turned his world upside down (insert endless superlatives here), nonetheless it is a challenging film. It is a contrast between the grown-ups fairy tale of the labyrinth and the bone-crunchingly violent regime carried out by 'El Capitano' and his minions in the real world. The violence is brutal and quite shocking, but juxtaposes quite nicely with Ofelia's fantasy world. Her 3 tasks are really creepy and bonkers (large slimey toads and crazy tall skinny monsters with eyes for hands anyone?)
Worth watching if you're ready for what you're going to get.
8 out of 10
PS Jonnyboy you will like this
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.