Film 2016

[Acker79]

Secret in their Eyes
I've seen the original Argentinian version and liked it very much, so I was watching this with a good idea of how it plays out. Chiwetel Ejiofor carries the film as a former FBI agent who, after years of searching, thinks he's found the man responsible for a crime he was unable to charge him with 13 years earlier, and it follows him as he meets up with his co-workers from the time in the hopes of convincing them to re-open the case. Old wounds and old relationships are re-visited

I thought the very good story of the original lost something in adaptation, and I'm not a fan of Nicole Kidman or Julia Roberts so found it hard to really care about their characters, which is a shame. Someone near me referred to it as 'good but not great' and 'would have liked a more redemptive ending'

Someone who doesn't know how it plays out may get a bit more out of it, but for me, it was just eh.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Secret in their Eyes
I've seen the original Argentinian version and liked it very much, so I was watching this with a good idea of how it plays out. Chiwetel Ejiofor carries the film as a former FBI agent who, after years of searching, thinks he's found the man responsible for a crime he was unable to charge him with 13 years earlier, and it follows him as he meets up with his co-workers from the time in the hopes of convincing them to re-open the case. Old wounds and old relationships are re-visited

I thought the very good story of the original lost something in adaptation, and I'm not a fan of Nicole Kidman or Julia Roberts so found it hard to really care about their characters, which is a shame. Someone near me referred to it as 'good but not great' and 'would have liked a more redemptive ending'

Someone who doesn't know how it plays out may get a bit more out of it, but for me, it was just eh.

I've literally just got back from the cinema having seen this. Knew nothing of the original or the story. Ejiofor was excellent, but the story itself was weak...it too long to build to something that was too predictable.

Basically, it's a perfectly good film, particularly if you have an unlimited card, but not one I'd watch again.
The Big Short, Deadpool and Spotlight on the other hand... Now they're excellent films, albeit in very different ways.

 

[studio150]

Triple 9
This was last night's Cineworld Unlimited Cardholders' Mystery Screening. A quite audible groan went up when the BBFC certificate came up. There was a hope among a lot of people it would be Deadpool. I'm going to see that anyway, so while I hoped that it was that, I'm not totally upset it wasn't.

A couple of people did get up and leave right away, though there was a big exodus around the 45 minute mark, which should give an idea of how good the film is, I suppose.

It has a good cast; Casey Affleck, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Woody Harrelson, Anthony Mackie, Kate Winslet, Gal Gadot, Norman Reedus, Aaron Paul, but it just felt like a typical bent cop story. It felt like a cross between Training Day, Street Kings, and Rampart.

There were some good scenes, some moments of well shot action, and tense moments, but generally it was hard to connect with or care about any of the cast, so hard to invest in their story.

Saw Triple 9 earlier this week and wished I hadn't (should have read your comments first). I also felt like giving up and leaving during the film but managed to stay to the end. Impressive cast but both Woody and Kate wasted in this film. I also found the film predictable in places.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I've literally just got back from the cinema having seen this. Knew nothing of the original or the story. Ejiofor was excellent, but the story itself was weak...it too long to build to something that was too predictable.

Basically, it's a perfectly good film, particularly if you have an unlimited card, but not one I'd watch again.

The original Argentinian version of The Secret in their Eyes was on BBC2 last night. It's available on iPlayer for the next six days

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01rr3tv/the-secret-in-their-eyes

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

I saw The Revenant today and would appear to be in the minority based on the reviews of others on this thread. Let me start with the positive:

It is beautifully, and I mean beautifully shot. From start to finish every scene is gorgeous. The vastness and bleakness of the environment captured perfectly, and for that alone it is probably worth the price of admission. If you want to see this film, see it on the big screen, anything less would be doing it a disservice. The opening half an hour whisked along as well, setting up the main protagonists, the tension between the interested parties for the land and some fantastically exciting action sequences were making it clear why there was so much buzz around this film. Unfortunately it started to lose it's way from there for me.

The journey of redemption became all a bit repetitive, one grunt and groan after another. With little in the way of character interaction for the most part, I found myself looking at the landscape rather than watching Glass crawl and wail from one place to the next. I'm not adverse to long movies but there wasn't enough plot to stretch it across two and a half hours, if it had been tighter by around 45 minutes I think I would have enjoyed it far more. Hardy's dialogue was also a source of frustration, often difficult to make out, at times accent waning also.

As a cinema experience it was breathtakingly brilliant but the script and plot didn't do it justice.

6/10

This for me. I appreciate it for the visual and visceral impact it has cinematically, and I appreciated the performance of Di Caprio who was excellent, but overall the film was a struggle.

The main bones of contention for me: -
1) Hardy's character - not his performance particularly - whose motivations lacked any depth.
2) The relationship between Di Caprio's character and his son - this was the driving motivation behind the film's revenge plot, yet I found it incredibly difficult to really feel a connection between the two. This is a massive frustration as the film is 2 and a half hours long - they could easily have built up that rapport more effectively so that the road to revenge felt more justified.
3) Linked into point (2), the plot was non-existent, meaning that my emotional tie to the film came from wanting him to get revenge for his son, yet, as stated in point 2, I didn't feel this connection meaning I felt the full force of the non-existent plot.
4) Hardy using his Bane voice - it wasn't constant, but it kept creeping in here and there, and I found that lack of consistency to be a distraction.

I'd say it's worth seeing on a big screen just for a few scenes and Di Caprio's performance, but I most certainly wouldn't spend another 2 and a half hours of my life re-watching it.

 

[Saturn]

Seeing Goosebumps (for the kid in me) and London Has Fallen this weekend and then Spotlight on Tuesday (at last). The Mrs hasn’t been interested in seeing the latter.

Last outing to Cineworld was for Deadpool… which was not my first choice, or even my choice at all. It’s been a while since a film has left such an emphasised polar opposite impression on me in comparison to the vast majority of viewers. I have little to no interest in Marvel or superhero-ey, comic book type films in general and this only reinforced that notion. Consequently it’d probably be unfair of me to grade it. I bless my unlimited card because I’d have felt suitably robbed if I had to fork over a tenner for that one.

I managed to get to 30 films last year, hoping to increase on that this time around.

 

[Acker79]

London Has Fallen
I remember Olympus Has Fallen as being more aware of its own silliness, and while not full embracing it Con Air style, it was still aware enough that you could have fun watching it.

This one seems to have forgotten that, and takes itself far too seriously. In the moment of watching it, I felt like it was trying to be more balanced and not fall into the trap of foreign = inherently even, with attempts made to acknowledge the complexities of foreign policy and how much our actions against terrorism affect the creation of new terrorists due to collateral damage, but on reflection, even that was mere surface and cliche. And ultimately, the film answers the question in a simple (and cliche, softball) way, when in the real world it still is too complex to properly answer.

Beyond that, the action and effects are no better than a generic B-movie, and it was quite dull for parts that are supposed to be the most tense.

And let's not start on the representation of non-americans, and the leaps in logic needed (early on a terrorist attack occurs when half of the thousands of police officers attending a funeral turn out to be terrorists in disguise - the police really didn't notice there were twice as many as they expected?).


Hail, Caesar!
For me, Coen films are a bit hit and miss. I never really liked The Big Leboawski, Burn after Reading, Intolerable Cruelty or The Ladykillers. I think Fargo and The Man who Wasn't There are alright, and I really liked True Grit, O, Brother, Where Art Thou?, No Country for Old Men and Inside Llewyn Davis. Having seen the trailer, I was looking forward to this.

Unfortunately, it didn't quite live up to the promise. The plot doesn't really make sense. There is humour there, but more of a 'heh' than a 'rofl' for the most part. It has moments, but overall I just didn't enjoy it. I did feel maybe I would like it on a second or third viewing, but I don't have any desire to watch it again any time soon.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

London Has Fallen
I remember Olympus Has Fallen as being more aware of its own silliness, and while not full embracing it Con Air style, it was still aware enough that you could have fun watching it.

This one seems to have forgotten that, and takes itself far too seriously. In the moment of watching it, I felt like it was trying to be more balanced and not fall into the trap of foreign = inherently even, with attempts made to acknowledge the complexities of foreign policy and how much our actions against terrorism affect the creation of new terrorists due to collateral damage, but on reflection, even that was mere surface and cliche. And ultimately, the film answers the question in a simple (and cliche, softball) way, when in the real world it still is too complex to properly answer.

Beyond that, the action and effects are no better than a generic B-movie, and it was quite dull for parts that are supposed to be the most tense.

And let's not start on the representation of non-americans, and the leaps in logic needed (early on a terrorist attack occurs when half of the thousands of police officers attending a funeral turn out to be terrorists in disguise - the police really didn't notice there were twice as many as they expected?).

I must say, I totally agree with all of this. I found some pleasure in the silliness of Gerard Butler's performance and some of the action/jokes, but overall I found myself at odds with the way it approached the issue of terrorism. I'm surprised that more hasn't been made of how politically incorrect this film is, and potentially how damaging its approach is/could be.

As for the plot holes... ouch.

 

[Saturn]

So I finally got to see Spotlight last night and I have to say I was not disappointed. I was impressed that they managed to make a such an uncomfortable subject matter into such a gripping movie, great ensemble performances all-round too. I'm pretty chuffed that I got to see it before it's theatrical run came to an end.

 

[biddles911]

Saw Hail Caesar a couple of days ago and really enjoyed it though I think you have to be from the older generation to really appreciate it as it refers back (lovingly) to such oldies but goodies as On the Town, Busby Berkeley films and Cecil B de Mille with multiple side swipes at the studio system, Hollywood gossip columnists, McCarthyism etc.

Clooney is in excellent self-deprecating mode and the whole cast clearly enjoyed themselves.

Go see and enjoy.....

 

[Acker79]

Latest trailer for Captain America: Civil War.

 

[Surf's Up]

Saw Hail Caesar a couple of days ago and really enjoyed it though I think you have to be from the older generation to really appreciate it as it refers back (lovingly) to such oldies but goodies as On the Town, Busby Berkeley films and Cecil B de Mille with multiple side swipes at the studio system, Hollywood gossip columnists, McCarthyism etc.

Clooney is in excellent self-deprecating mode and the whole cast clearly enjoyed themselves.

Go see and enjoy.....

Agree with this - its not laugh out loud funny but it has a feel-good factor and is born out of the Coen Bros love of Hollywood. Clooney hams it up, as do all the "stars", so its a bit of harmless fun. Not the Coen Bros best by a long chalk but enjoyable none the less.

 

[Meade's Ball]

So, i'm back from Hail Caesar! I have to say that i only enjoyed it for minutes here and there really. Whilst a continuous ode to films long gone, some of those bows to an era were not astonishing impersonations. The Ralph Feinnes scene was incredibly funny and a few others tickled, but it wasn't a joyous watch. It's been a long time since the Coens put together a real comedy, and i hope they go back to something stylish, brooding and menacing with its every now and again comic moments. Still, weren't all bad, and there doesn't seem much out there at the minute.

 

[Acker79]

Kung Fu panda 3
There is, naturally, a degree of quality drop off, as is often the case with sequels, but this was still a fun watch. Simple story, lush artwork, enthusiastic voicing.

The Witch
Another one of those "best horror movies in x years" that is seemingly loved by everyone, yet I watch and think 'that's it?' I struggle to find films scary when there are elements that emphasise that it's a film. In this instance, it's the soundtrack. One quick way to stop me investing in your horror movie is to play loud tense music, especially when it's being played at points when there's no reason to feel tense. It irritates me and detaches me from the story. the use of Enochian English just seemed to be too gimmicky, and was at times poorly levelled so you'd miss what was said, either due to it being too quiet or too obscure.

 

[glasfryn]

Spotlight
best I have seen for ages

 

[Meade's Ball]

Finally used the girlfriend's Barbican membership this morning to see Anomalisa on the relatively cheap - £6, not bad. What happened was, though, that we walked in maybe 1 or 2 minutes late. Some films you can walk in past the intro and opening credits without it affecting your feeling and full understanding of the film, but for some of it i felt as if i've missed 20 minutes or more and a myriad of characters being named and given background. Only when we left the cinema did i realise we'd missed so little. Anywho, the film itself was mostly alright-to-good.
Shooting this tale of midlife crisis with stop-motion puppets, quite beautifully constructed, was rather swiftly forgotten as the painful ordinariness of their surroundings and the grating mundaneness of everyday smalltalk brought realism to the comical drama. David Thewlis plays/is the voice of Michael Stone, travelling to Cincinnati for a day to speak at a conference with snippets of his popular book about delivering perfect customer service. The rest of the world all has the same voice, including that of his wife and son, telling us of Michael's feelings of ennui to all other humans, and really of himself and his burning death of interest to goings on. All until he hears the most ordinary woman, Lisa, with a different voice, and must have her at all costs.

It's written and directed by Charlie Kaufman, and the tone of it has that nagging intranquility attached to near-bursting self-dissatisfaction that we've seen with other stuff by him. This works for some of it, particularly with the comedic nature of the first 20 minutes with the drones all welcoming him to the city almost identically, but parts of it seemed rushed narratively and i didn't quite go along with certain leaps or suddenness of his behavioural changes. Anyway, it was generally good though, and well-crafted, and mirthfully pained. A human, puppeted tale, yes, but didn't ring true throughout.

 

[dannyboy]

Finally used the girlfriend's Barbican membership this morning to see Anomalisa on the relatively cheap - £6, not bad. What happened was, though, that we walked in maybe 1 or 2 minutes late. Some films you can walk in past the intro and opening credits without it affecting your feeling and full understanding of the film, but for some of it i felt as if i've missed 20 minutes or more and a myriad of characters being named and given background. Only when we left the cinema did i realise we'd missed so little. Anywho, the film itself was mostly alright-to-good.
Shooting this tale of midlife crisis with stop-motion puppets, quite beautifully constructed, was rather swiftly forgotten as the painful ordinariness of their surroundings and the grating mundaneness of everyday smalltalk brought realism to the comical drama. David Thewlis plays/is the voice of Michael Stone, travelling to Cincinnati for a day to speak at a conference with snippets of his popular book about delivering perfect customer service. The rest of the world all has the same voice, including that of his wife and son, telling us of Michael's feelings of ennui to all other humans, and really of himself and his burning death of interest to goings on. All until he hears the most ordinary woman, Lisa, with a different voice, and must have her at all costs.

It's written and directed by Charlie Kaufman, and the tone of it has that nagging intranquility attached to near-bursting self-dissatisfaction that we've seen with other stuff by him. This works for some of it, particularly with the comedic nature of the first 20 minutes with the drones all welcoming him to the city almost identically, but parts of it seemed rushed narratively and i didn't quite go along with certain leaps or suddenness of his behavioural changes. Anyway, it was generally good though, and well-crafted, and mirthfully pained. A human, puppeted tale, yes, but didn't ring true throughout.

one of the weirdest films ive ever seen I think. I wouldn't recommend it but for some reason I had to watch it to the end!

 

[Saturn]

Allegiant - 6/10

Rather disappointing all in all. I really enjoyed Divergent but instalments 2 and 3 have fallen quite flat.

 

[Meade's Ball]

So, what i remember of that Cloverfield film most was the warning on the ticket booth of the ever-chilly Holloway Odeon stating that those who suffer from epilepsy might be bet to stay away. Now, i don't and didn't, but a doctor said i likely would a couple of years before the film was out, and i entered the cinema in a daring, but mostly worried, fashion. From what i loosely recall of the film itself, i found it a tad annoying, but not enough to send me into a fit. Anywho, today, i went to see what is described as a distant relative to that film, 10 Cloverfield Lane, a film that is indeed different, but mildly preys on the knowledge inside of viewers of the last film.

At the start of the film, i felt something a bit Hitchcocky, both musically and of our female lead beginning her journey, which, in a very shortened effort, felt Psycho-ish. Now, this journey i mention was reasonably brief, as her car spins violently and clears off of the road. She awakens in unpleasant surroundings, chained to a pipe and not a window in sight, and it feels like we might be heading in the direction of a torture porn pic. Her seeming captor is played by John Goodman, a monstrously large chap that for all his sometime gentleness in acting history still has a sense of indestructible menace in his form, but his most terrifying tool is usually the opening of the vast metal door to her room in the bunker - the sound effects to each time its torn open are so loud and alarming that ones ears prick up in horror and fright. Soon after we hear of Goodman's possible innocence, that he is in fact keeping her safe from a dangerous attack up on Earth's surface. From there we meet fellow "prisoner", Emmet, and an hour and a bit of claustrophobic suspense follows of who and where is the real threat on these people's lives.

I quite liked it. Goodman is always a reliable watch and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, dressed for a large part of it in a Ripley fashion, is a reasonable lead. It has its black comedy moments in the limited mini-world underground space, and a couple of surprising instances that i wasn't expecting, aided by the sound effects which play a bigger and better part than usual in such a film.That ruddy door i don't want to hear again. Yeah it weren't bad for what it was.

 

[Barry Izbak]

London has fallen.
Silly
5/10