Stylin_and_Profilin Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Just finished watching A.W.O.L Â Total 80's cheese at it's finest but another film that used to get put on at various friends houses whenever i was staying over when we were younger, brought back a lot of funny memories. Not much else to say really but a warm nostalgic glow. Bloodsport probably still edges it as my favourite Van Damme effort but still a good fun action movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steveo2007 Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 (edited) Hostel Part II Some really sick moments as are to be expected in this sort of film. Quite cringeworthy actually in some of the gore bits, I found myself holding my knackers and shuddering. Those who have seen it will sympathise.SPOILERS That bit with the shy woman being strung upside down and gutted was absolutely horribly scary. I nearly lost my dinner (I had the touch of the Flu at the time). Horrible stuff. SPOILER The ending with the man tied up in the chair when the girl ripped his cock off and fed it to the dogs, now that was pretty sick. Oh and watched Beowulf yesterday which I thought was a surprisingly good watch Edited March 19, 2008 by Steveo2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tequila_Boy Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Watched all 6 Star Wars' over the last few days. The originals spunk all over the prequels in every sense, storyline, acting and suprisingly, CGI-wise.Also watched Cars again just now. Great fun little family film.Gonna watch Batman Begins in a minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Seven Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Hostel II is unworthy of any discussion, positive or negative. Kindly stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steveo2007 Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Hostel II is unworthy of any discussion, positive or negative. Kindly stop.don't worry we're done anyway.Cars is a wonderful kids film that I find to be quite enjoyable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members DEF Posted March 19, 2008 Paid Members Share Posted March 19, 2008 (edited) The Last King of ScotlandI watched this earlier today.. and I thought it was really really good. Forrest Whitaker's acting is top notch.. and there were parts in the film that were really gripping. Quality film.Has anyone seen 'There will be blood'?.. I've been wanting to watch if for a while now (mainly because Day Lewis is in it).. is it any good?I think its a bit of a marmite movie. Its got a lot of acclaim so some people must like it, but I didn't. Danny Day Lewis IS awesome in it though, a very impressive performance. If the film was about an hr shorter and made the narrative solely around him trying to acquire the oil and power from the preacher character then I don't think I would have been left thinking what was the point? But that is the point. Paul Thomas Anderson has decided he wants to make the film, to tell this graphic story, without the constraints of modern cinema. Instead the film is given a lot more freedom, outside of 'begining' 'middle' and 'climax' segmentation. You are taken on a trip, and just like a good book which moulds the words to it's narrative ignoring constraint, and the film is better for it. I don't know about that mate, sounds a bit like something written in a press junket when they know a film is too pretentious. I mean how is it a more graphic story? its not like the characters ark is any more developed than a regular film. He goes from being greedy to bitter because hes greedy. Not like we haven't seen that before a lot better developed. Furthermore it clearly has a beginning, middle and climax. The problem is that it has such a wafer thin through narrative that the 'climax' is tacked on. It IS a piece of modern cinema. It HAS ALL the constraints of modern cinema, including, but not only, audience perception, character development and narrative pacing. The reason these 'constraints' as you say are there in the first place is because thats how cinema functions, rightly in some instances or wrongly in others. A good book functions exactly the same way as a good cinema in that they both provide strong narrative entertainment. Books have different 'constraints' which serve them best to derive the desired effect from the audience. These differences in constraints between cinema and literature create misconceptions when they are compared with each other. For instance the old 'a good book is better than the film' idea comes from the comparisons of the two mediums different constraints. This comparison wrongly concludes that one is inferior to the other because when comparing the two mediums functions inevitably one will not be able to function in the same way as the other. A film can not function at 10hrs in length in the same way a book can not function in 20 minutes.What I'm trying to say is that both mediums are best served with out comparisons as they both impart important artistic and articulate ideas but in different ways. I think I went on a tangent there but hey, you got my tiny mind ticking lol. Also do you not think that the so called 'freedom' (if by freedom you mean underdevelopment) of the narrative is in fact a lot more restrictive because of it. Since the film is more or less a misguided biography of one character, the narrative and any of the other characters are subsequently underdeveloped and uninteresting.Its interesting that even though I didn't particularly enjoy it I'm quite interested in discussing it. I guess I'm quite intrigued by its acclaim. Maybe I'm over thinking the whole thing but I'll say this, at the very least the film seems like it was intended to be thought about (but not so much in that it tried to make a point). Edited March 19, 2008 by DEF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIDDUM_N_STYLE Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 seen jumper last week with my girlfriend. decent film but a bit wierd in partswe're going to see diary of the dead tonight so ill give a verdict later on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted March 20, 2008 Moderators Share Posted March 20, 2008 I'm not a big Star Wars fan anyway, but what they did with the CGI for the special editions of them is so disgraceful. It just looks awful and disjointed and is so hugely unneccesary. It really adds nothing at all.The newer Star Wars films' lazy over-reliance on fx perfectly exemplify everything I hate about CGI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heatseeker Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Whats wrong with Hostel 2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tequila_Boy Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 (edited) Watched all 6 Star Wars' over the last few days. The originals spunk all over the prequels in every sense, storyline, acting and suprisingly, CGI-wise.The (original) originals weren't CGI'd up. It was largely done with models for the vehicles and prosthetics for the actors rather than JarJar cunting Binks which is why it looks so "real." Some of the action sequences were tidied up a bit with the Special Edition retreads which added to them, but I still cringe everytime I see Jabba in New Hope. It's amazing how quickly Phantom Menace has aged already compared to RotS.they should of stuck to the old way then. The explosion of the queen's ship in Attack of the Clones is the worst piece of modern CGI I have ever seen. Jar Jar is the only decent thing in the new films and only in film 1 is he any good.What do people make of them putting Hayden Christiansen (or w/e his name is ) in as a force ghost at the end of the Old films. I don't mind it, it allows Luke to remember his father as a young, pure, 'good-guy', rather than the shivvelled up mess he saw him as. Edited March 20, 2008 by Tequila_Boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cum Doctor Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Eastern Promises  Well, this movie certainly doesn't do much for me. Although in saying that, I really enjoyed the scene in the bath-house, but that's pretty much the generic praise for the movie by now. What I didn't like is how Viggo's character was seemingly the only threatening one in there, outside of the the brothers in said bath-house scene. The old man just was not threatening in the slightest, and his son just made me think "what a goof", so it was all down to Viggo to drag me in, and to be fair, he did a good enough job of that. So I lost all interest again when things started to get revealed.  I guess it's a decent enough way to spend a couple of hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members bAzTNM#1 Posted March 21, 2008 Paid Members Share Posted March 21, 2008 Was quite disappointed in that "Basketball Diaries" film with Di Caprio. What does everybody else think about it?Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legendkiller Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Went to see The Cottage the other night, first 45 mins was good with comedy then after that it just went fucked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Egg Shen Posted March 21, 2008 Paid Members Share Posted March 21, 2008 Watched all 6 Star Wars' over the last few days. The originals spunk all over the prequels in every sense, storyline, acting and suprisingly, CGI-wise.The (original) originals weren't CGI'd up. It was largely done with models for the vehicles and prosthetics for the actors rather than JarJar cunting Binks which is why it looks so "real." Some of the action sequences were tidied up a bit with the Special Edition retreads which added to them, but I still cringe everytime I see Jabba in New Hope. It's amazing how quickly Phantom Menace has aged already compared to RotS.they should of stuck to the old way then. The explosion of the queen's ship in Attack of the Clones is the worst piece of modern CGI I have ever seen. Jar Jar is the only decent thing in the new films and only in film 1 is he any good.What do people make of them putting Hayden Christiansen (or w/e his name is ) in as a force ghost at the end of the Old films. I don't mind it, it allows Luke to remember his father as a young, pure, 'good-guy', rather than the shivvelled up mess he saw him as.did i read that right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members DEF Posted March 21, 2008 Paid Members Share Posted March 21, 2008 Watched all 6 Star Wars' over the last few days. The originals spunk all over the prequels in every sense, storyline, acting and suprisingly, CGI-wise.The (original) originals weren't CGI'd up. It was largely done with models for the vehicles and prosthetics for the actors rather than JarJar cunting Binks which is why it looks so "real." Some of the action sequences were tidied up a bit with the Special Edition retreads which added to them, but I still cringe everytime I see Jabba in New Hope. It's amazing how quickly Phantom Menace has aged already compared to RotS.they should of stuck to the old way then. The explosion of the queen's ship in Attack of the Clones is the worst piece of modern CGI I have ever seen. Jar Jar is the only decent thing in the new films and only in film 1 is he any good.What do people make of them putting Hayden Christiansen (or w/e his name is ) in as a force ghost at the end of the Old films. I don't mind it, it allows Luke to remember his father as a young, pure, 'good-guy', rather than the shivvelled up mess he saw him as.did i read that right Seconded, I read it three times before I realised he is quite insane. Jar Jar is THE worst thing in any of those films (and thats saying something). Some times I fear for your sanity TB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts