What film did you watch last night?

Kyo said:
I don't think I have ever watched it. Will check it out. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Most of the special effects are timeless and still hold up today.

Only one bit is a bit too 60s psychedelic for me, but similar scenes in much later films (hello Contact) have aged horribly using 90s CGI.
 
Mr Jack said:
The Crow

The effects are looking ropey 30 years later but the film doesn't really rely on them so it doesn't detract from the greatness of this gothic revenge masterpiece.

10/10, possibly biased by the big Crow poster that used to hang above my bed at uni.
Click to expand...
When it came out originally I thought it was utter tosh.

But ... I have watched it couple of times in the few years with a group of mates and I actually like it. Its a decent film. I didn't like mayo either when I was younger and I eat it with loads of stuff now ... tastes change !
 
48 Hours

Really is a typical 80s shoot em up, but I do like Nick Nolte in it. It's a shame his character caused the whole story in the film in the opening 10 minutes !
 
Jokester said:
Companion 8/10
Enjoyed this a lot, slow burn at the start until the
reveal - though the film title, trailer and poster really give it away
at which point it becomes a lot of fun as it plays out unforseen consequences of one of the characters actions and the ensuing escalation. Topical in several ways, would highly recomend it.
Click to expand...
On digial on the 18th great that you enjoyed it :D
 
Conclave could be a really topical film based on all the scurrying around at the Vatican at the moment. I read the book years back but I've not seen the film yet.
 
Inside Out (2015) by Pixar.

I haven't really watched many Pixar films since the Toy Story and The Incredibles era but having watched Inside Out, it has given me the desire to work my way through the back catalogue. Inside Out really is up their with Pixar's early films. Very well constructed, full of character, and inventiveness. And a real tear jerker too.
 
The Ritual 2017 - 4/10

This is apparently a well recognised horror film but I couldn't see it. Bunch of male friends goto some Swedish hiking trail in order to honour one of their friends who passed away not too long ago. The group get lost as is the norm with these films and take a detour through a dense forest in which something inhabits.

The big bad looked awesome but the group were just rubbish to watch with the exception of Rafe Spall.
 
Bridget Jones: Mad About a Boy (2025)

I've never been particularly interested in romantic comedies, but have seen the previous three films on account of my wife. So watching this fourth installment was inevitable and I just got it out of the way early. It's easily the weakest of all of them, but there are a few laughs to be had and I quite like Hugh Grants character. Hopefully they don't make anymore.

4/10
 
Last edited:
Paddington in Peru - 5/10

Disappointing, didn’t raise a chuckle at any point in the film. I’d rate the first Paddington film 9/10 and the second a solid 10/10.
 
IvanDobskey said:
I think most modern CGI looks pretty horrible to be honest. Practical effects always look better if done well.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is true, and don't forget that there's a hell of a lot of CGI in modern movies that you don't even notice. The problem is what they choose to do with CGI, and how they choose to integrate it into the movie: it's far too easy to use it to create completely unreal feeling environments and actions. Freed from the constraints of physical props, it's far too common to create stuff that just looks awful. Meanwhile, too often the CGI team are thrown the already recorded footage and told to make it good in too short a timeframe and too little input. With practical effects they have to work it how before hand and plan the shots around it, with CGI they can film it and hope. Done well, CGI is capable of looking much better than practical effects.
 
IvanDobskey said:
I think most modern CGI looks pretty horrible to be honest. Practical effects always look better if done well.
Click to expand...

Mr Jack said:
I don't think this is true, and don't forget that there's a hell of a lot of CGI in modern movies that you don't even notice. The problem is what they choose to do with CGI, and how they choose to integrate it into the movie: it's far too easy to use it to create completely unreal feeling environments and actions. Freed from the constraints of physical props, it's far too common to create stuff that just looks awful. Meanwhile, too often the CGI team are thrown the already recorded footage and told to make it good in too short a timeframe and too little input. With practical effects they have to work it how before hand and plan the shots around it, with CGI they can film it and hope. Done well, CGI is capable of looking much better than practical effects.
Click to expand...

I would say you both have a point. CGI can be great and ideally you don't notice it at all. However, it can be used as a shortcut/sticking plaster and if not done really well it can age rapidly. I expect we have all had the experience of rewatching a movie we remember as looking amazing when it came out, only to notice scenes that now seem obviously fake.

In the old days they had to build a huge set and employ a lot of extras to convey ancient Rome/Egypt or whatever and generally those epics still look good today. Yes there are plenty of old horror films where the monster is clearly a guy in a cheap rubber suit, but people still rave about good practical FX such as those in The Thing. Mad Max Fury Road looks great and as I recall that is arguably the best of both worlds using mostly practical FX with some CGI enhancements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom