I watched Wind River after several recommendations on here. I thought it was a bit meh. Slow for an hour then the shoot out scene put it up to 100mph. That was very well done and as Carter mentioned, the cinematography was amazing. Just didn't really have me on the edge of my seat like a thriller should.
I thought this was excellent. Wasn't sure about Oldman for the first five minutes, but in the end thought his performance was superb. I'm aware that there are some factual inaccuracies (the tube journey for example), but this isn't a historical document, and it's not claiming to be definitive, so I wasn't too worried. Movie highlights how close we were to holding 'peace talks' (surrender).
8/10
Really enjoyed this and Gary Oldman was fantastic. But, for me, the tube journey scene was so pivotal that it did disappoint me to learn it wasn't true.
But Hollywood dollars speak loudest. Just taints the authenticity somewhat.
I think you could file this under "it didn't happen but it could have and it sums up the feelings of the times" so it's nowhere near as bad as Hook being played as a malingerer in Zulu, which upset his descendants quite a bit, or Murdoch blowing his brains out in Titanic, at which his descendants were not so much upset as apoplectic.
Friday we saw Three Billboards. Not as funny as In Bruges but equally as dark and the two central performances are excellent. It's the best film I've seen so far this year.
Watched Three Billboards, too. Brilliant film as everyone on here said. I used to be a huge Sam Rockwell fan. I think he is as good as he's been in previous films. It's just great that he's finally recognised by the wider audience and the critics. 8/10.
Then I watched Only the Brave, a film about the true story of the Granite Mountain Hotshots, a group of firefighters who devoted their lives to forest fire fighting. It was a bit slow but the ending was simply too difficult, too heart-breaking to watch. I couldn't stop crying. 9/10 (one extra point for the 19 heroes. R.I.P.)
JOURNEYS END Excellent film set in WW1 in 1918 as British troops wait for a German offensive. It really gets across the dirt, fear, boredom and claustrophobia of life in the trenches. The sense of impending doom and resignation is there throughout and it also shows how callous the British generals were.
The cast is very strong and Sam Claflin is excellent as a young Captain whose mental health is disintegrating.
Well worth watching. 8/10
.
Just been to see it, excellent!
Great all British cast and Sam Claflin's portrayal of someone suffering with PTSD (obviously unknown at the time) is excellent.
Stephen Graham is also brilliant; par for the course for him though.
The Cloverfield Paradox is the third film of this series . All three are very loosely linked and all three are very different films. I absolutely loved the 2008 Cloverfield film. It was a film that used found footage special affects really well before it became old hat but this is not that kind of movie. This is pure Sci-Fi and I loved it.
In the near future, scientists aboard a space station are attempting to aid the Earth’s energy crisis. Energy is depleting at an alarming rate, leading scientists to turn to a new source but the crew inside of it notice some serious side effects as the energy source causes them to collide with another dimension .
Like the previous films there was a lot of secrecy as to what this film was about. In fact critics only got to see it when it was released on Netflix on Sunday after the Superbowl. I predict that lot's of people are going to hate this film. Sci Fi fans can be a funny lot and the cross over of genres won't please everyone. Sure , it's a bit silly at times but I love the way it tied up why ( or how) the aliens invaded the earth. It looks great and at no stage did I not feel thoroughly entertained. Give me this over Star Wars all day long. Produced by J.J Abrahams , The Cloverfield Paradox is now available on Netflix.
JOURNEYS END Excellent film set in WW1 in 1918 as British troops wait for a German offensive. It really gets across the dirt, fear, boredom and claustrophobia of life in the trenches. The sense of impending doom and resignation is there throughout and it also shows how callous the British generals were.
The cast is very strong and Sam Claflin is excellent as a young Captain whose mental health is disintegrating.
Well worth watching. 8/10
.
Really want to watch this, but I can't find it in any of the cinemas nearby?? What's up with that
JOURNEYS END Excellent film set in WW1 in 1918 as British troops wait for a German offensive. It really gets across the dirt, fear, boredom and claustrophobia of life in the trenches. The sense of impending doom and resignation is there throughout and it also shows how callous the British generals were.
The cast is very strong and Sam Claflin is excellent as a young Captain whose mental health is disintegrating.
Well worth watching. 8/10
.
Really want to watch this, but I can't find it in any of the cinemas nearby?? What's up with that
It seems to be on limited release. It wasn't on at my usual cinema so I'm off to see it at Greenwich Picturehouse instead.
Somewhat related but what's your etiquette on finding someone sat in your seat at the cinema?
Went to Darkest Hour at the weekend, cinema was 80% full and we had bought aisle seats only to find two people sat in them (adverts had just started). I told them they were in the wrong seats and they looked at me as if I was speaking an alien language. After a few moments of them absolutely not budging we just went and sat a few seats along from them (probably in their seats). I mean fair enough you make a mistake and sit in the wrong place but surely it's rude to not even acknowledge the person who has paid for your seat.
Somewhat related but what's your etiquette on finding someone sat in your seat at the cinema?
Went to Darkest Hour at the weekend, cinema was 80% full and we had bought aisle seats only to find two people sat in them (adverts had just started). I told them they were in the wrong seats and they looked at me as if I was speaking an alien language. After a few moments of them absolutely not budging we just went and sat a few seats along from them (probably in their seats). I mean fair enough you make a mistake and sit in the wrong place but surely it's rude to not even acknowledge the person who has paid for your seat.
Somewhat related but what's your etiquette on finding someone sat in your seat at the cinema?
Went to Darkest Hour at the weekend, cinema was 80% full and we had bought aisle seats only to find two people sat in them (adverts had just started). I told them they were in the wrong seats and they looked at me as if I was speaking an alien language. After a few moments of them absolutely not budging we just went and sat a few seats along from them (probably in their seats). I mean fair enough you make a mistake and sit in the wrong place but surely it's rude to not even acknowledge the person who has paid for your seat.
Should have got staff to intervene, one thing sitting in the wrong seat if your not bothered where you sit, but too specifically choose your seat and pre book would have wound me up and had to do something about it.
I'm surprised by the almost unanimous praise for Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. There's no doubt that the performances are excellent but I thought the plot had a lot of holes in it and you had to swallow inconsistencies and unlikely coincidences without asking too many questions such as - why does the guy come into the shop and menace Mildred when, in fact, he has nothing to do with the rape or the killing and how come the cop just happens to be in the booth next to him in the bar when the same guy makes what seems like a confession of the rape and murder which he in fact didn't do? And how unlikely is it that Dixon would end up in the same hospital room where Red Welby happens to be after the latter has been beaten up and thrown out of the window by the former? And how come the black, liberal sheriff suddenly turns up out of nowhere to set matters right in the corrupt police department? He felt flown in for plot purposes only. I can take plot holes in a film that doesn't take itself seriously but this one aims (and fails) at some kind of profundity and so needs more close attention and analysis. In the same way, I thinks its moral standpoint is dubious. Are we supposed to admire a crazy. vengeful lady (no matter how brilliantly acted) whose actions lead to mayhem? And how come one letter from the dead chief changes the brutal homophobic and racist Dixon into a good guy? Great performances, I agree, but they seem to have blinded people to the clumsy script.
A really intense, engaging and beautifully crafted film, with a bravura performance by Daniel Day-Lewis. Set amidst the glamour of 1950s London couture, this one really is right up his street. If 'Phantom Thread' is, as he has announced, going to be his last ever film, he's certainly going out on a high note. I also really enjoyed the performances of the young co-lead, Vicky Krieps, and Lesley Manville - 8/10
I'm surprised by the almost unanimous praise for Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. There's no doubt that the performances are excellent but I thought the plot had a lot of holes you in it and you had to swallow inconsistencies and unlikely coincidences without asking too many questions such as - 1. why does the guy come into the shop and menace Mildred when, in fact, he has nothing to do with the rape or the killing and how come the cop just happens to be in the booth next to him in the bar when the same guy makes what seems like 2. a confession of the rape and murder which he in fact didn't do? And how unlikely is it that 3. Dixon would end up in the same hospital room where Red Welby happens to be after the latter has been beaten up and thrown out of the window by the former? 4. And how come the black, liberal sheriff suddenly turns up out of nowhere to set matters right in the corrupt police department? He felt flown in for plot purposes only. I can take plot holes in a film that doesn't take itself seriously but this one aims (and fails) at some kind of profundity and so needs more close attention and analysis. In the same way, I thinks its moral standpoint is dubious. 5. Are we supposed to admire a crazy, vengeful lady (no matter how brilliantly acted) whose actions lead to mayhem? 6. And how come one letter from the dead chief changes the brutal homophobic and racist Dixon into a good guy? Great performances, I agree, but they seem to have blinded people to the clumsy script.
1. He's an evil psycho soldier who has been committing crimes in Iraq. He's seen Mildred on TV and was turned on by the crime and wants to look her in the eye to see her suffering. He hates her because she's a woman fighting back, particularly as she's 'attacking' a cop. 2. In the bar he was talking about the crimes he committed in Iraq. 3. Yes, a bit far fetched, but it's probably a very small local hospital. Suspension of disbelief required? 4. Because the world is changing and McDonagh wanted to provide a glimpse of hope maybe? Yes it helped the plot move along, but hey, it's a movie, not real life. 5. Not necessarily. The woman I went with didn't like her, whereas I did. Movie all the stronger for having a morally ambivalent lead imo. 6. That was 'lyricism'. Added an element of fantasy and hope, lifting the movie out of its bleakness. Midsummer Night's Dream was full of plot holes too, and this is on a par. Ok, I'm kidding, but the fantasy element is there. Suspension of disbelief and all that.
Loved the film as one of those examinations of the 'dark heart of America'. With a lyrical twist.
@JamesSeed - obviously you're prepared to forgive a lot more 'suspension of disbelief' moments than I am. Your 'explanation' of 1 is an interpretation that I don't think is at all implicit in the plot - none of that motivation of his action is planted in the film. I know that in the bar he was talking about Iraq. But I found it too convenient that he should reveal all this in the hearing of Dixon. For me that's just plot creakiness and sloppy writing.
@JamesSeed - obviously you're prepared to forgive a lot more 'suspension of disbelief' moments than I am. Your 'explanation' of 1 is an interpretation that I don't think is at all implicit in the plot - none of that motivation of his action is planted in the film. I know that in the bar he was talking about Iraq. But I found it too convenient that he should reveal all this in the hearing of Dixon. For me that's just plot creakiness and sloppy writing.
With 1. that's the way I interpreted it at the time. I thought that scene crackled. It's not like in Darkest Hour when you *know* something never happened. It felt to me like it could happen in 3 Billboards.
I draw the line at Star Wars when it comes to suspending disbelief.
Billboard is still on my mind a week or so after seeing it, where as so many films which I enjoy at the time don't have that effect. But different strokes for different folks I guess, although I agree that the scene in the bar was the movie's disbelief low point. Bit too much of a co-incidence.
You can pick the bones out of Billboard all you want but that fact is it’s a superb film that is worthy of its critical praise .
If you want you can find plot holes in most films but and I find it strange why someone wouldn’t just enjoy a film instead of doing a full blown autopsy on it. Perhaps it’s because I’m not astute enough to find those holes ?
Somewhat related but what's your etiquette on finding someone sat in your seat at the cinema?
Went to Darkest Hour at the weekend, cinema was 80% full and we had bought aisle seats only to find two people sat in them (adverts had just started). I told them they were in the wrong seats and they looked at me as if I was speaking an alien language. After a few moments of them absolutely not budging we just went and sat a few seats along from them (probably in their seats). I mean fair enough you make a mistake and sit in the wrong place but surely it's rude to not even acknowledge the person who has paid for your seat.
I'd have shown them the tickets and been polite, if that got ignored then go silly and tell them to move their carcasses, fucking ignoramus'
I have often said that Denzel Washington doesn't make a bad movie. While it's not strictly true ( Re-The Taking of Pelham 123) he makes an average film extremely watchable and that is exactly the case with the unfortunately named film Roman J. Israel, Esq.
Roman has spent most of his career as a silent partner in a law firm that specialises in criminal cases and pro-bono work, helping out those worst off in Los Angeles. When something happens to Jackson, Israel is forced to handle the cases. The loss of his partner leads to many changes around the firm and Israel finds himself in a world completely foreign to him. He then does something totally wrong which makes him have to make some serious decisions.
This is a directorial debut by Dan Gilroy and you can kind of see it's his first film. The story is all over the place at times and there is far too much that Gilroy has tried to squeeze in and the film suffers for that. This is fundamentally a character study film and Denzel does a great job ' although even when he's trying to be a character with social engagement problems he still manages to look cool! The Colin Farrell character was a strange one too. I'm still not sure if he was meant to be horrible and mean or that he was meant to be a mentor to Isreal ? I did like this film but it could have been improved with half an hour shaved off and maybe a director who had more story telling experience.
Whilst it was pretty silly, very violent and out of character for Vince Vaughn, it was somehow quite entertaining...My Mrs called it a boys film. 5.5/10
Please Stand By. Odd little ditty about an Autistic late teen writing and trying to deliver a screen play for a future Star Trek episode. Watchable but by no means dynamic in any way. 5/10
Only The Brave. I was hoping for more with this true story of firefighting "hotshots" and their tragic end. Throughout it reminded me of Top Gun, substituting Jet fighters with fire trucks. Sad to say that the only really poignant scenes were those at the end credits showing the actors and the real life firefighters who sadly died. One of those films which really didnt do the sacrifice of lives justice. 5.5/10
You can pick the bones out of Billboard all you want but that fact is it’s a superb film that is worthy of its critical praise .
If you want you can find plot holes in most films but and I find it strange why someone wouldn’t just enjoy a film instead of doing a full blown autopsy on it . Perhaps it’s because I’m not astute enough to find those holes ?
Each to their own I suppose.
@Bedsaddick I think you misinterpret me entirely. I did actually quite enjoy Three Billboards. As I said, I thought the acting was excellent. I also thought it was well shot and looked good and was well directed. However, I would have enjoyed it much more if I hadn't felt some of the time that there were plot holes, things that didn't ring true and were merely plot manipulation and which required me not to think or question what was going on. In the same way as I can enjoy a football game but think, for example, that the defence was lacking or that the midfield was inefficient. I'm not sure why one has to abandon critical faculties when one goes to the movies and just sit back and 'enjoy'. I know that you don't do that - see, for example, your review of Roman J Israel Esq. in which you note "The story is all over the place at times and there is far too much that Gilroy has tried to squeeze in and the film suffers for that." That sounds just as much an "autopsy" as my quibbles about Three Billboards. It's called being alert to, in one's opinion, the shortcomings of a piece of work. One can disagree about those shortcomings but I don't think I would ever look at one of your reviews and say "I find it strange why someone wouldn’t just enjoy a film instead of doing a full blown autopsy on it."
You can pick the bones out of Billboard all you want but that fact is it’s a superb film that is worthy of its critical praise .
If you want you can find plot holes in most films but and I find it strange why someone wouldn’t just enjoy a film instead of doing a full blown autopsy on it . Perhaps it’s because I’m not astute enough to find those holes ?
Each to their own I suppose.
@Bedsaddick I think you misinterpret me entirely. I did actually quite enjoy Three Billboards. As I said, I thought the acting was excellent. I also thought it was well shot and looked good and was well directed. However, I would have enjoyed it much more if I hadn't felt some of the time that there were plot holes, things that didn't ring true and were merely plot manipulation and which required me not to think or question what was going on. In the same way as I can enjoy a football game but think, for example, that the defence was lacking or that the midfield was inefficient. I'm not sure why one has to abandon critical faculties when one goes to the movies and just sit back and 'enjoy'. I know that you don't do that - see, for example, your review of Roman J Israel Esq. in which you note "The story is all over the place at times and there is far too much that Gilroy has tried to squeeze in and the film suffers for that." That sounds just as much an "autopsy" as my quibbles about Three Billboards. It's called being alert to, in one's opinion, the shortcomings of a piece of work. One can disagree about those shortcomings but I don't think I would ever look at one of your reviews and say "I find it strange why someone wouldn’t just enjoy a film instead of doing a full blown autopsy on it."
Fair enough . Don’t take it personally. As I said it’s probably because I’m not astute enough to notice most plot holes !
Comments
Then I watched Only the Brave, a film about the true story of the Granite Mountain Hotshots, a group of firefighters who devoted their lives to forest fire fighting. It was a bit slow but the ending was simply too difficult, too heart-breaking to watch. I couldn't stop crying. 9/10 (one extra point for the 19 heroes. R.I.P.)
Great all British cast and Sam Claflin's portrayal of someone suffering with PTSD (obviously unknown at the time) is excellent.
Stephen Graham is also brilliant; par for the course for him though.
The Cloverfield Paradox
The Cloverfield Paradox is the third film of this series . All three are very loosely linked and all three are very different films. I absolutely loved the 2008 Cloverfield film. It was a film that used found footage special affects really well before it became old hat but this is not that kind of movie. This is pure Sci-Fi and I loved it.
In the near future, scientists aboard a space station are attempting to aid the Earth’s energy crisis. Energy is depleting at an alarming rate, leading scientists to turn to a new source but the crew inside of it notice some serious side effects as the energy source causes them to collide with another dimension .
Like the previous films there was a lot of secrecy as to what this film was about. In fact critics only got to see it when it was released on Netflix on Sunday after the Superbowl.
I predict that lot's of people are going to hate this film. Sci Fi fans can be a funny lot and the cross over of genres won't please everyone.
Sure , it's a bit silly at times but I love the way it tied up why ( or how) the aliens invaded the earth.
It looks great and at no stage did I not feel thoroughly entertained. Give me this over Star Wars all day long.
Produced by J.J Abrahams , The Cloverfield Paradox is now available on Netflix.
8 out of 10
Went to Darkest Hour at the weekend, cinema was 80% full and we had bought aisle seats only to find two people sat in them (adverts had just started). I told them they were in the wrong seats and they looked at me as if I was speaking an alien language. After a few moments of them absolutely not budging we just went and sat a few seats along from them (probably in their seats). I mean fair enough you make a mistake and sit in the wrong place but surely it's rude to not even acknowledge the person who has paid for your seat.
SPOILER ALERT
I'm surprised by the almost unanimous praise for Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. There's no doubt that the performances are excellent but I thought the plot had a lot of holes in it and you had to swallow inconsistencies and unlikely coincidences without asking too many questions such as - why does the guy come into the shop and menace Mildred when, in fact, he has nothing to do with the rape or the killing and how come the cop just happens to be in the booth next to him in the bar when the same guy makes what seems like a confession of the rape and murder which he in fact didn't do? And how unlikely is it that Dixon would end up in the same hospital room where Red Welby happens to be after the latter has been beaten up and thrown out of the window by the former? And how come the black, liberal sheriff suddenly turns up out of nowhere to set matters right in the corrupt police department? He felt flown in for plot purposes only. I can take plot holes in a film that doesn't take itself seriously but this one aims (and fails) at some kind of profundity and so needs more close attention and analysis. In the same way, I thinks its moral standpoint is dubious. Are we supposed to admire a crazy. vengeful lady (no matter how brilliantly acted) whose actions lead to mayhem? And how come one letter from the dead chief changes the brutal homophobic and racist Dixon into a good guy? Great performances, I agree, but they seem to have blinded people to the clumsy script.
A really intense, engaging and beautifully crafted film, with a bravura performance by Daniel Day-Lewis. Set amidst the glamour of 1950s London couture, this one really is right up his street. If 'Phantom Thread' is, as he has announced, going to be his last ever film, he's certainly going out on a high note. I also really enjoyed the performances of the young co-lead, Vicky Krieps, and Lesley Manville - 8/10
[***** Sort of spoiler alert*****]
1. He's an evil psycho soldier who has been committing crimes in Iraq. He's seen Mildred on TV and was turned on by the crime and wants to look her in the eye to see her suffering. He hates her because she's a woman fighting back, particularly as she's 'attacking' a cop.
2. In the bar he was talking about the crimes he committed in Iraq.
3. Yes, a bit far fetched, but it's probably a very small local hospital. Suspension of disbelief required?
4. Because the world is changing and McDonagh wanted to provide a glimpse of hope maybe? Yes it helped the plot move along, but hey, it's a movie, not real life.
5. Not necessarily. The woman I went with didn't like her, whereas I did. Movie all the stronger for having a morally ambivalent lead imo.
6. That was 'lyricism'. Added an element of fantasy and hope, lifting the movie out of its bleakness. Midsummer Night's Dream was full of plot holes too, and this is on a par. Ok, I'm kidding, but the fantasy element is there. Suspension of disbelief and all that.
Loved the film as one of those examinations of the 'dark heart of America'. With a lyrical twist.
Oscar job.
I draw the line at Star Wars when it comes to suspending disbelief.
Billboard is still on my mind a week or so after seeing it, where as so many films which I enjoy at the time don't have that effect.
But different strokes for different folks I guess, although I agree that the scene in the bar was the movie's disbelief low point. Bit too much of a co-incidence.
If you want you can find plot holes in most films but and I find it strange why someone wouldn’t just enjoy a film instead of doing a full blown autopsy on it. Perhaps it’s because I’m not astute enough to find those holes ?
Each to their own I suppose.
Roman J. Israel, Esq.
I have often said that Denzel Washington doesn't make a bad movie. While it's not strictly true ( Re-The Taking of Pelham 123) he makes an average film extremely watchable and that is exactly the case with the unfortunately named film Roman J. Israel, Esq.
Roman has spent most of his career as a silent partner in a law firm that specialises in criminal cases and pro-bono work, helping out those worst off in Los Angeles.
When something happens to Jackson, Israel is forced to handle the cases. The loss of his partner leads to many changes around the firm and Israel finds himself in a world completely foreign to him. He then does something totally wrong which makes him have to make some serious decisions.
This is a directorial debut by Dan Gilroy and you can kind of see it's his first film. The story is all over the place at times and there is far too much that Gilroy has tried to squeeze in and the film suffers for that.
This is fundamentally a character study film and Denzel does a great job ' although even when he's trying to be a character with social engagement problems he still manages to look cool!
The Colin Farrell character was a strange one too. I'm still not sure if he was meant to be horrible and mean or that he was meant to be a mentor to Isreal ?
I did like this film but it could have been improved with half an hour shaved off and maybe a director who had more story telling experience.
6 out of 10
Whilst it was pretty silly, very violent and out of character for Vince Vaughn, it was somehow quite entertaining...My Mrs called it a boys film. 5.5/10
Odd little ditty about an Autistic late teen writing and trying to deliver a screen play for a future Star Trek episode.
Watchable but by no means dynamic in any way.
5/10
I was hoping for more with this true story of firefighting "hotshots" and their tragic end. Throughout it reminded me of Top Gun, substituting Jet fighters with fire trucks. Sad to say that the only really poignant scenes were those at the end credits showing the actors and the real life firefighters who sadly died. One of those films which really didnt do the sacrifice of lives justice. 5.5/10