Deepwater Horizon about 3/4 way through I remember thinking, ok they've overdone it with the explosions now. Then I read interviews with survivors after who said there wasn't enough explosions. Unreal
Mad Max Fury Road Chrome Edition. Knackered after that and my eyes feel like they have had a layer singed off them. Proper action film though and some of those stunts looked bone crunching.
I went to an extended trailer and Q&A with director Doug Liman a few weeks back and was totally sold on it. It looks like a lot of fun. And Liman/ Cruise worked really well on Edge of Tomorrow so I have high hopes.
Liman told a story about how he was in a plane filming Cruise, who was flying another plane all on his own. And Cruise disappeared from the cockpit to throw some fake cocaine out the back. And Liman as shitting himself thinking, "I just asked the world's biggest movie star to leave the controls of the plane unattended." But of course Cruise was very keen to do that! He's such a legend.
I went to an extended trailer and Q&A with director Doug Liman a few weeks back and was totally sold on it. It looks like a lot of fun. And Liman/ Cruise worked really well on Edge of Tomorrow so I have high hopes.
Liman told a story about how he was in a plane filming Cruise, who was flying another plane all on his own. And Cruise disappeared from the cockpit to throw some fake cocaine out the back. And Liman as shitting himself thinking, "I just asked the world's biggest movie star to leave the controls of the plane unattended." But of course Cruise was very keen to do that! He's such a legend.
He knows he has Ron L Hubbard protecting and looking after him from the Church of Scientology in the sky.
Watched "Locked up" the other evening, enjoyable yet predictable. Big lesbian scene in the the film. Watching the blind panic on my wife face as she realised that our blinds were still open and our TV visible to passing neighbours was worth seeing.
Watched "Locked up" the other evening, enjoyable yet predictable. Big lesbian scene in the the film. Watching the blind panic on my wife face as she realised that our blinds were still open and our TV visible to passing neighbours was worth seeing.
More importantly, was the big lesbian scene worth watching?
I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance. The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before. That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.
I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance. The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before. That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.
Citizen Kane - long, boring film about some fart and his sled. Ultimately pointless.
I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance. The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before. That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.
Citizen Kane - long, boring film about some fart and his sled. Ultimately pointless.
I know your being ironic but that pretty much sums Citizen Kane for me . Watched it a couple of years ago for the first time and I hated it.
I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance. The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before. That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.
Citizen Kane - long, boring film about some fart and his sled. Ultimately pointless.
I know your being ironic but that pretty much sums Citizen Kane for me . Watched it a couple of years ago for the first time and I hated it.
I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance. The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before. That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.
Citizen Kane - long, boring film about some fart and his sled. Ultimately pointless.
I know your being ironic but that pretty much sums Citizen Kane for me . Watched it a couple of years ago for the first time and I hated it.
Watched "Locked up" the other evening, enjoyable yet predictable. Big lesbian scene in the the film. Watching the blind panic on my wife face as she realised that our blinds were still open, I'd unzipped my flies and our TV visible to passing neighbours was worth seeing.
I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance. The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before. That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.
Citizen Kane - long, boring film about some fart and his sled. Ultimately pointless.
I know your being ironic but that pretty much sums Citizen Kane for me . Watched it a couple of years ago for the first time and I hated it.
Yeah it's like black and white and everything
Yeah your so right and it wasn't in 3D either.
Excellent Dolby though, especially in the KungFu sequence.
Watched "Locked up" the other evening, enjoyable yet predictable. Big lesbian scene in the the film. Watching the blind panic on my wife face as she realised that our blinds were still open, I'd unzipped my flies and our TV visible to passing neighbours was worth seeing.
I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance. The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before. That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.
It didn't tell 3 or 4 stories within a day, it told the stories over differing time period until they all culminate. Could explain why you didn't like it?
I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance. The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before. That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.
It didn't tell 3 or 4 stories within a day, it told the stories over differing time period until they all culminate. Could explain why you didn't like it?
The reason I did not like the film is that I simply found it boring. Repetitive. Dull. I have read many articles by the directors' fan boys laying out reasons why the film is groundbreaking. But I am not convinced. And I am entitled to find the film boring. But I expect the usual snarky comments from the usual suspects on here!
I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance. The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before. That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.
It didn't tell 3 or 4 stories within a day, it told the stories over differing time period until they all culminate. Could explain why you didn't like it?
The reason I did not like the film is that I simply found it boring. Repetitive. Dull. I have read many articles by the directors' fan boys laying out reasons why the film is groundbreaking. But I am not convinced. And I am entitled to find the film boring. But I expect the usual snarky comments from the usual suspects on here!
Mind if I ask if you're able to get a bit more specific here?
Like, who are the fan boys and where are the articles, and which posters have been snarky to you for not liking a movie?
I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance. The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before. That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.
It didn't tell 3 or 4 stories within a day, it told the stories over differing time period until they all culminate. Could explain why you didn't like it?
I thought that was evident from the first paragraph.
I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance. The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before. That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.
It didn't tell 3 or 4 stories within a day, it told the stories over differing time period until they all culminate. Could explain why you didn't like it?
The reason I did not like the film is that I simply found it boring. Repetitive. Dull. I have read many articles by the directors' fan boys laying out reasons why the film is groundbreaking. But I am not convinced. And I am entitled to find the film boring. But I expect the usual snarky comments from the usual suspects on here!
Mind if I ask if you're able to get a bit more specific here?
Like, who are the fan boys and where are the articles, and which posters have been snarky to you for not liking a movie?
Apart from a couple of reviews in the Times most of the other reviews I read or scanned were overwhelmingly positive. Some were film critics on other UK newspapers and a lot were just articles on the web. The bloke who use to be the film critic on the BBC or channel 4 (just looked him up, Mark Komode) declared last week it was the definitive war movie! It just seems to me like this director could put whatever shit he likes onto the screen and his fans will defend it.
I was not referring to you as a fan boy. You are obviously involved professionally in the world of film making and I accept your opinions on films carry more weight and deserve more respect than any opinions I have on films. But, I will never forget how I felt at the end of my first viewing of the Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now and Saving Private Ryan at the cinema. And I did not need to wade through articles explaining what the directors of these films were trying to achieve in order for me to have a visceral reaction to those films.
And I was certainly not referring to you as one of the usual suspects who troll me on various threads looking for opportunities to make snarky comments so they can get LOLs from their little group of followers.
Watched "Locked up" the other evening, enjoyable yet predictable. Big lesbian scene in the the film. Watching the blind panic on my wife face as she realised that our blinds were still open, I'd unzipped my flies and our TV visible to passing neighbours was worth seeing.
This is true, but I forgot why I'd done it.
It's your eyesight not your memory it makes worse mate.
I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance. The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before. That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.
It didn't tell 3 or 4 stories within a day, it told the stories over differing time period until they all culminate. Could explain why you didn't like it?
The reason I did not like the film is that I simply found it boring. Repetitive. Dull. I have read many articles by the directors' fan boys laying out reasons why the film is groundbreaking. But I am not convinced. And I am entitled to find the film boring. But I expect the usual snarky comments from the usual suspects on here!
Mind if I ask if you're able to get a bit more specific here?
Like, who are the fan boys and where are the articles, and which posters have been snarky to you for not liking a movie?
Apart from a couple of reviews in the Times most of the other reviews I read or scanned were overwhelmingly positive. Some were film critics on other UK newspapers and a lot were just articles on the web. The bloke who use to be the film critic on the BBC or channel 4 (just looked him up, Mark Komode) declared last week it was the definitive war movie! It just seems to me like this director could put whatever shit he likes onto the screen and his fans will defend it.
I was not referring to you as a fan boy. You are obviously involved professionally in the world of film making and I accept your opinions on films carry more weight and deserve more respect than any opinions I have on films. But, I will never forget how I felt at the end of my first viewing of the Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now and Saving Private Ryan at the cinema. And I did not need to wade through articles explaining what the directors of these films were trying to achieve in order for me to have a visceral reaction to those films.
And I was certainly not referring to you as one of the usual suspects who troll me on various threads looking for opportunities to make snarky comments so they can get LOLs from their little group of followers.
I thought Dunkirk was poor. No character development; no script; hackneyed stereotypes - Hardy, Brannagh, Rylance. The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before. That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.
It didn't tell 3 or 4 stories within a day, it told the stories over differing time period until they all culminate. Could explain why you didn't like it?
The reason I did not like the film is that I simply found it boring. Repetitive. Dull. I have read many articles by the directors' fan boys laying out reasons why the film is groundbreaking. But I am not convinced. And I am entitled to find the film boring. But I expect the usual snarky comments from the usual suspects on here!
Mind if I ask if you're able to get a bit more specific here?
Like, who are the fan boys and where are the articles, and which posters have been snarky to you for not liking a movie?
Apart from a couple of reviews in the Times most of the other reviews I read or scanned were overwhelmingly positive. Some were film critics on other UK newspapers and a lot were just articles on the web. The bloke who use to be the film critic on the BBC or channel 4 (just looked him up, Mark Komode) declared last week it was the definitive war movie! It just seems to me like this director could put whatever shit he likes onto the screen and his fans will defend it.
I was not referring to you as a fan boy. You are obviously involved professionally in the world of film making and I accept your opinions on films carry more weight and deserve more respect than any opinions I have on films. But, I will never forget how I felt at the end of my first viewing of the Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now and Saving Private Ryan at the cinema. And I did not need to wade through articles explaining what the directors of these films were trying to achieve in order for me to have a visceral reaction to those films.
And I was certainly not referring to you as one of the usual suspects who troll me on various threads looking for opportunities to make snarky comments so they can get LOLs from their little group of followers.
Wow. Just wow.
Very original! How many times have I seen that exact phrase to express a fake reaction on here. Nice to see one of my Brexit trolls still on my case.
No doubt the rest of your little gang will be along soon.
Comments
Then I read interviews with survivors after who said there wasn't enough explosions.
Unreal
Apparently broken a bone in his ankle so he done well to get up and hobble on
What do people make of what looks to be his latest film: "American Made"?
Liman told a story about how he was in a plane filming Cruise, who was flying another plane all on his own. And Cruise disappeared from the cockpit to throw some fake cocaine out the back. And Liman as shitting himself thinking, "I just asked the world's biggest movie star to leave the controls of the plane unattended." But of course Cruise was very keen to do that! He's such a legend.
The fact that it told 3 or 4 stories within a day is hardly groundbreaking: been done numerous times before.
That this has been heralded as 'a groundbreaking piece of cinema' shows how low film making has sunk.
But the movie itself bored the ever-loving shit out of me, and I don't intend to ever watch it again!
It was dross.
However I'm sure the high five told the virus to ´fu3k xff' half way through the film.
Can anyone else confirm.
Like, who are the fan boys and where are the articles, and which posters have been snarky to you for not liking a movie?
I was not referring to you as a fan boy. You are obviously involved professionally in the world of film making and I accept your opinions on films carry more weight and deserve more respect than any opinions I have on films. But, I will never forget how I felt at the end of my first viewing of the Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now and Saving Private Ryan at the cinema. And I did not need to wade through articles explaining what the directors of these films were trying to achieve in order for me to have a visceral reaction to those films.
And I was certainly not referring to you as one of the usual suspects who troll me on various threads looking for opportunities to make snarky comments so they can get LOLs from their little group of followers.
No doubt the rest of your little gang will be along soon.