Jump to content

The Film Thread


DeadlyDirk

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

'Three Billboards' feels to me like it answers the question 'is it possible for a film to be great, off the back of not much more than a great central performance?' and that sadly the answer is 'no'. It's good, but no more than that. McDormand is excellent, and will no doubt be rewarded for it, and rightly so. It's just a really well-written, well-acted part for an actress on top of her game. But the rest of the film doesn't live up to it. Particularly problematic is 

  Reveal hidden contents

the story arc of one character who is, at the start, we are told, guilty of extremely serious violent crimes, which are treated with a wholly unwarranted comic touch. Said comic treatment doesn't even make sense on the film's terms, when it spends the rest of its running time treating the Theme of Violence with Deep Seriousness. Yet this character then goes on an entirely unbelievable redemption story arc. 

The film also starts meandering some time in its second act, and it's clear that the brilliant central conceit doesn't have much else to back it up. A decent way to pass the time, but I think no-one will remember the film for anything other than McDormand in the future. 

Here's an interesting view on that problem, it's 12 tweets long so I'll only post the first one:

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, AVFCDAN said:

It’s about time Robbie Collin replaced Mr Kermode on the bbc film review imo.

I find Robbie Collin so boring to listen to, sends me to sleep with his reviews. Is it just me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, stuart_75 said:

I find Robbie Collin so boring to listen to, sends me to sleep with his reviews. Is it just me?

Opinions and all that. I do like Mark but I feel like he is out of touch with a lot of modern films now. Robbie has a the in-depth knowledge of foreign and older cinema but he can still appreciate a throwaway film, I feel like I can trust his reviews more and I don’t personally find him boring. 

The stand in shows with Sanjeev or Edith with Robbie as contributor are just as good IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind Kermode, although it's been years since I stopped listening regularly. Most people I know can't stand listening to him, as far as I can tell. I used to know a lady who worked on the show, and she told me a couple of stories about how nice they both are compared to most people in radio, though sadly I can't remember the details of the stories. 

One thing I do tend to find is that, even without listening regularly for years, I can predict pretty much with 95% accuracy what his opinion is going to be of any given film. I don't know whether that's a good thing or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kermode suffers badly from having his 'darlings'. He struggles to criticise films made by or featuring his little group of beloved actors and directors and he's very set in his opinions, and it takes something incredible to his mind to move his view.

Collin is good but he does like things with a bit of pretentiousness, and the Lost City of A thing has question marks all over it.

I used to really like the show and religiously listened to the podcast but it's biggest problem was it becoming far too in-jokey. Listening to the podcast you started to feel like half the show was references to old incidents or the same bloody 'gags' again, slavishly parroted by the audience in yet another email or tweet. You have to have some audience interaction and behind the scenes stuff, but it became far far far too much.

Now I just watch Kermode's reviews I'm interested in on YouTube.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Kermode suffers badly from having his 'darlings'. He struggles to criticise films made by or featuring his little group of beloved actors and directors and he's very set in his opinions, and it takes something incredible to his mind to move his view.

Collin is good but he does like things with a bit of pretentiousness, and the Lost City of A thing has question marks all over it.

I used to really like the show and religiously listened to the podcast but it's biggest problem was it becoming far too in-jokey. Listening to the podcast you started to feel like half the show was references to old incidents or the same bloody 'gags' again, slavishly parroted by the audience in yet another email or tweet. You have to have some audience interaction and behind the scenes stuff, but it became far far far too much.

Now I just watch Kermode's reviews I'm interested in on YouTube.

Spot on.  I never used to miss an episode, but it's far too self-referential these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I used to really like the show and religiously listened to the podcast but it's biggest problem was it becoming far too in-jokey. Listening to the podcast you started to feel like half the show was references to old incidents or the same bloody 'gags' again, slavishly parroted by the audience in yet another email or tweet. You have to have some audience interaction and behind the scenes stuff, but it became far far far too much.

Yes, this is definitely a large part of the issue. I was surprised recently to listen for the first time in a few years and that the same in-jokes were still happening. I'd already assumed there would be in-jokes, but I wasn't expecting the same in-jokes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quite like all the in jokey stuff, so it doesn't bother me,  though  it probably is a bit repetitive with some  bits - but it remains a very cosy regular listen, possibly that connects to the former bit! I like all the sub-in reviewers they have, too in general, including Robbie , the only host who ever drew me up the wall was Edith Bowman. So annoying. 

But on his views, I respect Kermode's knowledge , and he's a great source for unknown releases, but half the time I end up disagreeing with him on films, but that's fine. Obviously.  He's definitely a bit soft on some films that were they helmed or starring other actors wouldn't get off so lightly but to be perfectly honest I think that's quite natural. I have actors I could watch in many films, and end up forgiving flaws because of personalities involved, and vice versa. It can a hard thing to be objective about one's fundamental impression and emotional response to a film. 

I love Hugh Jackman and Brendan Fraser, but they don't half release some dodgy films, but I , generally, end up coming away having enjoyed those films in spite of the voice in my head going "really?, you're going to ignore that?"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started listening to the show in about 2003 or 2004, and I remember that two things were better about the shows those days:

1 - he reviewed more films, because there were fewer in-jokes, shorter emails and fewer interruptions, and

2 - every now and then, they'd interview someone live in the studio and he'd just openly say how crap their movie was and I was always impressed by that commitment to telling it like it is. 

I realise it probably sounds like I'm moaning about the current show; really I'm not, it's a pleasant listen. But I used to find it indispensable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2018 at 07:51, HanoiVillan said:

'Three Billboards' feels to me like it answers the question 'is it possible for a film to be great, off the back of not much more than a great central performance?' and that sadly the answer is 'no'. It's good, but no more than that. McDormand is excellent, and will no doubt be rewarded for it, and rightly so. It's just a really well-written, well-acted part for an actress on top of her game. But the rest of the film doesn't live up to it. Particularly problematic is 

  Reveal hidden contents

the story arc of one character who is, at the start, we are told, guilty of extremely serious violent crimes, which are treated with a wholly unwarranted comic touch. Said comic treatment doesn't even make sense on the film's terms, when it spends the rest of its running time treating the Theme of Violence with Deep Seriousness. Yet this character then goes on an entirely unbelievable redemption story arc. 

The film also starts meandering some time in its second act, and it's clear that the brilliant central conceit doesn't have much else to back it up. A decent way to pass the time, but I think no-one will remember the film for anything other than McDormand in the future. 

I thought it was an overhyped but enjoyable film but problem is too many of the main characters come across as really unlikeable 

Also criminally it was a waste of Peter Dinklage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watched San Andreas.  I love a good disaster movie but **** me, what a rotter.  Watchable for the Rock and the girl with the boobs, but I generally hate films with loads of CGI.  If CGI looks shit and unbelievable now, imagine how shit it's going to look when people watch in 10 years' time.  I guess theyre just after as quick buck really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watched the new It adaptation.

Enjoyed it. But then I'm a sucker for that small town America 80s nostalgia thing. Good performances, looks great etc etc.

Only issues, the bully kid is taken to crazy extremes I can't believe is in the book (how many bullies are literally psychopaths?), and more notably, it's not scary. At all. There's something about the horror that is not scary. Usually you'd say there's a lack of threat but I have no idea of the original story and who lives and dies, and the scenes set up credible threat IMO. But it somehow doesn't really manage to make it scary. It even manages to **** up jump scares somehow. It's not even particularly creepy. The only things I'd day even approach scary are fleeting moments of the unexpected and brief segments of larger scenes - the slides scene has some creepier moments (the almost stop motion animation style of the 'slideshow' mainly) but that's it for the scene.

But it doesn't matter. It's not really a horror movie. I quite liked it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Henry Bowers (the bully), and by extention the rest of his gang, are considerably tamer in the film than they are in the book. 

They're very much supposed to be completely unhinged psychopaths. The book puts this (and the generally attitude of the rest of the town to kids going missing as 'meh, it's Durry') down to the presence of It over hundreds of years turning more or less the whole place evil.

There's a very storied history of obscenely violent acts being carried out by people in Derry (Durry), even apparently normal people. As I recall the new film doesn't touch on this at all (got my blu ray yes so haven't watched it again yet), but it'd be nice to see this expanded on in part 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Chindie said:

Just watched the new It adaptation.

Enjoyed it. But then I'm a sucker for that small town America 80s nostalgia thing. Good performances, looks great etc etc.

Only issues, the bully kid is taken to crazy extremes I can't believe is in the book (how many bullies are literally psychopaths?), and more notably, it's not scary. At all. There's something about the horror that is not scary. Usually you'd say there's a lack of threat but I have no idea of the original story and who lives and dies, and the scenes set up credible threat IMO. But it somehow doesn't really manage to make it scary. It even manages to **** up jump scares somehow. It's not even particularly creepy. The only things I'd day even approach scary are fleeting moments of the unexpected and brief segments of larger scenes - the slides scene has some creepier moments (the almost stop motion animation style of the 'slideshow' mainly) but that's it for the scene.

But it doesn't matter. It's not really a horror movie. I quite liked it.

I think I commented more or less the same thing on here when I saw it. It is really well done and looks great but there is a lack of "threat!" for some reason. Its hard to even put your finger on why though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â