Movie What's the last movie you saw? (7)

[Cuzz09]

Anyone seen civil war yet? Interested to hear your thoughts. Spoiler free thoughts.

We went and saw it last night.

Pretty good, got a bit confusing working out who side was what but I don't think that was the point of the movie.

Few full on moments but yeah MERICA!!

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[JackOutback]

Was planning to see it this week, until my cinema decided not to give it a run. Hopefully it's on come Thursday cause I'm keen.

 

[elbarton]

Civil War. Completely bland, lifeless, devoid of any interesting aspects. Baffled that it got made, and was shown at an actual cinema. It seemed like a bottle episode of a tv show that everyone would have hated.

 

[Frank Bunn]

So i absolutely love Blade Runner, showed it to my wife and she fell asleep and said it was the most boring slow ass movie ever. 2049 is equally brilliant (especially visually) but again, pretty slow.

Men and women tend to like different types of movies. I don't think that's controversial. My sister keeps sending me recommendations. I don't even look any more.

 

[Warsaw]

Civil War - Looking at this film from a purely popcorn, entertainment value - it’s a great achievement. As good a piece of filmmaking Garland has ever done. Harrowing, tense, kind of everything you want in an action thriller without the over the top stuff.

Trying to unpack what it’s trying to say is where it gets a bit complicated. Garland has obviously thought a lot about the issues at hand, and the film becomes as much about what it doesn’t say as what it does. By the end, I understood what it was trying to communicate about one aspect of the world, on the other (and maybe more pressing) issues at hand….I’m less sure. 7.5/10

 

[Moti]

Agree completely... I dropped off this series after Godzilla vs Kong, so this new one will be the first I haven't seen in the cinema. I love a giant monster movie, but these ones have just got dumber and dumber and dumber with each new instalment. I really rate the 2014 Godzilla that Gareth Edwards made. Great slow-burn build up, CGI that felt grounded and lifelike, and while the performances weren't great, they nailed tone of the movie. It recognised that the key to making a good genre film is to take what may well be a ridiculous premise (giant monsters), but then treat it seriously in terms of the execution of that premise.

Kong Skull Island was also a pretty good effort, but the rot started to set in with Godzilla King Of The Monsters - really stupid story, stupid characters doing stupid things, and that really accelerated with Godzilla v Kong which was nigh on unwatchable. A level of idiocy to the story and characters that made the previous movie look like The Godfather by comparison and just wall to wall CG effects that basically made the whole thing a cartoon. I know these things are making money, but it's just kind of sad thinking about what this franchise might have been if the studio had treated their own product with some respect. Especially when you look at how Godzilla Minus One managed to embarrass these last couple of the US made ones despite only having about 10% of the budget.

You cannot compare Minus One to the Monsterverse. An emerging Godzilla story is probably the easiest to do, the hardest is to build a connected platform if you want to expand it to include other monsters and grow the IP.

I enjoy the Monsterverse, they are fun movies and the story is reasonable enough as a platform. It also allows them to do things like Monarch if they want to get a more serious tone. But you can't base it on big monsters, they have limits to dramatic effect.

 

[swingdog]

76 Days (on SBS On demand) - 90 minute documentary about the 76 days Wuhan spent under lockdown in 2020. Focuses on the General Hospital and how the staff manage the sheer weight of numbers, difficult patients (key is one with Covid and dementia) and families who can't see their loved ones before they die. The first three minutes is about the toughest cinema you could ever watch.

8/10

 

[rumply]

Civil War - Looking at this film from a purely popcorn, entertainment value - it’s a great achievement. As good a piece of filmmaking Garland has ever done. Harrowing, tense, kind of everything you want in an action thriller without the over the top stuff.

Trying to unpack what it’s trying to say is where it gets a bit complicated. Garland has obviously thought a lot about the issues at hand, and the film becomes as much about what it doesn’t say as what it does. By the end, I understood what it was trying to communicate about one aspect of the world, on the other (and maybe more pressing) issues at hand….I’m less sure. 7.5/10

I felt the overriding message to a certain someone who may or may not be shortly elected pres was fairly clear.

 

[Xtreme]

Aquaman

Saw it once a while back (purchased the bluray on the cheap)
Just watched it again tonight - so this was one of the DCU's better films ? LOL

Batman v Superman (which was a pretty bad film in its own right) was far better than this steaming pile of cowdung!

 

[Jarman3]

You cannot compare Minus One to the Monsterverse. An emerging Godzilla story is probably the easiest to do, the hardest is to build a connected platform if you want to expand it to include other monsters and grow the IP.

I enjoy the Monsterverse, they are fun movies and the story is reasonable enough as a platform. It also allows them to do things like Monarch if they want to get a more serious tone. But you can't base it on big monsters, they have limits to dramatic effect.

You absolutely can compare them. The MonsterVerse movies have made a conscious decision to make themselves as offensively dumb as possible. There's no reason for it other than aiming for the lowest common denominator audience ie make something simple enough, loud enough and flashy enough that primary school kids will want to go see it. Making an emerging Godzilla story may be easier than a broader, connected universe but just because it's hard doesn't mean they shouldn't do it and it's no excuse for churning out the crap they are churning out. Problem is it requires some time, effort and talent to actually create a decent story and characters and then build a connected universe around that. Much quicker, cheaper and easier to think up a few big monsters-battling set pieces, spend a morning slapping together a story to fill in the gaps between said set pieces, ship it off to the cheap offshore CG effects teams and go to lunch.

There is enormous potential there that is being squandered on increasing sh*tty movies.

 

[phantom13]

You absolutely can compare them. The MonsterVerse movies have made a conscious decision to make themselves as offensively dumb as possible. There's no reason for it other than aiming for the lowest common denominator audience ie make something simple enough, loud enough and flashy enough that primary school kids will want to go see it. Making an emerging Godzilla story may be easier than a broader, connected universe but just because it's hard doesn't mean they shouldn't do it and it's no excuse for churning out the crap they are churning out. Problem is it requires some time, effort and talent to actually create a decent story and characters and then build a connected universe around that. Much quicker, cheaper and easier to think up a few big monsters-battling set pieces, spend a morning slapping together a story to fill in the gaps between said set pieces, ship it off to the cheap offshore CG effects teams and go to lunch.

There is enormous potential there that is being squandered on increasing sh*tty movies.

I think the monster verse movies are doing exactly what they say on the box.

Comparing them to auteur independent cinema seems pointless to me. It would be like saying Gran Torino and Fast and Furious are comparable cause they both have cars.

I got no issue with the monster verse, we’ve got room for both anyway.

 

[Jarman3]

I think the monster verse movies are doing exactly what they say on the box.

Comparing them to auteur independent cinema seems pointless to me. It would be like saying Gran Torino and Fast and Furious are comparable cause they both have cars.

I got no issue with the monster verse, we’ve got room for both anyway.

I don't know if Godzilla Minus One would be considered auteur independent cinema. And comparing Grant Torino and Fast and Furious because they both have cars isn't really the same as comparing Godzilla Minus One and the Monsterverse because they both have Godzilla. It's actually the same character, just different approaches and philosophies. GMO's approach may well have been forced on it by the much more constrained budget, but the end result is a better movie.

There is absolutely room for both, although I've reached the point where I'm not going to see the latest MonsterVerse movie after seeing all of the previous ones in the cinema. It's just frustrating because there is the potential there for it to be so much better but they've just taken the easy option of leaning on empty spectacle instead of developing a story and characters and then building the spectacle around that.

 

[JackOutback]

I think the monster verse movies are doing exactly what they say on the box.

Comparing them to auteur independent cinema seems pointless to me. It would be like saying Gran Torino and Fast and Furious are comparable cause they both have cars.

I got no issue with the monster verse, we’ve got room for both anyway.

My issue with the monsterverse is the last three moves have been dogshite. I can accept the premise of big dumb fun but it still needs to be coherent.

 

[No Quarter]

Blade Runner (1982)

In my quest to continue watching movies either of pop culture/cult status level or ranking in various 'greatest of all time' lists, I happened upon Blade Runner. I think for a moment I would confuse this movie with Blade.. and not liking Wesley Snipes meant I never considered it. Boy was I surprised when I found out I was wrong, lol

I'm not sure what to think of this movie.. reading some of the stuff written about it via Wiki, there's comments about it being a bit slow which I could relate to. I find it interesting reading about things like how the story is in the book versus how it ended up on film.. the question of "Was Deckerd a replicant"? Where supposedly in the book he was not, but Ridley Scott wanted him to be and was pushed back on by Harrison Ford as he didn't want him to be. So then we're left with a slight implication with no confirmation.

It is interesting to look at it from the perspective of how they thought 2019 would look.. though they were able to imagine flying cars but not moving past CRT TVs such is the tech they had available I guess

I think perhaps it could have done with a little more depth building, understanding more of the back story to it but nevertheless.

I did enjoy it. Easy to see how it influenced future movies - The Fifth Element comes to mind, as does the first episode of the SW trilogy, with the way the cities looked etc.

Looking forward to watching 2049..

So I just managed to finish Blade Runner 2049

I actually think they did this sequel solidly. I think its storyline had more depth and didn't drag like the original. The way the world/city/whatever was presented did the original justice very well. It didn't appear to be overdone like some modern movies are and it didn't aim to take the 'future' too far.

The storyline was smart too, how it was able to develop an evolved plotline from the original.

I thought Gosling was good and for people to say they didn't like it because of Leto.. I mean, he's on screen for 8 and a half minutes, so I'm not sure I would buy that as a reason for dislike.

Here's hoping there's a 3rd instalment in 2052.

 

[ibd77]

So I just managed to finish Blade Runner 2049

I actually think they did this sequel solidly. I think its storyline had more depth and didn't drag like the original. The way the world/city/whatever was presented did the original justice very well. It didn't appear to be overdone like some modern movies are and it didn't aim to take the 'future' too far.

The storyline was smart too, how it was able to develop an evolved plotline from the original.

I thought Gosling was good and for people to say they didn't like it because of Leto.. I mean, he's on screen for 8 and a half minutes, so I'm not sure I would buy that as a reason for dislike.

Here's hoping there's a 3rd instalment in 2052.

Blade Runner 2049 is better in my opinion based on the amount of times I have re-watched it. The original movie was good but boring in parts, where 49 kept me enthralled end to end.

 

[AFDogs]

Anyone seen this? Love Taika but it has a pretty low rating and wondering whether it's worth watching or not.

 

[phantom13]

Argylle

So this has horrendous reviews and seems to be pretty broadly loathed.

I spent about an hour thinking "Its definitely not good, but its fun enough, Sam Rockwell is a great hang, Bryce is miscast horrendously but whatever, im having some fun" and then it kept going, and going, and going.

Modern filmmakers do seem to have a real hard on for making 2, 2.5 and 3 hour movies whether the story needs that time or not and Argylle is yet another in the line of movies that should be a TIGHT 1.45 at most and just are not.

 

[torq]

Just for something old-timey... Unman, Wittering and Zigo, a tense thriller from the 70's set in an English boarding school. Tautly directed by John Mackenzie (The Long Good Friday), excellent cinematography and some fine performances including the boys portraying the malevolent students. Sometimes amateur actors can be remarkably natural and effective on screen.

Modern filmmakers do seem to have a real hard on for making 2, 2.5 and 3 hour movies whether the story needs that time or not and Argylle is yet another in the line of movies that should be a TIGHT 1.45 at most and just are not.

Couldn't agree more, my pet hate with modern movies. Even masters like Nolan or Scorsese have no discipline in the editing suite.

 

[Jarman3]

Just for something old-timey... Unman, Wittering and Zigo, a tense thriller from the 70's set in an English boarding school. Tautly directed by John Mackenzie (The Long Good Friday), excellent cinematography and some fine performances including the boys portraying the malevolent students. Sometimes amateur actors can be remarkably natural and effective on screen.



Couldn't agree more, my pet hate with modern movies. Even masters like Nolan or Scorsese have no discipline in the editing suite.

It's getting worse as more stuff gets made for streaming. At least with cinemas there are some constraints around length (the longer the movie the fewer sessions they can run per day, and cinemas don't like that). Streaming there are no such constraints, people don't even have to watch the whole thing in one sitting, so there's nothing but budget stopping running times from getting completely out of control. I reckon Killers of the Flower Moon would probably have been a shorter movie if it had been made primarily for cinemas rather than Apple.

 

[torq]

It's getting worse as more stuff gets made for streaming. At least with cinemas there are some constraints around length (the longer the movie the fewer sessions they can run per day, and cinemas don't like that). Streaming there are no such constraints, people don't even have to watch the whole thing in one sitting, so there's nothing but budget stopping running times from getting completely out of control. I reckon Killers of the Flower Moon would probably have been a shorter movie if it had been made primarily for cinemas rather than Apple.

I watched Killers of the Flower Moon at home and took a few breaks. As a smoker with long legs and a bad back there was no way I was sitting in a cinema for 3.5 hours. If there was ever a movie that warranted an intermission that was it.

 

[phantom13]

I "get it" with films like Killers and Oppenheimer, Killers especially (which id note, i didnt particularly enjoy) was painstakingly crafted for a purpose.

****ing Argylle though, Christ on a bike guys, cut it down.

 

[phantom13]

Exorcist: Believer

AN HOUR FORTY FIVE LADS, WE ****ing DID IT!!!

In all seriousness this is a pretty solid (spiritual) sequel (that is also ACTUALLY a sequel to the original and not the various offshoots).

Its pretty scary, pretty gory, has some lovely little throwbacks and some real gory shit too.

For the horror lovers IMO.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

Exorcist: Believer

I'm still recovering from the Exorcist when it first came out!! Horror I don't love.
But as it says What's the last movie you saw and not the Last movie you liked, no harm in you not liking Argylle.
If people had warned me about the Exorcist I wouldn't have gone to see it.
The last movie I saw was the Vikings on TV and now Kirk Douglas's son Michael is in a movie about Benjamin Franklin and that could be in the thread What's the next movie you'd like to see.

 

[phantom13]

I'm still recovering from the Exorcist when it first came out!! Horror I don't love.
But as it says What's the last movie you saw and not the Last movie you liked, no harm in you not liking Argylle.
If people had warned me about the Exorcist I wouldn't have gone to see it.
The last movie I saw was the Vikings on TV and now Kirk Douglas's son Michael is in a movie about Benjamin Franklin and that could be in the thread What's the next movie you'd like to see.

The original exorcist is an absolute classic. This isn’t a shade on that but it’s enjoyable none the less (if you enjoy horror)

 

[JackOutback]

View attachment 1962932

Anyone seen this? Love Taika but it has a pretty low rating and wondering whether it's worth watching or not.

I reviewed this a few pages back. It's a bad Taika movie and a bad sports movie. Really average.