It's good. Very good in fact. The look and feel of the movie is akin to The Winter Soldier, so it's a mystery at its heart, but with a heady mix of Avengers to push it along. The Russo brothers are way more confident in their storytelling than Snyder, so it slows when it needs to and features as much talking as punching. Action scenes are always pushing the plot forwards too.
Impressively, character motivations are never neglected. It reminded me of how "bullet proof" Pixar stories are. People do things for good reason. Yes, one or two action scenes go on a bit long for some (the fans will LOVE the airport scene) but it's a comic book movie; deal with it! I think Disney are learning franchise lessons across their key teams (Pixar/ Disney/ Lucasfilm)
My only issue is a broad one, and that's Marvel's relentless setting up of new movies. Characters are introduced in order to set up the next marvel movie. They don't have arcs - nobody changes, they just get angry or they calm down.
Again, they have turned this into a slick machine. Black Panther and co. have narrative purpose, but we don't get under the skin because they're saving that for another movie. It seemed shoehorned in Ant-Man, but here, you hardly notice it. It's a huge difference from BvS's teaser trailer sequence slapped into the middle of the film.
Anyway, the key highlight is probably Spider-Man. He's classic - a really good throwback to the Spidey from my childhood. Quipping and so on. He has a key role in the big action set piece in the middle of the film, and he and Ant-Man are absolutely hilarious. So much fun.
Also, no buildings fall over. Not even at the end. And for Marvel, that's some achievement.
I find watching a Coen brothers film a strange experience. I quite enjoy their films but i'm not sure why? I don't think their films are particularly funny , in fact most of the time i don't even get them . It's as if i should be laughing but i'm not in on their private joke. Hail , Caesar is about a fixer in Hollywood ( Josh Brolin) who is paid by the studio to keep the actors in line. There are some interesting performances from George Clooney and Alden Ehrenreich and a very camp but hypnotic musical scene lead by Channing Tatum . The critics really liked this , i think , because it's about the industry they critic on but for me it was just another oddly entertaining Coen brothers film that i have many times before.
I'm a fan of Ricky Gervais. I like most of the things he has done ( TV more then films) but I have to say with Special Correspondents he's made his first real Turkey. This movie is all over the place and to say it's a bit baggy is being kind. It's the story of a radio journalist and his technician who are supposed to report on a war in South America and hide out in New York instead and pretend they are there when they realise they can't get their flights . Now the film might not have been as bad as it is if they had stuck with that premise but they didn't and it turns into a ridiculous farce. I'm not sure if Gervais ( who wrote and directed this) was filming Derek at the same time because he kept slipping into Derek mode .Perhaps he did it because he knew that how bad this was going to be? The only bright light to this film is America Ferrera and Raúl Castillo who are the café owners. Only when they were on screen did I laugh. Gervais fan or not , give this one a miss.
" To survive out here you've got to out monster the monster" is one of the tag lines to Triple 9 and it pretty much sums up this film. It's a hard hitting thriller about a group of cops who are being blackmailed by the Russian mafia to pull off a robbery and the only way they can do it is set up a 999 as a distraction which in America means a man down but as usual not everything goes to plan. I really liked this film. It doesn't pull any punches and it had me involved from the very start . The story isn't complicated and the acting is first class. especially from Casey Affleck and Kate Winslet and I will go as far to say that this is the best thing I have seen her do. I'm not sure why this wasn't a bigger hit when it was first released , perhaps the timing didn't help but for me it's the best thing I have seen in a while.
Great to know you liked Triple 9, Beds. I haven't seen it yet but have been looking forward to it since I saw the trailer months ago. Did you see it at the cinema or is it already released on the internet/on DVD?
Great to know you liked Triple 9, Beds. I haven't seen it yet but have been looking forward to it since I saw the trailer months ago. Did you see it at the cinema or is it already released on the internet/on DVD?
I saw it on the cinema last week. I'm not sure if when it's out on DVD or if it's available to be streamed yet?
Great to know you liked Triple 9, Beds. I haven't seen it yet but have been looking forward to it since I saw the trailer months ago. Did you see it at the cinema or is it already released on the internet/on DVD?
I saw it on the cinema last week. I'm not sure if when it's out on DVD or if it's available to be streamed yet?
Just had a look on the internet and looks like there're already a few webrip versions.
Watched Triple 9 last night. (Thanks Beds) I don't know why it is rated so low on IMDB? Like Beds, I enjoyed it from the first minute to the last. A couple of plot holes but overall really entertaining. I love this kind of films so much more than those superhero blockbusters.
I finally got to see this and thought it was excellent. The screenplay and acting are exceptional throughout and the film is superbly paced. Based in fact - the Boston Globe won the Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church - it tells an absorbing and riveting story, without ever resorting to sensationalism. I can see why it won the best film Oscar - 9/10.
The Daughter
When a man returns to his hometown in rural Australia for his father's wedding to a much younger woman, old family secrets and tensions threaten to disrupt the lives of family and friends. This is an intriguing and, at times, quite gripping film. It evokes a real feeling of small town Australia and benefits from strong performances from Geoffrey Rush, Sam Neill and the impressive young lead, Odessa Young. It suffered a little, in my view, from an excess of melodrama towards the end but, overall, I thought it was good - 7/10.
Everybody Wants Some !!
Richard Linklater's first film since 'Boyhood' follows a group of rowdy freshmen - members of the baseball team - as they spend their first weekend at College drinking, chasing women and enduring painful initiation rights. Whilst I very much enjoyed films like 'Superbad' and, many years earlier, 'Animal House', I found this one absolutely puerile. The protagonists are a bunch of sexist, one-dimensional and misogynistic sports jocks who aren't remotely as funny as they think they are. Despite positive press reviews, this is, in my view, one best avoided - 5/10.
Sing Street
A musical comedy from the director of 'Once', this is the story of a schoolboy who forms a band in order to try and impress a girl with whom he has become infatuated. Set in Dublin, the film is loaded with '80s music and fashion nostalgia, as well as a number of impressive new songs. I found it humorous, uplifting and a lot of fun - 8/10.
It's a big CGI mess. Story doesn't go very far, the villain doesn't do much, it gets too big too quickly. At one point, the entire plot moves to Alkali Lake just to squeeze in a fairly obvious cameo.
It's badly paced and abysmally shot. I don't know whether Singer lost the plot or the studio interfered, but it's a mess.
Still, the actors are watchable and there are some good bits. Quicksilver has the best lines and moments. I like the X-Men world so I wasn't bored or annoyed. Just a bit disappointed.
Better than Batman v Superman, nowhere near as good as Civil War.
In this latest Michael Moore documentary he heads overseas ( mainly Europe ) to investigate the quality of life in other countries and compares them to the United States . He checks out things such as prison systems, health-care and education and sugar coats them , making them out to be wonderful .
This is without doubt the worst thing Michael Moore has done I'm my opinion.
Basically it's a jolly abroad where he kisses everyone's arse by being shocked at how wonderful they are and I expect much more from him. It feels lazy. I prefer a Michael Moore that confronts injustice instead of pointing out the bleedin obvious. Must try harder.
10 Cloverfield Lane is a tense Horror/Thriller that has you guessing the motives of the characters throughout the film. It's the story of a woman who wakes up in a room underground after a car accident and is told by a farmer that he has saved her from the world outside which he says is uninhabitable . The question is , is he lying and does he have an ulterior motive for keeping her captive? This is a spin off from the 2008 film Cloverfield ( which I loved) but it's hard to say why without giving it away. John Goodman is fantastic as Howard and Mary Elizabeth Winstead is pretty convincing too. Director Dan Trachtenberg did a really good job with this considering it was his debut feature. I really enjoyed this and hopefully we will see more Cloverfield hybrid's in the future.
10 Cloverfield Lane is a tense Horror/Thriller that has you guessing the motives of the characters throughout the film. It's the story of a woman who wakes up in a room underground after a car accident and is told by a farmer that he has saved her from the world outside which he says is uninhabitable . The question is , is he lying and does he have an ulterior motive for keeping her captive? This is a spin off from the 2008 film Cloverfield ( which I loved) but it's hard to say why without giving it away. John Goodman is fantastic as Howard and Mary Elizabeth Winstead is pretty convincing too. Director Dan Trachtenberg did a really good job with this considering it was his debut feature. I really enjoyed this and hopefully we will see more Cloverfield hybrid's in the future.
Really enjoyed this film. Every time you thought you had it sussed it would swing in another direction. John Goodman was brilliant as you say, but then again he always is. Yabba dabba do watch this
I've heard a fair bit of criticism around 10 Cloverfield, although I don't agree with it I can see why.
If you go into it knowing nothing, it plays out like a psychological thriller. By the time the audience discovers it is what it is, many were a little jarred. A bit like From Dusk Til Dawn.
I thought it was great and can't wait for part 3 (which may or may not be The God Particle that JJ Abrams is currently working on).
The Survivalist is BAFTA nominated film about a man who is trying to survive in a post apocalyptic world where food is scarce and where people will kill to take it from you . He comes across a mother and daughter and isn't sure he can trust their intensions. This is Grim to say the least. Not grim in a bad way because the story dictates it should be that way but it is hard watch at times. It's graphic as well. Sexually and violently and the characters on display don't say match. Possibly because they are continuously suspicious of each other or maybe because of what they have witnessed in the past , words are as scarce as the food they crave. Good performances from Martin McCann ( we never get to know his name) and Mia Goth add up to an interesting film that might not be to everyone's taste.
Saw The Jungle Book last weekend. Enjoyed it. Graphics are superb. Pretty much stuck to the original story including a couple of the songs even though it's not a musical. Recommended.
I've heard a fair bit of criticism around 10 Cloverfield, although I don't agree with it I can see why.
If you go into it knowing nothing, it plays out like a psychological thriller. By the time the audience discovers it is what it is, many were a little jarred. A bit like From Dusk Til Dawn.
I thought it was great and can't wait for part 3 (which may or may not be The God Particle that JJ Abrams is currently working on).
I saw this and was engaged until the end. If there has ever been a film with a more ill-thought out ending I don't want to see it. Ruined the film for me.
While I'm here, Son of Saul; I think I must be the only film - goer in Christendom who didn't think it was a good film let alone a 'masterpiece'. A cases of the Emperor's new clothes, much like Birdman.
That's exactly my point re. 10 Cloverfield. If you don't know where it's going it's jarring and gets exactly that review. Given that it's set in a world with the biggest alien of all time, I didn't find it that surprising!
Son of Saul is an incredible piece of filmmaking. I don't even know where to start with that.
Saw The Jungle Book last weekend. Enjoyed it. Graphics are superb. Pretty much stuck to the original story including a couple of the songs even though it's not a musical. Recommended.
That's exactly my point re. 10 Cloverfield. If you don't know where it's going it's jarring and gets exactly that review. Given that it's set in a world with the biggest alien of all time, I didn't find it that surprising!
Son of Saul is an incredible piece of filmmaking. I don't even know where to start with that.
A genuine question here: what made 'Son of Saul' an incredible piece of film - making?
Son of Saul. A Hungarian film set in a Nazi concentration camp. It's brilliantly done - leaving most of the horror off-screen or seen obliquely in flashes or out of focus - but truly gruelling. I saw it all the way through but after half an hour I was wondering just why I was putting myself through the grim experience.
Heard nothing but good things about Son of Saul despite the horrific nature of it. Haven't seen it myself yet but I hope to see it next week. It was available to rent on Sky but seems to have disappeared .
No doubt whatsoever, Bedsaddick, that it's a serious and remarkable piece of work, especially as it's made by a first time director, but grim grim grim - as it should be, of course, given the subject matter.
That's exactly my point re. 10 Cloverfield. If you don't know where it's going it's jarring and gets exactly that review. Given that it's set in a world with the biggest alien of all time, I didn't find it that surprising!
Son of Saul is an incredible piece of filmmaking. I don't even know where to start with that.
A genuine question here: what made 'Son of Saul' an incredible piece of film - making?
Well, the concept of focussing on one character in permanent mid-shot or close-up is an inspired way of taking an audience into the heart of a story that I found relentlessly gripping. I knew little, if anything about the Sonderkommando concept until I saw this film. No documentary would have or has been been able to convey the horror that position involved as effectively without close up footage, which simply doesn't exist.
To then be able to tell that story effectively, without cutting away from the lead, takes some doing.
I thought the sound played a huge part in this. Most of the horrors are slightly out of focus or off-camera, so the soundtrack was integral in communicating what was happening around Saul.
And as for Saul; the performance of Geza Rohrig in the lead was astonishing. To maintain that emotion for the duration, while being front and centre was a hell of an achievement.
Otherwise, the set design was incredible. It was completely immersive. The supporting cast were utterly convincing but the cinematography was clearly the film's strongest suit, and while it could easily have been a tiresome concept, I thought Mátyás Erdély did a fantastic job of avoiding it becoming a cliched trick, possibly by showing just enough outside of Saul's personal experience and keeping the camera on the move.
The opening sequence that starts with Saul waiting for a train, and culminates in him pulling dead bodies from the gas chamber is one of the most gut wrenching, haunting things I have ever seen in a film. And yet you only really see one or two bodies clearly. Most of the horror is etched on Saul's face.
I'm sure I could go on but I saw it well over a year ago, and haven't had the heart to rewatch it. It's too successful at depicting the events. I can't go through it again.
Thanks for the response, Jimmy, and I totally 'get' your and the critics' perspective of the film.However - and I'm not spoiling for an argument here - many of the points championed by the critics - I read the reviews after having watched the film - and yourself were the same issues I had problems with. You talk about Rohig's ability to maintain his level of emotion, but I perceived the very opposite: a man whose emotion had been petrified by the barbarity of his experience; a man wholly bereft of spirit and personality; a man whose very being had been eviscerated,leaving him an unfeeling and obmutescent automaton. It could be argued that this abject lack of emotion is an emotional state in itself, but I had nothing to invest or engage in with him as a character. He knew he was going to die, I knew he was going to die and was strangely/ashamedly indifferent to his plight, although that is, perhaps, a damning indictment of my lack of compassion rather than a fault of the film.
Then there is the issue of the whole film being shot in a shallow focus: I get it, these men have no horizon in their life, they are going to die, along with all the accompaniment symbolic referral to being incarcerated in a concentration camp.The shallow focus in the first twenty minutes set up the film perfectly, but after an hour I found it crushingly dull.
I respect what the director was trying to achieve and to some extent I think he succeeded. I can imagine him sitting down with the cast and crew to watch Schindler's List and telling them that they were going to make a film that was everything SL wasn't.He certainly succeeded in that...
Anyway, it's all wholly subjective and I can understand why people consider it a masterpiece, but I think it was overzealous in its ambition to be an 'anti-emotional' film as one critic had it. It left me numb, but for the wrong reasons. Like you, I will not be watching again,but for entirely different reasons. That is the beauty of film, it's all so wonderfully personal.
Comments
Tense, thought provoking and emotional.
8.5 / 10
Hail, Caesar!
I find watching a Coen brothers film a strange experience. I quite enjoy their films but i'm not sure why?
I don't think their films are particularly funny , in fact most of the time i don't even get them . It's as if i should be laughing but i'm not in on their private joke.
Hail , Caesar is about a fixer in Hollywood ( Josh Brolin) who is paid by the studio to keep the actors in line.
There are some interesting performances from George Clooney and Alden Ehrenreich and a very camp but hypnotic musical scene lead by Channing Tatum .
The critics really liked this , i think , because it's about the industry they critic on but for me it was just another oddly entertaining Coen brothers film that i have many times before.
6 out of 10
Special Correspondents
I'm a fan of Ricky Gervais. I like most of the things he has done ( TV more then films) but I have to say with Special Correspondents he's made his first real Turkey.
This movie is all over the place and to say it's a bit baggy is being kind.
It's the story of a radio journalist and his technician who are supposed to report on a war in South America and hide out in New York instead and pretend they are there when they realise they can't get their flights .
Now the film might not have been as bad as it is if they had stuck with that premise but they didn't and it turns into a ridiculous farce.
I'm not sure if Gervais ( who wrote and directed this) was filming Derek at the same time because he kept slipping into Derek mode .Perhaps he did it because he knew that how bad this was going to be?
The only bright light to this film is America Ferrera and Raúl Castillo who are the café owners. Only when they were on screen did I laugh.
Gervais fan or not , give this one a miss.
4 out of 10
Triple 9
" To survive out here you've got to out monster the monster" is one of the tag lines to Triple 9 and it pretty much sums up this film.
It's a hard hitting thriller about a group of cops who are being blackmailed by the Russian mafia to pull off a robbery and the only way they can do it is set up a 999 as a distraction which in America means a man down but as usual not everything goes to plan.
I really liked this film. It doesn't pull any punches and it had me involved from the very start .
The story isn't complicated and the acting is first class. especially from Casey Affleck and Kate Winslet and I will go as far to say that this is the best thing I have seen her do.
I'm not sure why this wasn't a bigger hit when it was first released , perhaps the timing didn't help but for me it's the best thing I have seen in a while.
8 out of 10
I finally got to see this and thought it was excellent. The screenplay and acting are exceptional throughout and the film is superbly paced. Based in fact - the Boston Globe won the Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church - it tells an absorbing and riveting story, without ever resorting to sensationalism. I can see why it won the best film Oscar - 9/10.
The Daughter
When a man returns to his hometown in rural Australia for his father's wedding to a much younger woman, old family secrets and tensions threaten to disrupt the lives of family and friends. This is an intriguing and, at times, quite gripping film. It evokes a real feeling of small town Australia and benefits from strong performances from Geoffrey Rush, Sam Neill and the impressive young lead, Odessa Young. It suffered a little, in my view, from an excess of melodrama towards the end but, overall, I thought it was good - 7/10.
Everybody Wants Some !!
Richard Linklater's first film since 'Boyhood' follows a group of rowdy freshmen - members of the baseball team - as they spend their first weekend at College drinking, chasing women and enduring painful initiation rights. Whilst I very much enjoyed films like 'Superbad' and, many years earlier, 'Animal House', I found this one absolutely puerile. The protagonists are a bunch of sexist, one-dimensional and misogynistic sports jocks who aren't remotely as funny as they think they are. Despite positive press reviews, this is, in my view, one best avoided - 5/10.
Sing Street
A musical comedy from the director of 'Once', this is the story of a schoolboy who forms a band in order to try and impress a girl with whom he has become infatuated. Set in Dublin, the film is loaded with '80s music and fashion nostalgia, as well as a number of impressive new songs. I found it humorous, uplifting and a lot of fun - 8/10.
It's a big CGI mess. Story doesn't go very far, the villain doesn't do much, it gets too big too quickly. At one point, the entire plot moves to Alkali Lake just to squeeze in a fairly obvious cameo.
It's badly paced and abysmally shot. I don't know whether Singer lost the plot or the studio interfered, but it's a mess.
Still, the actors are watchable and there are some good bits. Quicksilver has the best lines and moments. I like the X-Men world so I wasn't bored or annoyed. Just a bit disappointed.
Better than Batman v Superman, nowhere near as good as Civil War.
Where to invade next
In this latest Michael Moore documentary he heads overseas ( mainly Europe ) to investigate the quality of life in other countries and compares them to the United States . He checks out things such as prison systems, health-care and education and sugar coats them , making them out to be wonderful .
This is without doubt the worst thing Michael Moore has done I'm my opinion.
Basically it's a jolly abroad where he kisses everyone's arse by being shocked at how wonderful they are and I expect much more from him. It feels lazy. I prefer a Michael Moore that confronts injustice instead of pointing out the bleedin obvious.
Must try harder.
5 out of 10
10 Cloverfield Lane
10 Cloverfield Lane is a tense Horror/Thriller that has you guessing the motives of the characters throughout the film.
It's the story of a woman who wakes up in a room underground after a car accident and is told by a farmer that he has saved her from the world outside which he says is uninhabitable . The question is , is he lying and does he have an ulterior motive for keeping her captive?
This is a spin off from the 2008 film Cloverfield ( which I loved) but it's hard to say why without giving it away.
John Goodman is fantastic as Howard and Mary Elizabeth Winstead is pretty convincing too. Director Dan Trachtenberg did a really good job with this considering it was his debut feature.
I really enjoyed this and hopefully we will see more Cloverfield hybrid's in the future.
8 out of 10
If you go into it knowing nothing, it plays out like a psychological thriller. By the time the audience discovers it is what it is, many were a little jarred. A bit like From Dusk Til Dawn.
I thought it was great and can't wait for part 3 (which may or may not be The God Particle that JJ Abrams is currently working on).
The Survivalist
The Survivalist is BAFTA nominated film about a man who is trying to survive in a post apocalyptic world where food is scarce and where people will kill to take it from you . He comes across a mother and daughter and isn't sure he can trust their intensions.
This is Grim to say the least. Not grim in a bad way because the story dictates it should be that way but it is hard watch at times. It's graphic as well. Sexually and violently and the characters on display don't say match. Possibly because they are continuously suspicious of each other or maybe because of what they have witnessed in the past , words are as scarce as the food they crave.
Good performances from Martin McCann ( we never get to know his name) and Mia Goth add up to an interesting film that might not be to everyone's taste.
6 out of 10
While I'm here, Son of Saul; I think I must be the only film - goer in Christendom who didn't think it was a good film let alone a 'masterpiece'. A cases of the Emperor's new clothes, much like Birdman.
Son of Saul is an incredible piece of filmmaking. I don't even know where to start with that.
Cant recall it being reviewed on here and aint trawling back through.
I quite enjoyed it, a horror/thriller nowadays with a good ending and keeps you guessing are few and far between.
To then be able to tell that story effectively, without cutting away from the lead, takes some doing.
I thought the sound played a huge part in this. Most of the horrors are slightly out of focus or off-camera, so the soundtrack was integral in communicating what was happening around Saul.
And as for Saul; the performance of Geza Rohrig in the lead was astonishing. To maintain that emotion for the duration, while being front and centre was a hell of an achievement.
Otherwise, the set design was incredible. It was completely immersive. The supporting cast were utterly convincing but the cinematography was clearly the film's strongest suit, and while it could easily have been a tiresome concept, I thought Mátyás Erdély did a fantastic job of avoiding it becoming a cliched trick, possibly by showing just enough outside of Saul's personal experience and keeping the camera on the move.
The opening sequence that starts with Saul waiting for a train, and culminates in him pulling dead bodies from the gas chamber is one of the most gut wrenching, haunting things I have ever seen in a film. And yet you only really see one or two bodies clearly. Most of the horror is etched on Saul's face.
I'm sure I could go on but I saw it well over a year ago, and haven't had the heart to rewatch it. It's too successful at depicting the events. I can't go through it again.
You talk about Rohig's ability to maintain his level of emotion, but I perceived the very opposite: a man whose emotion had been petrified by the barbarity of his experience; a man wholly bereft of spirit and personality; a man whose very being had been eviscerated,leaving him an unfeeling and obmutescent automaton. It could be argued that this abject lack of emotion is an emotional state in itself, but I had nothing to invest or engage in with him as a character.
He knew he was going to die, I knew he was going to die and was strangely/ashamedly indifferent to his plight, although that is, perhaps, a damning indictment of my lack of compassion rather than a fault of the film.
Then there is the issue of the whole film being shot in a shallow focus: I get it, these men have no horizon in their life, they are going to die, along with all the accompaniment symbolic referral to being incarcerated in a concentration camp.The shallow focus in the first twenty minutes set up the film perfectly, but after an hour I found it crushingly dull.
I respect what the director was trying to achieve and to some extent I think he succeeded. I can imagine him sitting down with the cast and crew to watch Schindler's List and telling them that they were going to make a film that was everything SL wasn't.He certainly succeeded in that...
Anyway, it's all wholly subjective and I can understand why people consider it a masterpiece, but I think it was overzealous in its ambition to be an 'anti-emotional' film as one critic had it. It left me numb, but for the wrong reasons.
Like you, I will not be watching again,but for entirely different reasons. That is the beauty of film, it's all so wonderfully personal.