But Bond isnt cool in any of these "gritty" ones.Originally Posted by Jimdagym
Bond is supposed to be cool
But Bond isnt cool in any of these "gritty" ones.
Bond is supposed to be cool
Watched Lincoln. Wasn't blown away but it was fine. Daniel Day Luas was his usual impeccable self but tommy lee jones stole the show I thought. See now why he is fav for best supporting. Lincoln to get best actor, supporting actor film and director I think, not that it should the last 2.
There is no emoticon for what I am feeling.
De Niro? been shit the last 10 years
Think it's more a case of him chosing bad movies than performing badly in them. Everybody's Fine is probably his best performance in recent years. The Good Sheppard is better second time round, as is Hide And Seek.
Had a quick look at his IMDB. last de niro film I liked was Ronin in 1998. haven't seen most of them though.
After his body of work in the 70s & 80s, he can do what he likes in fairness
"We've seen you come, we'll see you go"
well, that was probably the last "De Niro film", before the Meet The Parents / Analyse This franchises. No question he has been in some poor movies since, but there have been at least half a dozen good ones too which were judge harshly (for me, partly because he chose to make those kinds of films). Paul Newman suffered a similar fate at one stage before regaining credibility.
Have to admit I quite enjoyed 'Analyze This', I think its reputation suffered by them making a totally pointless (bar a cheap buck of course) sequel.
One that got fairly slated but which I thought was pretty decent was 'City By The Sea'. Nowhere near his best stuff but not deserving of the panning it got either.
Not arguing the point that there's been a huge decline in the quality of the films he takes roles in these last 10-15 years.
Zero Dark Thirty is very good.
Same goes for Meet The Parents. I thought the first one was great but they ruined it with unnecessary sequels. In fact I'm pretty sure the original script had everyone die at the end but as usual the money men changed the ending.
Has anyone seen Seven Psychopaths, i knocked it off after half hour thought it was hard to get into.
If anyone watched it, is it word me giving it another go?
We All Dream Of A Team Of Curly Wurly's!!! A Team Of Curly Wurly's!!! A Team Of Curly Wurly's!!!
Haven't watched it yet, but people say its pretty good. I saw the trailer for it a few times in the cinema and thought it looked gick from that!
Its funny, lot funnier than i expected. I was expecting it to be rubbish.
7/2 now. Boom!
There is no emoticon for what I am feeling.
Any decent links for streaming? I usually use alluc or solarmovies
1channel.ch or ch131
Watched Moon and Blade Runner recently, thought they were great, Blade Runner seemed to be missing something though. I watched the final cut, it doesn't have Deckard's narration like the other cuts. It made it feel a bit empty while you're watching it, like nothing was happening, I'd like to see a version with the narration.
Sam Rockwell was great in Moon.
Does anyone think The Abyss is worth a watch?
Just reading back through this thread. I had to study this film in college and was blown away. An amazing piece of work and perfect for analysing. When we played Hertha Berlin I went to the Stasi museum and it was weird seeing everything after watching the movie***SPOILERS******
Yeah, you are right, I was just being brief. I saw it more as Muhe's journey from good comrade to an independent thinker. He didnt think that this innocent couple should be monitored, especially as it was at the behest of a senior member with his own interest. Although I did think it ironic that the writer ended up being a subversive so the supervision was pretty appropriate
FWIW I didn't see the writer as having the same beliefs as him. Not especially so anyway. For all his western flair, the writer was still a staunch east european. He agreed with Hausers travel ban as he spoke out in a way that cant be done in east germany. The only things he disagreed with was the blacklisting and eventually the non reporting of suicide figures.
Con Houlihan says Pats will never die
Just watched Memento. It's a bit hard to follow cos the timeline is backwards but jesus, it's amazing.
Christopher Nolan does it, so enough said. One of those films which makes you think.
Watched another Nolan one earlier too, The Prestige. Cracking film.
Hey matzer. I'd love to her your detailed thoughts on it, after studying it, if you get the chance.
There is no emoticon for what I am feeling.
Watched the Avengers just there. Good film, bit boring at the start IMO but gets good
Christy Fagan - He scores big goals
Argo-fuck yourself!
No good? Was going to watch it tonight
Its fantastic. Youll get the reference later.
There is no emoticon for what I am feeling.
Yeah Ste, it's quality. Watched it for the second time. Love it.
enjoyed this last night Denzel on good form again,scene near the end with John goodman is nice light moment in otherwise serious movie about alcoholism.
From today's Guardian:
Simon Jenkins wrote it. Not by any means a film critic. Personally think he's way off the mark. You have to credit cinema-goers with enough intelligence to realise that films based on real-life events are very rarely going to depict things as they happened.
Should films that lay claim to truth be free to lie? The old question is raised again by two now on general release. Argo tells the story of the escape of American diplomats from Iran in 1979. Zero Dark Thirty tells of the more recent killing of Osama bin Laden. Both are already controversial.
The first, Argo, has understandably enraged the British ambassador in Tehran at the time, Sir John Graham, by stating that the Brits "turned away" the fugitive American diplomats. It left him "very distressed that the film-makers got it so wrong". He says the British embassy took in the fugitives and they moved to the Canadian embassy only when the British one became exposed to attack. One of the Americans, Robert Anders, has fully corroborated Graham's comments, saying the film "is absolutely untrue. The British made us very comfortable and were very helpful … We are forever grateful."
Meanwhile Zero Dark Thirty depicts gruesome scenes of CIA waterboarding as contributing to the hunt for Bin Laden. Those involved claim this allegation is untrue and, worse, justifies "good cause" torture. The film's director, Kathryn Bigelow, says hers is "just a movie" not a documentary and pleads her first amendment right "to create works of art" and speak her conscience. She is apparently engaged in a campaign not for but against torture.
We are here back in the "factional" territory of Oliver Stone's JFK (1991) and Jim Sheridan's In the Name of the Father (1993) among many others. Stone was seeking to prove that Kennedy was shot by more than one gunman, which required him to inter-cut newsreels with fictional scenes he staged. Sheridan's film about the trial of the Guildford Four sought to portray it as "one of the most significant miscarriages of justice in the western world this century". Eager "unequivocally … to influence the public", he produced what the historian the late Robert Kee called "a farrago of rubbish", sorely weakening his case.
Makers of films captioned as "true stories" claim either that fabrications do not matter as they are "just making movies", or that they are justified in a higher cause. Yet they can hardly be both. Cinema in my view is the defining cultural form of the age. It deserves to be taken seriously, and therefore to be criticised for shortcomings. If the most celebrated of "docudramas", Spielberg's Schindler's List, could go to lengths to authenticate its storyline, why should not any film claiming truth to history?
Fiction may be free and facts expensive, but film-makers are not short of researchers. Commentators may be accused of choosing facts to prove their opinions – plague the thought – but that is different from falsification. Nor do they excuse lies as higher truth. The licence to report carries responsibilities. Inaccuracy in print is vulnerable to litigation and now the added horror of Lord Justice Leveson. Plagiarism and fabrication are serious journalistic crimes. A newspaper that accused Graham of anti-American cowardice would lead to fierce rebuttal and retraction.
Journalists are told they are making "the first rough draft of history", with the implication that a proper historian will soon be along to take over. Both are now overwhelmed by a tidal wave of film-makers, claiming the same licence to the word truth, but without any of its disciplines. The French director, Jean-Luc Godard, declared that cinema was "truth 24 frames a second". Bigelow, like Stone and Sheridan, feels justified in using possible inaccuracy to advance a cause. If they got it wrong, it was art. I wish I had that get-out. Keats has a lot to answer for in nonsensically identifying truth with beauty.
I believe films matter. The American critic Michael Medved once protested at Hollywood's relentless message, "that violence offers an effective solution for all human problems". He was howled down by the industry. It continued to argue that its glorification of violence and, more recently, Islamophobia, was somehow un-influential. The American show Criminal Minds features a serial killer of the week, excused by CBS's Nina Tassler as not inappropriate, "an adult show". Or, as Martin Scorsese put it back in the peaceable 1990s, "maybe we need the catharsis of bloodletting and decapitation" from time to time.
It insults reason to maintain that some filmed images are harmless fantasy while others can drive viewers to action. We ban incitement to violence and race hatred in other forms of performance as likely to influence behaviour. We likewise ban tobacco advertising. We know visual images influence how people see the world. As Woody Allen grimly reflected: "If I have made one more person feel miserable, I'll feel I've done my job."
Films appeal to inner fears and chauvinist prejudices. That is why Ben Affleck had a mild dig at the British in Argo, and Mel Gibson in Braveheart and The Patriot. It is why American movies imply America won the war, and British ones that Britain did. It is why Hollywood has stopped killing orientals and started killing Arabs. Films must now sell in China.
When communists rewrote history and wiped leaders from old photographs we ridiculed them. Yet we do the same. Claiming the lie as art leaves the door open for Chinese and other censors to pick and choose their own comforting "truths". Nothing should be banned, but the British Board of Film Classification should make itself useful and revise its categories. If "true story" appears in a film's preamble and is clearly wrong, the film should carry certificate L, for lie. We would then know where we stood.
Spot on oleguer. Its impossible to tell complicated historical stories in 90-120 minutes with limits on budget etc etc. Pretty much everyone understands this. Nobody is watching a film looking for a history lesson
"We've seen you come, we'll see you go"
Dont go to the cinema in Dublin much do you? Cunts cant even shut the fuck up for 5 minutes let alone digest a movie a plot.
The Wind That Shakes The Barley is a good example of that. Very simplistic rendering of a complicated story, but a great film.
Disagree. Neither time nor budgetary constraints were behind the decision to depart from the facts re the British embassy in Tehran - that was done purely for the purposes of making the story more dramatic. The real story is dramatic enough, for me it's displaying a shortcoming in the writing and directing if they can't adequately portray that drama on the screen and have to resort to fabrication. It's one thing to omit, quite another to invent IMO.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
