Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Latest Films

1167168170172173286

Comments

  • I saw Bohemian Rhapsody a few days back now- I quite enjoyed it, and find a lot of the reviews to be excessively harsh.

    Rami Malek a definite standout though, did very well to portray Mercury.

    I thought the reviews were ridiculously OTT. Malek was the standout.
  • Just seen Bohemian Rhapsody & can only echo what others have said on here. I think the bad reviews are very harsh. Rami Malek is very good as Freddie
  • Watched a (probably independent) film called Leave No Trace, starring Ben Foster. https://m.imdb.com/title/tt3892172/

    Too slow for me. 6.5/10
  • Watched a (probably independent) film called Leave No Trace, starring Ben Foster. https://m.imdb.com/title/tt3892172/

    Too slow for me. 6.5/10

    I saw this too about 3 months ago. Had to use your link to remind me of the storyline! But I enjoyed it and thought the themes were sensitively covered.
  • Watched a (probably independent) film called Leave No Trace, starring Ben Foster. https://m.imdb.com/title/tt3892172/

    Too slow for me. 6.5/10

    I saw this too about 3 months ago. Had to use your link to remind me of the storyline! But I enjoyed it and thought the themes were sensitively covered.
    It got generally very positive reviews. The girl gave a quite good performance I think.
  • Watched 'Wonder' on netflix last night. Pleasant feel-good film to watch if you wanna wind down.
  • edited October 2018
    Was off sick last week, got through loads of stuff.

    The Disaster Artist ****
    Thoroughly enjoyed it, thought it was funny enough, the cast were all enjoying themselves and it seemed quite accurate. Not sure if it stands alone - If you don't know The Room I am not sure you would be bothered by it. I've got a friend who is very fussy about what films he watches, and I wouldn't recommend it to him as he'd be bemused by the whole affair.

    Hereditary **
    Didn't like it at all. Don't get what the fuss is about. I'm not a horror fan generally, so might not be the best judge. I just felt it relied on some cliched stuff to be scary (particularly music/ sound). The direction did a good job of making me feel uneasy, I just didn't have much time for the plot I suppose.

    The Verdict *****
    Saw it was available on an on demand service and thought I'd best finally see it. Sidney Lumet stuff is always so engaging. I did feel like Newman was playing for an Oscar to an extent, but hey, it worked.

    Transformers: The Last Knight
    This is the third time I have tried to watch this film. I beat my record and got to 12 minutes before I deleted it from the hard drive. There won't be a fourth attempt.

    The Dark Knight Returns Pt. 1 and 2 ****
    Animated version of the classic graphic novel. I don't go in for this stuff much, fortunately this is very well written and the animation works for me.

    Ocean's 8 **
    Imagine someone being on a work away day and stuck with a team of four or five people they don't normally work with. Then you get told "here's a pad of paper, you have one hour to write a new Ocean's movie." - I am pretty sure that's how this movie was made. They thought of a bunch of cliches from the previous three movies and whacked them together, and hired the oldest young-looking women who are still allowed by Hollywood to play non motherly roles. Turgid, boring and void of any ideas of its own.
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    Was off sick last week, got through loads of stuff.

    The Disaster Artist ****
    Thoroughly enjoyed it, thought it was funny enough, the cast were all enjoying themselves and it seemed quite accurate. Not sure if it stands alone - If you don't know The Room I am not sure you would be bothered by it. I've got a friend who is very fussy about what films he watches, and I wouldn't recommend it to him as he'd be bemused by the whole affair.

    Hereditary **
    Didn't like it at all. Don't get what the fuss is about. I'm not a horror fan generally, so might not be the best judge. I just felt it relied on some cliched stuff to be scary (particularly music/ sound). The direction did a good job of making me feel uneasy, I just didn't have much time for the plot I suppose.

    The Verdict *****
    Saw it was available on an on demand service and thought I'd best finally see it. Sidney Lumet stuff is always so engaging. I did feel like Newman was playing for an Oscar to an extent, but hey, it worked.


    Transformers: The Last Knight
    This is the third time I have tried to watch this film. I beat my record and got to 12 minutes before I deleted it from the hard drive. There won't be a fourth attempt.

    The Dark Knight Returns Pt. 1 and 2 ****
    Animated version of the classic graphic novel. I don't go in for this stuff much, fortunately this is very well written and the animation works for me.

    Ocean's 8 **
    Imagine someone being on a work away day and stuck with a team of four or five people they don't normally work with. Then you get told "here's a pad of paper, you have one hour to write a new Ocean's movie." - I am pretty sure that's how this movie was made. They thought of a bunch of cliches from the previous three movies and whacked them together, and hired the oldest young-looking women who are still allowed by Hollywood to play non motherly roles. Turgid, boring and void of any ideas of its own.

    Fantastic film, Newman was brilliant and so was James Mason. Newman lost out on the Best Actor Oscar to someone who wouldn't have been allowed to play his role these days...
  • Riviera said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Was off sick last week, got through loads of stuff.

    The Disaster Artist ****
    Thoroughly enjoyed it, thought it was funny enough, the cast were all enjoying themselves and it seemed quite accurate. Not sure if it stands alone - If you don't know The Room I am not sure you would be bothered by it. I've got a friend who is very fussy about what films he watches, and I wouldn't recommend it to him as he'd be bemused by the whole affair.

    Hereditary **
    Didn't like it at all. Don't get what the fuss is about. I'm not a horror fan generally, so might not be the best judge. I just felt it relied on some cliched stuff to be scary (particularly music/ sound). The direction did a good job of making me feel uneasy, I just didn't have much time for the plot I suppose.

    The Verdict *****
    Saw it was available on an on demand service and thought I'd best finally see it. Sidney Lumet stuff is always so engaging. I did feel like Newman was playing for an Oscar to an extent, but hey, it worked.


    Transformers: The Last Knight
    This is the third time I have tried to watch this film. I beat my record and got to 12 minutes before I deleted it from the hard drive. There won't be a fourth attempt.

    The Dark Knight Returns Pt. 1 and 2 ****
    Animated version of the classic graphic novel. I don't go in for this stuff much, fortunately this is very well written and the animation works for me.

    Ocean's 8 **
    Imagine someone being on a work away day and stuck with a team of four or five people they don't normally work with. Then you get told "here's a pad of paper, you have one hour to write a new Ocean's movie." - I am pretty sure that's how this movie was made. They thought of a bunch of cliches from the previous three movies and whacked them together, and hired the oldest young-looking women who are still allowed by Hollywood to play non motherly roles. Turgid, boring and void of any ideas of its own.

    Fantastic film, Newman was brilliant and so was James Mason. Newman lost out on the Best Actor Oscar to someone who wouldn't have been allowed to play his role these days...
    You mean Sir Ben as Gandhi? Why not?
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    Riviera said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Was off sick last week, got through loads of stuff.

    The Disaster Artist ****
    Thoroughly enjoyed it, thought it was funny enough, the cast were all enjoying themselves and it seemed quite accurate. Not sure if it stands alone - If you don't know The Room I am not sure you would be bothered by it. I've got a friend who is very fussy about what films he watches, and I wouldn't recommend it to him as he'd be bemused by the whole affair.

    Hereditary **
    Didn't like it at all. Don't get what the fuss is about. I'm not a horror fan generally, so might not be the best judge. I just felt it relied on some cliched stuff to be scary (particularly music/ sound). The direction did a good job of making me feel uneasy, I just didn't have much time for the plot I suppose.

    The Verdict *****
    Saw it was available on an on demand service and thought I'd best finally see it. Sidney Lumet stuff is always so engaging. I did feel like Newman was playing for an Oscar to an extent, but hey, it worked.


    Transformers: The Last Knight
    This is the third time I have tried to watch this film. I beat my record and got to 12 minutes before I deleted it from the hard drive. There won't be a fourth attempt.

    The Dark Knight Returns Pt. 1 and 2 ****
    Animated version of the classic graphic novel. I don't go in for this stuff much, fortunately this is very well written and the animation works for me.

    Ocean's 8 **
    Imagine someone being on a work away day and stuck with a team of four or five people they don't normally work with. Then you get told "here's a pad of paper, you have one hour to write a new Ocean's movie." - I am pretty sure that's how this movie was made. They thought of a bunch of cliches from the previous three movies and whacked them together, and hired the oldest young-looking women who are still allowed by Hollywood to play non motherly roles. Turgid, boring and void of any ideas of its own.

    Fantastic film, Newman was brilliant and so was James Mason. Newman lost out on the Best Actor Oscar to someone who wouldn't have been allowed to play his role these days...
    You mean Sir Ben as Gandhi? Why not?
    Because he's not Indian...

    Just take Ed Skrien for example, he was supposed to be in a Hellboy (a comic book) reboot, yet because the character was Japanese-American he withdrew after criticsm...
  • Sponsored links:


  • JiMMy 85 said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Riviera said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Was off sick last week, got through loads of stuff.

    The Disaster Artist ****
    Thoroughly enjoyed it, thought it was funny enough, the cast were all enjoying themselves and it seemed quite accurate. Not sure if it stands alone - If you don't know The Room I am not sure you would be bothered by it. I've got a friend who is very fussy about what films he watches, and I wouldn't recommend it to him as he'd be bemused by the whole affair.

    Hereditary **
    Didn't like it at all. Don't get what the fuss is about. I'm not a horror fan generally, so might not be the best judge. I just felt it relied on some cliched stuff to be scary (particularly music/ sound). The direction did a good job of making me feel uneasy, I just didn't have much time for the plot I suppose.

    The Verdict *****
    Saw it was available on an on demand service and thought I'd best finally see it. Sidney Lumet stuff is always so engaging. I did feel like Newman was playing for an Oscar to an extent, but hey, it worked.


    Transformers: The Last Knight
    This is the third time I have tried to watch this film. I beat my record and got to 12 minutes before I deleted it from the hard drive. There won't be a fourth attempt.

    The Dark Knight Returns Pt. 1 and 2 ****
    Animated version of the classic graphic novel. I don't go in for this stuff much, fortunately this is very well written and the animation works for me.

    Ocean's 8 **
    Imagine someone being on a work away day and stuck with a team of four or five people they don't normally work with. Then you get told "here's a pad of paper, you have one hour to write a new Ocean's movie." - I am pretty sure that's how this movie was made. They thought of a bunch of cliches from the previous three movies and whacked them together, and hired the oldest young-looking women who are still allowed by Hollywood to play non motherly roles. Turgid, boring and void of any ideas of its own.

    Fantastic film, Newman was brilliant and so was James Mason. Newman lost out on the Best Actor Oscar to someone who wouldn't have been allowed to play his role these days...
    You mean Sir Ben as Gandhi? Why not?
    Because he's not Indian...

    Just take Ed Skrien for example, he was supposed to be in a Hellboy (a comic book) reboot, yet because the character was Japanese-American he withdrew after criticsm...

    Hmmmm... Ben Kingsley was born Krishna Bhanji on December 31, 1943 in Scarborough, Yorkshire, England. His father, Rahimtulla Harji Bhanji, was a Kenyan-born medical doctor, of Gujarati Indian descent

    But he was born in England!
  • And he "blacked-up".
  • Technically he 'browned up'. I think it's absolutely fine for actors to play people of different cultures. That's why it's called acting. I mean, do we want to live in a world where Michael J. Fox can't voice the cat in Homeward Bound? Still, I have no idea if Sir Ben is Indian enough to avoid causing offence. I just know that he's capable of making the character convincing on screen, which is the point.

    That said, I would rather have seen an unknown Japanese actress in the live action version of Ghost in the Shell than Scarlett Johansson. There are times when Hollywood relies on a name when someone more suitable is available. But that's the economics of filmmaking.
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    Technically he 'browned up'. I think it's absolutely fine for actors to play people of different cultures. That's why it's called acting. I mean, do we want to live in a world where Michael J. Fox can't voice the cat in Homeward Bound? Still, I have no idea if Sir Ben is Indian enough to avoid causing offence. I just know that he's capable of making the character convincing on screen, which is the point.

    That said, I would rather have seen an unknown Japanese actress in the live action version of Ghost in the Shell than Scarlett Johansson. There are times when Hollywood relies on a name when someone more suitable is available. But that's the economics of filmmaking.

    Of course it is!! But many in the film industry no longer believe so, unless it's a black actor playing a white character like James Bond of course. There are some who don't think straight actors should play gay roles but of course they wouldn't have it the other way round would they? As you say acting is acting and everyone should be able to play anyone with the make-up applied to make it authentic.
  • Riviera said:

    And he "blacked-up".

    Wasn't aware of this.
  • Riviera said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Technically he 'browned up'. I think it's absolutely fine for actors to play people of different cultures. That's why it's called acting. I mean, do we want to live in a world where Michael J. Fox can't voice the cat in Homeward Bound? Still, I have no idea if Sir Ben is Indian enough to avoid causing offence. I just know that he's capable of making the character convincing on screen, which is the point.

    That said, I would rather have seen an unknown Japanese actress in the live action version of Ghost in the Shell than Scarlett Johansson. There are times when Hollywood relies on a name when someone more suitable is available. But that's the economics of filmmaking.

    Of course it is!! But many in the film industry no longer believe so, unless it's a black actor playing a white character like James Bond of course. There are some who don't think straight actors should play gay roles but of course they wouldn't have it the other way round would they? As you say acting is acting and everyone should be able to play anyone with the make-up applied to make it authentic.
    I don't think it's the film industry that doesn't think so. It's the Twitter backlash that studios have to deal with.

    As for Bond - he's a British, suave, alcoholic, womanising, cold-blooded killer. He's not defined by skin colour.
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    Riviera said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Technically he 'browned up'. I think it's absolutely fine for actors to play people of different cultures. That's why it's called acting. I mean, do we want to live in a world where Michael J. Fox can't voice the cat in Homeward Bound? Still, I have no idea if Sir Ben is Indian enough to avoid causing offence. I just know that he's capable of making the character convincing on screen, which is the point.

    That said, I would rather have seen an unknown Japanese actress in the live action version of Ghost in the Shell than Scarlett Johansson. There are times when Hollywood relies on a name when someone more suitable is available. But that's the economics of filmmaking.

    Of course it is!! But many in the film industry no longer believe so, unless it's a black actor playing a white character like James Bond of course. There are some who don't think straight actors should play gay roles but of course they wouldn't have it the other way round would they? As you say acting is acting and everyone should be able to play anyone with the make-up applied to make it authentic.
    I don't think it's the film industry that doesn't think so. It's the Twitter backlash that studios have to deal with.

    As for Bond - he's a British, suave, alcoholic, womanising, cold-blooded killer. He's not defined by skin colour.
    I'm just happy we don't have to endure minstrel shows and blacked up white actors looking ridiculous and delivering terrible performances.

    https://goo.gl/images/h8fwFy
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    Riviera said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Technically he 'browned up'. I think it's absolutely fine for actors to play people of different cultures. That's why it's called acting. I mean, do we want to live in a world where Michael J. Fox can't voice the cat in Homeward Bound? Still, I have no idea if Sir Ben is Indian enough to avoid causing offence. I just know that he's capable of making the character convincing on screen, which is the point.

    That said, I would rather have seen an unknown Japanese actress in the live action version of Ghost in the Shell than Scarlett Johansson. There are times when Hollywood relies on a name when someone more suitable is available. But that's the economics of filmmaking.

    Of course it is!! But many in the film industry no longer believe so, unless it's a black actor playing a white character like James Bond of course. There are some who don't think straight actors should play gay roles but of course they wouldn't have it the other way round would they? As you say acting is acting and everyone should be able to play anyone with the make-up applied to make it authentic.
    I don't think it's the film industry that doesn't think so. It's the Twitter backlash that studios have to deal with.

    As for Bond - he's a British, suave, alcoholic, womanising, cold-blooded killer. He's not defined by skin colour.
    Yes he is. This is how Ian Fleming described him.
  • Riviera said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Riviera said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Technically he 'browned up'. I think it's absolutely fine for actors to play people of different cultures. That's why it's called acting. I mean, do we want to live in a world where Michael J. Fox can't voice the cat in Homeward Bound? Still, I have no idea if Sir Ben is Indian enough to avoid causing offence. I just know that he's capable of making the character convincing on screen, which is the point.

    That said, I would rather have seen an unknown Japanese actress in the live action version of Ghost in the Shell than Scarlett Johansson. There are times when Hollywood relies on a name when someone more suitable is available. But that's the economics of filmmaking.

    Of course it is!! But many in the film industry no longer believe so, unless it's a black actor playing a white character like James Bond of course. There are some who don't think straight actors should play gay roles but of course they wouldn't have it the other way round would they? As you say acting is acting and everyone should be able to play anyone with the make-up applied to make it authentic.
    I don't think it's the film industry that doesn't think so. It's the Twitter backlash that studios have to deal with.

    As for Bond - he's a British, suave, alcoholic, womanising, cold-blooded killer. He's not defined by skin colour.
    Yes he is. This is how Ian Fleming described him.
    I think that's a weak argument - this is the same Fleming who didn't want Sean Connery to play Bond.
  • Sponsored links:


  • JiMMy 85 said:

    Riviera said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Riviera said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Technically he 'browned up'. I think it's absolutely fine for actors to play people of different cultures. That's why it's called acting. I mean, do we want to live in a world where Michael J. Fox can't voice the cat in Homeward Bound? Still, I have no idea if Sir Ben is Indian enough to avoid causing offence. I just know that he's capable of making the character convincing on screen, which is the point.

    That said, I would rather have seen an unknown Japanese actress in the live action version of Ghost in the Shell than Scarlett Johansson. There are times when Hollywood relies on a name when someone more suitable is available. But that's the economics of filmmaking.

    Of course it is!! But many in the film industry no longer believe so, unless it's a black actor playing a white character like James Bond of course. There are some who don't think straight actors should play gay roles but of course they wouldn't have it the other way round would they? As you say acting is acting and everyone should be able to play anyone with the make-up applied to make it authentic.
    I don't think it's the film industry that doesn't think so. It's the Twitter backlash that studios have to deal with.

    As for Bond - he's a British, suave, alcoholic, womanising, cold-blooded killer. He's not defined by skin colour.
    Yes he is. This is how Ian Fleming described him.
    I think that's a weak argument - this is the same Fleming who didn't want Sean Connery to play Bond.
    Lol! It's not a weak argument, it's a fact!
  • Riviera said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Technically he 'browned up'. I think it's absolutely fine for actors to play people of different cultures. That's why it's called acting. I mean, do we want to live in a world where Michael J. Fox can't voice the cat in Homeward Bound? Still, I have no idea if Sir Ben is Indian enough to avoid causing offence. I just know that he's capable of making the character convincing on screen, which is the point.

    That said, I would rather have seen an unknown Japanese actress in the live action version of Ghost in the Shell than Scarlett Johansson. There are times when Hollywood relies on a name when someone more suitable is available. But that's the economics of filmmaking.

    Of course it is!! But many in the film industry no longer believe so, unless it's a black actor playing a white character like James Bond of course. There are some who don't think straight actors should play gay roles but of course they wouldn't have it the other way round would they? As you say acting is acting and everyone should be able to play anyone with the make-up applied to make it authentic.
    So when people advocate a black actor should be the next Bond they are also suggesting he should put on “white face”?
  • I'm sure if James Bond is played by a black actor there'll be uproar from those still living in the 1970s.


  • Riviera said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Riviera said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Riviera said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Technically he 'browned up'. I think it's absolutely fine for actors to play people of different cultures. That's why it's called acting. I mean, do we want to live in a world where Michael J. Fox can't voice the cat in Homeward Bound? Still, I have no idea if Sir Ben is Indian enough to avoid causing offence. I just know that he's capable of making the character convincing on screen, which is the point.

    That said, I would rather have seen an unknown Japanese actress in the live action version of Ghost in the Shell than Scarlett Johansson. There are times when Hollywood relies on a name when someone more suitable is available. But that's the economics of filmmaking.

    Of course it is!! But many in the film industry no longer believe so, unless it's a black actor playing a white character like James Bond of course. There are some who don't think straight actors should play gay roles but of course they wouldn't have it the other way round would they? As you say acting is acting and everyone should be able to play anyone with the make-up applied to make it authentic.
    I don't think it's the film industry that doesn't think so. It's the Twitter backlash that studios have to deal with.

    As for Bond - he's a British, suave, alcoholic, womanising, cold-blooded killer. He's not defined by skin colour.
    Yes he is. This is how Ian Fleming described him.
    I think that's a weak argument - this is the same Fleming who didn't want Sean Connery to play Bond.
    Lol! It's not a weak argument, it's a fact!
    What I am saying is, what Fleming thought and believed is not what defines James Bond today. He didn't want a Scottish, working class Connery to be Bond. Most of the movies since Brosnan took over have not been based on his work anyway.

    Taking the author out of the equation, if you boil down Bond's character traits and came up with someone to portray those traits, skin colour is entirely irrelevant. He could be of Japanese, French or Fraggle Rock descent as long as he's capable of ticking the key trait boxes.
  • edited October 2018
    JiMMy 85 said:

    Riviera said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Riviera said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Riviera said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Technically he 'browned up'. I think it's absolutely fine for actors to play people of different cultures. That's why it's called acting. I mean, do we want to live in a world where Michael J. Fox can't voice the cat in Homeward Bound? Still, I have no idea if Sir Ben is Indian enough to avoid causing offence. I just know that he's capable of making the character convincing on screen, which is the point.

    That said, I would rather have seen an unknown Japanese actress in the live action version of Ghost in the Shell than Scarlett Johansson. There are times when Hollywood relies on a name when someone more suitable is available. But that's the economics of filmmaking.

    Of course it is!! But many in the film industry no longer believe so, unless it's a black actor playing a white character like James Bond of course. There are some who don't think straight actors should play gay roles but of course they wouldn't have it the other way round would they? As you say acting is acting and everyone should be able to play anyone with the make-up applied to make it authentic.
    I don't think it's the film industry that doesn't think so. It's the Twitter backlash that studios have to deal with.

    As for Bond - he's a British, suave, alcoholic, womanising, cold-blooded killer. He's not defined by skin colour.
    Yes he is. This is how Ian Fleming described him.
    I think that's a weak argument - this is the same Fleming who didn't want Sean Connery to play Bond.
    Lol! It's not a weak argument, it's a fact!
    What I am saying is, what Fleming thought and believed is not what defines James Bond today. He didn't want a Scottish, working class Connery to be Bond. Most of the movies since Brosnan took over have not been based on his work anyway.

    Taking the author out of the equation, if you boil down Bond's character traits and came up with someone to portray those traits, skin colour is entirely irrelevant. He could be of Japanese, French or Fraggle Rock descent as long as he's capable of ticking the key trait boxes.
    “Bond, James Bond....”

    image
  • Hold the dark

    This film had some really decent elements to it, the camera work is something I am increasingly noticing in films and this one had some brilliant examples of it. It had a really good shoot out that I didn't expect. Sadly the film made no fucking sense whatsoever! Films like this do my head in, there was a hint at something however it was illogical. The ending was poor, like a radio controlled car just stopping when the batteries ran out. This is increasingly a theme I'm finding with films. They get set up really well, have a good mid section and are then utterly let down by the final act.

    Some good performances were put in but it's a 5 out of ten purely for the shoot outs and the cinematography
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    Was off sick last week, got through loads of stuff.

    The Disaster Artist ****
    Thoroughly enjoyed it, thought it was funny enough, the cast were all enjoying themselves and it seemed quite accurate. Not sure if it stands alone - If you don't know The Room I am not sure you would be bothered by it. I've got a friend who is very fussy about what films he watches, and I wouldn't recommend it to him as he'd be bemused by the whole affair.

    Hereditary **
    Didn't like it at all. Don't get what the fuss is about. I'm not a horror fan generally, so might not be the best judge. I just felt it relied on some cliched stuff to be scary (particularly music/ sound). The direction did a good job of making me feel uneasy, I just didn't have much time for the plot I suppose.

    The Verdict *****
    Saw it was available on an on demand service and thought I'd best finally see it. Sidney Lumet stuff is always so engaging. I did feel like Newman was playing for an Oscar to an extent, but hey, it worked.

    Transformers: The Last Knight
    This is the third time I have tried to watch this film. I beat my record and got to 12 minutes before I deleted it from the hard drive. There won't be a fourth attempt.

    The Dark Knight Returns Pt. 1 and 2 ****
    Animated version of the classic graphic novel. I don't go in for this stuff much, fortunately this is very well written and the animation works for me.

    Ocean's 8 **
    Imagine someone being on a work away day and stuck with a team of four or five people they don't normally work with. Then you get told "here's a pad of paper, you have one hour to write a new Ocean's movie." - I am pretty sure that's how this movie was made. They thought of a bunch of cliches from the previous three movies and whacked them together, and hired the oldest young-looking women who are still allowed by Hollywood to play non motherly roles. Turgid, boring and void of any ideas of its own.

    I'm glad there's someone else who didn't like Hereditary. Thought it was a marketing con-job. It had one really disturbing, well directed scene, after which I was afraid I wouldn't be able to stomach the rest, but it quickly fell apart and most of the audience we watched it with were cracking up at the supposed horror moments towards the end.
  • Riviera said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Technically he 'browned up'. I think it's absolutely fine for actors to play people of different cultures. That's why it's called acting. I mean, do we want to live in a world where Michael J. Fox can't voice the cat in Homeward Bound? Still, I have no idea if Sir Ben is Indian enough to avoid causing offence. I just know that he's capable of making the character convincing on screen, which is the point.

    That said, I would rather have seen an unknown Japanese actress in the live action version of Ghost in the Shell than Scarlett Johansson. There are times when Hollywood relies on a name when someone more suitable is available. But that's the economics of filmmaking.

    Of course it is!! But many in the film industry no longer believe so, unless it's a black actor playing a white character like James Bond of course. There are some who don't think straight actors should play gay roles but of course they wouldn't have it the other way round would they? As you say acting is acting and everyone should be able to play anyone with the make-up applied to make it authentic.
    I think the issue is that for non-white actors in the UK and the US you are traditionally going to be seen only for a handful of roles that require the character to be non-white, rather than imagining that a non-white person could play a best friend, gritty cop, troubled genius, scheming billionaire, dynamic hero who happens to not be white. Female actors also get similar pigeon-holing of certain roles in casting. Therefore there is a certain protectionism as if you are a classical lead actor, you can dip into roles that these actors can play, but it doesn't work the other way. Of course any human actor should be able to play any character, but it is right to try and work through these historical issues with what type of characters are written, and why they need to be cast predominantly with a certain type of aesthetic.
  • Can only black actors assume the role of Othello ?
  • Can only black actors assume the role of Othello ?

    If you're interested in the history of black actors in cinema you should watch the BBC series Black Hollywood(on IPlayer) - it might help to inform some of the debate on here.

    I'm not really sure why you would want a white actor to play Othello? What did you make of the 1965 film version with Laurence Olivier in the role?

Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!