Jump to content

The Film Thread


DeadlyDirk

Recommended Posts

It's good, it doesnt feel as low budget as it is, I only really got interested in it cos of what they filmed in brum, it's got a similar spore virus as the last of us, focuses on an infected girl who they were trying to study but the base gets attacked so they go on the run with her

Edited by villa4europe
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, villa4europe said:

watched the founder, story about the bloke who properly franchised mcdonalds and ousted the actual owners, solid film worth a watch, to be fair i didnt actually know how mcdonalds made its money from franchises, assumed it was from profit percentages and selling product to the franchisees 

  Reveal hidden contents

they own the land the restaurant is built on 

the bloke michael keaton plays is an utter word removed

I enjoyed but I agree he is repulsive in it and he was a bit like that in real life

Spoiler

when he steals the guys wife I thought it was just to make Kroc look bad. I did some research and he actually did that 

obviously anything with Nick Offerman will nearly be good ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I, Daniel Blake

A worthy topic maybe but a terrible film of stereotypical saints and devils.

Mawkish and didactic.

Its political aims make it less forgivable not more.

It's a cold-hearted man who fails to be moved by this film and chooses instead to pick holes in it. 

Edited by choffer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I, Daniel Blake

A worthy topic maybe but a terrible film of stereotypical saints and devils.

Mawkish and didactic.

Its political aims make it less forgivable not more.

Out of interest, which parts of the film did you find inaccurate/unrealistic? The subject of the film had been thoroughly researched. It's a fictional film, of what can (and does) happen when you are subject to the current benefits system.

It's not a documentary.

If you could knock it for some inaccuracies, then fine. You seem to be knocking it because it unearths some obvious truths about the system, and the people who are forced to use that system, or work in it.  

Stereotypical? Yes, you don't tend to see that many 'suits' down at the benefit office. Unfortunately, it is predominantly a certain strata of society that is forced to use the benefits system, so they are obviously going to be the people seen by the film.

It's getting plaudits because it's such a bloody powerful film, and IMO a story that needs showing to as wide an audience as possible.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jon said:

Out of interest, which parts of the film did you find inaccurate/unrealistic? The subject of the film had been thoroughly researched. It's a fictional film, of what can (and does) happen when you are subject to the current benefits system.

It's not a documentary.

If you could knock it for some inaccuracies, then fine. You seem to be knocking it because it unearths some obvious truths about the system, and the people who are forced to use that system, or work in it.  

Stereotypical? Yes, you don't tend to see that many 'suits' down at the benefit office. Unfortunately, it is predominantly a certain strata of society that is forced to use the benefits system, so they are obviously going to be the people seen by the film.

It's getting plaudits because it's such a bloody powerful film, and IMO a story that needs showing to as wide an audience as possible.  

I thought it patronised the audience and the people it is supposed to be advocating for.

As a piece of political propaganda I suppose it might have some value, but it just seemed like typical soap opera fare to me.

Both leading characters needed more of a backstory to explain their predicament

A guy who had spent a lifetime in the building trade, is presented as totally isolated with absolutely no social capital to draw upon, or enough nous to seek advice.

Loach didn't trust his audience enough not to judge his characters, so he made them too saintly to be believable.

The Jobcentre people were all cartoon villains.

To be fair to Loach it probably was easier to make Cathy Come Home back in 1966, than trying to do the same in 2016, where there are so many boxes to tick. 

But he definitely ticked them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw Les Diaboliques tonight as part of my local gallery's 'Hypnotica' season.

I know a couple of you guys really rate it but I just couldn't get on with it. I just don't think I can take old films seriously, I must be spoilt being brought up n films in the late eighties and nineties. Any film pre-1970 (and a few post too) is just too cringeworthy and silly for me and it takes me out of the whole experience.

Taxi Driver next week though. Can wait to finally see it on the big screen :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logan's pretty bloody good. Loses its way a little towards the end but everything beforehand is fantastic.

It's a Western that happens to be set in the X-Men universe. Great.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, sne said:

If nothing else it looks darn pretty.

 

its one of those trailers that uses all the best bits of the film and gives everything away hypes the bollix out of the film that will be utter shite 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There had better be some Engineers in that!

 

Watched A Cure for Wellness today. It's derivative and far too long but I couldn't help liking it. Glorious design and scenery, like a Wes Anderson nightmare. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â