That's brilliant advise thanks, which would you suggest would be better to travel to, from West Sussex, Southampton or London?
As it is the Duke of York's are reshowing Marnie this weekend, and my car is as knackered as the trains.
Double boooo.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Film 2016
- Thread starter Meade's Ball
- Start date
As it is the Duke of York's are reshowing Marnie this weekend, and my car is as knackered as the trains.
Double boooo.
I live in W, Sussex and sometimes head to Kingston Upon Thames or Southampton for films and other recreational activities. I'd go Southampton.
sussex_guy2k2
Well-known member
- Jun 6, 2014
- 4,079
Saw The Secret Life of Pets today. If you've seen the trailer, don't see the film. A tedious affair that lacks any real humour or heart. Almost every scene is a repeat of the last one.
Meade's Ball
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #164
Went along to the Lumiere cinema all the way back on Monday, and i think i might want to go there again. A lovely place, only £8 a ticket, and very few punters. Annoyingly in South Kensington, but i'll give it a go if they have what i fancy seeing on. This time around it was, firstly, the rather stunning Fire at Sea. A year on the island of Lampedusa, a fairly small stretch of land halfway between Tunisia and Sicily. The residents there now are fishermen and, seemingly, thousands of migrants who've made it impossibly there on their desperate voyages. The director follows the tale of a local boy, with a lazy eye, who has a passion for designing slingshots and going around the island with his friend on a tiny motorbike to fire playfully at new targets. He's great to watch, as we find out more of his health issues, all appearing to get in the way of following in his father's footsteps out to sea to fish. He is around 11, but has already developed the body movements and expressions of an adult Italian male, and there's something oddly charming in his quiet struggle. We see the local radio DJ playing songs from the 1960s at the locals' request, and feel it's a land of limbo, trapped in a decade that it finds itself impossible to move on from. But on top of these little fragments of life there are those that keep so many busy in the form of radio cries for help from those on rickety boats, nearing death. When listening to them there are beautiful, crepuscular images of the sea and these vast still boats of rescue, awaiting their directions in which to go. We see the migrant camps and their games of football into the night, but it isn't until late on when we're confronted by the horrendous sights of those so in need, wasted away and trembling, atop those who didn't make it at all. Shocking to witness, whilst those who see it constantly have become darkenedly used to it. I need to see the director's previous documentaries now. The message in this is neutral, allowing the viewer to decide, although for me a taint of compassion washed any fiendishness of it away. Quite a watch.
Secondly that evening, i went to see, for the second time, Measure of a Man. I had taken quite a bit from it at the film festival last year and wanted to see it again. It wasn't as striking, but i still relished the performance by the lead playing Thierry, having to go through the awful seemingly inhumane processes of an unemployed middle-aged man desperate for work to keep his family going. How he doesn't crack whilst being given humiliating criticism of his interview technique, by the panel of 20-year-old strangers who have also undertaken this workshop, is beyond me. Some of the cruelty that befalls him has a dark amusement to it, but his struggle ends up being a battle between what is necessary and what is decent. His face doesn't wrinkle or bend, but beneath it is this pertinent conundrum in these times of financial and moral plight. I still rather liked it, and liked the music that accompanies its conclusion.
Secondly that evening, i went to see, for the second time, Measure of a Man. I had taken quite a bit from it at the film festival last year and wanted to see it again. It wasn't as striking, but i still relished the performance by the lead playing Thierry, having to go through the awful seemingly inhumane processes of an unemployed middle-aged man desperate for work to keep his family going. How he doesn't crack whilst being given humiliating criticism of his interview technique, by the panel of 20-year-old strangers who have also undertaken this workshop, is beyond me. Some of the cruelty that befalls him has a dark amusement to it, but his struggle ends up being a battle between what is necessary and what is decent. His face doesn't wrinkle or bend, but beneath it is this pertinent conundrum in these times of financial and moral plight. I still rather liked it, and liked the music that accompanies its conclusion.
Meade's Ball
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #165
Booked yesterday off of work to get over a batch of weekend and evening overtime sessions that have worn me out. So, a brief and crooked jog in the morning, followed by a haircut at my unchatty Turkish barbers, and a lengthy snooze. Come evening time i had my fortnightly piano lesson, in which i always look to unimpress, successfully. This goes on in Enfield, and i thought to myself, why not cycle up to the Enfield Cineworld beforehand, and see The Conjuring 2, which is based in Enfield. So i did. Now, what stood out for me in this film, set in the 1970s and based on a "true story", was how physically horrid the Americans see us. The two Americans who fly over and save the day from the evil ghoul, who i find to be quite hilariously called Bill Wilkins, are pristine and have the perfect teeth. The inhabitants of Enfield though, a representation of all Englishpeople, are a collection of foul-faced yellow-toothed bloaters and baldies struck by an incurable poverty of style and class. Their homes are repulsive and filthy also, whilst the Americans at the beginning live in a homestead bathed in the glittering glory of God. If it wasn't for the evil spirit in the form of a nasty looking nun, they'd have it perfect.
Outside of that, it was a film which pummels you with horror cliche, and only sometimes brings a slight chill. I watched it rather unsure if i had seen The Conjuring 1, or how many of the Insidiouses, but also whether the director James Wan is already bored in spewing out the same stuff without much sense of imagination. Saying all that, and in spite of the sickeningness of the Americans, the 2 and a bit hours went by without me nodding off. And here's to us deformed mutant Brits.
Outside of that, it was a film which pummels you with horror cliche, and only sometimes brings a slight chill. I watched it rather unsure if i had seen The Conjuring 1, or how many of the Insidiouses, but also whether the director James Wan is already bored in spewing out the same stuff without much sense of imagination. Saying all that, and in spite of the sickeningness of the Americans, the 2 and a bit hours went by without me nodding off. And here's to us deformed mutant Brits.
Sarcasm aside I finally bit the bullet and The Stat's went to Southampton to watch When Marnie Was There.
First off the Harbour Lights Picturehouse is a really lovely cinema.
Right in the middle of the marina, open fronted, with restaurant and coffee shop.
Free parking and just a 10 minute walk to Southampton city centre.
As for Studio Ghibli's final offering, I thought it was (pick any definition of the word lovely), wonderful, beautiful, gentle, etc, you get the picture.
It's not a Ponyo, or something like the early classics and certainly not at the dizzying heights of Spirited Away.
Instead very much from the Arrietty side of the studio.
First off the Harbour Lights Picturehouse is a really lovely cinema.
Right in the middle of the marina, open fronted, with restaurant and coffee shop.
Free parking and just a 10 minute walk to Southampton city centre.
As for Studio Ghibli's final offering, I thought it was (pick any definition of the word lovely), wonderful, beautiful, gentle, etc, you get the picture.
It's not a Ponyo, or something like the early classics and certainly not at the dizzying heights of Spirited Away.
Instead very much from the Arrietty side of the studio.
Meade's Ball
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #167
Forgetfulness is an awful thing. Especially so when you've forgotten how much you used to dislike something, and there it is again in front of you and you think HMMMM I HAVE A FEELING I DIDN'T LIKE THAT BUT MAYBE NOW THAT I AM DIFFERENT I'LL APPRECIATE IT MORE. Absolutely Fabulous. An appalling film. Just appalling. I pitied those involved, in some ways.
I plan to see a mindreader who can dig into my past and make firm notes on all i profess to have hated.
Today, though, i went to see Notes on Blindness, a documentary on the recordings of theologist John Hull as he was rottenly thrust into a sightless world, just after his son was born. The cassettes he made to talk over what he was going through, often with commentary from his wife and with the noises of his children as they played around in the background, are acted out, the actors lip-synching as we hear their main thoughts over it. It's incredibly moving, helped with the visuals and sounds which pulsate throughout, sometimes with the matter-of-factness of it, mostly in reminiscence from a more recently recorded John Hull, striking. There are questions over his faith, over his identity and where one finds an environment, nay clings to it, to find a modicum of strength, and spells in which he simply wants to understand blindness so that he can accept it. I over-related it to my own experiences, and perhaps i should watch the documentary again whilst keeping my inner self wholly away from it. Quite a watch though. Fascinating.
I plan to see a mindreader who can dig into my past and make firm notes on all i profess to have hated.
Today, though, i went to see Notes on Blindness, a documentary on the recordings of theologist John Hull as he was rottenly thrust into a sightless world, just after his son was born. The cassettes he made to talk over what he was going through, often with commentary from his wife and with the noises of his children as they played around in the background, are acted out, the actors lip-synching as we hear their main thoughts over it. It's incredibly moving, helped with the visuals and sounds which pulsate throughout, sometimes with the matter-of-factness of it, mostly in reminiscence from a more recently recorded John Hull, striking. There are questions over his faith, over his identity and where one finds an environment, nay clings to it, to find a modicum of strength, and spells in which he simply wants to understand blindness so that he can accept it. I over-related it to my own experiences, and perhaps i should watch the documentary again whilst keeping my inner self wholly away from it. Quite a watch though. Fascinating.
sussex_guy2k2
Well-known member
- Jun 6, 2014
- 4,079
In the last week I've seen Tarzan and Ghostbusters.
Tarzan was emotionally lacking, with a very wooden performance from the lead actor. They tried to make a very simple story more convoluted than it needed to be, and there were so many "white saviour" moments in the film it became uncomfortable by the end.
Ghostbusters was fine. Not excellent, not awful, not really funny, but just fine. The lead performances were as you'd expect, and I'm sure some will get more pleasure from them than I did. It felt very much like watching an episode of Miranda in film format, but with the Ghostbusters brand attached. Take from that what you will.
Tarzan was emotionally lacking, with a very wooden performance from the lead actor. They tried to make a very simple story more convoluted than it needed to be, and there were so many "white saviour" moments in the film it became uncomfortable by the end.
Ghostbusters was fine. Not excellent, not awful, not really funny, but just fine. The lead performances were as you'd expect, and I'm sure some will get more pleasure from them than I did. It felt very much like watching an episode of Miranda in film format, but with the Ghostbusters brand attached. Take from that what you will.
studio150
Well-known member
Given your reference to Miranda I would take it as a film that is unfunny and best avoided.
But thats me
Meade's Ball
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #170
Remakes are generally tiresome fare, but for me, now at least, i am unhurt by the thought of a cherished memory tainted by its reinvention on screen. What i am saying, unclearly, is that the new Ghostbusters didn't bring dread to me because it may have tampered with all that the 10 year old Meade held so sweet. I went to see it today, after a long walk down to West India Quay, and the mild despair i felt toward the end was not brought on by the rebirth of the young me feeling betrayed by this new cast. It was just that it wasn't a great film and became increasingly boring. The start of it was ok and the comedy of it, whilst incredibly standard in the Melissa McCarthy/Kristen Wiig world, kept it going for a brief while, but that petered out and the whole thing of there apparently being ghosts in there and a threat to the world didn't really seem to impress. The 10 year old Meade might have been thrilled, but the me of now, caked in dourness and decrepitude, wasn't greatly. Not as bad as it was predicted to be though.
T'other night, though, i went to see Weiner, the documentary about the American politician of that name. A quite amusing but tragic watch, as Weiner is thrown into scandal on a couple of occasions by his incurable wish to send images of his excited member to female strangers. The first time he was caught, he lost his government seat, and his career chances, partly built on his marriage to Hillary Clinton's most-loved aide, seemed blown. He calls in a documentary maker to follow and film him, though, during his campaign to be New York mayor. It is then that we get to know him a bit and see this somewhat ludicrous, but strangely likable, chap who gets so easily swept along when dancing on the coattails of popularity. Of course, his sextual habits couldn't be let go, and the American way, apparently, of giving someone a second chance, don't stretch to someone having a third. Some of what he gets up to is quite funny indeed, and it is quite a drama. The obsession with media and fame in America is presented and it's an ugly layer of existence there. The sadness of his wife is also shown and i was most surprised when checking after the film to find that they were still together. One of the key comments comes toward with the end with the maker of the film asking Weiner why he has him still filming him after scandal takes over. He has no good answer. It seems that any sort of fame is better than no fame at all.
Overall a good watch and i thank Picturehouse for it as, oddly, i thought, they gave me 2 free tickets for my birthday. Worth a watch.
T'other night, though, i went to see Weiner, the documentary about the American politician of that name. A quite amusing but tragic watch, as Weiner is thrown into scandal on a couple of occasions by his incurable wish to send images of his excited member to female strangers. The first time he was caught, he lost his government seat, and his career chances, partly built on his marriage to Hillary Clinton's most-loved aide, seemed blown. He calls in a documentary maker to follow and film him, though, during his campaign to be New York mayor. It is then that we get to know him a bit and see this somewhat ludicrous, but strangely likable, chap who gets so easily swept along when dancing on the coattails of popularity. Of course, his sextual habits couldn't be let go, and the American way, apparently, of giving someone a second chance, don't stretch to someone having a third. Some of what he gets up to is quite funny indeed, and it is quite a drama. The obsession with media and fame in America is presented and it's an ugly layer of existence there. The sadness of his wife is also shown and i was most surprised when checking after the film to find that they were still together. One of the key comments comes toward with the end with the maker of the film asking Weiner why he has him still filming him after scandal takes over. He has no good answer. It seems that any sort of fame is better than no fame at all.
Overall a good watch and i thank Picturehouse for it as, oddly, i thought, they gave me 2 free tickets for my birthday. Worth a watch.
Meade's Ball
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #171
If some of you recall, last week was a scorcher. On the Tuesday I went to the work in the morning, but speedily decided to check the holiday spreadsheet to see if the afternoon was free to take. Bingo, it were. What can one do in burning temperatures other than go to the cinema. The only mistake I made was in the distance I then went to go to the flicks. An hour's cycle ended up with me having slightly singed forearms. Anywho, what I took myself to see was Central Intelligence. It ended up being a film that I wanted to stay to the end credits of. Not because of its brilliance, because it wasn't, but for the surety that there'd be some outtakes of a couple of minutes of the film that were rather funny. Having The Rock tell me to stare deep into his soul, through his bulging eyes, from little more than an inch away, would bound to have me break into laughter. The outtake was there, but briefer than I wished it to be. Still, the film wasn't a cracker but tickled here and there.
Today, though, I tried to overcome the damn flu with a walk down to the cinema. The cinema in question had its online ticket purchase system down, and when I got there, they said a payment couldn't be taken. Go in, they said, and pay if we have it working on the way out. I liked this deal. Particularly with the possibility that it wouldn't be fixed and off I went having the seen the film for free! Annoyingly, it was repaired, but they charge me at the rates of the disabled or unemployed. Result!
The film was Jason Bourne. I was reasonably into the previous 3, but when seeing the trailer a few weeks back was thinking this all had a touch of the Rambos about it, with him being a gruesome bare knuckle fighter having escaped military battle. The dialogue in the trailer was pretty poor too, and that carried through into the film also. Overall, it wasn't a bad show, but the emotion attached to it seemed to have flattened, along with the pertinent political nature of it, and really was just a brief break between the set pieces, or where to carry them out. Reading the Guardian last week was a piece about how Hollywood films are shrinking dialogue down to as little as possible in order to hit the moneymaking Chinese market. This was a key example of that, they claim. I never saw Bourne as much of a chatterbox though, so whilst they might be right about Hollywood's aim to just shoot nearly two hours of pure action with a few shrieks of universal pain thrown in, I didn't feel this had altered its mould. Good to see Vincent Cassell in action.
Today, though, I tried to overcome the damn flu with a walk down to the cinema. The cinema in question had its online ticket purchase system down, and when I got there, they said a payment couldn't be taken. Go in, they said, and pay if we have it working on the way out. I liked this deal. Particularly with the possibility that it wouldn't be fixed and off I went having the seen the film for free! Annoyingly, it was repaired, but they charge me at the rates of the disabled or unemployed. Result!
The film was Jason Bourne. I was reasonably into the previous 3, but when seeing the trailer a few weeks back was thinking this all had a touch of the Rambos about it, with him being a gruesome bare knuckle fighter having escaped military battle. The dialogue in the trailer was pretty poor too, and that carried through into the film also. Overall, it wasn't a bad show, but the emotion attached to it seemed to have flattened, along with the pertinent political nature of it, and really was just a brief break between the set pieces, or where to carry them out. Reading the Guardian last week was a piece about how Hollywood films are shrinking dialogue down to as little as possible in order to hit the moneymaking Chinese market. This was a key example of that, they claim. I never saw Bourne as much of a chatterbox though, so whilst they might be right about Hollywood's aim to just shoot nearly two hours of pure action with a few shrieks of universal pain thrown in, I didn't feel this had altered its mould. Good to see Vincent Cassell in action.
Finding Dory - The kids enjoyed it but the cinema was really hot, one thing lead to another and I had a long blink.
That said I did find an octopus driving a truck while being guided by a fish with short term memory loss a little far fetched and rather lacking in credibility.
That said I did find an octopus driving a truck while being guided by a fish with short term memory loss a little far fetched and rather lacking in credibility.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
What cinema did u go to?
Ha, your other post reminded I hadn't posted my review
The super cheap Bognor Picturedrome £2.50 each and nice and warm.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
Ha, your other post reminded I hadn't posted my review
The super cheap Bognor Picturedrome £2.50 each and nice and warm.
Blimey that is cheap...I paid £3 at the Connaught Worthing a few months ago...but £2.50 beats that....
Re heat I went to the C last Sunday evening and nearly roasted!
Meade's Ball
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #176
Cinemas I go to keep seeming to have electrical problems. Today it was Vue, for which I had a £7.90 voucher ticket. The voucher stood, but I was able to take a free drink. Or at least I think I was, as whispers came down the lengthy queue to say as such. There was only one member of staff there at such a time - 9.15 - and they couldn't battle through the desire for tickets to grab back the bottles from the broken fridge, so off I went in, to Suicide Squad, with a free Diet-Coke. Bongoid!
The film itself has had quite a lot of advertising given to it over the last few weeks. This can sometimes mean it simply ain't much cop, and in this case that is so. It had it's moments, but it was awfully edited, to make it jumbled and not creating the right mix of tension and empathy. Each element seemed meaninglessly thrust into scenes, with it shriekingly unclear as it why it was there. My workmate said he wasn't into seeing it, in part because it was a DC film and their history of making generally bland and noisy hero films that cannot match those of Marvel, but also because of the director supposedly having his film recut by those who made the trailer. It was messy, certainly. In particular there was no sense of very much why evil magic people craved world destruction, or why it was really the answer, and their processes in themselves were on occasion put through and explained later. Along with the shakiness of having magic as a defeatable power, and evil people being only evil for a little while, I also get annoyed when only some helicopters explode when crashing.
Acting wise, the actress playing the enchantress had a real stinker, and Jared Leto didn't create a darkly endearing version of the Joker, and Joel Kinnaman as the stupidly-named Rick Flag had accents at different times from different parts of America, but Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn gave a sexed-up and comic performance that entertains when Will Smith isn't doing his usual thing.
The style differed as it went, along with what the characters actually were, and the film in itself got worse and worse. As I said though, there are a few scenes which thrilled, in their own way.
The film itself has had quite a lot of advertising given to it over the last few weeks. This can sometimes mean it simply ain't much cop, and in this case that is so. It had it's moments, but it was awfully edited, to make it jumbled and not creating the right mix of tension and empathy. Each element seemed meaninglessly thrust into scenes, with it shriekingly unclear as it why it was there. My workmate said he wasn't into seeing it, in part because it was a DC film and their history of making generally bland and noisy hero films that cannot match those of Marvel, but also because of the director supposedly having his film recut by those who made the trailer. It was messy, certainly. In particular there was no sense of very much why evil magic people craved world destruction, or why it was really the answer, and their processes in themselves were on occasion put through and explained later. Along with the shakiness of having magic as a defeatable power, and evil people being only evil for a little while, I also get annoyed when only some helicopters explode when crashing.
Acting wise, the actress playing the enchantress had a real stinker, and Jared Leto didn't create a darkly endearing version of the Joker, and Joel Kinnaman as the stupidly-named Rick Flag had accents at different times from different parts of America, but Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn gave a sexed-up and comic performance that entertains when Will Smith isn't doing his usual thing.
The style differed as it went, along with what the characters actually were, and the film in itself got worse and worse. As I said though, there are a few scenes which thrilled, in their own way.
sussex_guy2k2
Well-known member
- Jun 6, 2014
- 4,079
Films I've seen this month: -
Finding Dory - a fun experience that doesn't quite recapture the magic of the first one, but still entertains throughout, even if some of the beats are repeated throughout. A much sadder tale than the first, but nonetheless, if you enjoyed Nemo, you'll enjoy Dory.
Suicide Squad - Robbie and Smith were excellent, as was Waller. They are, however, the only positives. It was a poorly edited film, the tone of which seemed confused throughout. Whilst it started well, with fun introductions, the actual mission they were given was one very long sequence that last about an hour and a half, and the lack of variety offered nothing in terms of plot development, nor did it encourage emotional attachment. The villain was awful, with a truly horrible storyline (if, you could argue, she was even given a storyline). The Joker was at total odds with the rest of the movie too. Not many positives, all in all.
The BFG - an often bland 2 hour film that fails to recapture much of the magic of the books. The young girl in it is irritating, but the BFG is charming as the main character, saving the film from falling into dross territory.
Jason Bourne - a perfectly decent film that never needed to be made. Fine on its own, but adds nothing to the original trilogy, and, aside from a few elements and scenes, it never really touches on much of note.
Star Trek Beyond - I'm not a massive Star Trek geek, so I've gone into the three newest films with an open mind. This was, for me at least, the best of the three. And whilst the plot was very simple and the villain a tad generic, it was fun summer fare.
Finding Dory - a fun experience that doesn't quite recapture the magic of the first one, but still entertains throughout, even if some of the beats are repeated throughout. A much sadder tale than the first, but nonetheless, if you enjoyed Nemo, you'll enjoy Dory.
Suicide Squad - Robbie and Smith were excellent, as was Waller. They are, however, the only positives. It was a poorly edited film, the tone of which seemed confused throughout. Whilst it started well, with fun introductions, the actual mission they were given was one very long sequence that last about an hour and a half, and the lack of variety offered nothing in terms of plot development, nor did it encourage emotional attachment. The villain was awful, with a truly horrible storyline (if, you could argue, she was even given a storyline). The Joker was at total odds with the rest of the movie too. Not many positives, all in all.
The BFG - an often bland 2 hour film that fails to recapture much of the magic of the books. The young girl in it is irritating, but the BFG is charming as the main character, saving the film from falling into dross territory.
Jason Bourne - a perfectly decent film that never needed to be made. Fine on its own, but adds nothing to the original trilogy, and, aside from a few elements and scenes, it never really touches on much of note.
Star Trek Beyond - I'm not a massive Star Trek geek, so I've gone into the three newest films with an open mind. This was, for me at least, the best of the three. And whilst the plot was very simple and the villain a tad generic, it was fun summer fare.
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
"Original trilogy", the first of the 3 was a remake of one in the 80s FTR.
Watched Star Trek, not much of a trekkie but thought it was OK, not great or dire.
sussex_guy2k2
Well-known member
- Jun 6, 2014
- 4,079
You do realise that the use of the word "original" changes depending on the context, right? Strictly speaking, the original Bourne narrative comes from a book, if you wish to use its truest definition. But "original" can be used to imply a fresh take on something by a particular person or artist - in this case, the original Matt Damon Jason Bourne trilogy.
Who knew I was going to have to be quite so explicit with such a simple concept.
Prince Monolulu
Everything in Moderation
Indeed, with the lovely Angel Jaclyn Smith 
![600full-the-bourne-identity-(1988)-[richard-chamberlain--slash--jaclyn-smith]-cover.jpg](https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/data/attachments/66/66192-a9415aa8f54be733b092adb0b8f5b84f.jpg "600full-the-bourne-identity-(1988)-[richard-chamberlain--slash--jaclyn-smith]-cover.jpg")