Stevo985 Posted August 9, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted August 9, 2017 4 minutes ago, villa4europe said: really short like i said you take out the time element and just show the film in a normal chronological fashion and its about 70 minutes long, i thought the repeated stuff added about 20 minutes, without the time element its not really much of a film But isn't that the case with any film that has a "time element"? If you take that out then you take out a major part of what makes the film what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: If you take that out then you take out a major part of what makes the film what it is. i think thats probably my only criticism of the film (i really liked it btw) without the time element its not much of a film at all, what does that tell you about the narrative? so its an epic war film telling the story of one of britain's biggest events in WW2 and it only really works as a film because Nolan added playing with time not sure what he left on the floor or if he wrote scenes that fleshed out the characters and didnt put them in but to me at times it felt like a short stretched out film Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted August 9, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted August 9, 2017 Just now, villa4europe said: i think thats probably my only criticism of the film (i really liked it btw) without the time element its not much of a film at all, what does that tell you about the narrative? so its an epic war film telling the story of one of britain's biggest events in WW2 and it only really works as a film because Nolan added playing with time But my point is if you're making a film where a time element plays a major part, then removing that will obviously detract from the film. Any film that deliberately makes a plot more interesting by playing with time will obviously be severely effected if you take that time factor out of it. So I kind of get your point, but don't agree that it should be a criticism. The time element DOES exist in the film, so what's the issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 he could have done both, made a film with enough content but added it because it elevated the film, as it is the film is dependent on it i get that he didnt want to add stories to the characters (msot dont even have names) but theres still a lot of the story of dunkirk left out too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 10, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted August 10, 2017 Riz Ahmed is in the running to play 'a popular Marvel character' in Sony's weird dumb Venom movie. Also in the running are Matt Smith and Pedro Pascal. Stupidly some people think this will be Carnage. The character is called Cletus. With the best will in the world, nobody that looks like Riz Ahmed is called Cletus. Thankfully they've denied the part is for him, and so far the only carnage will be the film itself. I've absolutely no idea who could be played by any of those guys. I'll just assume it's going to be a dreadful character and the whole thing will just add to the argument that this project should be binned. Also worth remembering they've not even started filming yet and the thing is due out in just over a year with presumably a whole bunch of CGI work needed. It will be delayed. It's a stupid idea, it's Sony so it will be shit, and the only thing going for it is the cast, which if as rumoured is bizarrely good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 in other comic book / film news - netflix bought millarworld, they made the comics wanted, kingsman and kick ass, not sure what else or what netflix plans to do with them marvel have stopped making fantastic four comics after falling out with fox over the film rights, marvel want them back after the latest shit film the comic con avengers trailer has leaked on youtube, they keep taking it off and it keeps coming back, the quality is piss poor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 10, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted August 10, 2017 19 minutes ago, villa4europe said: in other comic book / film news - netflix bought millarworld, they made the comics wanted, kingsman and kick ass, not sure what else or what netflix plans to do with them marvel have stopped making fantastic four comics after falling out with fox over the film rights, marvel want them back after the latest shit film the comic con avengers trailer has leaked on youtube, they keep taking it off and it keeps coming back, the quality is piss poor Marvel cancelled F4 before the 2015 movie. It was over the rights, which is a long running thing and has lead to the relegation and reformation of the Xmen (characters changing, lineups changing, beloved characters dead etc, pushing Inhumans) and refusing for years to push Xmen toys and the like, but also is alleged to partly be because Ike Perlmutter fell out with Fox. Officially it's because the sales dropped. I'll be surprised if that SDCC trailer becomes the first official trailer, it shows a bit too much IMO for general audiences as a first trailer. Even in awful quality though it's incredible. Literally the only downside I saw was the look of a particular character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 3 minutes ago, Chindie said: Even in awful quality though it's incredible. Literally the only downside I saw was the look of a particular character. thanos? i dont know what they do to make him look decent on screen to be honest Spoiler or the beard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 10, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted August 10, 2017 1 minute ago, villa4europe said: thanos? i dont know what they do to make him look decent on screen to be honest Hide contents or the beard? I'm OK with Thanos in casuals. I prefer his normal look but I'm just happy to have him on screen as a threat at last. I'm also really happy with the spoilered look. Makes sense, looks great. Also makes me want Spoiler Chris Evans on board for a Metal Gear movie. I looked at it and immediately my thoughts went '...Snake?' Even with the full beard. Delighted to have Nomad in the movie in essence. My issue is Spoiler The bloody Spider-man suit from the end of Homecoming being used. I get it, it makes sense to have him have something more than fancy spandex to fight a cosmic threat... But it is a little too close to him being in an Iron Man outfit. The Stark suit from Homecoming was the right balance. This is too far the other way. Also it looks horrible/wrong. Its the Morales suit crossed with Starks Mk43. Wrong. Bin it Marvel. Otherwise though, looks great. Its a bit of a shame you can guess the entire plot though. The little comments from the production, the stories they're taking inspiration from, you can see the whole thing beat for beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 What was the VT consensus on Guardians of the Galaxy 2? Not my usual bag but I liked the first one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 21 minutes ago, coda said: What was the VT consensus on Guardians of the Galaxy 2? Not my usual bag but I liked the first one. More of the same really. Not quite as good as the first one but still a decent watch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 10, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted August 10, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, coda said: What was the VT consensus on Guardians of the Galaxy 2? Not my usual bag but I liked the first one. Not as 'special' as the first but still fun. Edit - it's got weird tonal shifts, I recall, and the whole thing for me had an odd hint of sadness that sits strangely with the humour at times. But it's still good. Just not great. Edited August 10, 2017 by Chindie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 (edited) I found it a drag at times oddly enough. Happy to give it another viewing, but I found the rat-a-tat-tat approach to joke-firing to be overkill, they were just going from one set-piece to another for a while and I had that Monty Python Holy Grail "GET ON WITH IT" voice in my head. It finished well enough though. Edited August 10, 2017 by Rodders 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 Cool. Usually I'm wary of sequels (Back to the Future, RoboCop ) tarnishing the original. Watched and enjoyed Wonder Woman recently. Someone put the trailer on here ages ago and I thought it looked ridiculous. I think it's slightly overrated which may be due to the current social climate. Thought I had the plot/reveal worked out early on but I was wrong, which is nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogso Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 In regards to Carnage casting, surely it should be Fergal Devitt 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 10, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted August 10, 2017 Carnage should be a wiry guy, Venom is the hulking symbiote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC_Hitz Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 A Hologram for a King with Tommy Hankles last night. Thoroughly enjoyed it but then again I'm not known for my good taste in films. Funny and quirky enough to make me titter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted August 11, 2017 Moderator Share Posted August 11, 2017 Interesting theory partially confirmed in an AMA about the much-loved-on-VT horror film, The Witch. Spoiler The Witch -- Some Corn On The Cob Might Mean The Family Was Tripping Balls Throughout The Movie The Witch was the slow-burn of a horror flick about the devil infiltrating a New England family and seducing a young daughter into witchcraft, partly through an evil talking goat named Black Phillip. Amazingly, the script somehow got made without any executives reworking it as an Air Buddies-like comedy about a sassy goat who can play soccer thanks to the Prince of Darkness. In the movie, the family exile themselves from society for religious reasons, and then their devil-related paranoia slowly turns them against each other. It's clearly a metaphor for the pernicious effect of irrational religious hysteria, but also, if you stick it out to the end, there's totally a whole bunch of witches in those woods. So the crazy zealots were, uh, right? Well, one tiny detail may actually be the key to figuring everything out: the family's shitty corn. Early on, we see that their crops aren't exactly screaming "This family's gonna get rich and change their name to 'Redenbacher' by the end of the movie." Historians and connoisseurs of getting super-f*cked-up in weird-ass ways may have noticed that the crops are besieged by ergot, a hallucinogenic fungus -- which is significant because ergot poisoning may have been behind the hysteria of the Salem Witch Trials. While the director, Robert Eggers, hasn't come forward and cleared up exactly what's true and what's not, he has confirmed that it is indeed ergot on the corn. He even seemed to point out in a Reddit AMA that you shouldn't accept everything you see in the movie, while again bringing up the ergot: So that one shot might mean that all of the black magic and witchiness we see in the film are all because that family is unknowingly tripping balls. Which seems plausible -- try taking peyote at a petting zoo and see if you don't encounter a Black Phillip or two. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Xela Posted August 11, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted August 11, 2017 On 8/10/2017 at 11:54, coda said: Cool. Usually I'm wary of sequels (Back to the Future, RoboCop ) tarnishing the original. U wot m8? BTTF Part II is fantastic! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 On 31 July 2017 at 22:08, supermon said: In its current format Hardy wouldn't suit 007....However, if Christopher Nolan was able to unleash his skills then Hardy would be an awesome 007, less of the polished Bond, more of the raw, irratic Bond It sounds like Daniel Craig is doing at least the next one, if not two, so I think Tom Hardy's time would have been and gone by then as he's almost 40 now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts