Turn on thread page Beta

Film Fanatics - Chat Thread II watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/11/2...st/#more-88343

    :teeth:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So Seven Psychopaths turned out to be really very good. Martin McDonagh might actually be as great at films as he is at plays.

    Also Tom Waits steals the whole movie, as he does in every movie he appears in.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I found Seven Psychopaths to kinda suck. Maybe I didn't fully get it or something but I ended up lying down on the cinema seats :mmm:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mess.)
    I'm surprised for a few reasons really. I thought that DC would have noticed that the exaggerated reality of Nolan/JGL's universe cannot have a Superman or any of the other more... exotic... characters of the Justice League.
    Using JGL means that the film will be compared to Nolans Batman even more than it was going to be. It should have strived for its own identity and a complete reboot.

    Also, can anyone imagine JGL standing next to the guy who plays Superman and looking at all like a physically imposing man? JGL is a very enjoyable actor but a huge, violent man is something he couldn't really pull off. He just doesn't look dangerous enough to fit into a 'super' world.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

    I agree for the most part, except for the JGL bit. He already put away his pretty hipster guy image for the dark knight rises, and given a main role in a justice league film he could easily buff up a bit to be a much more imposing character. After all, Bale and Hardy both put on loads for their roles.

    Justice League is a bit silly. Each of the heroes are vastly different in their powers - why would Superman need a team anyway? He can fly and move faster than the speed of sound! They're going to need some extremely contrived use of kryptonite to explain why Superman can't do it on his own.

    Where Justice League could win is in variety. In The Avengers, Iron Man is the only one who doesn't have superpowers that amount to "can hit things really hard" (excusing those 2 non-characters who didn't really do anything anyway). At least Batman, Superman and Green Lantern will each be completely different.
    Offline

    13
    The absolutely orgasmic prospect of a Fassbender-McKellan dynamic has me looking forward to this one. :coma:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just saw The United States of Leland.

    Absolutely brilliant film in my eyes. Also first time I saw a very young Ryan Gosling (in the notebook he seemed older, I guess he played a different role).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I loved Seven Psychopaths - saw it today. But then I'm a bit weird so )
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just found out we're not getting Django Unchained until January 19th. I know it's standard for American films in international release, but it's...annoying nonetheless.

    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Christien)
    Just found out we're not getting Django Unchained until January 19th. I know it's standard for American films in international release, but it's...annoying nonetheless.

    Peter Bradshaw on The Guardian has given it 5/5, which is very rare. :beard: That's a lot better than I felt it would fare.

    EDIT: Just checked, and on Metacritic it's currently 79 from 11 reviews: closer to what I would have thought based on the trailer (and Inglourius Basterds).

    EDIT2: I'm not sure if I mentioned it here, but I did end up watching Django a couple of weeks back. It was pretty enjoyable, a little bit artsier than I had expected!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    What was the general consensus in here on Looper? I managed to catch it a couple of days ago and thought it was utterly terrible.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Mess.)
    What was the general consensus in here on Looper? I managed to catch it a couple of days ago and thought it was utterly terrible.
    I thought it was fairly good, a decent attempt but not really as good as some people said it was. What didn't you like about it?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abiraleft)
    I thought it was fairly good, a decent attempt but not really as good as some people said it was. What didn't you like about it?
    The concept just didn't seem to click with me and the story was far too 'meh'. I'm finding it hard to articulate why I didn't really enjoy it but I think one of the main things was that I just didn't feel like the concept was fleshed out or explained enough. It seems more like the sort of thing that could have worked well as a series of films or a tv series but as a singular film it just felt like a lot of 'almost' ideas that never quite came to fruition and created a lot of frustration for me.

    Also, guy with broken hand was a terrible actor.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Every time I see the full Les Miserables trailer I get goosebumps.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Watched Gladiator last night on ITV. Properly welled up at the end.

    "Go to them."

    *sniff*
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Finally got around to watching The Artist a couple of days ago and must say it was really good. That and Hugo were magical (Hugo more so) and very worthy Oscar contenders imo. I was surprised. Better than The King's Speech from last year which was a little overrated I think.

    Two very good movies. I want MORE. Scorcese nailed Hugo. I'm disappointed I didn't get to see it in the cinema now!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flibble22)
    Watched Gladiator last night on ITV. Properly welled up at the end.

    "Go to them."

    *sniff*


    One of the best movie scenes imo.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mess.)
    What was the general consensus in here on Looper? I managed to catch it a couple of days ago and thought it was utterly terrible.
    I absolutely loved it, it was great how Rian Johnson approached what could have been a completely brainless action film with a sensitive touch. The cinematography was breathtakingly beautiful in places (like Bruce Willis' alternate future story, and the rainmaker scene), and the characterisation was perfect - the way the film made the audience sympathetic to Bruce Willis' plight before making him out to be an absolutely ******* was so deftly dealt with (imagine how that twist would have been dealt with in a M Night Shyamalan film...). I thought it was really inventive how it was skipping through genres at a fast rate too (although I can understand why some people could see that as an ADHD scatterbrain approach which never develops any of the ideas it brings up). It paid homage to everything from spaghetti westerns to the Twilight Zone whilst remaining its own film (RJ is obviously a big cinema geek with all his referencing, will be interesting to see if he keeps it up in future films).

    In short: There were so many places where they could have taken the easy way out to make a cookie-cutter action film, but instead they made intelligent choices and at least attempted some subtlety.


    The only thing I didn't like was JJL's makeup. JUST SAY HE'S BRUCE WILLIS' YOUNGER SELF AND WE'LL BELIEVE YOU! The eye contacts and weird nose was completely over the top and didn't look like Bruce Willis at all, and were really quite distracting.

    To be honest, I was shocked by the trailer. Probably the BIGGEST missell of a film I've seen in a long long time (maybe ever?).


    I am a big fan of Rian Johnson's work in general - Brick was fab (if you like Film Noir). I love how each of his films are completely different, he doesn't have any lazy signature/ego-trip moves like most other directors, he works with the respective genre to make the most of its strengths. You could never guess his films were all directed by the same person. He could be the next big thing in directing IMO, so I'm really happy to see him enter the mainstream. Can't wait to see his next movie!



    (Sorry did I gush too much? :o: )
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The Amazing Spider-Man was very mediocre. I'd give it 5/10, maybe 6 at a push.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Deshi)
    The Amazing Spider-Man was very mediocre. I'd give it 5/10, maybe 6 at a push.
    Yeah, I much preferred the new approach to the Tobey Maguire series, but another origin story seemed unnecessary. Will be more interesting to see what the second film is like, it felt like the first film was the necessary evil that needed to get out of the way so they could move onto the proper meat of the story.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Mess.)
    The concept just didn't seem to click with me and the story was far too 'meh'. I'm finding it hard to articulate why I didn't really enjoy it but I think one of the main things was that I just didn't feel like the concept was fleshed out or explained enough. It seems more like the sort of thing that could have worked well as a series of films or a tv series but as a singular film it just felt like a lot of 'almost' ideas that never quite came to fruition and created a lot of frustration for me.

    Also, guy with broken hand was a terrible actor.
    Well, what I liked:

    Spoiler:
    Show

    The best thing about the film for me was the shifting of the moral ground. When Old Joe admonishes Young Joe in the diner scene and romanticizes his married life, it's pretty clear who's on the high-road, who's seen the light and who's the *******. But by the end of it, the tables seem to have turned completely - and not in the generic, massively dramatized OMG twist way either. After the film, I thought the morality of it was still essentially an unresolved issue and good to think about.

    As to the sc-fi part of it, it clearly does suffer from the Terminator paradox, but Johnson's chosen to make it deliberately ambiguous how time travel works which I think was quite a good move, actually. There are probably better films about time travel per se, but I think he worked pretty effectively to distance himself from that genre - it isn't a film about time travel, it just has time travel in it. Until...


    What I didn't really like:

    Spoiler:
    Show

    Johnson wanted to make a film that wasn't about time travel, just had time travel in it and dealt primarily with the characters and how they responded to the situation they were in. The final twist, as breathtaking as it is (for me, anyway, as I didn't see it coming at all :o:), destroys that completely in my opinion, and makes the film's main pillar of support a sci-fi gimmick: exactly what Johnson wanted to avoid. The most interesting issues in the film for me came from the existence in a given time of Old Joe and Young Joe: this dynamic is largely ignored right up to the end, which I thought was baffling. For all the emphasis on the idea of consequence, it seems to be used in only a utilitarian manner in the film - only to move the story along or to give a sense of foreshadowing.

    Consequence should have been bigger in the film, and in that respect I think Old Joe and Young Joe were both a bit underwritten. The latter was clearly more developed, but didn't seem to think much at all about the former. The former didn't think about the latter, and didn't seem to think about much at all. You could say he's a character completely driven by one aim and so on, but that makes him a very one-dimensional tool in the script. Plus, I don't think there was enough of an exposition of his married life for us to relate with him in the end: we had to take his word for it that his wife was wonderful and incredible and that she had changed his life. For a film character of that level of importance, that's not good enough for me.

    That's also where the morality issue of my positive notes gets weaker, with the audience being allowed to build a much greater rapport with Young Joe than Old Joe. Morality is still broadly a good point in the film for me, but it could have been so much better.

    The relationship between Young Joe and Blunt's character was also badly contrived and an unnecessary adherence to formula, in my opinion. It was fairly obvious it was going to happen, which made it all the more annoying.

    The little boy was in parts better than I'd expected, but only in parts. I tend to be wary of child actors in general, to be honest. Once in a while there's one who does extremely well, but in general directors seem to take the approach that 'it's fine that their acting isn't perfect, they're only kids' but that does in fact take away from the film. If you're going to use a limited actor, you should use them sparingly.

    There was another significant point I was going to make, I think, but I sort of forgot it as I was typing. :o: I think this is a good chunk of my thoughts, though.


    Overall, I thought it was a decent attempt and well-intentioned, but not really pulled off brilliantly. I'll still look forward to Johnson's next effort.

    If I remember correctly, guy with broken hand was actually really good in Brick. :dontknow:

    What did you think of Paul Dano? I really liked him in There Will Be Blood, but I thought he looked pretty limited here. Something suggests to me that he's a better stage-actor than a screen actor.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

930

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.