Looked it up and just this moment finished watching it. Very good film, & as you say, more violent than expected 8/10.
Last edited:
What film did you watch last night?
- Thread starter Richeh
- Start date
Looked it up and just this moment finished watching it. Very good film, & as you say, more violent than expected 8/10.
yeah some of it is a bit cheezy staged so bad but some you come close to actually peeing yourself
the bit where he was fishing on the golf course 
literally couldn't breathe
ya I agree - I saw it at the theater IMAX etc ... while not as good as it could have been. Still quite fantastic and interesting I think I gave it 7/10 or 6.7/10
prometheus was my fav this year ...
You mean you like Prometheus, the movie by Ridley Scott?
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
I doubt he can mean such things.
Truthfully there isn't enough variation in the gene pool for someone to actually rate it as their favourite movie.
Even the engineers and aliens hated it.
yeah some of it is a bit cheezy staged so bad but some you come close to actually peeing yourself
literally couldn't breathe
It was the folding bed scene that did it for me. Had tears rolling down my face with that one
Granted, it was a bit hit and miss in places but the good ones were hilarious I thought
12 Years a Slave.
Echo what others have said about it really (may have been on a different forum though...). A hard film to watch esp when you sit up and think that this wasn't really all that long ago in the grand scheme of things. It didn't seem to sensationalise as much as is perhaps could have nor was it muchy, which was good
A solid 8/10
Echo what others have said about it really (may have been on a different forum though...). A hard film to watch esp when you sit up and think that this wasn't really all that long ago in the grand scheme of things. It didn't seem to sensationalise as much as is perhaps could have nor was it muchy, which was good
A solid 8/10
Walkabout - odd one this, an English teenage girl (17) and her 6/7 year old brother get abandoned in the Australian outback. They eventually meet a young aborigine boy about the same age as the girl. The film has some amazing imagery in it and some disturbing. The film was made over forty years ago and is still powerful and quite sad. I watched it a very long time ago and could only really remember a scene or two, watching it back now I felt that Jenny Agutter's nude scenes were a bit close to the bone, she was under 18. 3/5
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,518
- Location
- Cornwall
Battleship - 4/10
Loyal recreation of the much loved board game including actors from Empire magazines 2011 'Star in a Film' competition, big guns and Photophobia suffering lizards.
Loyal recreation of the much loved board game including actors from Empire magazines 2011 'Star in a Film' competition, big guns and Photophobia suffering lizards.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
Yes but the point of what he saw, when he saw her nude, her reaction, her pulling away, made him think he has a spirit demon in his eyes, and he knew he was doomed. Whereas it was shame and embarrassment of her developing body which actually made her pull away and hide.
It is a very powerful film, and was a good book.
Ain't them body saints 5/10, OK storyline but could have captured you a lot more
About time 7/10 - Thought this was a pretty good film, I like the way it was set, it was played well, good story line, was thinking it was going to be the time travellers wife but it made its own mark on things.
About time 7/10 - Thought this was a pretty good film, I like the way it was set, it was played well, good story line, was thinking it was going to be the time travellers wife but it made its own mark on things.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,328
- Location
- deep space nine
Rating. Analysis ?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,602
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
What happened to About Time?
Lone Survivor - 6/10 - TL/DR alright movie, will probably get massively over-hyped but it's a bit bland for me.
RANT
This film like BlackHawk Down before it, is full of the reasons why I really hate Hollywood at times, mainly because I'd read both books well before the films were made. My main gripe is this - If you're going to base it on a True Story then make it true to that story. However if you feel the need to "Hollywood" it up with extra bits that never happened then a. It can't have been that great a story in the 1st place, b. it is no longer based on a true story and c. if you still insist on telling it then you should, at the very least, change the character names from those real life people that the original True Story is based on because those people still alive will have to live with the fact that the actions shown on-screen by people pretending to be them is nothing but fake.
Bit's like this happen through-out the film but this one set-piece in particular annoyed me more than most. In this film an actor gets into a knife fight with a Taliban member at a critical point in the movie yet in the true story the person he portrays didn't have any knife fights and was pretty much incapacitated by this point so adding a knife fight I think is "Hollywood'ing" the truth way too much. It gets worse for me because that person then helped oversee the storyline so he's knows that up on cinema screens worldwide this un-truth about his actions on that day is being told and people will believe he did those things because it's "Based on a True Story" etc when it is a bare faced lie.
I had similar thoughts about BHD although that was a lot more understandable at least, considering the huge amount of time, characters and different events that occurred during the real mission. However, for one example the real Matt Eversmann had to watch an actor on screen doing heroic things that he didn't or couldn't do in real life (he wasn't involved in some parts of the fight, which the film changed), which must be hard on him when people ask him about it.
Anyway rant over
/RANT
RANT
This film like BlackHawk Down before it, is full of the reasons why I really hate Hollywood at times, mainly because I'd read both books well before the films were made. My main gripe is this - If you're going to base it on a True Story then make it true to that story. However if you feel the need to "Hollywood" it up with extra bits that never happened then a. It can't have been that great a story in the 1st place, b. it is no longer based on a true story and c. if you still insist on telling it then you should, at the very least, change the character names from those real life people that the original True Story is based on because those people still alive will have to live with the fact that the actions shown on-screen by people pretending to be them is nothing but fake.
Bit's like this happen through-out the film but this one set-piece in particular annoyed me more than most. In this film an actor gets into a knife fight with a Taliban member at a critical point in the movie yet in the true story the person he portrays didn't have any knife fights and was pretty much incapacitated by this point so adding a knife fight I think is "Hollywood'ing" the truth way too much. It gets worse for me because that person then helped oversee the storyline so he's knows that up on cinema screens worldwide this un-truth about his actions on that day is being told and people will believe he did those things because it's "Based on a True Story" etc when it is a bare faced lie.
I had similar thoughts about BHD although that was a lot more understandable at least, considering the huge amount of time, characters and different events that occurred during the real mission. However, for one example the real Matt Eversmann had to watch an actor on screen doing heroic things that he didn't or couldn't do in real life (he wasn't involved in some parts of the fight, which the film changed), which must be hard on him when people ask him about it.
Anyway rant over
/RANT
Last edited: