wazzap24 Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 Crack out the Skag! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted July 25, 2016 Moderator Share Posted July 25, 2016 I just watched that dissection of the TDK chase scene @Chindie. My McGrath that's bad. I had no idea it was quite the cutting room vomit session that it is The kind of thing that can't be unseen too. How on earth someone even signed off on it?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 On 7/24/2016 at 06:55, V01 said: don't get me wrong I'd tongue punch her bum all night And they say the age of romance is dead. If only Shakespeare had been so pithy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted July 25, 2016 Moderator Share Posted July 25, 2016 7 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: And they say the age of romance is dead. If only Shakespeare had been so pithy. ... and I believe that in the above romantic saying, it should be referred to as her 'fart box' to get the full chivalrous effect. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 25, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted July 25, 2016 37 minutes ago, BOF said: I just watched that dissection of the TDK chase scene @Chindie. My McGrath that's bad. I had no idea it was quite the cutting room vomit session that it is The kind of thing that can't be unseen too. How on earth someone even signed off on it?! Exactly . Did you ever notice it before watching that? As said I always watched that scene confused about where Dent is exactly and how the SWAT van ended up where it is, but I couldn't put my finger on exactly why. And then I watched that video and all became clear - its a **** mess of a scene. I think some of it is explained by them fudging the scene to fit the location, but some of it is baffling - the shot placement is just dreadful. They try to hide the fudges with fast edits and quick movements of the camera but you still notice it. Nolan does the editing thing quite often iirc. Sometimes it's justified - every fight scene in Batman Begins is a mess because they needed to hide the fact Bale couldn't move well in the suit - but then you look at some of his action scenes where he doesn't do the edits, like the Bane fights, and realise why he does it most often. He can't do action well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 that Dr.Strange trailer just reminds me of Batman Begins for some reason 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 Well I thought Ghostbusters was perfectly fine. Not the best and some of the jokes certainly missed their mark but there were enough laughs elsewhere to make up for it. Not as good as the original no but I also think there'll be alot of young kids, particularly girls going by the cinema I was in who really enjoyed it. Thought Wiig and McCarthy were good, the other two certainly grated at times, but it was decent enough to warrant it's existence, despite the shrieking wails of the misogynest troll-boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Zatman said: that Dr.Strange trailer just reminds me of Batman Begins for some reason Replace tilda Swinton with Liam neeson... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Albrighton Posted July 25, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted July 25, 2016 For me, the worst bit of that chase scene in "The Dark Knight" is... Spoiler "That's not good." "OK, that's NOT GOOD!!!" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 Trainspotting 2. Oh yes. Beggers is back! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 26, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted July 26, 2016 Went to see the BFG at the weekend. As a kid I adored the Cosgrove Hall adaptation of the story to the extent I think elements of our are etched on my brain. There are scenes and images and sounds from that film I'll literally never forget, I haven't seen it in what must be 20 years but still it's quite fresh in my mind. So Spielberg doing an adaptation piqued my interest and we went to see a late afternoon showing, and knowing it's flopped in the US expected no-one to be there. Little did we expect a nearly full showing with lots of pretty young kids - I wasn't aware that the BFG or Dahl was really a thing anymore but the film seems to have traction. Anywho... I've never experienced a film that is quite so kind and 'nice'. The cartoon had some bite to it, some threat. The BFG discusses people being eaten in his first scene, the other giants are genuinely scary for younger children. This adaptation is toothless. The other giants only threat is brief references to them eating people, a couple of moments of looking for Sophie and bullying the BFG. The film isn't interested in that though, it's more interested in the wonder of its creations and in the relationship between Sophie and the BFG, which is enough I guess. Rylance plays the BFG with more of a farmer tone to his performance than David Jason did and Sophie is well played, if maybe too confident. The rest of the cast barely get beyond cameos but every one is clearly having fun with it. I'm not sure whether the cartoon was just very accurate to the book, but it struck me watching that the movie feels like an adaptation of the cartoon, to the extent whole shots are lifted from it. These obviously have Spielberg's eye added to them so everything looks incredible with a glow and richness to every frame, but still theres lots of images that are identical to Cosgrove Halls take, with some added flair. All in all a nice way to spend a couple of hours, particularly for very young kids to see something not made by Pixar, but the cartoon from 1989 is the better watch, with Jason's BFG being definitive. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 25 minutes ago, Chindie said: Went to see the BFG at the weekend. As a kid I adored the Cosgrove Hall adaptation of the story to the extent I think elements of our are etched on my brain. There are scenes and images and sounds from that film I'll literally never forget, I haven't seen it in what must be 20 years but still it's quite fresh in my mind. So Spielberg doing an adaptation piqued my interest and we went to see a late afternoon showing, and knowing it's flopped in the US expected no-one to be there. Little did we expect a nearly full showing with lots of pretty young kids - I wasn't aware that the BFG or Dahl was really a thing anymore but the film seems to have traction. Anywho... I've never experienced a film that is quite so kind and 'nice'. The cartoon had some bite to it, some threat. The BFG discusses people being eaten in his first scene, the other giants are genuinely scary for younger children. This adaptation is toothless. The other giants only threat is brief references to them eating people, a couple of moments of looking for Sophie and bullying the BFG. The film isn't interested in that though, it's more interested in the wonder of its creations and in the relationship between Sophie and the BFG, which is enough I guess. Rylance plays the BFG with more of a farmer tone to his performance than David Jason did and Sophie is well played, if maybe too confident. The rest of the cast barely get beyond cameos but every one is clearly having fun with it. I'm not sure whether the cartoon was just very accurate to the book, but it struck me watching that the movie feels like an adaptation of the cartoon, to the extent whole shots are lifted from it. These obviously have Spielberg's eye added to them so everything looks incredible with a glow and richness to every frame, but still theres lots of images that are identical to Cosgrove Halls take, with some added flair. All in all a nice way to spend a couple of hours, particularly for very young kids to see something not made by Pixar, but the cartoon from 1989 is the better watch, with Jason's BFG being definitive. Haven't seen this one yet, but I agree about the cartoon version. Very dark and as a child very scary. Might have to try and watch it again soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 Secret life of Walter Mittu, not bad surprisingly. Even though the day dreaming scenes, especially Benjamin button are a bit odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Designer1 Posted July 26, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted July 26, 2016 (edited) 45 minutes ago, mikeyp102 said: Secret life of Walter Mittu, not bad surprisingly. Even though the day dreaming scenes, especially Benjamin button are a bit odd. Watch the original Danny Kaye version. Much better. Edited July 26, 2016 by Designer1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 3 hours ago, Chindie said: Little did we expect a nearly full showing with lots of pretty young kids Is that you Jimmy ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 I saw BFG at the weekend with my kids , I expected to be bored (never seen the cartoon version or read the books ) but I wasn't ... it's quite a charming film that no doubt I'll be seeing a few more times when my daughter gets the DVD and has it on endless repeats , it's definitely better than a lot of the stuff I've seen with the kids..... adult wise , Star Trek tonight , about 2/3rds in I was prepared to declare it the best Star Trek film they have ever made out of all of them ... The last third then turned into the sort of drivel you get from an avengers movie where the good guys are invincible and the bad guys are mindless canon fodder its probably still the best Trek movie but I'm a little miffed top marks to Pegg for writing it and giving himself maximum screen time ... But from what I read they had a year to write a script and get it filmed and released so in that regard he did well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 Really excited for Trainspotting 2. The only way it would get made is if the original cast and crew were all involved, so it bodes well. Normally I'd call it a desperate money grab, but I think they're doing this out of love. I'm McGregor's age, and was up to some similar activities at the time, so the movie was like THE movie of my 20's. Can't wait for this one! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 5 hours ago, Xela said: Beggers is back! I was shooting like Paul **** Newman, by the way 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaForever1970 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 On 21 July 2016 at 20:38, Chindie said: @Stevo985 That Dark Knight analysis.. It's 20mins but it's more or less frame by frame of the chase picking out where Nolan made really amateurish mistakes. It's easy for your brain gloss over them but the moment you start to notice them the scene falls apart. Dent's position and the SWAT van into the river I always had problems with, but the rest is a mess as well. The arguments been made that Nolan doesn't know how to shoot action and tris to hide that with editing, using that scene as the archetype, and i think it might be right. I'm watching Rises as we speak and the first Bane fight is curiously rubbish, again something I've felt since it's release. There's no weight to anything, made worse by really rubbish sound effects of the blows landing, and it's shot oddly, it feels anticlimactic when it should be the moment of the movie. Even the breaking of the Bat is shite. It's obviously a choreographed minor stunt with a stuntman on a wire, when it should be a furious brutal move, a powerful capable man being snapped by a monster in essence. It shouldn't be that hard to do. This is another reason why Fury Road is a masterpiece and will be studied for years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 (edited) On 21/07/2016 at 20:38, Chindie said: @Stevo985 That Dark Knight analysis.. It's 20mins but it's more or less frame by frame of the chase picking out where Nolan made really amateurish mistakes. It's easy for your brain gloss over them but the moment you start to notice them the scene falls apart. Dent's position and the SWAT van into the river I always had problems with, but the rest is a mess as well. The arguments been made that Nolan doesn't know how to shoot action and tris to hide that with editing, using that scene as the archetype, and i think it might be right. I'm watching Rises as we speak and the first Bane fight is curiously rubbish, again something I've felt since it's release. There's no weight to anything, made worse by really rubbish sound effects of the blows landing, and it's shot oddly, it feels anticlimactic when it should be the moment of the movie. Even the breaking of the Bat is shite. It's obviously a choreographed minor stunt with a stuntman on a wire, when it should be a furious brutal move, a powerful capable man being snapped by a monster in essence. It shouldn't be that hard to do. It's easy to be a critic , I'll await Jim Emerson's first $1 bn film and look to dissect that .... still at least it's not as bad as the "internet expert " who ripped the Matrix apart because they used the manual for a B-212 helicopter when Trinity clearly was flying the B-260 Edited July 27, 2016 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts