The Film Thread

[Stevo985]

Yeah I wouldn't really say it was racism.

But it would be a bit weird for a bunch of white folk to be knocking around Tokyo if that's where it's set. Especially if everyone else in the city is Japanese.

[hogso]

39 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Is it still set in Tokyo?

It's unclear at the moment. It's not even entirely certain that the characters name will be Motoko Kusunagi. They may transfer it to, let's call it, a non-asian setting, but nothing is confirmed yet. It's being filmed in New Zealand, and, for what it's worth, has a very international cast - that we know of so far - which does include a Japanese actor and actress, aswell as French, Danish, American, and Singaporean. Take from that what you will.

There was also some work done with CGI to attempt to make a non-Japanese actress look more Japanese, which is particualrly damning.

For me though it's simply a case of needing a big name who is capable of taking on the role just to get the thing made. It's an American production so it's going to be English speaking, and they don't want to gamble on an unknown or little known actress, as it just wouldn't have the drawer for casual filmgoers, which does suck. Look at The Dark Tower - the apparent lead role has gone to someone of a completely different racial background than is suggested in the source material, for no other reasons than a ) box office numbers and b ) the dude can do a job.

It's not the first time, and it's not the last it'll happen. Is there a problem? Yeah, but I'm not convinced it's simply a racial one in regards to casting.

Edited April 20, 2016 by hogso

[Chindie]

The GITS stuff with Scarlett is completely unsurprising. It is a problem that Hollywood doesn't have an actress of Japanese descent that can carry a movie, and that is simply because they don't cast them in supporting roles in big films often enough or in more low budget movies in prominent roles, but without that Ghost in the Shell doesn't get made.

As for whitewashing - Hollywood has cast a black man in a role that had a long-standing history of being whiter than white in the shape of Mordo in Dr Strange (following on from Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor movies), and they've cast a remake of Jacobs Ladder with black actors taking the main roles. They're getting there.

[Xela]

First time I've seen this in years... obviously not a lot happens but its still very good viewing, mainly down to Hanks. 7/10

Edited April 20, 2016 by Xela

[villa4europe]

GitS is a $100m adaption of a Japanese manga film with a female lead

The original did $2.3m in yank cinemas, the other 3 weren't even released, they more than likely looked at Lucy and ignored the fact that it wasn't very good and liked the fact that it did $400m at the box office off a $40m budget

$100m film with a foreign female lead? It's just not happening, doubt a foreign male lead could achieve that

[PaulC]

I might get slammed for this but the American remake of Martyrs wasn't that bad.

[tonyh29]

Friend Request tonight

 

im shit at horror films , It's kinda weird i never jump at those  stupid Facebook videos where your looking at kittens and suddenly a zombie appears but stick me in a dark cinema with that low  background scary music and I find myself jumping like someone listening to House of Pain....

Bit like the Boy the week before it has its moments but stops short of being as good as the benchmark of that genre The Ring 

next week I'm choosing the film ... Eye in the sky or Bastille day something that doesn't try its best to scare the bejesus out of me ...

Edited April 20, 2016 by tonyh29

[HanoiVillan]

6 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Friend Request tonight

 

im shit at horror films , It's kinda weird i never jump at those  stupid Facebook videos where your looking at kittens and suddenly a zombie appears but stick me in a dark cinema with that low  background scary music and I find myself jumping like someone listening to House of Pain....

Bit like the Boy the week before it has its moments but stops short of being as good as the benchmark of that genre The Ring 

next week I'm choosing the film ... Eye in the sky or Bastille day something that does try its best to scare the bejesus out of me ...

I'd be interested in your thoughts on Eye In The Sky Tony. I thought it was quite a good film. The premise is obviously very contrived, but it's well acted and I spent a few days mulling it over after I saw it. You seem like someone who doesn't mind a military-based 'what if', so you might get a kick out of it. 

[Wainy316]

I'm not over enthused about an American version of Ghost in the Shell but if it closely follows the original then we are going to get lots of Scarlett bewbage. Win!

[Meath_Villan]

 

[Meath_Villan]

Wow

 

[villa4europe]

Same with what they did with guardians of the Galaxy, I like it when honest trailers do a film they actually like

[troon_villan]

video game movies are never good that is the rule

I'm hopeful Assassins Creed will change that.

[Xela]

Cage has done some stinkers in his time hasn't he? 2/10

[Ginko]

Watched Eye in the Sky last night. I wasn't totally enthused by the premise but I was pleasantly surprised by it.

It was very tense, well acted and even a little comical in places, which considering the subject matter seems strange, but it actually worked.

It was one of those films that made you think about war, technology and global politics and it did a good job of bringing a very human angle to all of these things.

I liked it, 7.5/10.

[PaulC]

2 hours ago, Xela said:

Cage has done some stinkers in his time hasn't he? 2/10

Strange one Cage because he's been in some of my all time fav movies but he has done so much shit too.

[Zatman]

2 hours ago, Ginko said:

Watched Eye in the Sky last night. I wasn't totally enthused by the premise but I was pleasantly surprised by it.

It was very tense, well acted and even a little comical in places, which considering the subject matter seems strange, but it actually worked.

It was one of those films that made you think about war, technology and global politics and it did a good job of bringing a very human angle to all of these things.

I liked it, 7.5/10.

thought was a great last film performance from Alan Rickman

[Rugeley Villa]

Just took my lad to see the new jungle book. It was alright but nothing special.

[Chindie]

Saw the Jungle Book earlier after the almost universal praise.

It's probably the most successful of Disney's live action remakes of their classic library, largely because, from my memory of the original, they basically photocopied it with slight modern tweaks. It largely looks fantastic, it rattles along from the get go and doesn't let up, is genuinely funny... It's pretty good. The celebrity voices vary though. Some are in essence cameos, and stand out too much - Kingsley is fine as Bagheera, Murray straddles the line occasionally as Baloo, Scarlet as Kaa is just Scarlet talking to you (incidentally, the upside of this is the b roll of her doing her lines, where she is appropriately mesmerising). The real stand out, though, for the wrong reasons is, Idris Elba as Shere Khan. He is just wrong. I'm not sure what it is, whether his voice just doesn't fit, whether it's a poor performance, or is the spectre of the original over the whole thing, it doesn't work. He seems to be trying to play the part as an almost London street gang boss, but in the capacity of a children's film where he's playing a tiger, it's quite hard to translate that, so instead we get this weird mildly grandiose mildly threatening Landaan chap. It also seems curiously wooden. There's no conviction behind it, you don't believe the character is any more than Idris reading some lines. It's very odd.

A couple other things. They've made a choice to have the animals not overly emote, sticking reasonably close to the actual abilities of the animals to portray expressions. Obviously they've had to stretch things but they've largely stuck to that, and it has 2 effects. Firstly, the animals look astounding. Secondly, they're all, bar King Louie and Baloo, stonyfaced. Almost every scene of Bagheera includes a close up of his face, and each time the face may as well not be animated, as panthers aren't known for their expressive faces.

The movie is also dreadful to watch in 3d. I saw it at the Imax, so on paper ideal conditions for 3d. Nope. From the opening scene, fast moving action scenes descend into a blurry mess, anything black is crushed to nothingness (amplifying Bagheeras bizarre paralysed visage because you can't actually see much. More than once I literally couldn't make out the detail of aclnything below his eyes). A climatic scene I had to double take as for a moment I thought there had been an effect added to it in ghosting and almost a sight frame rate drop, but no it was just the shitty 3d in all it's glory. There are moments the 3d shines, slower scenes where depth can be exaggerated work well and there's more of a few of them, but otherwise the movie is a weird blurry mess.

Overall though, it's a good movie and the first of Disney's live action adaptations to really succeed IMO, not quite as good as many would have you believe but is still a good watch and worth seeing. Just don't expect the classic with a big budget.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Chindie

[AVFCDAN]

Just watching short circuit 2 on Sony movies channel. One of my favorite childhood films.

only just realised Chuck from better call Saul is Fred! Mind blown.