Latest Films
Comments
-
Deepwater Horizon about 3/4 way through I remember thinking, ok they've overdone it with the explosions now.
Then I read interviews with survivors after who said there wasn't enough explosions.
Unreal4 -
Just watched Get Out. Really tight psychological thriller with a few uncomfortable and funny moments.2
-
Mad Max Fury Road Chrome Edition. Knackered after that and my eyes feel like they have had a layer singed off them. Proper action film though and some of those stunts looked bone crunching.0
-
Seen the clip of the Tom Cruise stunt going wrong?
Apparently broken a bone in his ankle so he done well to get up and hobble on
0 -
Ouch!stackitsteve said:Seen the clip of the Tom Cruise stunt going wrong?
Apparently broken a bone in his ankle so he done well to get up and hobble on0 -
Ouch saw this the other day yet didnt realise he'd broken anything - Fair play to the likes of him for doing his own stunts.stackitsteve said:Seen the clip of the Tom Cruise stunt going wrong?
Apparently broken a bone in his ankle so he done well to get up and hobble on
What do people make of what looks to be his latest film: "American Made"?0 -
I went to an extended trailer and Q&A with director Doug Liman a few weeks back and was totally sold on it. It looks like a lot of fun. And Liman/ Cruise worked really well on Edge of Tomorrow so I have high hopes.
Liman told a story about how he was in a plane filming Cruise, who was flying another plane all on his own. And Cruise disappeared from the cockpit to throw some fake cocaine out the back. And Liman as shitting himself thinking, "I just asked the world's biggest movie star to leave the controls of the plane unattended." But of course Cruise was very keen to do that! He's such a legend.0 -
He knows he has Ron L Hubbard protecting and looking after him from the Church of Scientology in the sky.JiMMy 85 said:I went to an extended trailer and Q&A with director Doug Liman a few weeks back and was totally sold on it. It looks like a lot of fun. And Liman/ Cruise worked really well on Edge of Tomorrow so I have high hopes.
Liman told a story about how he was in a plane filming Cruise, who was flying another plane all on his own. And Cruise disappeared from the cockpit to throw some fake cocaine out the back. And Liman as shitting himself thinking, "I just asked the world's biggest movie star to leave the controls of the plane unattended." But of course Cruise was very keen to do that! He's such a legend.0 -
Watched "Locked up" the other evening, enjoyable yet predictable. Big lesbian scene in the the film. Watching the blind panic on my wife face as she realised that our blinds were still open and our TV visible to passing neighbours was worth seeing.
2 -
More importantly, was the big lesbian scene worth watching?T.C.E said:Watched "Locked up" the other evening, enjoyable yet predictable. Big lesbian scene in the the film. Watching the blind panic on my wife face as she realised that our blinds were still open and our TV visible to passing neighbours was worth seeing.
2 -
Sponsored links:
-
I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance.
The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before.
That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.
10 -
Citizen Kane - long, boring film about some fart and his sled. Ultimately pointless.Redskin said:I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance.
The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before.
That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.3 -
100 Streets ... just caught up with it, excellent film and soundtrack. 8/100
-
I know your being ironic but that pretty much sums Citizen Kane for me . Watched it a couple of years ago for the first time and I hated it.Fiiish said:
Citizen Kane - long, boring film about some fart and his sled. Ultimately pointless.Redskin said:I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance.
The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before.
That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.0 -
Yeah it's like black and white and everythingBedsaddick said:
I know your being ironic but that pretty much sums Citizen Kane for me . Watched it a couple of years ago for the first time and I hated it.Fiiish said:
Citizen Kane - long, boring film about some fart and his sled. Ultimately pointless.Redskin said:I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance.
The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before.
That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.0 -
Yeah your so right and it wasn't in 3D either.Fumbluff said:
Yeah it's like black and white and everythingBedsaddick said:
I know your being ironic but that pretty much sums Citizen Kane for me . Watched it a couple of years ago for the first time and I hated it.Fiiish said:
Citizen Kane - long, boring film about some fart and his sled. Ultimately pointless.Redskin said:I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance.
The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before.
That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.0 -
Studied Kane at college and learnt all about the techniques Welles used and how groundbreaking it was etc.
But the movie itself bored the ever-loving shit out of me, and I don't intend to ever watch it again!1 -
T.C.E said:
Watched "Locked up" the other evening, enjoyable yet predictable. Big lesbian scene in the the film. Watching the blind panic on my wife face as she realised that our blinds were still open, I'd unzipped my flies and our TV visible to passing neighbours was worth seeing.
2 -
Bedsaddick said:
Excellent Dolby though, especially in the KungFu sequence.Fumbluff said:
Yeah it's like black and white and everythingBedsaddick said:
I know your being ironic but that pretty much sums Citizen Kane for me . Watched it a couple of years ago for the first time and I hated it.Fiiish said:
Citizen Kane - long, boring film about some fart and his sled. Ultimately pointless.Redskin said:I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance.
The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before.
That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.
Yeah your so right and it wasn't in 3D either.0 -
This is true, but I forgot why I'd done it.DaveMehmet said:T.C.E said:Watched "Locked up" the other evening, enjoyable yet predictable. Big lesbian scene in the the film. Watching the blind panic on my wife face as she realised that our blinds were still open, I'd unzipped my flies and our TV visible to passing neighbours was worth seeing.
1 -
Sponsored links:
-
It didn't tell 3 or 4 stories within a day, it told the stories over differing time period until they all culminate. Could explain why you didn't like it?Redskin said:I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance.
The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before.
That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.5 -
The reason I did not like the film is that I simply found it boring. Repetitive. Dull. I have read many articles by the directors' fan boys laying out reasons why the film is groundbreaking. But I am not convinced. And I am entitled to find the film boring. But I expect the usual snarky comments from the usual suspects on here!se9addick said:
It didn't tell 3 or 4 stories within a day, it told the stories over differing time period until they all culminate. Could explain why you didn't like it?Redskin said:I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance.
The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before.
That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.
2 -
Saw The Emoji Movie.
It was dross.
However I'm sure the high five told the virus to ´fu3k xff' half way through the film.
Can anyone else confirm.0 -
Mind if I ask if you're able to get a bit more specific here?Red_in_SE8 said:
The reason I did not like the film is that I simply found it boring. Repetitive. Dull. I have read many articles by the directors' fan boys laying out reasons why the film is groundbreaking. But I am not convinced. And I am entitled to find the film boring. But I expect the usual snarky comments from the usual suspects on here!se9addick said:
It didn't tell 3 or 4 stories within a day, it told the stories over differing time period until they all culminate. Could explain why you didn't like it?Redskin said:I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance.
The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before.
That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.
Like, who are the fan boys and where are the articles, and which posters have been snarky to you for not liking a movie?0 -
I thought that was evident from the first paragraph.se9addick said:
It didn't tell 3 or 4 stories within a day, it told the stories over differing time period until they all culminate. Could explain why you didn't like it?Redskin said:I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance.
The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before.
That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.0 -
smudge7946 said:
Saw The Emoji Movie.
It was dross.
However I'm sure the high five told the virus to ´fu3k xff' half way through the film.
Can anyone else confirm.
3 -
Apart from a couple of reviews in the Times most of the other reviews I read or scanned were overwhelmingly positive. Some were film critics on other UK newspapers and a lot were just articles on the web. The bloke who use to be the film critic on the BBC or channel 4 (just looked him up, Mark Komode) declared last week it was the definitive war movie! It just seems to me like this director could put whatever shit he likes onto the screen and his fans will defend it.JiMMy 85 said:
Mind if I ask if you're able to get a bit more specific here?Red_in_SE8 said:
The reason I did not like the film is that I simply found it boring. Repetitive. Dull. I have read many articles by the directors' fan boys laying out reasons why the film is groundbreaking. But I am not convinced. And I am entitled to find the film boring. But I expect the usual snarky comments from the usual suspects on here!se9addick said:
It didn't tell 3 or 4 stories within a day, it told the stories over differing time period until they all culminate. Could explain why you didn't like it?Redskin said:I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance.
The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before.
That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.
Like, who are the fan boys and where are the articles, and which posters have been snarky to you for not liking a movie?
I was not referring to you as a fan boy. You are obviously involved professionally in the world of film making and I accept your opinions on films carry more weight and deserve more respect than any opinions I have on films. But, I will never forget how I felt at the end of my first viewing of the Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now and Saving Private Ryan at the cinema. And I did not need to wade through articles explaining what the directors of these films were trying to achieve in order for me to have a visceral reaction to those films.
And I was certainly not referring to you as one of the usual suspects who troll me on various threads looking for opportunities to make snarky comments so they can get LOLs from their little group of followers.0 -
It's your eyesight not your memory it makes worse mate.T.C.E said:
This is true, but I forgot why I'd done it.DaveMehmet said:T.C.E said:Watched "Locked up" the other evening, enjoyable yet predictable. Big lesbian scene in the the film. Watching the blind panic on my wife face as she realised that our blinds were still open, I'd unzipped my flies and our TV visible to passing neighbours was worth seeing.
1 -
Wow. Just wow.Red_in_SE8 said:
Apart from a couple of reviews in the Times most of the other reviews I read or scanned were overwhelmingly positive. Some were film critics on other UK newspapers and a lot were just articles on the web. The bloke who use to be the film critic on the BBC or channel 4 (just looked him up, Mark Komode) declared last week it was the definitive war movie! It just seems to me like this director could put whatever shit he likes onto the screen and his fans will defend it.JiMMy 85 said:
Mind if I ask if you're able to get a bit more specific here?Red_in_SE8 said:
The reason I did not like the film is that I simply found it boring. Repetitive. Dull. I have read many articles by the directors' fan boys laying out reasons why the film is groundbreaking. But I am not convinced. And I am entitled to find the film boring. But I expect the usual snarky comments from the usual suspects on here!se9addick said:
It didn't tell 3 or 4 stories within a day, it told the stories over differing time period until they all culminate. Could explain why you didn't like it?Redskin said:I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance.
The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before.
That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.
Like, who are the fan boys and where are the articles, and which posters have been snarky to you for not liking a movie?
I was not referring to you as a fan boy. You are obviously involved professionally in the world of film making and I accept your opinions on films carry more weight and deserve more respect than any opinions I have on films. But, I will never forget how I felt at the end of my first viewing of the Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now and Saving Private Ryan at the cinema. And I did not need to wade through articles explaining what the directors of these films were trying to achieve in order for me to have a visceral reaction to those films.
And I was certainly not referring to you as one of the usual suspects who troll me on various threads looking for opportunities to make snarky comments so they can get LOLs from their little group of followers.0 -
Very original! How many times have I seen that exact phrase to express a fake reaction on here. Nice to see one of my Brexit trolls still on my case.TellyTubby said:
Wow. Just wow.Red_in_SE8 said:
Apart from a couple of reviews in the Times most of the other reviews I read or scanned were overwhelmingly positive. Some were film critics on other UK newspapers and a lot were just articles on the web. The bloke who use to be the film critic on the BBC or channel 4 (just looked him up, Mark Komode) declared last week it was the definitive war movie! It just seems to me like this director could put whatever shit he likes onto the screen and his fans will defend it.JiMMy 85 said:
Mind if I ask if you're able to get a bit more specific here?Red_in_SE8 said:
The reason I did not like the film is that I simply found it boring. Repetitive. Dull. I have read many articles by the directors' fan boys laying out reasons why the film is groundbreaking. But I am not convinced. And I am entitled to find the film boring. But I expect the usual snarky comments from the usual suspects on here!se9addick said:
It didn't tell 3 or 4 stories within a day, it told the stories over differing time period until they all culminate. Could explain why you didn't like it?Redskin said:I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance.
The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before.
That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.
Like, who are the fan boys and where are the articles, and which posters have been snarky to you for not liking a movie?
I was not referring to you as a fan boy. You are obviously involved professionally in the world of film making and I accept your opinions on films carry more weight and deserve more respect than any opinions I have on films. But, I will never forget how I felt at the end of my first viewing of the Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now and Saving Private Ryan at the cinema. And I did not need to wade through articles explaining what the directors of these films were trying to achieve in order for me to have a visceral reaction to those films.
And I was certainly not referring to you as one of the usual suspects who troll me on various threads looking for opportunities to make snarky comments so they can get LOLs from their little group of followers.
No doubt the rest of your little gang will be along soon.-1
