The Film Thread

[Wainy316]

9 hours ago, Chindie said:

I love Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. I've not watched it for a good few years, but I can still vividly recall how good so much of it is.

So I remembered that a few years back, they released a sequel/soft reboot with Claire Foy in the role of Lisbeth. It's free to stream for Amazon Prime subs I discovered.

Ooft.

Umm. Where to start? You know something is wrong when the opening is a Bond style pre title sequence, but with Dragon Tattoo stylings and David Fincher curtains. Instead of Bond on some overblown globe trotting mission we get Salander in a feminist vigilante attack with the tone we expect from the first film (

  Hide contents

you know, the kind of tone you get from watching a dirty rapist being sodomised with a 2 ft long steel dildo before being booted in the gut and having 'rapist' tattooed on them

), plus 'computers are magic', before bouncing into a section where we're informed she's basically Batman for battered wives.

And then the plot starts. And it's **** stupid. Stephen Merchant has created a programme that essentially allows anyone with the programme and able to access it to access any nuclear launch system in the world. Having been sacked from his job he realises this programme is probably dangerous, and hires magic hacker Lisbeth to steal it, even though it's supposedly unstealable. She steals it. This starts a series of events that ultimately blah blah blah.

It's kinda hard to put into context how stupid this plot is, but it makes some of the worst Bond plots look like high art. I mean... Even setting aside the absolutely mind numbingly stupid concept of a guy making a programme that can access any nuclear system remotely, we soon discover that the guy made it with an access protocol that essentially makes his son the access key. I wish I was kidding. Other highlights include an underground crime gang being called the Spiders (why? They have spider tatts and ever gang needs a cool name, right?), Lisbeth having the super power of magic hacking and the worlds most powerful stun gun, and a nerd being a supernaturally gifted sniper who can shoot through walls largely because computers are magic.

If you set aside the plot you realise it is basically a framework to stick action scenes on, painted in the style of the Fincher film. But that's kinda the problem. The Fincher film doesn't really have pulse raising action scenes. It doesn't need them. It's a whodunnit mystery thriller with a nasty dirty sexual sadism undercurrent. The biggest action scene is a minute long chase that ends when someone does an overtake. But that's all it needs, the rest of it is so good and compelling you don't need to be wowed with cool stunts and shit.

And it's not even like the action is mind-blowing. It's completely standard thriller stuff. If that. A couple of chases, a couple of fights, a crash.

And the cast is rubbish. Claire Foy tries but she's miscast and the script is so bad she can't do anything anyway. Craig's replacement is a ghost playing a part that barely exists, and barely needs to. Stephen Merchant was on set for a few days. The best character is the sniper nerd and even he would disappear if he turned side on.

What might be the worst thing though, is the distinct feeling that the producers of this film fancied they might get a new franchise going here, and that's why it's so like a Bond film for hipster geeks who like Scandi-noir/goth/cool. It even ends with a Moriarty moment, just in case.

Except there's more franchise potential in my bowels after a bad curry.

It's shiiiiite.

It's based on the 4th book written by David Lagercrantz who inherited the series following Stieg Larsson's death.

The post Larsson books are nowhere as good so from a film perspective I don't know why they didn't go in for the second and third books.  There is however Swedish film versions of the first three books which are far superior to the Foy film.

[andyjsg]

18 hours ago, Designer1 said:

Just back from...

Yeah, in a nutshelnuif you like the film series you won't be disappointed.

its all utterly ridiculous, but technically masterful and brilliantly entertaining. 

I thought it was fantastic.

Agree wholeheartedly, if I had a minor quibble it would be that it was maybe 20 mins too long.

[Stevo985]

12 hours ago, Chindie said:

I love Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. I've not watched it for a good few years, but I can still vividly recall how good so much of it is.

So I remembered that a few years back, they released a sequel/soft reboot with Claire Foy in the role of Lisbeth. It's free to stream for Amazon Prime subs I discovered.

Ooft.

Umm. Where to start? You know something is wrong when the opening is a Bond style pre title sequence, but with Dragon Tattoo stylings and David Fincher curtains. Instead of Bond on some overblown globe trotting mission we get Salander in a feminist vigilante attack with the tone we expect from the first film (

  Reveal hidden contents

you know, the kind of tone you get from watching a dirty rapist being sodomised with a 2 ft long steel dildo before being booted in the gut and having 'rapist' tattooed on them

), plus 'computers are magic', before bouncing into a section where we're informed she's basically Batman for battered wives.

And then the plot starts. And it's **** stupid. Stephen Merchant has created a programme that essentially allows anyone with the programme and able to access it to access any nuclear launch system in the world. Having been sacked from his job he realises this programme is probably dangerous, and hires magic hacker Lisbeth to steal it, even though it's supposedly unstealable. She steals it. This starts a series of events that ultimately blah blah blah.

It's kinda hard to put into context how stupid this plot is, but it makes some of the worst Bond plots look like high art. I mean... Even setting aside the absolutely mind numbingly stupid concept of a guy making a programme that can access any nuclear system remotely, we soon discover that the guy made it with an access protocol that essentially makes his son the access key. I wish I was kidding. Other highlights include an underground crime gang being called the Spiders (why? They have spider tatts and ever gang needs a cool name, right?), Lisbeth having the super power of magic hacking and the worlds most powerful stun gun, and a nerd being a supernaturally gifted sniper who can shoot through walls largely because computers are magic.

If you set aside the plot you realise it is basically a framework to stick action scenes on, painted in the style of the Fincher film. But that's kinda the problem. The Fincher film doesn't really have pulse raising action scenes. It doesn't need them. It's a whodunnit mystery thriller with a nasty dirty sexual sadism undercurrent. The biggest action scene is a minute long chase that ends when someone does an overtake. But that's all it needs, the rest of it is so good and compelling you don't need to be wowed with cool stunts and shit.

And it's not even like the action is mind-blowing. It's completely standard thriller stuff. If that. A couple of chases, a couple of fights, a crash.

And the cast is rubbish. Claire Foy tries but she's miscast and the script is so bad she can't do anything anyway. Craig's replacement is a ghost playing a part that barely exists, and barely needs to. Stephen Merchant was on set for a few days. The best character is the sniper nerd and even he would disappear if he turned side on.

What might be the worst thing though, is the distinct feeling that the producers of this film fancied they might get a new franchise going here, and that's why it's so like a Bond film for hipster geeks who like Scandi-noir/goth/cool. It even ends with a Moriarty moment, just in case.

Except there's more franchise potential in my bowels after a bad curry.

It's shiiiiite.

I share the love of the Fincher Dragon Tattoo film as we've discovered before.

I wasn't going anywhere near the Girl in the Spiders Web. I've read the book and compared to the first 3 it's really poor (different writer, go figures)

Add that to my disappointment that they weren't making a trilogy of the original Milennium trilogy of books and I was completely put off.

Based on the above I'm glad I missed it

[Stevo985]

3 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

It's based on the 4th book written by David Lagercrantz who inherited the series following Stieg Larsson's death.

The post Larsson books are nowhere as good so from a film perspective I don't know why they didn't go in for the second and third books.  There is however Swedish film versions of the first three books which are far superior to the Foy film.

I assume they wanted to distance themselves from the first film as having a proper sequel but with an entirely different cast would have been a bit weird. Or maybe it's a rights thing. Whoever made the first movie maybe owns the rights to the original trilogy

Swedish version of the first 3 books are good in the absence of anything else. But the Fincher version of Dragon Tattoo is better than all of them.

 

Basically, for anyone who hasn't seen them, watch the Fincher one and pretend no other books exist

Edited March 27, 2023 by Stevo985

[NoelVilla]

11 hours ago, sne said:

It'll never be as good as the Leslie Nielsen Dracula movie  but this looks fun

 

 

Thought first that it said Reinfeldt. I wouldn't watch that movie.

[sne]

Just now, NoelVilla said:

Thought first that it said Reinfeldt. I wouldn't watch that movie.

I probably would if it featured Nic Cage  

Not sure how I feel about Reinfeldt as chief of our FA thou.

[NoelVilla]

3 minutes ago, sne said:

I probably would if it featured Nic Cage  

Not sure how I feel about Reinfeldt as chief of our FA thou.

He would insist on playing himself. Well he can sack Janne A and be of to a good start.

[Zhan_Zhuang]

Whenever I hear of Renfield I always think of Tom Waits from Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992).

This new Renfield movie looks like it might be OK, maybe...

Edited March 27, 2023 by Zhan_Zhuang

[Brumerican]

That landmine to the face made me chuckle a bit too much . This looks even more bananas than John Wick.   (OTT violence warning)

 

[Designer1]

3 minutes ago, Brumerican said:

That landmine to the face made me chuckle a bit too much . This looks even more bananas than John Wick.   (OTT violence warning)

 

This was trailed yesterday at the John Wick showing. They certainly know their audience 

 

[Designer1]

11 minutes ago, Zhan_Zhuang said:

Whenever I hear of Renfield I always think of Tom Waits from Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992).

This new Renfield movie looks like it might be OK, maybe...

The iconic Dwight Frye for me. Now there's someone who could play a convincing mad man.

[Follyfoot]

36 minutes ago, Brumerican said:

That landmine to the face made me chuckle a bit too much . This looks even more bananas than John Wick.   (OTT violence warning)

 

This looks brilliant  

[Brumerican]

Just now, Follyfoot said:

This looks brilliant  

There actually was a Finnish one man army during WW2 named Simo Hayha  . It must have been an inspiration.

 

[theboyangel]

Loved John Wick 4 - utterly relentles , daft and full of wince inducing carnage.

Spoiler

Particularly enjoyed the cameo from the barely recognisable Sutton lad, Scott Adkins - clearly enjoyed himself in the fat suit!!! 

 

Edited March 29, 2023 by theboyangel

[theboyangel]

Dungeons & Dragons was a decent watch and great fun. Nicely humoured without being stupid and some great set pieces.

Chris Pine and Michelle Rodriguez worked very well together. 

[theunderstudy]

John Wick 4 was great fun. The Dragons Breath scene was pure joy. As was the Sacré-Cœur steps scene. And the Arc De Triomphe bit.

[sne]

This looks very French

 

[choffer]

Can’t wait. 

 

[Designer1]

2 hours ago, choffer said:

Can’t wait. 

 

Yeah, looks fantastic.

[Stevo985]

Watched this on Friday

feel like it’s not spoken about enough. 
Brilliant movie