[Film] Film 2015

[Bombadier Botty]

I went to watch Birdman this evening.

Very weird. It felt like it was either saying something deep, with lots of symbolism, or suggesting the lack of meaning and empty symbolism of things and I'm not sure which. But generally, I liked it.

It's about a man who wants to be a bird, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[vegster]

I went to watch Birdman this evening.

Very weird. It felt like it was either saying something deep, with lots of symbolism, or suggesting the lack of meaning and empty symbolism of things and I'm not sure which. But generally, I liked it.

It's difficult to be sure isn't it ? some of the comedy moments are brilliant, some of the complicated bits , overcomplicated. It certainly made me think.

Edit : I'm awaiting with interest the review from Meade's Ball !

 

[Meade's Ball]

Edit : I'm awaiting with interest the review from Meade's Ball !

Haven't really been out of the house, other than to an osteopath and cheekily too Charlton yesterday, for a fortnight thanks to spinal agony, so i've been largely filmless. An unfortunate Christmas. Still, i plan for Birdman on Wednesday evening.
Today, though, this morning in fact, i had the luxury of going to see Foxcatcher. I'd avoided it at the festival due to its cast being not high up on my respected actor list in the form of Channing Tatum and Steve Carell, the latter of which i find grating. The reviews talk highly of it though, and the promise of misery dragged me in. Now, i'm not one to usually appreciated the opening message of Based on a True Story, and never look deeply into matters afterwards to confirm a film's accuracy, but the discomforting events portrayed here are added weight with their seeming authenticity.

Tatum is a gold medal winning wrestler, although i wouldn't place him as an Oscar-winning actor for what he achieves here. He does well, and it is good that he is veering gradually away from the teen heartthrob market, but adding slight depth to the role of the muscular lump isn't as challenging as it could be. To his acting detriment, he has Mark Ruffalo next to him as his older brother, a fellow wrestler who seems to have guided them through a difficult childhood and both their careers. Ruffalo is excellent. Both actors very much work on the physical side of the sportspeople they are - Tatum clunking around a bit as the immature lummox, and Ruffalo lovingly lunging into every handshake on his first-time meets, as he would at the end of a wrestling bout to offer his warm respect to his opponent - and that plays an important part to the film.

Carell is certainly creepy as John Du Pont, a middle-aged multimillionaire who doesn't seem to have been allowed to go through puberty by his overbearing mother, opening a wrestling camp to purchase glory and friendship and his mother's approval somehow. Carell was better than i expected, but it isn't a performance that makes him a character actor to remember. The blankness and inhumanity of him guides you to the guaranteed darkness of what will occur, but he lacks the burning potency to make Du Pont as haunting as he could have.

Overall, a good film. Largely cheerless, but a couple of moments tickled, and the tension throughout the rich coldness of the film has one rather gripped. Well-directed and Ruffalo deserving of applause for the times he's filmed.

 

[vegster]

Haven't really been out of the house, other than to an osteopath and cheekily too Charlton yesterday, for a fortnight thanks to spinal agony, so i've been largely filmless. An unfortunate Christmas. Still, i plan for Birdman on Wednesday evening.
Today, though, this morning in fact, i had the luxury of going to see Foxcatcher. I'd avoided it at the festival due to its cast being not high up on my respected actor list in the form of Channing Tatum and Steve Carell, the latter of which i find grating. The reviews talk highly of it though, and the promise of misery dragged me in. Now, i'm not one to usually appreciated the opening message of Based on a True Story, and never look deeply into matters afterwards to confirm a film's accuracy, but the discomforting events portrayed here are added weight with their seeming authenticity.

Tatum is a gold medal winning wrestler, although i wouldn't place him as an Oscar-winning actor for what he achieves here. He does well, and it is good that he is veering gradually away from the teen heartthrob market, but adding slight depth to the role of the muscular lump isn't as challenging as it could be. To his acting detriment, he has Mark Ruffalo next to him as his older brother, a fellow wrestler who seems to have guided them through a difficult childhood and both their careers. Ruffalo is excellent. Both actors very much work on the physical side of the sportspeople they are - Tatum clunking around a bit as the immature lummox, and Ruffalo lovingly lunging into every handshake on his first-time meets, as he would at the end of a wrestling bout to offer his warm respect to his opponent - and that plays an important part to the film.

Carell is certainly creepy as John Du Pont, a middle-aged multimillionaire who doesn't seem to have been allowed to go through puberty by his overbearing mother, opening a wrestling camp to purchase glory and friendship and his mother's approval somehow. Carell was better than i expected, but it isn't a performance that makes him a character actor to remember. The blankness and inhumanity of him guides you to the guaranteed darkness of what will occur, but he lacks the burning potency to make Du Pont as haunting as he could have.

Overall, a good film. Largely cheerless, but a couple of moments tickled, and the tension throughout the rich coldness of the film has one rather gripped. Well-directed and Ruffalo deserving of applause for the times he's filmed.

Sorry to hear about your bad back, I used to suffer awfully myself until about 3 years of visits to a Chiropractor sorted me out. Do the exercises you can and watch your posture MB, will check in on Thursday for your Birdman critique

 

[Barry Izbak]

I have heard good things about TAKEN 3 and for the most part wasn't disappointed.

Much better than Taken 2, but couldn't hope to match Taken, and didn't.

Liam Neeson does bloody well for an old bloke (that's me speaking as an Old Bloke btw) and Kim gets fitter each film appearance (speaking as an old perv)

The story is not as predictable as the last film and the wiping out of the baddies is not quite as merciless as the first one.

Wouldn't go again, and won't buy the DVD, but well worth 7/10

 

[Acker79]

Taken 3
I like to switch my brain off and watch dumb action films occasionally, but for some reason I was unable to do it with this one. I don't know if the flaws in the logic of the story just require too much to not bother me, or if I just didn't switch off enough, but I just didn't get into it.

I didn't care about the characters, so was uninterested in them and their adventures, so the action set pieces meant very little.

Not for me.

 

[vegster]

Taken 3
I like to switch my brain off and watch dumb action films occasionally, but for some reason I was unable to do it with this one. I don't know if the flaws in the logic of the story just require too much to not bother me, or if I just didn't switch off enough, but I just didn't get into it.

I didn't care about the characters, so was uninterested in them and their adventures, so the action set pieces meant very little.

Not for me.

This sort of thing often happens to me, I cease caring for the characters and so just let it all wash over me and I start thinking of what I'm going to cook for dinner/ my shopping list/ going fishing/are the tides right ? Fortunately I have been pretty lucky in recent years apart from Letters to Juliet and A Single Man. On an opposite tack, I still keep thinking about Birdman despite having seen it 10 days ago.

 

[Questions]

I still keep thinking about Birdman despite having seen it 10 days ago.

I'm the same with Debbie does Dallas and its 30 years ago now since I saw it.

 

[Mowgli37]

Hadn't been to the cinema for ages so on Tuesday evening I thought I'd treat myself to The Theory Of Everything. Despite science not really being my forte, Stephen Hawking has always been a figure of some inspiration to me so I was looking forward to seeing how they told his story. Central to this film's success for me was Redmayne's performance. The depiction of the slow onset of motor-neuron disease is something for which he and the filmakers deserve a lot of credit for. Hawking's sense of humour and slightly offbeat charm were also conducted marvellously. Felicity Jones is also terrific, the despair that Jane Hawking suffered watching her husband's deterioration is heartbreaking on screen, with the chemistry between the two leads heightening the pathos. There's a particularly emotional scene where the two of them attempt to communicate through a speaking board to little avail following the operation that robbed S. Hawking of the last vestiges of any vocal abilities. The rest of the cast are very good and despite the film clocking in at over two hours, I didn't feel bored once. Those expecting a geeky science nerd-out be warned: his theories and work take a backseat to the central love story but, in my opinion, the film suffers no harm as a consequence. An entirely uplifting depiction of an extraordinary man.

Thoroughly recommended at 8.7

 

[StonehamPark]

Birdman 7.5 / 10

Good film, great acting from Keaton, Norton and a bonus to see Emma Stone in tight trousers.

 

[Meade's Ball]

Well Birdman I couldn't make it to just last evening, a rearrangement for Saturday afternoon (my sly plan was to fly myself and the girlfriend back from a trip to Madrid in time to catch the Albion, but the trainlines being worked on currently makes an easy journey a possibly ruddy difficult one, so the cinema instead), so last night I went to the cinema most local to me to see The Theory of Everything. With my bad back, I took with me a hot water bottle, and that was a lovely companion, I have to say. Along with a soya latte and Yorkie. Yum.

The film itself was of the average or below biopic. What made it watchable was the excellent performance by Eddie Redmayne. I'd seen him interviewed on tv the other week, and I took a real dislike to his posh-tim-henman-ness, in part recalling him in Les Miserables, which I found a draining watch. I expected his Golden Globe award to be the usual one of unrealistic applause for an actor playing someone suffering from a terrible disability or being at death's door. But in fact it is well-earned. I didn't entirely like the young Stephen Hawking and his slightly wacky idle genius ways in the film, but not much time passes before the motor neurone disease becomes the dominating issue and the performance becomes more extraordinary, keeping his character throughout the physical decay. It was corny and sycophantic and not a feature of endless depth, but the tale of his life was intriguing enough and the performance rather impressive.

 

[Hotchilidog]

I thought Birdman was brilliant. Screenplay, performances and direction all straight out of the top drawer, if it doesn't pick up some gongs I'll be very surprised indeed. 9/10

 

[Albion Pearl Jammer]

Taken 3
I like to switch my brain off and watch dumb action films occasionally, but for some reason I was unable to do it with this one. I don't know if the flaws in the logic of the story just require too much to not bother me, or if I just didn't switch off enough, but I just didn't get into it.

I didn't care about the characters, so was uninterested in them and their adventures, so the action set pieces meant very little.

Not for me.

Just watched John Wick and felt exactly the same way. Shame as it started well building up some mystery.

 

[Meade's Ball]

I'd seen it a few months ago at the festival, Whiplash, but thought i'd introduce the girlfriend to it as an emotional musical trip, and by the end her eyes had watered with excitement. Sometimes someone who's already seen a film can be an annoyance for those who haven't; particularly when they're then seeing the film together. I am one of those people, i think. I kept turning toward her to see if she'd laughed when i laughed and bobbed when i bobbed. I didn't utter a word, but the glances i gave i hope had let her know i was excited and wanted her to be too. We got through it, i think, without bloodthirsty disharmony.
My head is still going up and down right now. A really good film, in a large part for the music throughout, pumping and tapping and jabbing into your psyche, and the performance mainly by JK Simmons, who is oscar nominated for it as Best Supporting Actor. I still have The Judge and Birdman, which by jingo i shall now see on Tuesday, but it's a tough call between Mark Ruffalo in Foxcatcher and Simmons as the darkly charming school music conductor from hell in Whiplash thus far.

The girlfriend loved the film, and i am ever so glad i didn't spoil it for her.
Off to tinkle badly on the piano now.

 

[Jim Van Winkle]

American Sniper - Bradley Cooper is great as Chris Kyle as he deals with his moral compass on war, family, friendship and his idea(s) of patriotism. Sienna Miller gives a steady performance that just about holds up.

I watched this film with (roughly) 200 hundred Americans. Who all cheered when Cooper finally took out the Al-Qaeda sniper but were left in a stunned silence at the end of the film. The mood leaving the theater was very somber. A mood that seemed to offered up great reflection on the conflict in Iraq. A weird cinematic experience for me.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Gotta say, looking forward to Ex Machina far more than any of the current crop of over-hyped releases.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Another vote here for Whiplash. Truly truly brilliant. One of best films I have seen in ages. My heart is still racing now!

 

[Prince Monolulu]

Just watched Wild, thoroughly enjoyed it. If you've felt you needed self-discovery after a personal downer, this might resonate.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Good to see Paddington Smashing the USA Box office with over $ 19 000 000 taken in 3 days. The Yanks LOVE him !

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Birdman is seriously bonkers. If you can make it through the first fifteen minutes, it'll draw you in bigtime. Terrific performances throughout and the tatty workaday offstage Broadway theatre shots and vivid nighttime street scenes form a perfect backdrop for the surreal fable that is played out. 8/10.