He's got no range. Fine for playing meatheads, but not much else happening.
I watched Men In Black 3 yesterday. It was bobbins, although it tied things together quite nicely in terms of how the two characters meet. Watchable, but nothing amazing. The bird at the start had a great rack as well
Exodus: Gods & Kings is the worst film I've seen in a long time.
It's not only boring (I've seen plenty of those) but it also pissed me off in several different ways. What's the point of making a movie about an event that's as ahistorical as the Exodus if you're going to strip it of all associated fantastical elements and present it as ambiguous but realist history rather than mythology? Who is it for? It is left open to the viewer to decide that all of the plagues, visions and apparent miracles are "coincidences", but if one decides otherwise, it's not clear that "Jehovah" is supposed to be a jealous (or even malicious) tribal deity of limited means or actually the omnipotent creator that we all know. A fucking mess - and don't get me started on the CGI.
Aronofsky had a better approach to this kind of material with Noah.
The thing that surprised me the most about it (and I haven't seen it) is the unbelievably low profile release it got, given the cast, crew and cost involved.
Joy lays it on pretty thick with the ALL HAIL THE AMERICAN DREAM message, but it's an interesting enough story to be carried by another good performance from Jennifer Lawrence.
The cast is another issue, one that was controversial. Apparently ancient Egypt was populated exclusively by white people.Originally Posted by Yevrah
I've been re-watching the Star Wars series in the machete order (I still have episode 6 to watch) in preparation for the Force Awakens, and not only is Jar Jar the worst character ever but he is one of the main reasons everything went to shit.
Palpatine and his goons needed a patsy and Jar Jar obliged in only a way he could, dellow felegates indeed.
With nothing better to do tonight I've watched films. Zombieland was as solidly entertaining as I'd been told, but the pleasant surprise of the two was Obvious Child, which is excellent. It reminded me a lot of Master of None. I guess that both follow around New York "millennial" types is a big factor there but they also feel like they're shot in a similar style. Jenny Slate, who I normally can't stand, is really good in a more toned down role.
James Richardson, he of Football Weekly and Football Italia, has started doing film reviews on YouTube. I have no idea why, but he appears to have been doing them for a while for no reward. He reckons The Martian was crap because Matt Damon didn't have much of a cry when he found out he'd been left behind, which is a bit Henry, and it appears he'll forego an actual review if there's a pun to be had, describing San Andreas as 'ironically hard to find a fault in.'
He's shite at them, but pure bemusement that he's actually bothering has got me through four so far.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCo1...7hxXklZZTj1Ycw
Is he struggling for work these days?
He's doing Football Weekly, from which he seems to be off about twice a month to host something else, and hosting European football coverage for BT Sport, so no.
It's bizarre.
He's commented on the 'Sisters' video to tell someone where he bought the shoes he's wearing. This has to be some Joaquin Phoenix style performance art.
You know there were some serious theories for a while that Jar Jar was the actual Sith Lord behind Palpatine, right (Darth Plagueis or whatever he's supposed to be called)? Which I think is a little ridiculous.
Anyway, have you managed to avoid spoilers? I started out fine, but we seem to be way past that invisible gentlemans agreement line now, and I've basically had the whole film spoiled for me already
Seriously?You know there were some serious theories for a while that Jar Jar was the actual Sith Lord behind Palpatine, right (Darth Plagueis or whatever he's supposed to be called)? Which I think is a little ridiculous.
Anyway, have you managed to avoid spoilers? I started out fine, but we seem to be way past that invisible gentlemans agreement line now, and I've basically had the whole film spoiled for me already
I'm not sure how it could be anything other than tongue in cheek though, especially with the Sith rule of two.
I had one thing spoiled to me (some dickhead on Rocket League had his name as a spoiler and Ian confirmed it without realising I still hadn't watched it) but other than that I've managed it. Which is some feat considering my oldest brother is incredible at spoiling a film as well as a nephew.
What does he do to the nephew?
He puts the lotion on his skin.
I think Jimbo is mainly doing it as a fun hobby, and quietly fancies himself as a serious film critic but doesn't want to put too much effort in. That way he can get away with people laughing it off if they think it's a bit crap.
I went to see Star Wars on Tuesday and went into it spoiler free, somehow. It was alright, a 7/10 I'd say.
I'd like to echo this point in its entirety. Except it was today.
There was a feeling if deja vu in bits mind.
The Reid, the biggest Star Wars nerd in St. Helens, moaned that it was justToggle Spoilerand that the villainToggle Spoilerbut couldn'tToggle Spoilerwhich didn't make sense.
Or summat. I've not seen it. How valid are his criticisms?
I'm a twit
Creed is really good.
Surprisingly so?
It is good. Do you not think people are going a bit over the top with the high praise/Oscar buzz for Stallone though?
I mean he's good in it and everything, but it's just him playing the character again in essentially the same way that he always has. There's nothing wrong with that (I'm all for the continued existence of Rocky as a character) but that's really all it is. Do you think he's any better in this one than he has been in any previous outing as Rocky Balboa?
I suppose so, given that it could easily have been lame, but I had heard it was getting good reviews.
It's a classic character and he plays it really well, so maybe him being in the background and not having the fights and doing the cliched bits (albeit cliches thanks to the franchise) himself makes people more aware of that fact. You aren't going to win an award for playing a sixty year old boxer; but you might for playing a seventy year old trainer. It's more 'real' isn't it?
Or it could just be NARRATIVE and a bit of a lean year. The only other nominated performance I've seen is Mark Rylance in Bridge of Spies, and that is nothing special.
Well, Creed was disappointing. I had heard some good reviews, so was expecting a lot more.
Michael B. Jackson puts in a decent performance, as does Stallone, however, as you would expect the two professional boxers (Bellew and Ward) were completely wooden. The scenes that you would expect to pump you up, such as the famous steps scene, were just missing - there was no "C'mon Rocky!!" moment.
The story is completely thin, and you feel no connection with Jackson, so in the end you don't care if he wins or not.
Finally, the fights scenes were awful. First of all the choreography was crap - I don't know why they don't just get the two guys to almost have proper fight (film it last or whatever), you could see that punches weren't landing, and when they were supposed to have landed, the guy just stood their and took it on the chin. The CGI was absolutely terrible, it looks like a computer game - the final fight has everyone is a tiny ring (why so, so tiny) glowing in the foreground, with the crowd CGI'd in at a later date.
I have no idea how this is rating so highly on IMDB at the moment.
Michael B. Jackson.
FuckMichael B. Jackson.
I'll leave it.
What did the think of the fight scenes?
They were good, because boxing scenes in films aren't meant to be realistic.
Hmmm, ok.
I haven't seen The Revenant yet. Hoping to next Friday, but...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ification-pain
That seems like a rather large jump.
Oh for fuck's sake.
I've only read the first line of that and
Has she even seen the film?
Toggle Spoiler
I'm not its biggest fan (I wish I'd seen it in the cinema), but even I can see that there's far more to it than that.
I'm out.
I saw it a few days ago and thought it was pretty good. The cinematography was probably some of the best I've ever seen. Every shot was like a photograph, if that makes any sense at all. I had no idea what it was about beforehand, so I was shocked to discover it was a (mostly) true story.
It's a 'based on real life' story set in the 'Wild West' of 1823, what does she expect?Vicious savagery justified by medieval notions of retribution.
It's also not really like that. Which if she'd actually bothered watching it, she'd know.
Figured that would get torn into.
Really looking forward to seeing it.
I haven't really bothered to read beyond that. Partly because I don't want to see any potential spoilers, having yet to see it, but mostly because the opening paragraph suggests she just wants some soft entertainment, rosy world fluff and believes that films shouldn't be in any way challenging to watch.
Having read it, she's just being a boring troll and it takes quite a lot for me to accuse someone of that.
I haven't seen it yet either, but it seems like a valid point of view, no matter how good The Revenant is.
How good it is is surely completely irrelevant to her point.
As I said above, I didn't think it was that great, but I sure as shit didn't see the film she describes.
It's a bullshit thinkpiece. They're all the same.
The Hateful Eight is so bad. It's not that it's full of 'Trademark Tarantino' pish or anything; it's just unbelievably boring and wooden.
Toggle Spoiler
Annie Hall
There were a few lines that made me laugh out loud but I found Woody Allen's character neurotic and annoying. I know him being neurotic is the point and to be honest it might have been alright if it wasn't just him talking for the whole time.
Woody Allen's always struck me as the sort of comedian that you really needed to be about at the time to properly appreciate.
This Headhunters thing on BBC 1 has just had a scene that makes the Shawshank Redemption's tunnel bit look relatively appealing.
Saw a couple of films today.
Room is about as good as it could be. The acting is phenomenal and it had me welling up on occasion, but after a certain point there's only so far it can go.
If I had kids it would probably have ruined me.
The Voices is an odd Ryan Reynolds vehicle that veers between seemingly trying to be a black comedy and making a serious point about mental illness. Ultimately it fails at both and is a bit crap.
English folk use that word?
I use it to honour The Pongo.
He sounds like a Unionist.
I thought it was really good. You're right that there's no real dramatic impact coming from the abuse stuff, but there's some good stuff in the 'survivor' interviews and it's a film about investigative journalism so that's to be expected. It's like criticising All The President's Men for having nothing new to say about Watergate.
That said, I'm a bit of a sucker for films about investigative journalism, and it's a good one of those, so I'm sort of predisposed to like it. The 9/11 stuff felt a bit bolted on, as though it would be sacrilege to make a film based around that time without acknowledging it, but I suppose it did impact the timeline of the film in a minor way so there's some justification for it being there. In terms of acting it's probably the easiest money any of those people will ever make, with only Mark Ruffalo expected to do anything more taxing than look stern and breathily mumble 'Jesus Christ' now and then.
It does have a bit of a televisual feel to it, but I reckon that's the case with anything largely set in office buildings and the like. Looking cinematic is all about being unique, I reckon, and it's probably very difficult to make a newsroom look completely unique without being disingenuous.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote