[Film] Film 2017

[Meade's Ball]

As a birthday gift last week my brother, the elder one, offered a free trip to the flicks. Why not, I of course thought. His mind was set on the War of the Planet Apes movie, in part, I think, feeling I loved the previous two, when in fact I rather liked the first and less so the second. Anywho, a free ticket's a free ticket, so my Friday night became that. Firstly, the graphics are amazing. I saw one bit had a bit of a Harryhausen stuttered still motion to it, but overall the look of the apes was astonishing.
Whilst that's a stunner, though, I didn't wholly enjoy the experience of watching the story unfold. It was morose, but, like the pervious one, it didn't get the blend right between that darkness and the elements that made it a 12a - the Disneyfied voice of the wacky new ape was just bad. I felt the dialogue was somewhat hammy too, more that of humans than ape. Still, it is worth a watch, and I hope for a new director to control the tone that bit better for a he next chapter.

 

[nigeyb]

Took my teenage kids to see Baby Driver - the latest Edgar Wright film - yesterday

We all liked it a lot

Brilliant soundtrack + loads of car chases + Edgar's trademark maverick sensibility = loads to love

Not quite Scott Pilgrim, but then what is?

9/10

 

[MattBackHome]

47 metres down.

Don't bother.

 

[Bigtomfu]

For my two cents, I've seen Baby Driver and Spider-Man Homecoming this week. Thoroughly enjoyed both although neither is without their own flaws. Spider-Man's lack of real action and cliche villain relationship hold it back for its genre. And Baby Driver was great fun, but almost took itself too seriously in the end, constantly trying to be too slick which ended up feeling a little contrived.

Nonetheless, I'd recommend both.

Genuine question: have you seen either of the other Spider-Man incarnations over the last ten years or so and if so why did you still want to see this one?

I can't fathom why they felt a third reboot was required other than for the $$$$

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Genuine question: have you seen either of the other Spider-Man incarnations over the last ten years or so and if so why did you still want to see this one?

I can't fathom why they felt a third reboot was required other than for the $$$$

I've seen all of the incarnations. I find the superhero genre a brilliant escape and Spider-Man was my favourite superhero growing up, so such an affinity will always mean I watch these films. It doesn't mean I can't be objective though. The first two Tobey Maguire films were excellent superhero films, particularly the second one, but the third was nothing short of trash.

Whilst I preferred Garfield in the role to Maguire, the writing for his films felt forced at times as they tried to cram too much story and too many focal points into the films.

As for the latest film, it's a newish take on the character in a pre-defined universe where there are plenty of characters that I love. I respect that this genre of film isn't for everyone, but it's one I enjoy and I intend to continue seeing all of the Marvel films, but especially the Spider-Man ones due to the passion I have for the Peter Parker character. And the film, for what it's worth, is a very different take compared to the previous two incarnations.

 

[Bigtomfu]

I've seen all of the incarnations. I find the superhero genre a brilliant escape and Spider-Man was my favourite superhero growing up, so such an affinity will always mean I watch these films. It doesn't mean I can't be objective though. The first two Tobey Maguire films were excellent superhero films, particularly the second one, but the third was nothing short of trash.

Whilst I preferred Garfield in the role to Maguire, the writing for his films felt forced at times as they tried to cram too much story and too many focal points into the films.

As for the latest film, it's a newish take on the character in a pre-defined universe where there are plenty of characters that I love. I respect that this genre of film isn't for everyone, but it's one I enjoy and I intend to continue seeing all of the Marvel films, but especially the Spider-Man ones due to the passion I have for the Peter Parker character. And the film, for what it's worth, is a very different take compared to the previous two incarnations.

I love the genre but just don't see the merits in reinventing a universe. Typically the fans are quite funny about people messing with the lore of a franchise/backstory so am surprised they've embraced this.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

I love the genre but just don't see the merits in reinventing a universe. Typically the fans are quite funny about people messing with the lore of a franchise/backstory so am surprised they've embraced this.

I'm not disagreeing with your latter statement. I think in many ways they've modernised the character, without rehashing the back story we all know. I also think, for me at least, my age helps me to be fairly objective when analysing whether something is good or not. I appreciate it won't be to everyone's tastes, but I enjoyed it and will be interested to see where they take the character.

 

[Barry Izbak]

I've been looking forward to seeing Dunkirk and just took in the 5.25 showing in the local Vue.
Incidentally Two VIP seats £27.50 !!!!

Anyway. The movie.
Err well maybe my expectations were too high.
The good points were some of the acting and some of the league coal effects.
The bad; the incomplete story (unless the little boats just went over once), the continuity all over the place (one minute sunny next dark clouds and rough seas) , the general lack of scale which suggested it was done on the cheap.

Sorry 4/10

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

2017 ratings so far

La La Land 95
Dunkirk 93 *
Beauty and the Beast 90
Lion 89
Hacksaw Ridge 86
Get Out 82
A Dog's Purpose 82
Wonder Woman 81
Viceroy's House 79
Their Finest 78
Manchester by the Sea 76
Going in Style 59
Moonlight 56
Hampstead 44

 

[Bob!]

I've been looking forward to seeing Dunkirk and just took in the 5.25 showing in the local Vue.
Incidentally Two VIP seats £27.50 !!!!

Anyway. The movie.
Err well maybe my expectations were too high.
The good points were some of the acting and some of the league coal effects.
The bad; the incomplete story (unless the little boats just went over once), the continuity all over the place (one minute sunny next dark clouds and rough seas) , the general lack of scale which suggested it was done on the cheap.

Sorry 4/10

2017 ratings so far

Dunkirk 93 *

Any chance of a review US?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I've been looking forward to seeing Dunkirk and just took in the 5.25 showing in the local Vue.
Incidentally Two VIP seats £27.50 !!!!

Anyway. The movie.
Err well maybe my expectations were too high.
The good points were some of the acting and some of the league coal effects.
The bad; the incomplete story (unless the little boats just went over once), the continuity all over the place (one minute sunny next dark clouds and rough seas) , the general lack of scale which suggested it was done on the cheap.

Sorry 4/10

It cost $ 150 000 000 to make

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Any chance of a review US?

Dunkirk rates a 93 out of 100. Nolan is at the moment in a league of his own. No one else comes close and this film is a triumph again.

The story is intense and Zimmer's masterful score ratches up the tension with many set pieces being memorable especially the downing of the spitfire and the arrival of the boats.

The acting is all round excellent with Harry Styles putting in a performance of an old hander. It is essential cinema and should be show in Schools, lest we forget.

Highly recommended

 

[Barry Izbak]

It cost $ 150 000 000 to make

Maybe but imo they could have spent it better.

There were more extras as spectators in the stands for Eddie The Eagle than there were soldiers on the beach in Dunkirk.

 

[herecomesaregular]

I've been looking forward to seeing Dunkirk and just took in the 5.25 showing in the local Vue.
Incidentally Two VIP seats £27.50 !!!!

Anyway. The movie.
Err well maybe my expectations were too high.
The good points were some of the acting and some of the league coal effects.
The bad; the incomplete story (unless the little boats just went over once), the continuity all over the place (one minute sunny next dark clouds and rough seas) , the general lack of scale which suggested it was done on the cheap.

Sorry 4/10

The Mole/beach is over the period of One Week, The Sea over One Day and The Air over One Hour hence the differences/continuity issues you notice are not an error.

It took me a while to get into, as it was not at all how I was expecting, but I really enjoyed it. The music is very oppressive and very effective (reminded me of Sicario).

I would agree the sense of scale seemed lacking but I assume was accurate?

 

[LamieRobertson]

Dunkirk rates a 93 out of 100. Nolan is at the moment in a league of his own. No one else comes close and this film is a triumph again.

The story is intense and Zimmer's masterful score ratches up the tension with many set pieces being memorable especially the downing of the spitfire and the arrival of the boats.

The acting is all round excellent with Harry Styles putting in a performance of an old hander. It is essential cinema and should be show in Schools, lest we forget.

Highly recommended

 

[Barry Izbak]

It cost $ 150 000 000 to make

For the first time in living memory, the Guardian newspaper agrees with me

https://www.theguardian.com/film/fi...-empty-christopher-nolan-dunkirk-left-me-cold

 

[Meade's Ball]

For the first time in living memory, the Guardian newspaper agrees with me

https://www.theguardian.com/film/fi...-empty-christopher-nolan-dunkirk-left-me-cold

On Monday, I had a ticket booked to see Dunkirk, but thought I would nip home, and make dinner so I simply reheat when I returned. That pasta was too al dente for me to leave in time, so the film I couldn't see. Pah to me. Yesterday, though, the mother in law was having her first evening of 5 in a row staying with us, so it was the perfect time for me to try again, and see the first of 5 time-filling person-avoiding films. I decided upon the 35mm version, more for the time that it was on than anything else. I was pleased that few joined me, the theatre maybe only 10% filled. It's not a film to share with natterers or mobile checkers.
So, onto the film and that Guardian piece. I go along with it a tad, in terms of how it did not render in me the sense of desperation that I should hope it hoped to. I suppose the jumbledness of time was to create the chaos and confusion of the situation, and as it went along to find a flash of one mini-storyline blending into another, but they didn't entirely meld, or sat agreeably at odds. I found the music at times amazing, and at other times not fitting, and even a bit excessively Nolan-y (not The Nolans-y) in its brooding thousand-person heavy hum. The look of the film was stunning for the most part, but it didn't look entirely warlike in terms of numbers, and had it more skirmishy than a consuming bombardment.
Of the 3 semi-adjoined (thoughts of the sperm test coming back to me) tales, the one that opened the film was of fascination to me. No words. No direct camaraderie or union of spirit. Just the unstoppable wish to survive and escape. It didn't speak of heroism, or brothers in arms. Those who didn't feel that way and hunger for a way out were deemed a tad foolish. I would have been happy (wrong word really) to see a film of that, of the suspense and terror and animalism and partial mistrust that would form in vast efforts, with a smattering of dialogue here and there.

I found the muttering Tom Hardy flight scenes spectacular, but could have been helped with CGI in bits, as planes only become a little smoky in damage. And the tale of the heroic British everymen wasn't greatly formed, I didn't think. The dialogue wasn't great, and the acting not bringing great realism (Cillian Murphy was unusually bad) to the pluck and courage that ought be wholly applauded.

These are ramblings really, but I thought it good, but faulty, and not, sadly, able to create in total the hauntingness and devastation of the scenarios. He's a creature of style, Nolan, and booming sound, and that is all good, but can leave one a bit detached, a little cold, to what really should have tortured the insides more.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

2017 ratings so far

La La Land 95
Dunkirk 93 *
Beauty and the Beast 90
Lion 89
Hacksaw Ridge 86
Get Out 82
A Dog's Purpose 82
Wonder Woman 81
Viceroy's House 79
Their Finest 78
Manchester by the Sea 76
Going in Style 59
Moonlight 56
Hampstead 44

These are your ratings?

 

[The Clamp]

These are your ratings?

Imdb I think. The fact that the film 'A dog's purpose" is on there is enough to dismiss the list outright.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Imdb I think. The fact that the film 'A dog's purpose" is on there is enough to dismiss the list outright.

There's a lot I'd debate about that list for sure.