What film did you watch last night?

Shamikebab said:
Live Free or Die Hard 7/10

This was actually better than I remembered. The story is a bit...woah hackerz can do everything...but it's functional. The supporting cast is pretty good (think Winstead is great as his daughter and Long is a good sidekick). Big fan of Olyphant and while this hardly stretches him he's a good baddie.

But the cons are it doesn't really feel much like Die Hard. The opening is great and feels perfect tone-wise but then the actions scenes quickly become too big. Die Hard has never been about McClane taking down fighter jets and helicopters singlehandedly. What made the series great is it was just a fairly ordinary cop thrown into circumstances out of his control and making best. At times this feels like Rambo.
Click to expand...
Your last paragraph contradicts itself...
This film/Bruce's acting IS legit because McCane is out of touch, so he does end up taking down hackers/bad guys by old school means, because that's all he knows, violence, no sudden technical ability, nor attempt at it, he just knows combat/survival/revenge. So that feels genuine/reel versus suddenly gaining some bs ability/knowledge/political view he's never had...

Yep, Justin Long perfectly fills in where McClane lacks, the bond between them is very well done, and subtle, they compliament each others skillsets, it works.

Sure there is some silly OTT bits, but it's Die Hard, c'mon man, we really gonna give the past stuff a free past throughout, no, but we do cause it's DH and BW... Be grateful he did this when he didn't need the money... The fact that when this came out it was more about arguing about him not wearing a hair piece vs the review of this film, says it all... It's the Nickelback of this series, fun to hate/bitch about online. Meh. For me, it's just the weakest one, yet still enjoyable, a LOT better than Beverly Hills Cop 3 that's for sure! Let alone the disgrace that is Bad Boys 3 (FAT boys 3!)

Maybe your wording threw me off, but IMHO, It's insulting to say Olyphant isn't a true bad guy, I get he could do 'way worse' but he's a very good less is more subtle actor, whatever his role, he owns his roll as a subtle bad guy in this, pacing it, waiting his time, knowing/thinking he can outsmart McClane and win, he's always had this subtle bad guy/scumbag in him, just look at how he holds back yet is calculated in Gone in 60 and The Girl Next Door, where he can switch up from being chilled/subtle to brutal, hence why it worked so well in Hitman, his cold and collectiveness, is why he was perfect as Agent 47...

I know this could have been far better/more violent/harsher rated/true Die Hard R rating etc etc, but I refuse to think this isn't good enough, 5 however is a different story... But this IS 'good enough'.
 
Last edited:
keef247 said:
It's insulting to say Olyphant isn't a true bad guy
Click to expand...
It would be, if that’s what was posted but I’m pretty sure when they said he was a ‘good baddie’ they meant he was good at being the bad guy.

I love Olyphant, as you say he is really good at going from 0 to 100 in the blink of an eye. Can’t say I’ve ever seen anything that I didn’t enjoy watching him in.
 
Thekwango said:
It would be, if that’s what was posted but I’m pretty sure when they said he was a ‘good baddie’ they meant he was good at being the bad guy.

I love Olyphant, as you say he is really good at going from 0 to 100 in the blink of an eye. Can’t say I’ve ever seen anything that I didn’t enjoy watching him in.
Click to expand...
My bad mate. Maybe didn't word it the best :) , I simply mean he really does/relatable/believable be it 'good' or 'bad'... And thus whatever he puts in, IS good enough/subtle enough to warrant stellar, low key perfect characterization.

The way he was the friend/scumbag/manipulator even in something silly yet catches you off guard in the feels as The Girl Next Door, and really put his all into that character, show's as with Depp etc, he doesn't just do stuff for a pay cheque, I thought he was awesome in Gone In 60, even though he takes the back seat...

Yeah same, I don't think he 'makes bad films' personally, nor relies on the income and sells out and does something mediocre.

A rare find.

TLDR I think DH4.0 is 'good enough' despite that it 'could have been better/more viscous' that it is 'allowed'. These films were never meant to be taken 'that' seriously, just that you care about the franchise/character family... It achieves that easily. Unlike BHC3...
 
Last edited:
Nefarious (2023) 7/10

Pretty good, creepy. Would watch it again at some point.

The scene in last 20 seconds or so was a bit of a pointless addition in my opinion, or could have been presented in a more creepy/less tacky way with just a bit of thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jcr
Nitefly said:
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

Everyone is quick to say this is the ‘worst’ of the original three, but as silly as it is it may well be the most fun of the bunch.

The adventure is primal and stimulating on a childish level; bad guy looks bad, enslaving children is bad, bugs are scary and so on. Indi is played up as the cool macho treasure hunter slightly to pair and bicker with Willie the ‘damsel in distress’ and… yeah it’s just really fun isn’t it? So for those reasons it feels a bit ‘lighter’ as a piece of cinema, even if the tone is pretty dark and ‘horror-like’ at points.

There are definitely some of the most classic and memorable bits of the whole series here; the bugs, the crushing room and most obviously the mine cart sequence. Honestly that may well be my top pick for the best special effects sequence in anything ever. It goes on for so long and the non-green screen shots look soooo good - as if it really was filmed in an actual mine. It’s just an outstanding technical film-making achievement. It’s quite fun watching it just trying to figure out how they did it.

Always a must watch during the Christmas break for me and still as good as ever.

9/10

Edit: here’s the mine cart sequence, best watched in the context of the whole film of course but damn it’s just an amazing piece of film making :cool:

Click to expand...
I love the first 3. The others not so much at all.
 
barmyllama said:
Ronin (1998)

I think it goes without saying that the two car chases are some of the best ever committed to film.

But the rest of the film holds it's own too, especially when you consider it's 25 years old and the cinematography and the score have 70's vibe to them.

8/10
Click to expand...
What’s the colour of the boathouse at Hear-ford?
 
The Shawshank Redemption

It’s surprising to find that this ‘beast’ of a renowned film, which spans decades of story, is only 2 hours 22 minutes long. Wow - so many films released today really are bloated aren’t they?

It’s hard to pinpoint exactly what makes it so popular. There are the awful villains and the immensely satisfying ‘conclusion’ of that side of the story, which I think are the bits that everyone remembers it for. But I think the real gold is the anthology-like storytelling that comes before the meat of the ‘memorable bits’. It’s really fast paced and captivating, just like someone reading you an interesting story. Nothing really drags and you learn just enough to care about the characters / know who they are but without any filler. It’s so easy to watch.

I actually think the ending sections are the least interesting on rewatches, once you know the outcome - but that’s arguably true of any film. It’s the set up that really makes it top tier.

Always a good watch… plenty of feels, doesn’t outstay its welcome, a gripping long story when you care about the characters. I guess you don’t need flash and dazzle when the basics are just ‘there’.

9.5/10
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
The Shawshank Redemption

It’s surprising to find that this ‘beast’ of a renowned film, which spans decades of story, is only 2 hours 22 minutes long. Wow - so many films released today really are bloated aren’t they?

It’s hard to pinpoint exactly what makes it so popular. There are the awful villains and the immensely satisfying ‘conclusion’ of that side of the story, which I think are the bits that everyone remembers it for. But I think the real gold is the anthology-like storytelling that comes before the meat of the ‘memorable bits’. It’s really fast paced and captivating, just like someone reading you an interesting story. Nothing really drags and you learn just enough to care about the characters / know who they are but without any filler. It’s so easy to watch.

I actually think the ending sections are the least interesting on rewatches, once you know the outcome - but that’s arguably true of any film. It’s the set up that really makes it top tier.

Always a good watch… plenty of feels, doesn’t outstay its welcome, a gripping long story when you care about the characters. I guess you don’t need flash and dazzle when the basics are just ‘there’.

9.5/10
Click to expand...
They don't make them like this anymore sadly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom