What film did you watch last night?

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014)

Yes, plenty of plot-holes (love how young April is using a video camera with a bluetooth logo on it in 1999), but at the same time thoroughly entertaining, with some great set-pieces, fights scenes, and lol moments. Took me back to my childhood :)

8/10
 
Interseter IMAX again with the other half. Enjoyed it just as much the second time.

The 100 Yard Journey. 6/10 Lots of food porn and a pleasant story in the background, nice midweek film.
 
Short Term 12, brilliant.

Another feels movie, but played out really well. Predictable at most points, but I can forgive that as was never intended not to be. 8/10
 
peige said:
Interseter IMAX again with the other half. Enjoyed it just as much the second time.

The 100 Yard Journey. 6/10 Lots of food porn and a pleasant story in the background, nice midweek film.
Click to expand...

Bloody hell, you've seen it 3 times at the cinema? Did you take the other half all 3 times? If so you have a keeper. :D
 
TMNT 2014 6/10 mainly coz the kids liked it and its some what better than the 90s live action films.

its better than the one that came out few years ago, but it feels verymuch like a TV movie rather than a proper movie.
 
ubersonic said:
Guardians of the Galaxy

Finally got around to watching it, really good film, however one thing that really irked me was that they put Laika in it for a joke, and used the wrong breed/colour/gender of dog, it was like one of the easiest things to get right in the film and they missed by miles lol.

8/10
Click to expand...

That wasn't Laika, that was Cosmo the Spacedog.
 
tres said:
2001 - A Space Odyssee

2/10

I watched this after the Interstellar simile comments. I don't know whether I'm too old to appreciate this, having grown up with better visuals, acting, lines and perhaps the basic concepts had been explored by other films I'd seen. But I found the acting terrible, the lines cliche'ingly bad, the storyline far too predictable and the cinematography just too 'dated' to be enjoyed. I can imagine this film would have been incredible and groundbreaking once upon a time - but for me, unfortunately, it was just old and very boring.
Click to expand...

I'm not a massive 2001 fan, but I really enjoyed 2010. It's a totally different kind of film.

Whilst I wouldn't recommend 2001 to most people, I have no problem recommending 2010 to anyone who likes sci-fi. I've you've seen 2001 already it's a no-brainer :)
 
easyrider said:
2001 doesn't...There just happens to be videos

It was made in 1968 before ipads..before skype and the internet before all of those things that indeed Kubrick predicted.

Samsung actually used 2001 in court when apple tried to sue them for copyright accusing Samsung of ripping off the iphone design

"they argue the idea for the iPad existed back in 1968, when Stanley Kubrick dreamed up his sci fi classic. And in American patent law, if the idea existed before your patent application—what's known as prior art—your patent is null. So essentially, Samsung is pulling a hell of a legal maneuver here, alleging they couldn't possibly have stolen the iPad's design, because Apple took it from an imaginary science fiction movie space station:"
Click to expand...

Arthur C Clarke was responsible for thinking up most of the tech and 'future' worlds in 2001 rather than Stanley Kubrick. And even then it was Just an evolution of other ideas seen in both print and film, such as the Electronic Clipboards in Star Trek TOS.

The problem with 2001 for me is not the cinematography, writing or direction but the way the stargate portion seemed to be made to appeal to the LSD 'funkadelic' generation of the 1960/70s which detracts from the film somewhat for me and dates it enormously today, although it's only been in the last decade that time seems to have caught up with it.

And No, I'm not a kid and I understand the film perfectly, I should considering just how many times I've watched it, read the novels and discussed it over the decades.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
Arthur C Clarke was responsible for thinking up most of the tech and 'future' worlds in 2001 rather than Stanley Kubrick. And even then it was Just an evolution of other ideas seen in both print and film, such as the Electronic Clipboards in Star Trek TOS.
Click to expand...

But it was Kubricks vision to bring the book visually to life.

The problem with 2001 for me is not the cinematography, writing or direction but the way the stargate portion seemed to be made to appeal to the LSD 'funkadelic' generation of the 1960/70s which detracts from the film somewhat for me and dates it enormously today, although it's only been in the last decade that time seems to have caught up with it.

And No, I'm not a kid and I understand the film perfectly, I should considering just how many times I've watched it, read the novels and discussed it over the decades.
Click to expand...

Its was mirroring the Zeitgeist of the time...and considering its from 1968 it does it pefectly imo..How else could you do that part of the movie?

The only thing I have issue with is Rigsby:p
 
easyrider said:
But it was Kubricks vision to bring the book visually to life.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. The film predates the books. Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C Clarke made the film together based on several of Clarkes short stories and a wide range of other science fiction and science sources. They both wrote the screenplay and the novel came after.

easyrider said:
.Its was mirroring the Zeitgeist of the time...and considering its from 1968 it does it pefectly imo.
Click to expand...

I said this, and this is why it now appears dated. That you feel it's perfect is entirely subjective to your opinion.
 
Castiel said:
No it wasn't. The film predates the books. Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C Clarke made the film together based on several of Clarkes short stories and a wide range of other science fiction and science sources. They both wrote the screenplay and the novel came after.
.
Click to expand...

I meant from a cinematic perspective...the mise-en-scene for example is very Kubrick
 
The Equalizer

Seems Denzel is the only actor who gets more menacing with age in terms of being totally badass. Enjoyed teh flick, entirely predictable but there's nothing boring about watching baddies getting their asses handed to them with style :D
 
Interstellar - 9/10

Great film, didn't hit all the marks it was aiming for but overall very good. All of the 'twists' I thought were pretty obvious, so no real surprises with where it went. I thought the end was straying into the sublimely ridiculous, but they just rescued it....if you ignore the obvious time travel paradoxes.

My main gripe with the film was Matthew McConaughey...for gods sake man, you're an actor, enunciate properly and stop mumbling! :p

Saw it in Berlin, in their Sony centre Imax - Why can't we have cinemas like that, it was stunning! Sat in a full leather armchair for 3 hours watching that massive screen was enhancing to the total experience.

Imitation Game - 9/10

Even with all the historical inaccuracies and appeals to emotion - which I appreciate they need to do to make a good story, and I find Keira Knightley simperingly annoying, it was a great film, go see it :)
 
Freakbro said:
Interstellar - 9/10

Great film, didn't hit all the marks it was aiming for but overall very good. All of the 'twists' I thought were pretty obvious, so no real surprises with where it went. I thought the end was straying into the sublimely ridiculous, but they just rescued it....if you ignore the obvious time travel paradoxes.
Click to expand...

I went into the film remembering that it's Christopher Nolan, therefore I never had a problem with it in terms of ridiculousness :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom