i hadn’t seen the old films recently ( my son had recently seen them and also listened to the audio book of this film, which was 16 hours long, so he had completely different expectations to me.
It’s a prequel, and whilst cynical of milking a franchise, it’s an alright movie, no Jennifer Lawrence obviously, who I thought was good in the old film, with out giving to much away, the 2 characters were ok, worth a watch if you enjoyed the old films, although you might fall into the ‘quite cynical camp’.
2.5 hours long, I enjoyed it, but wouldn’t rush back to see it again, will probably wait till it comes out to rent / or watch on Sky Cinema when it comes on.
This was our film of the week in our church cinema with a q&a after with Paul Laverty and David Putnam. I couldn’t make it unfortunately but a real highlight for our wee village xx
I finally got to watch Oppenheimer, a film that I'd been looking forward to for over a year but didn't get to see during its theatrical release because of an issue at work. I enjoyed it but felt there were quite a few elements that left me feeling disappointed. The editing style especially of the courtroom/interrogation scenes reminded me a little of Oliver Stone's JFK but I prefer the latter 10 times more. Oppenheimer's (intentionally? messy) editing gave me the impression that many parts were rushed instead of the film being clever or interesting. It's as if Nolan had so much to convey but he just crammed it all in 3 hours. The sound effects/soundtrack of a few scenes were so OTT it became distracting and uncomfortable - had I seen it in the cinema I probably couldn't stand it. Dialogues were superficial and I wasn't emotionally touched much or shocked. Plus, one character behaved especially ridiculously and unrealistically - Robert Downey Jr's aide, making Downey's character look like an idiot. The film's supposed to be drama not sarcastic comedy...
Anyway, I enjoyed it while watching it but felt it was just a good experience because of the tensions it creates not because of the subject itself. My favourite Nolan film remains Inception as it was sensational and kept me thinking about it for a few days after seeing it. I'll probably forget about Oppenheimer soon.😅
Truly bizarre film about the perils of fame and how it can turn sour. Centred around a university professor who enters people's dreams.
Nicholas Cage is excellent in the title role. 8/10
I saw this Friday.
No spoilers from me but if someone can explain the ending I'd be most grateful.
Agree Cage is excellent in the film but coming out I thought wtf ? What was that all.about ? It was as if the director had died half way through and someone new took over & went a different direction.
Truly bizarre film about the perils of fame and how it can turn sour. Centred around a university professor who enters people's dreams.
Nicholas Cage is excellent in the title role. 8/10
I saw this Friday.
No spoilers from me but if someone can explain the ending I'd be most grateful.
Agree Cage is excellent in the film but coming out I thought wtf ? What was that all.about ? It was as if the director had died half way through and someone new took over & went a different direction.
Either that or I'm missing something.
I just thought it showed how fame can turn sour particularly when it's underserved. That was my understanding?
Really looking forward to it as well, although doesn't sound as though it will be, given Ridley Scott's comments of late... Nor have I liked the reviews
Hopefully Spielberg will put together the HBO Series based on Stanley Kubrick's script from years ago - Someone like Napoleon deserves a multi-Episode story, rather than everything squeezed into one film
Not a new one but watched Greyhound on on AppleTV last night. Tom Hanks WW2 film about a convoy of allied ships trying to cross the Atlantic. An easy watch and the 90 minutes flew by.
Yea definitely don't expect it to be historically accurate haha. Ridley scott quipped the other day in response to historians criticisms "Excuse me mate were you there? No? Well, shut the fuck up then"
Have skipped 8 years and 5.5k of posts since my last visit, but watched Elvis this afternoon. Enjoyed it, thought Austin Butler was fantastic as Elvis but Tom Hanks just reminded me of Clive James. For a long film I felt some of the storylines were rushed, and the highlight was Butler’s on stage performances. 7/10
Only the 2nd film I’ve seen this year so a see you all in in Nov 2031 :-)
It made me really want to see a film solely focused on Elvis’ childhood/younger years. Must have been such a unique upbringing which clearly heavily influenced his later musical style. Probably more interesting than the Vegas years stuff.
Watched The Killer on Friday and didn't think it was great frankly. Probably a 5 or 6 out of 10. Nothing particularly interesting or standout about it. Fassbender was good in the main role but not a lot of payoff overall.
The way everyone was speaking about The Smiths in it I thought the music would play a bigger part as well, like in Baby Driver.
I really enjoyed this film. It begins with the mysterious death from a fall of a husband living in a house in the french alps. Superficially a did he fall or was he pushed? (or rather, clumped round the head and tipped out of a window), it turns into a forensic courtroom analysis of the relationship between the suspect (the wife) and the dead husband. As the exploration of the the marriage develops, small things take on a disproportionate significance and a lot of interpretation is applied by the prosecution to make their case.
A well-acted, absorbing and cerebral film long on dialogue, about 2/3 in english and 1/3 sub-titled french. 8/10.
I really enjoyed this film. It begins with the mysterious death from a fall of a husband living in a house in the french alps. Superficially a did he fall or was he pushed? (or rather, clumped round the head and tipped out of a window), it turns into a forensic courtroom analysis of the relationship between the suspect (the wife) and the dead husband. As the exploration of the the marriage develops, small things take on a disproportionate significance and a lot of interpretation is applied by the prosecution to make their case.
A well-acted, absorbing and cerebral film long on dialogue, about 2/3 in english and 1/3 sub-titled french. 8/10.
I agree - a very good 8/10. I thought Sandra Huller (of Toni Erdmann fame) was excellent and I can see why the film won the Palme d'Or. She's also extremely good in Jonathan Glazer's new film, The Zone of Interest, which won the second prize at Cannes.
I thought the defence lawyer bore a disconcerting resemblance to Thomas Franks (or at least his barnet !). The inquisitorial French Criminal trial system certainly seems more of a 'free for all' - with the participants chipping in at odd times - than the more structured approach of the criminal courts here.
Caught up with a few recently. The Exorcist - 5/10 - doesn't stand up to the original. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3. - 7/10 - Rocket's back story saves it. Indiana Jones and the dial of destiny- 7.5/10 - You do get a flavour of the previous (great) films.
Best film I've seen in a blooming long time. It has everything. Great acting, great plot, funny, dark, empathy.
Fecking great viewing.
Was my favourite film of 2020, probably. A great spin on a revenge movie, set up as an action thriller but becoming something much more weird and humane. I think I even preferred it to Another Round, which seemed to touch on the same themes of male bonding.
Napoleon - Brilliantly shot, perfectly acted but incapable of getting across detail. The more you know about Napoleon the more you will probably get out of the film.
I've often thought that biopics can struggle when trying to tell a broad story from an individual's life. It's partly why I liked Ali so much - Michael Mann focussed on two years from the Muhammad Ali's life that arguably defined him. This is the total opposite - Ridley Scott and writer Dave Scarpa skip between events that they presumably feel defined Napoleon, and while the relationship with his wife was fairly well explained, we're dropped into the battle stuff with little context. Broad stroke stuff really. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that, but because I was on my own in the cinema, I got my phone out and Wiki'd him during the movie so I could get a better understanding of where he was and why he was there.
The film's poster has the tagline "he came from nothing, he conquered everything" but this film does not explicitly show either of those things, particularly the former as he's a general (I think) when the movie starts, and the latter isn't very clear as the camera is always on Napoleon, and rarely anybody else.
Still, I was entertained by it all and got enough to feel like I know more about the life and times of Napoleon than before I went in. Scott is doing a hell of a job at his age!
Napoleon, wow , lots of battle scenes , a bit of Kenneth Williams love interest, interesting take.
Well worth it do you think, or a bit of a disappointment overall?
Films are so so subjective , i might hate something , you may absolutely love, and vice versa.
If you like action , history & military films / or like Ridley Scott's other stuff , then its definitely a go see on the big screen , as you'll lose some on it, renting it out and watching it on tv.
As i say there is also some small bits of 'other kind of action' in the bedroom , which for a middle aged guy , i found exhausting , and a tad uncomfortable with as i was with my son.
I Certainly think JP played the part well , and would love to get a hat like that!
Comments
i hadn’t seen the old films recently ( my son had recently seen them and also listened to the audio book of this film, which was 16 hours long, so he had completely different expectations to me.
It’s a prequel, and whilst cynical of milking a franchise, it’s an alright movie, no Jennifer Lawrence obviously, who I thought was good in the old film, with out giving to much away, the 2 characters were ok, worth a watch if you enjoyed the old films, although you might fall into the ‘quite cynical camp’.
2.5 hours long, I enjoyed it, but wouldn’t rush back to see it again, will probably wait till it comes out to rent / or watch on Sky Cinema when it comes on.
I couldn’t make it unfortunately but a real highlight for our wee village xx
I loved it until the end……rubbish ending lol.
I really enjoyed The Smiths though……….if a ten ton truck…………..😁
No spoilers from me but if someone can explain the ending I'd be most grateful.
Agree Cage is excellent in the film but coming out I thought wtf ? What was that all.about ? It was as if the director had died half way through and someone new took over & went a different direction.
Either that or I'm missing something.
An interesting film but weird.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13287846/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk
Hopefully Spielberg will put together the HBO Series based on Stanley Kubrick's script from years ago - Someone like Napoleon deserves a multi-Episode story, rather than everything squeezed into one film
The way everyone was speaking about The Smiths in it I thought the music would play a bigger part as well, like in Baby Driver.
Don’t bother.
Another plonker here 😩😩😩🤣🤣🤣
I thought the defence lawyer bore a disconcerting resemblance to Thomas Franks (or at least his barnet !). The inquisitorial French Criminal trial system certainly seems more of a 'free for all' - with the participants chipping in at odd times - than the more structured approach of the criminal courts here.
A Danish film with subtitles.
Best film I've seen in a blooming long time. It has everything. Great acting, great plot, funny, dark, empathy.
Fecking great viewing.
I've often thought that biopics can struggle when trying to tell a broad story from an individual's life. It's partly why I liked Ali so much - Michael Mann focussed on two years from the Muhammad Ali's life that arguably defined him. This is the total opposite - Ridley Scott and writer Dave Scarpa skip between events that they presumably feel defined Napoleon, and while the relationship with his wife was fairly well explained, we're dropped into the battle stuff with little context. Broad stroke stuff really. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that, but because I was on my own in the cinema, I got my phone out and Wiki'd him during the movie so I could get a better understanding of where he was and why he was there.
The film's poster has the tagline "he came from nothing, he conquered everything" but this film does not explicitly show either of those things, particularly the former as he's a general (I think) when the movie starts, and the latter isn't very clear as the camera is always on Napoleon, and rarely anybody else.
Still, I was entertained by it all and got enough to feel like I know more about the life and times of Napoleon than before I went in. Scott is doing a hell of a job at his age!
I award this movie 200 schmeckles.
If you like action , history & military films / or like Ridley Scott's other stuff , then its definitely a go see on the big screen , as you'll lose some on it, renting it out and watching it on tv.
As i say there is also some small bits of 'other kind of action' in the bedroom , which for a middle aged guy , i found exhausting , and a tad uncomfortable with as i was with my son.
I Certainly think JP played the part well , and would love to get a hat like that!