What film did you watch last night?

Incredibles 2

Overall I thoroughly enjoyed it, highly recommend for all viewing ages, typical Pixar in that sense. Further details in the spoilers.

As a huge fan of the original I was incredibly (pun intended) excited to find out the 2nd one was incoming and made a point of avoiding trailers and info in the hope to go in as blind as possible. I do not go to the cinema often as (until last night) the cinema experience in Portugal is not a patch on the UK, and generally, I get a better experience at home in my own cinema. However, a colleague recommended a small cinema company which is dedicated to cinema and a specific venue as well. I gave it a go, and I was pleasantly surprised and will definitely be making it a regular thing from now on.

Anyway, the movie itself I found it very very funny. It's full of lots of little quirks and notions with some strong messages conveyed. Like the Screenslaver putting the message across that, we're all addicted to screens & technology. The comedy was excellent, particularly with Jack-Jack, wordless comedy here, made me think of Mr Bean. Also the strong female lead in this instance as well as with the majority of the action being on Elastagirl.

CGI was amazing, but then again its Pixar, so it's a given.

I was very much a fan of the fact it picked up straight off from the first one. Definitely, recommend.
 
Jokester said:
Simon Pegg ruins it twice, the story and his characterisation of Scotty :(
Click to expand...
It's the law tho. You have to have a grating, wise-cracking comic relief character in every Hollywood action film. There's no way a by-the-numbers sequel/reboot could disregard this law. The penalty is death.
 
FoxEye said:
Star Trek - Into Darkness - 4/10

Started OK - well, even - went steadily downhill. By near the end it was truly awful.

Honestly I don't think they can make a much worse Star Trek films that the first two reboot films. Miserable, both of them.
Click to expand...

Glad someone else agrees.
 
I actually quite enjoy them all, they are mostly all better than the TNG era movies.

Nothing is going to top (the good) original series movies as they actually had relationships built over time. Rushing to squeeze Khan in to a story was never going to work like it did in Wrath of Khan.
 
VincentHanna said:
I actually quite enjoy them all, they are mostly all better than the TNG era movies.

Nothing is going to top (the good) original series movies as they actually had relationships built over time. Rushing to squeeze Khan in to a story was never going to work like it did in Wrath of Khan.
Click to expand...
What I don't get is the need/desire to lift entire scenes from the original films and re-create them?

Doesn't that default the whole purpose of a reboot?

Oh I see what they did. Re-made the scene and swapped the lead roles around this time. Soooooo clever. (Have a bucketful of /s with that :p)
 
The Purge (2013)


njNZBLM.gif
 
Last edited:
A Quiet Place

I can echo the general feeling that is one of the good ones. Actually tense, which is something that has been lacking for me in most thrillers for years. Time flew by as well.

I loved the monster design too, creepy as heck.

8/10
 
Incredibles 2 (2018) - 9/10

Fantastic fun and entertaining throughout with fast paced action scenes, plenty of jokes, and superbly stylish animation.

The story is good, although it could have been better, but it manages to deal with its modern issues well and in a relevant way.

Great range of characters and plenty of memorable moments, overall a very enjoyable film.
 
Ready player one - 5/10

Usually when a book I love is turned into a film I can still enjoy it sometimes more than the book. However, this film took none of the essence of the book, I actually struggled to finish it. Shame as I was really looking forward to it.
 
Ghostbusters (the new one)

The original Ghostbusters was a classic of its time, but frankly difficult to rewatch - the downright creepy Venkman is difficult to see as a hero in retrospect - and so a reboot isn't necessarily a bad idea. Unfortunately this is a poor take. It's not the performances by the lead women, so much as the writing and plotting that let it down. It's more pastiche than anything else, a faded reflection of the original without the cleverness that relies on references to the superior version that came before to raise a smile. It's decently well made, and there are witty touches, but it never rises to the heights of anything worth a rewatch.

I went to sleep before the end, but that probably had more to do with starting on the beer for the England match in the early afternoon that the film itself, so fans can pretend I missed a classic ending but I doubt it. It's okay entertainment but a poor homage to the original.

5/10
 
Tomb Raider (2018) - 3/10.

Not a patch on the Angelina movies. Seems they are trying to re-invent the character for modern "yoof", so instead of a public schoolgirl should have been around 1990 (based on when the first game was set) we get this slightly street smart kid scrapping in back street gyms in 2018 London (why is it always London?), doing Deliveroo errands and other things designed to impress the kids. When the action starts, not much really happens - go to an island inhabited by bad guys who look more at home in Far Cry. A lingering scene as she gets her first human "kill". The denouement was pretty rubbish too:
The monster turned out to be a mummified corpse which gave a lethal skin disease.
She didn't come back with any treasure.
She didn't save her father - which immediately diverges from the earlier films.
Fag Ash Lil from Four Weddings is revealed as behind it all, then the end titles rolled presumably leaving the door open for a sequel.

At least Jolie brought a bit of glamour and panache to her role as Lara and by comparison even the second of her films was better than this nonsense.
 
Vern1961 said:
Tomb Raider (2018) - 3/10.

Not a patch on the Angelina movies. Seems they are trying to re-invent the character for modern "yoof", so instead of a public schoolgirl should have been around 1990 (based on when the first game was set) we get this slightly street smart kid scrapping in back street gyms in 2018 London (why is it always London?), doing Deliveroo errands and other things designed to impress the kids. When the action starts, not much really happens - go to an island inhabited by bad guys who look more at home in Far Cry. A lingering scene as she gets her first human "kill". The denouement was pretty rubbish too:
The monster turned out to be a mummified corpse which gave a lethal skin disease.
She didn't come back with any treasure.
She didn't save her father - which immediately diverges from the earlier films.
Fag Ash Lil from Four Weddings is revealed as behind it all, then the end titles rolled presumably leaving the door open for a sequel.

At least Jolie brought a bit of glamour and panache to her role as Lara and by comparison even the second of her films was better than this nonsense.
Click to expand...

I've not seen it, but do you realise that the game was rebooted in 2013 and the latest movie is based on this version?
 
"How it ends" (Netflix original). I found this really disappointing as I'd watched the trailer and thought it looked right up my apocalypse-loving street. It's well acted and looks lovely but it goes NOWHERE. Characters come and go without any real impact and there is so little plot it feels like the blurb on the back of a paperback stretched to a movie. I know this is how it often is in real life but it makes for a boring and oddly jarring movie. The leads survive a ludicrous amount of deadly situations. I didn't understand why one person died at all (unless I drifted off during some dull piece of dialogue) and then IT JUST ENDS. It has one of the most abrupt ends ever. Abrupt as in "Sorry, we've run out of money so we're wrapping the shoot now. You can all go home now."

Such a shame. IMO, just don't bother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom