Went to watch Jojo Rabbit yesterday with my son (nearly 10). Both laughed at it a lot, couple of difficult bits for him in it and not sure he really got it all but it was better than I expected.
At least 7 maybe 8/10 for me/us
Went to see Jojo Rabbit tonight, thought it was brilliant.
Saw it yesterday and have to say it was a lot better than I expected. Seeing Nazism defined by a young boy gives it a very different perspective and at times it's very moving. The comedy in the film is offset by the tragedy of the regime.
I pesume some of you have see films in imax, can you please tell me what the advantages are. Is sound,picture quality or all of it
Much larger screen and superior sound quality . IMAX screenings do differ though . My local one in Stevenage is not much better than a normal screen but the IMAX at Charlton is very good .
I pesume some of you have see films in imax, can you please tell me what the advantages are. Is sound,picture quality or all of it
As Beds says, much bigger screens - they should also have amazing surround sound. This creates a more immersive experience. I would argue that a 2D IMAX movie is the best way to experience a film. Mission: Impossible 4 was a mind-blowing experience.
Most IMAX screens are digitally projected (any Cineworld for example), but if you can get to one of the handful that use proper projectors (Waterloo) than you're dealing with the best quality image. I also think that sitting in the middle row at the Waterloo IMAX is the very best seat in the country. The rake on the seats is steep which really helps. With chain cinemas, they've not designed the seating accordingly.
I pesume some of you have see films in imax, can you please tell me what the advantages are. Is sound,picture quality or all of it
Tried it for the first time for the last star wars. Loved it. Screen covered the whole of the wall. It was also 3D which just added to the experience. Sound was unbelievable. For the right type of film I'd do it again.
I'm not sure about this point, I need to do some research, but I think that most films shown in IMAX are converted, and not shot with IMAX cameras.
Basically they are shot digitally, with a high enough resolution to project on a big screen. An IMAX camera is 70mm (normal films are largely shot on 35mm) so they are EXTREMELY detailed images, much better than digital. And expensive as there aren't many cameras, and the cameras are HUGE so hard to use.
Chris Nolan likes to shoot with IMAX cameras (there were 4-5 IMAX scenes in The Dark Knight, and he smashed up one of the IMAX cameras by accident, which was moody cos there were only half a dozen in existence).
I think the Top Gun sequel is going to be entirely IMAX, and that's going to be f***ing amazing. I can't stress enough how good that will look at Waterloo.
Two popes is an excellent piece of drama and the acting is top notch. 1917 is enjoyable but some of the scenes just didn’t work for me. The cellar scene for one and the running scenes being shot at went on too long and just didn’t seem likely.
The Science Museum IMAX, whilst smaller than the BFI, also has a great rake and is presently analogue but you need to rush to see anything there as it’s about to temporarily close and go digital. Brought a tear to my eye in their projection booth the other week looking at all the lovely reels....
I pesume some of you have see films in imax, can you please tell me what the advantages are. Is sound,picture quality or all of it
As Beds says, much bigger screens - they should also have amazing surround sound. This creates a more immersive experience. I would argue that a 2D IMAX movie is the best way to experience a film. Mission: Impossible 4 was a mind-blowing experience.
Most IMAX screens are digitally projected (any Cineworld for example), but if you can get to one of the handful that use proper projectors (Waterloo) than you're dealing with the best quality image. I also think that sitting in the middle row at the Waterloo IMAX is the very best seat in the country. The rake on the seats is steep which really helps. With chain cinemas, they've not designed the seating accordingly.
Agree with all this. I saw Joker and the recent Star Wars film at the Waterloo IMAX. Another plus is because the tickets are fairly expensive (£47 for two adults) you don’t get muppets on their phones and talking loudly throughout. It’s a respectful silence and reverence for cinema.
Watched Richard Jewell last night. It is based on a true story and directed by Clint Eastwood. Starts a bit slow but overall very good. Kathy Bates gives a great performance and totally deserves her Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress. 8/10
It's interesting that there is a 10 episode mini series out next month named Manhunt - Deadly Games, which is about the exact same incident. I look forward to watching it.
I watched Joker for the second time this evening and loved it much more than the first viewing. I seldom watch anything again nowadays but this one is a total surprise for me. I thought I'd find it boring considering I knew the plot but how wrong I was. Phoenix should win the Best Actor Oscar award and I'll be happy if the film gets Best Picture too.
A bunch of us get together every so often to watch a film around one of our homes. It's rarely a modern one. We have watched That'll be the day, Stardust, Hurricane, Quadrophenia, Tommy, Porky's and a Clockwork Orange amongst others.
We have agreed that Scully will be our next and probably Harry's Game after that. a number of our group are too young to remember the troubles in Ireland very well, although one of our number was out there on service and experienced Enniskillen, so feedback should be interesting from her if not emotional.
Happy to get your suggestions for our viewing pleasure if you have any guys n gals? I think that we need to consider a lighter film at some stage as Disney is just about the only stuff 2 ladies tend to watch.
Just watched 1917. It is the sixth of the 9 films nominated for Best Picture at this year's Oscars that I've watched. I must say it is hands-down my favourite of those six. I knew about the one shot fuss but didn't pay too much attention to it while watching. I've always loved war films and 1917 is definitely one of the most captivating and intense war films I've watched. The sountrack immensely helps build the film too. I had tears in my eyes seeing the scene where Sco walking/running on the frontline in the direction of the camera while all other solidiers are running to the left side of the screen - it is such a powerful scene and the music is simply amazing. Sam Mendez has done a tremendous job. I was slightly surprised that this film turned out to be the biggest winner at the Golden Globes a few weeks ago but now I totally get it.
I'm going to watch Jojo Rabbit soon. Not sure about Parasite as I'm usually not interested in Korean films but seeing as it's got so many positive reviews I may watch it. Not interested in Little Women. So I rank the 6 films in this order: (Once upon a time in Hollywood is far down below because I simply couldn't get into it. It was one of those 'what the hell is this' kind of films for me.)
1917
JOKER
FORD V FERRARI
THE IRISHMAN
.
.
MARRIAGE STORY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD
By the way, I hope Thomas Newman wins the Best Original Score award at the Oscars.
Just watched 1917. It is the sixth of the 9 films nominated for Best Picture at this year's Oscars that I've watched. I must say it is hands-down my favourite of those six. I knew about the one shot fuss but didn't pay too much attention to it while watching. I've always loved war films and 1917 is definitely one of the most captivating and intense war films I've watched. The sountrack immensely helps build the film too. I had tears in my eyes seeing the scene where Sco walking/running on the frontline in the direction of the camera while all other solidiers are running to the left side of the screen - it is such a powerful scene and the music is simply amazing. Sam Mendez has done a tremendous job. I was slightly surprised that this film turned out to be the biggest winner at the Golden Globes a few weeks ago but now I totally get it.
I'm going to watch Jojo Rabbit soon. Not sure about Parasite as I'm usually not interested in Korean films but seeing as it's got so many positive reviews I may watch it. Not interested in Little Women. So I rank the 6 films in this order: (Once upon a time in Hollywood is far down below because I simply couldn't get into it. It was one of those 'what the hell is this' kind of films for me.)
1917
JOKER
FORD V FERRARI
THE IRISHMAN
.
.
MARRIAGE STORY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD
By the way, I hope Thomas Newman wins the Best Original Score award at the Oscars.
OK, I've given it a week or so now.
Although I liked 1917 a lot and thoroughly recommend it, there was one thing about the film that bugged the hell out of me.
They had gone into a lot of effort to try and get details right, that's why it stood out for me so much. All the actors had perfect teeth, watch the clips of the period film and everyone must have a third of their teeth missing.
I think 1917 fails as a film in its narrative as the characters for me are not really developed. I didn't find it as gripping as a number of other war films.
It was my wife's choice of film this week, so Little Women it was. My wife thought it was brilliant, my verdict was ok. Am going to sound sexist but the audience was 90% female.
I thought the lead actor in 1917 was brilliant. Went about it reserved at the start as he’d seen the horrors before, then his instinct to survive and finding out his reasons at the end (I don’t want to put any spoilers in here).
To be fair though how would you expect characters to develop in a WW1 film?
I'm just commenting on finding the characters a bit one dimensional - I was more engaged by the WW1 film Journey's End. Just my opinion.
I think we can take it for granted that it’s your opinion.
Journey’s End is also a WW1 movie but there’s not a lot else they have in common. One is an interpersonal drama, based on a play from 100 years ago, designed to delve into the mindset of WW1 soldiers awaiting their doom, while the other is effectively an action movie. I think it’s entirely unfair - or even unnecessary - to compare the two in this way.
And while an action movie will spend less time expanding on character history or motivation than a drama, I personally thought 1917 did a grand job of explaining who Schofield and Blake were, particularly given they were constantly on the move.
Sure you can prefer one or another. I just think saying ‘the narrative fails’ is nonsense.
1917 gets a 9/10 from me... Fantastic film which is incredible when you consider how its shot
Mendes' version of No Man's Land is just amazing, the whole from that point at the beginning to the very end just leaves you on edge the whole time
Whilst everyone has their opinion (I respect that) I feel it was a film that wasnt about the characters hence why development wasnt required
Certainly didnt really care about the individuals and their backgrounds as wasnt a story about them specifically - they were just another two people in what we know was a brutal conflict
In terms of the cast I've been made to eat my words; when I saw the casting of Schofield and Blake my first reactions were: "Seriously, they look far too soft" but seeing them in the film I was extremely impressed - If anything my sole nit pick would be around Firth | Strong | Cumberbatch | Marsden - Felt the film was poweful enough not to require any big names and their brief cameos turned the scenes into: "Oh my god its X" when I think lesser actors like those who played Blake (Yes I know he was in GoT) and Schofield would have put more emphasis on the scene itself
My biggest critiscm was shortly after Blake died... Unless Schofield was sat there for an age I found it strange that Strong and his men suddenly appeared on the scene with no warning i.e. in cars / trucks couldnt be heard whilst a handful of soldiers were round the corner having a piss yet themselves were oblivious to the fight? - Of course I may just be missing something in that passage of the film and was a sign of how Schofield had completely zoned out and was oblivious to everyone around him in the aftermath of Blake's death
Comments
9/10.
Most IMAX screens are digitally projected (any Cineworld for example), but if you can get to one of the handful that use proper projectors (Waterloo) than you're dealing with the best quality image. I also think that sitting in the middle row at the Waterloo IMAX is the very best seat in the country. The rake on the seats is steep which really helps. With chain cinemas, they've not designed the seating accordingly.
Screen covered the whole of the wall. It was also 3D which just added to the experience.
Sound was unbelievable. For the right type of film I'd do it again.
Basically they are shot digitally, with a high enough resolution to project on a big screen. An IMAX camera is 70mm (normal films are largely shot on 35mm) so they are EXTREMELY detailed images, much better than digital. And expensive as there aren't many cameras, and the cameras are HUGE so hard to use.
Chris Nolan likes to shoot with IMAX cameras (there were 4-5 IMAX scenes in The Dark Knight, and he smashed up one of the IMAX cameras by accident, which was moody cos there were only half a dozen in existence).
I think the Top Gun sequel is going to be entirely IMAX, and that's going to be f***ing amazing. I can't stress enough how good that will look at Waterloo.
1917 7/10
It's interesting that there is a 10 episode mini series out next month named Manhunt - Deadly Games, which is about the exact same incident. I look forward to watching it.
I watched Joker for the second time this evening and loved it much more than the first viewing. I seldom watch anything again nowadays but this one is a total surprise for me. I thought I'd find it boring considering I knew the plot but how wrong I was. Phoenix should win the Best Actor Oscar award and I'll be happy if the film gets Best Picture too.
7.5/10
We have agreed that Scully will be our next and probably Harry's Game after that. a number of our group are too young to remember the troubles in Ireland very well, although one of our number was out there on service and experienced Enniskillen, so feedback should be interesting from her if not emotional.
Happy to get your suggestions for our viewing pleasure if you have any guys n gals? I think that we need to consider a lighter film at some stage as Disney is just about the only stuff 2 ladies tend to watch.
I'm going to watch Jojo Rabbit soon. Not sure about Parasite as I'm usually not interested in Korean films but seeing as it's got so many positive reviews I may watch it. Not interested in Little Women. So I rank the 6 films in this order: (Once upon a time in Hollywood is far down below because I simply couldn't get into it. It was one of those 'what the hell is this' kind of films for me.)
By the way, I hope Thomas Newman wins the Best Original Score award at the Oscars.
Although I liked 1917 a lot and thoroughly recommend it, there was one thing about the film that bugged the hell out of me.
They had gone into a lot of effort to try and get details right, that's why it stood out for me so much. All the actors had perfect teeth, watch the clips of the period film and everyone must have a third of their teeth missing.
Mendes' version of No Man's Land is just amazing, the whole from that point at the beginning to the very end just leaves you on edge the whole time
Whilst everyone has their opinion (I respect that) I feel it was a film that wasnt about the characters hence why development wasnt required
Certainly didnt really care about the individuals and their backgrounds as wasnt a story about them specifically - they were just another two people in what we know was a brutal conflict
In terms of the cast I've been made to eat my words; when I saw the casting of Schofield and Blake my first reactions were: "Seriously, they look far too soft" but seeing them in the film I was extremely impressed - If anything my sole nit pick would be around Firth | Strong | Cumberbatch | Marsden - Felt the film was poweful enough not to require any big names and their brief cameos turned the scenes into: "Oh my god its X" when I think lesser actors like those who played Blake (Yes I know he was in GoT) and Schofield would have put more emphasis on the scene itself