Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pi!)
    I really want to see Julia's Eyes. I'm probably going to have to go to Leicester Square to see it because my nearest cinema sucks, but I think it'll be worth it. I can say to my parents that it's good Spanish practise.
    Are you going today ?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Le Mans McQueen)
    Are you going today ?
    Nope.
    Offline

    13
    LOTR Extended version blu ray out at the end of the month. Includes a LOT of extras as well as a remastered version of The Fellowship of the Ring. :awesome:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Apparently one of the X men in Xmen first class is quite literally the devil, but the film's ignoring / not acknowledging that

    Anywho, Shanghai noon's on... makes me think of bad films set in the 19th century, Wild West comes to mind straight away
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cadaeibfeceh)
    I thought that about Ratatouille lol
    Ahh just couldn't catch on with that film, it's one of those never really get interested in the plot films for me

    **

    And on Ebert, maybe he does but you'd never guess it unless you read his reviews regularly, I check every now and then and just loads see poorly rated films and assume he doesn't like the majority of films (then again it is summer film season so that could a lot of the low ratings)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Ah great stuff. I failed to remember these continuity errors. Yeah, she (Mystique) does treat him harshly in the original trilogy and she now apparently has such a close bond to him.

    I guess, if not for the bald part, that sequence could be twisted to see them visiting Jean when they did their visits in First Class. It was very similar. But I can't remember the sequence too well.

    Also the Wolverine cameo was great, in my opinion.

    One strength is the friendship and respect between the two characters is still prevalent in X-Men 3 where he turns around after Xavier's death and says that he was his oldest friend and his only regret is he couldn't live to see the day. At least that friendship is mirrored in the prequel. Well, it might actually be like that in the comics too.

    I thought the satellite dish scene with serenity and anger was well done too. It was very emotional and well acted.

    You've made a good point about Shaw's role in the friendship and events. But then they put too much emphasis on Shaw, too many scenes on him running around arranging and making plans when they could have developed the Magneto/Xavier relationship a bit more. Even ironed out the other characters who were severely lacking.

    I would have preferred a greater struggle in Magneto. I would have liked that Xavier had a greater impact on Magneto's perception of things even if ultimately, Magneto's own view won through. The whole coin shot was just too quick. There should have been some struggle, some doubt, some looking back on Xavier's words and some reluctance before he fully turned. But it was still nice to see that the friendship meant something. I wasn't aware Magneto was responsible for putting him in the chair. That was a huge shock. I guess he might carry the guilt of doing that.



    Now there's 2 other films that are supposedly going to follow (maybe have one in each decade), do you think they should leave the original trilogy alone? Or will there be a point where they reboot that era again with a fresh take?

    Honestly, I really liked what Vaughn & co did with First Class and if there are any future films, then whoever takes the helm of a reboot/continuation/whatever should adopt the same 'broad strokes' approach to the previous entries as they did, using what works and discarding what doesn't serve the story they want to tell. Continuity's all well and good, but the fidelity of writers and directors should always lie with making the best film they can, rather than the whims of obsessive fans. If it can work with the Singer/Ratner films without sacrificing quality, great, but if offering a fresh take and a better movie entails dismissing a portion of the film and comic canon, then it's a no brainer for me.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zjs)
    Same.

    Watched Tangled, Cars and Toy Story 3 in recent weeks.

    I must say, I enjoyed all three a lot more than I expected to. All three had very good humour mixed with excellently well put-together action scenes. The dialogue in Pixar films is much cleverer than I remember, too.

    I hear nothing but good things about Up, but the lack of dialogue puts me off. It was one reason I was switched off entirely by Wall-E (amongst others).
    Tangled was Disney, not Pixar- brilliant film though! You should give Up a chance, it's only a bit at the start that doesn't have dialogue, and it's a really moving sequence, the rest has plenty of talking.

    Anyone else excited for Kung Fu Panda 2? Also really want to see X-Men: First Class but I'm not sure if I can find anyone to go with me.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riotgrrl)
    Tangled was Disney, not Pixar- brilliant film though! You should give Up a chance, it's only a bit at the start that doesn't have dialogue, and it's a really moving sequence, the rest has plenty of talking.

    Anyone else excited for Kung Fu Panda 2? Also really want to see X-Men: First Class but I'm not sure if I can find anyone to go with me.
    I have a friend you might get on with who lives in Surrey and will want to see it again lol...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cadaeibfeceh)
    I have a friend you might get on with who lives in Surrey and will want to see it again lol...
    Haha, that's ok, I'm hoping to convince my stepdad so he'll pay for me
    Offline

    13
    I don't understand why Super 8 is opening in the US this Friday and then over here in August. I mean, considering that there's a lot of hype over what the story is about, it just seems silly that the Americans will have already seen it and know of everything way before we do. I'm going to have to avoid looking at the comments on youtube when watching the trailers since there's usually some jackass that spoils the entire thing for you. :facepalm2:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lukejoshjedi)
    And on Ebert, maybe he does but you'd never guess it unless you read his reviews regularly, I check every now and then and just loads see poorly rated films and assume he doesn't like the majority of films (then again it is summer film season so that could a lot of the low ratings)
    Really, he's not. You say you wouldn't know unless you read regularly; I wouldn't expect you to be able to give a judgement on anything unless you actually sample it thoroughly. You can watch a couple of minutes of a film and think that it's an entirely different genre.

    Look at the films currently in cinemas now. Ebert currently has 68 films listed. Of those 55 currently have 2 and a half stars or better (his average mark). Included in his list of films over 3 stars are Arthur, Bridesmaids, Fast Five, Hanna, Kung Fu Panda 2, Lincoln Lawyer, Source Code and Water for Elephants.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I always think ebert is often interpreted as being overly negative because he's one of the few people who actually uses the full range of ratings in a world where anything less than 8/10 or 4/5 is crap.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)
    I always think ebert is often interpreted as being overly negative because he's one of the few people who actually uses the full range of ratings in a world where anything less than 8/10 or 4/5 is crap.
    Ebert does not use more range than the vast majority of respected film critics. In fact, given that I just found out he only gave 13 out of 68 films less than half marks, I'd suggest he probably uses less.
    Offline

    13
    I think Ebert is good because he appears to have his own opinion and not one that is based on a general consensus. For example, when Blue Velvet was released in the 80s, it was raved over and given great reviews. Ebert hated it but he did give valid reasons to back up his judgement, and while I don't agree with his review, I can respect him for sticking to his own opinion.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah you're right about Ebert, still he just gets viewed as being overly negative and critical, he gave Arthur and Bridesmaids over 3 stars :| that's another thing about him, some of his reviews randomly surprise me (the ones I think he would hate)

    Ah well, critics gonna criticise.

    ***
    By the way has anyone seen Insidious / was it actually scary? I think it's another paranormal activity, it gets a lot of hype and word of mouth spreads about it being 'the scariest movie evar!!' then... you watch it and it's just not really scary at all
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    Ebert does not use more range than the vast majority of respected film critics. In fact, given that I just found out he only gave 13 out of 68 films less than half marks, I'd suggest he probably uses less.
    :dontknow:

    What I've said can probably be spread across nearly all 'respectable' critics of just about everything. I haven't read anything from Ebert in a while tbh so maybe it's just the way i've perceived him in the past.

    When the vast majority of society rely on reviews on Amazon (or whatever site people buy from) where everything is either the best film ever or something that should be smashed into a million pieces any real reviewer who gives it an accurate depiction can be seen as harsh.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)
    :dontknow:

    What I've said can probably be spread across nearly all 'respectable' critics of just about everything. I haven't read anything from Ebert in a while tbh so maybe it's just the way i've perceived him in the past.

    When the vast majority of society rely on reviews on Amazon (or whatever site people buy from) where everything is either the best film ever or something that should be smashed into a million pieces any real reviewer who gives it an accurate depiction can be seen as harsh.
    Well yes, but then people who make their cultural judgements off the back of Amazon reviews and youtube comments (or many of the people who voice their opinions there) don't really deserve to be taken seriously. (As an aside, it could be argued that with the new reputation system and the visible indicator of how many people agree with you that is the way that TSR is heading)

    I do really like Ebert as I think he has a very strong personalised way of reviewing that makes it more intimate, but with a few notable exceptions I do think he is more generous to films than a lot of critics. Someone I've really started reading a lot of recently is A. O. Scott - he's a lot more detached from the film and views it more critically, and almost always has something unique to offer in interpretation.
    Offline

    13
    Horror movies have been in an awful decline for years, IMO. Paranormal Activity gave me hope, but I watched the first one and it was just more making you jump than really being horror. At least we have directors such as Guillermo Del Toro who are interested in directing good horror (it's a real shame that At the Mountains of Madness is not happening) as well as producing good horror movies. He produced The Orphanage which is excellent. The Japanese version of The Grudge was terrifying.

    I also find it interesting that John Carpenter has expressed some regret in being responsible for creating the slasher movie genre. It's a shame that horror has gone this way, Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (before they became obsessed with being a franchise) were excellent films. However they've created so many copycats and ****ing remakes.

    I also think Roman Polanski should make another horror film, Rosemary's Baby is brilliant. David Lynch has also produced some genuinely scary moments.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I've never liked Horrors. I appreciate that there are some brilliant pieces of cinema in the genre but they're just not for me :dontknow:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    Well yes, but then people who make their cultural judgements off the back of Amazon reviews and youtube comments (or many of the people who voice their opinions there) don't really deserve to be taken seriously. (As an aside, it could be argued that with the new reputation system and the visible indicator of how many people agree with you that is the way that TSR is heading)

    I do really like Ebert as I think he has a very strong personalised way of reviewing that makes it more intimate, but with a few notable exceptions I do think he is more generous to films than a lot of critics. Someone I've really started reading a lot of recently is A. O. Scott - he's a lot more detached from the film and views it more critically, and almost always has something unique to offer in interpretation.
    And sadly that is what the majority of people do and where more people are heading.

    I need to start reading more film stuff, can you point me in the range of something decent?
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.