What film did you watch last night?

Vonhelmet said:
Something tells me that no one who was there would think the film terribly entertaining :p

And never mind how accurate it was, I thought it was rubbish as well. None of the characters were remotely sympathetic. They were all foolhardy idiots and I didn't feel sorry for them when everything went wrong.
Click to expand...

Absolutely this....I just didn't give a rats **** wether they lived or died...they were falsely represented for the sake of dramatic tension...

Well there wasn't any...it was dire...the green screen in parts was primary school quality and the characters horrible...

TBH it was a pointless movie and a wast of time watching it..never mind making it...
 
New topic:

Spectre

I can't believe that Sam Mendes can sit down with a straight face and talk about this movie.

It's utter dross...one of the worse Bond movies in the Franchise.


The opening was dull...peppered with green screen so our Daniel doesn't get hurt...

The jumping off the Dam and skiing off a mountainside with a parachute were far more effective in previous movies made decades ago.

I had to watch it it two sittings...I gave up first when they got the train across Tangier.

Then I picked it up last night...what a daft fight on the train...obvious body doubles in places...

Don't get me started on the villain with espadrilles on.

Wolfenstien the new order PC game had a better story was better written and had better characters.

Mendes knows how to make a good film...American Beauty...Revoltionary Road etc...

But this? The car chase in Rome was utterly rubbish with the mini chase in Bourne showing how a chase can be written and executed well...

I could go on an d on but I won't it was embarrassingly hammy in places...Bond showing his sensitive side just lacked any kind of conviction....

And Moriarty from Sherlock? Ffs ! :mad:

3/10
 
The problem with Everest was that the way they told the story the climbers were the good guys and the mountain was the bad guy, and the nasty mountain killed them. That's stupid, of course, because a mountain can't be a bad guy like that, a mountain just is. It's there, with all its ice and crevasses and wind and cold. It's there and it's horrible and you either leave it well alone or you climb it with the proper respect. No, The bad guy was their own hubris and their lack of respect for the mountain. The climbers killed themselves going up the mountain like that, and it is their own fault that they died, lost limbs, whatever. There's little hints at it, like conversations about how some of them have no experience climbing beyond 6000m or whatever, or how there's too many of them up there, but these are brushed aside, as though they aren't a serious problem, when the clear truth is that those are the reasons people died.

I can only assume that trying to present that duality and conflict was too much for the film makers, and likely perceived as too much for a mainstream audience, so they went for presenting it as the mountain's fault. It wouldn't have sold if you presented it as "Watch people die of arrogance on top of the world."
 
The chase was quite balletic, like the two cars drifting alongside each other and so on. It was well "choreographed" and driven, but it wasn't a chase as such. You didn't feel like he was trying to get away from someone who was chasing him. They were dancing.
 
easyrider said:
Everest is garbage.

Even the people that were there actually think the same.
Click to expand...

According to you. Other people liked the movie. Your opinion is no more valid than theirs.

Jon Krakauer didn't like the movie because it portrayed him as coward because he didn't go back up the mountain to help Robb and Doug. When in reality even the Sherpas didn't go back up.

Buck Weathers thought the movie was really good.
 
Vonhelmet said:
The problem with Everest was that the way they told the story the climbers were the good guys and the mountain was the bad guy, and the nasty mountain killed them. That's stupid, of course, because a mountain can't be a bad guy like that, a mountain just is. It's there, with all its ice and crevasses and wind and cold. It's there and it's horrible and you either leave it well alone or you climb it with the proper respect. No, The bad guy was their own hubris and their lack of respect for the mountain. The climbers killed themselves going up the mountain like that, and it is their own fault that they died, lost limbs, whatever. There's little hints at it, like conversations about how some of them have no experience climbing beyond 6000m or whatever, or how there's too many of them up there, but these are brushed aside, as though they aren't a serious problem, when the clear truth is that those are the reasons people died.

I can only assume that trying to present that duality and conflict was too much for the film makers, and likely perceived as too much for a mainstream audience, so they went for presenting it as the mountain's fault. It wouldn't have sold if you presented it as "Watch people die of arrogance on top of the world."
Click to expand...

I don't understand this criticism of the movie. Man throughout the ages has anthropomorphised objects, ships, cars, guns, mountains etc. Giving them personalities. For example Sailors talking about looking after the ship because she will look after you.

So it's not really surprising that the climbers would do the same with Everest.

Personally, I never really got that impression. To me, the film was making it very clear that if you disobey the rules and don't have everything 100% that the mountain will kill you. It showed several places where things weren't right, broken ropes, too many people, poorly placed oxygen, not obeying the guidelines and staying too long on the climb.

And when the storm came, people died. Yes, they make the mountain out to be the bad guy, but, all humans do the same, if we hit our thumb with a hammer we call the hammer names, even though we are at fault.

For myself, I didn't think the movie was brilliant, by any stretch. 6.5/10 for the story/film, Maybe 7.5 out of 10 for visuals.
 
400 days,
"400 Days" centers on four astronauts sent on a simulated mission to a distant planet to test the psychological effects of deep space travel. Locked away for 400 days, the crew's mental state begins to deteriorate when they lose all communication with the outside world. Forced to exit the ship, they discover that this mission may not have been a simulation after all.
Click to expand...

another film I quite like the concept, but god they did zero research, and everything about it is bad.
3/10
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
400 days,


another film I quite like the concept, but god they did zero research, and everything about it is bad.
3/1
Click to expand...

I know you struggle with your text input, but can't you make sure your movie ratings are right? What the hell is 3/1? That's betting odds not a film rating :p
 
Everest - Have to agree with some of the comments already said. It was just a weird and poor example of a film - not a story that should have ever made it to the big screen. The base camp radio crew wifey (can't remember her name) seemed to be panicking and getting her knickers in a twist even before things started to go wrong.

The Hateful Eight - Ok so I'm a huge Tarantino fan and was massively excited about seeing this. What a pile of absolute *****. Seriously when the final scene ended and the credits started to roll I thought to myself did Tarantino just troll the audience for a laugh!? Easily the worst Tarantino film yet. I seriously don't understand why the reviews have been so positive, especially from critics.. opinion aside, if your occupation is to write reviews professionally you should be at least able to identify and differentiate between what makes a good and bad film. It started well, the first few chapters were good then it's as if Tarantino started pulling ideas out his ass as soon as he other characters came in to play. The dialogue is weak and unimaginative, the twists are unintelligent and completely pointless therefor nonexistent. The choice of actors was just a poor tribute to his earlier movies. Micheal Madsen's part was pointless other than someone to point a finger at, unjustifiable as a character. There is little good to say here. Walton Goggins and Kurt Russell are the only saving grace. Of all the intelligent 'who done it?' type stories Tarantino could have written with these characters, he squandered the opportunity and failed spectacularly. I'm struggling to think of any other film that wastes opportunity for brilliance the way this does.

1 star from me, don't listen to the critics :mad:
 
Reading back a few pages I see people talking about how wonderful The Hateful Eight's story and dialogue is.

Seriously you guys must have watched a different version of the film for any of this to be true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom