[Film] Film 2019

[Stat Brother]

Another thanks for the podcast suggestion - downloading a bunch of them ready for hols! Oh, and I saw RD at the cinema as well...

This week's Rewatchables is another Netflix available film Gone Girl.

As is customary they enjoyed the film (not to Con Air levels) but it's another great take on an excellent film.

 

[Brightonfan1983]

I bought one of those Odeon limitless memberships. What a waste of money, only about one film every three months I want to see. Might be good value for some but if you’re not into animated kids films or endless superhero nerd fodder, forget it. And it’s a year contract with The Harlands group, so absolutely no way to cancel it.
My own fault, it’s the ****ing odeon, of course it only shows crap. And none of the event cinema showings are included, like the National Theatre Live showings.
Bollocks.

I feel your pain. Though I'm lucky that my next nearest is a Picturehouse one; just a drag that Odeon have decided to be the cinematic purveyor equivalent of Channel 5.

Watched Last Breath tonight (Netflix), about (and I hadn't heard the story before) the deep sea diver in the North Sea (the people who go down to the sea floor to fix oil rig equipment.) I say no more as it's an excellent British documentary and well worth 90mins of your time. Reminded me a bit of Free Solo, but only in the way that it's set in a totally alien and genuinely frightening environment. You will get something in your eye.

 

[Birdie Boy]

I watched the new Shaft on Netflix last night. Very funny with some cracking one liners. A little over the top on some scenes but well worth watching. Very enjoyable.

 

[pearl]

This unseasonally shite weather would appear to be nature's way of telling one to attend a matinee showing of the new Tarantino

well the weather's shite again and the new Tarantino film seems to be the ONLY film on EVERYWHERE.

I'm tempted, but the whole Cieleo Drive (excuse spelling), Sharon Tate, Manson stuff doesn't sit well with me ... especially if reduced to ridicule.

 

[Easy 10]

well the weather's shite again and the new Tarantino film seems to be the ONLY film on EVERYWHERE.

I'm hoping to get along to it this weekend, been very much looking forward to it as I've always been a huge Taratino fan. The running time is 161 minutes, so a pre-pub drinkies is probably unwise.

Incidentally, this will be his 9th movie, and he has stated that he will retire from directing after he's done 10. He then said that if this does really well, he may even quit after this one and "go out on a high". Could all be bluster and bollocks of course, but it'll be a sad day when he does hang up his clapperboard. We are in an age now where cinema is DOMINATED by endless Marvel superhero movies, their neverending sequels and spin-offs, as well as remake after remake after remake of old movies. There's so little thats original any more, so much is just generic.

Whether you like his movies or not, Tarantino at least always brought something fresh to the screen, with vivid characters and genuinely memorable, endlessly quotable writing. If this is to be his swansong, I hope its one worthy of his brilliant portfolio.

 

[CliveWalkerWingWizard]

Saw the Tarantino film today, overlong, self indulgent, some good dialogue as always but probably his worst film to date imo.

 

[Meade's Ball]

Saw the Tarantino film today, overlong, self indulgent, some good dialogue as always but probably his worst film to date imo.

I am in partial disagreement with you. Not because i thought it was a great film, but because, whilst how you describe it makes it a standard Tarantino flick, i didn't feel bludgeoned by its hope to outrage. The film didn't hugely fit and his inability to create human characteristics or emotion was as always, but it spoke of what he knew of and i preferred it to his usual stylistic bluster. A few good scenes, of very little meaning, and a couple of good bits of pounding violence. Not too bad. Acting wise, Pitt struggles a bit when clothed, whilst Dicaprio seems a little trapped in a loop, but still has his moments. And there we have it.

 

[The Clamp]

I am in partial disagreement with you. Not because i thought it was a great film, but because, whilst how you describe it makes it a standard Tarantino flick, i didn't feel bludgeoned by its hope to outrage. The film didn't hugely fit and his inability to create human characteristics or emotion was as always, but it spoke of what he knew of and i preferred it to his usual stylistic bluster. A few good scenes, of very little meaning, and a couple of good bits of pounding violence. Not too bad. Acting wise, Pitt struggles a bit when clothed, whilst Dicaprio seems a little trapped in a loop, but still has his moments. And there we have it.

It would be nice to see Dicaprio in a truly great film. He's not delivered anything that impressive for some time.

 

[Acker79]

Saw the Tarantino film today, overlong, self indulgent, some good dialogue as always but probably his worst film to date imo.

I am in partial disagreement with you. Not because i thought it was a great film, but because, whilst how you describe it makes it a standard Tarantino flick, i didn't feel bludgeoned by its hope to outrage. The film didn't hugely fit and his inability to create human characteristics or emotion was as always, but it spoke of what he knew of and i preferred it to his usual stylistic bluster. A few good scenes, of very little meaning, and a couple of good bits of pounding violence. Not too bad. Acting wise, Pitt struggles a bit when clothed, whilst Dicaprio seems a little trapped in a loop, but still has his moments. And there we have it.

I saw it today, too. I generally thought it was quite dull, not even sure I'd say there was much good dialogue. But I did, like Meade, notice it didn't seem to be doing the usual Tarantino trick of swearing and throwing the N-word around with abandon as if to court anger (though I did roll my eyes somewhat at the ott violence against the trio at the end). Even the Bruce Lee thing that's been in the news recently felt overblown - seemed to be a fantasy sequence rather than an effort to say it actually went down like that.


I then saw The Lion King. For most of it I was thinking 'what's the point?'. It didn't really do anything new, instead of having emotive cartoon animals, we got photo-realistic and expressionless cg animals, making it harder to really connect. They didn't ruin the music, so there was that positive.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I saw it today, too. I generally thought it was quite dull, not even sure I'd say there was much good dialogue. But I did, like Meade, notice it didn't seem to be doing the usual Tarantino trick of swearing and throwing the N-word around with abandon as if to court anger (though I did roll my eyes somewhat at the ott violence against the trio at the end). Even the Bruce Lee thing that's been in the news recently felt overblown - seemed to be a fantasy sequence rather than an effort to say it actually went down like that.


I then saw The Lion King. For most of it I was thinking 'what's the point?'. It didn't really do anything new, instead of having emotive cartoon animals, we got photo-realistic and expressionless cg animals, making it harder to really connect. They didn't ruin the music, so there was that positive.

The Lion King is a remake of the animated film. It is not mean't to be different. Some people seem to find this hard to grasp which baffles me as I have heard several others say the same. It would be like re making the great escape but in a butlins holiday camp to make it a bit diffferent

 

[Acker79]

The Lion King is a remake of the animated film. It is not meant to be different. Some people seem to find this hard to grasp which baffles me as I have heard several others say the same. It would be like re making the great escape but in a butlins holiday camp to make it a bit diffferent

Every film made should have a purpose. It should give you something that only that film can give you. If you remake a film and don't do something different with it, why should anyone go see it? If You can get everything in the original, or even more, why bother watching the remake? If it's no different to the cartoon (or as I said, worse because there CG animals are less expressive) why should anyone go see it?

Your comparison is ridiculous. Butlins isn't a prison. You know what. Actually, yeah. That could be a good approach - like Chicken Run essentially being a remake of the Great Escape. A comedy version of the story where it's a bunch of kids taken to a boring holiday camp by their parents, trying to escape. That could be a fun film. POWs trying to escape butlins makes zero sense and wouldn't be a good idea.It isn't about different for the sake of different.

It's about doing something to make it worth our time to go see a remake of something we've already seen. Different for the sake of different isn't enough, if it doesn't serve something - a modern look at the themes, a different focus of themes from a source material (e.g. focusing on different aspects of a book to the last film version of that book), some reinterpretation of the story, etc.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Every film made should have a purpose. It should give you something that only that film can give you. If you remake a film and don't do something different with it, why should anyone go see it? If You can get everything in the original, or even more, why bother watching the remake? If it's no different to the cartoon (or as I said, worse because there CG animals are less expressive) why should anyone go see it?

Your comparison is ridiculous. Butlins isn't a prison. You know what. Actually, yeah. That could be a good approach - like Chicken Run essentially being a remake of the Great Escape. A comedy version of the story where it's a bunch of kids taken to a boring holiday camp by their parents, trying to escape. That could be a fun film. POWs trying to escape butlins makes zero sense and wouldn't be a good idea.It isn't about different for the sake of different.

It's about doing something to make it worth our time to go see a remake of something we've already seen. Different for the sake of different isn't enough, if it doesn't serve something - a modern look at the themes, a different focus of themes from a source material (e.g. focusing on different aspects of a book to the last film version of that book), some reinterpretation of the story, etc.

I thought it was brilliant

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Like the town itself, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is a great sprawl of a thing without any real central focus. On the most superficial level it's a buddy movie, with DiCaprio as fading TV actor Rick Dalton and Pitt as his faithful retainer / long standing stunt double Cliff Booth, both now scrabbling about for work and reduced to watching reruns of Rick's old monochrome shows on ancient telly boxes. Not sure there are that many deeper levels to be honest, other than as a homage to a bygone era. This is a low-rent Hollywood devoid of glitz or very much glamour. Even the nighttime neon looks a bit pound shop. Up in the hills, in long and winding Cielo Drive, Rick lives in splendid top-end suburban isolation, catching only occasional glimpses of new next door neighbours Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate. Rick's got the kidney shaped swimming pool where he learns his lines, though its only a little one. Rick's just happy to be living in Hollywood, not just passing through. The birds sing, the cicadas chirrup, all seems fairly well with the world. Tho change is coming.

The film's a loving reconstruction of early seventies Tinseltown, shabby chic before that was a thing. Movie posters loom large. Radio tunes set the edge. There's movies within movies, all of the trademark Tarantino touches. I can see clearly now why Bruce Lee's daughter was not amused - unlike the sparse DoY matinee crowd. Seems a bit of a cheap shot just chucked in for no real reason other than some real and fleeting laughs. Just too much padding throughout really. Too much filler, not enough killer Tarantino.

To sum up, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is a fairly watchable nigh-on three hours, especially with the gorgeous 35mm print. Tho I'm not sure I'll be rushing to watch it again anytime soon.

6/10

 

[herecomesaregular]

Like the town itself, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is a great sprawl of a thing without any real central focus. On the most superficial level it's a buddy movie, with DiCaprio as fading TV actor Rick Dalton and Pitt as his faithful retainer / long standing stunt double Cliff Booth, both now scrabbling about for work and reduced to watching reruns of Rick's old monochrome shows on ancient telly boxes. Not sure there are that many deeper levels to be honest, other than as a homage to a bygone era. This is a low-rent Hollywood devoid of glitz or very much glamour. Even the nighttime neon looks a bit pound shop. Up in the hills, in long and winding Cielo Drive, Rick lives in splendid top-end suburban isolation, catching only occasional glimpses of new next door neighbours Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate. Rick's got the kidney shaped swimming pool where he learns his lines, though its only a little one. Rick's just happy to be living in Hollywood, not just passing through. The birds sing, the cicadas chirrup, all seems fairly well with the world. Tho change is coming.

The film's a loving reconstruction of early seventies Tinseltown, shabby chic before that was a thing. Movie posters loom large. Radio tunes set the edge. There's movies within movies, all of the trademark Tarantino touches. I can see clearly now why Bruce Lee's daughter was not amused - unlike the sparse DoY matinee crowd. Seems a bit of a cheap shot just chucked in for no real reason other than some real and fleeting laughs. Just too much padding throughout really. Too much filler, not enough killer Tarantino.

To sum up, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is a fairly watchable nigh-on three hours, especially with the gorgeous 35mm print. Tho I'm not sure I'll be rushing to watch it again anytime soon.

6/10

Always enjoy Tarantino once, his films never stand up to rewatching though, for me.

I thought it was "ok". Wouldn't recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen a few of his films. I do think his movies work better with a decent plot, this one was just a bit too self indulgent.

Agree on a 6/10 though

 

[studio150]

The film's a loving reconstruction of early seventies Tinseltown, shabby chic before that was a thing.

1969

I saw the film this afternoon and really enjoyed the film. I was engrossed the whole time and it didn't feel like a 161 minute film.

Humour, Great dialogue, violence, superb soundtrack, and does anyone know the batphone number.

 

[Acker79]

Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark
I saw this last night at a cineworld unlimited preview. It was decent enough. It felt like it was shooting for It quality. Doesn't quite reach that level, but was a good effort.

 

[CorgiRegisteredFriend]

1969

I saw the film this afternoon and really enjoyed the film. I was engrossed the whole time and it didn't feel like a 161 minute film.

Humour, Great dialogue, violence, superb soundtrack, and does anyone know the batphone number.

Thought violence was suitably kept to a minimum and when it arrived was fairly comedic. I did enjoy the film but it didn’t really start for me until Brad Pitt visits the hippy commune. At which point an hour and a half had gone. Preferred his films that have more narrative.

 

[Acker79]

This won't appeal to everyone, but Cinecity (University of Brighton and Screen Archive partnership) and various other organisations around the area have come together to create Screen Shot - a website and newsletter to promote and advertise local indie and alternative film events.

You can sign up for the email newsletter, or just check the website here: https://screen-shot.co.uk/

Screen Shot is a website and monthly newsletter designed to promote and support alternative film events in Sussex. We work with independent programmers, film clubs, festivals and community groups to help special events, pop-up screenings and live cinema events reach a wider audience.

It was formed in 2019 by CINECITY, The Old Market, Oska Bright Film Festival, Open Colour, Fabrica Gallery, Attenborough Centre for the Contemporary Arts and Women Over 50 Film Festival.​

 

[pearl]

This won't appeal to everyone, but Cinecity (University of Brighton and Screen Archive partnership) and various other organisations around the area have come together to create Screen Shot - a website and newsletter to promote and advertise local indie and alternative film events.

You can sign up for the email newsletter, or just check the website here: https://screen-shot.co.uk/

Screen Shot is a website and monthly newsletter designed to promote and support alternative film events in Sussex. We work with independent programmers, film clubs, festivals and community groups to help special events, pop-up screenings and live cinema events reach a wider audience.

It was formed in 2019 by CINECITY, The Old Market, Oska Bright Film Festival, Open Colour, Fabrica Gallery, Attenborough Centre for the Contemporary Arts and Women Over 50 Film Festival.​

that looks great, many thanks

 

[BadFish]

Always enjoy Tarantino once, his films never stand up to rewatching though, for me.

I thought it was "ok". Wouldn't recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen a few of his films. I do think his movies work better with a decent plot, this one was just a bit too self indulgent.

Agree on a 6/10 though

I agree here it was okay- pretty good. The critics seemed to be gushing over it though?

It was meandering for me and i spent much of the first half enjoying the characters and script but waiting for it to start. Then towards the end he suddenly remembers he is Tarantino and throws in a burst of hyper violence.

It all felt a bit self indulgent to me.

Brad Pitt's portrayal of Clint Boon was puzzling to me as he seemed to have missed the bowl cut and organ. I know they were 60's influenced but I am not sure it really fit.