Page 853 of 1111

Re: movies

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:51 pm
by Andy Hall
Just got back from Cloud Atlas, amazing film, I will be seeing it again because I did get lost once or twice then clicked again, but clever, ambitious and I would have watchedeach film as stand alone movies


I can see many hating it though, but for me 9/10 what cinema was built for

Re: movies

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:43 pm
by Luke_X
Andy Hall wrote:Just got back from Cloud Atlas, amazing film, I will be seeing it again because I did get lost once or twice then clicked again, but clever, ambitious and I would have watchedeach film as stand alone movies


I can see many hating it though, but for me 9/10 what cinema was built for



The Daily Mail have already professed their hate for it, but then again, their movie critic's opinion is about as valuable as a plate of rotten fish. As far as I can remember, the only set of films theyve ever given a slightly decent review of is the Harry Potter films.

Re: movies

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 1:00 am
by AnnihiSlateR
Andy Hall wrote:Just got back from Cloud Atlas, amazing film, I will be seeing it again because I did get lost once or twice then clicked again, but clever, ambitious and I would have watchedeach film as stand alone movies


I can see many hating it though, but for me 9/10 what cinema was built for

I saw it too tonight. (this is copied from another forum I use)

Obviously, Spoilers ahead to others.


First thing I'd like to moan about, it's a big multiplex, there's 2 or 3 floors so no shortage of screens. So why was a film with this sort of scope on the night of release put in the smallest screen I've been in at that cinema (with I'd say 2/3 of seats filled), and Movie 43 the other week in probably the biggest screen in the building (with not even 2/3 of a row filled).

but anyway, it's the same film irrespective of size, so on we go...

I feel kind of mixed about it. There's no way I can really say much without giving stuff away. Firstly great acting/makeup/costume. I didn't recognise some of the actors in certain roles, especially cross gender roles. That impressed me.
I feel overall like it was perhaps pushing in too many directions, like it's part comedy, part thriller, part action, part period drama, there's jokes, sex, death, meditations on life, all that was missing was the OAP's having a good sing song. And I kind of felt like I never knew how I should feel. And I think as well I never made enough of an emotional investment in any one story line to really connect and get as much out of it as I should. Like when Sonmi-451 makes her speech, or rather is recounting it, I feel that should have hit hard and had a lot of emotional impact, but I just don't feel I knew the character(s) well enough to care as much as I should.
I also felt the connecting themes should be stronger, and I think the message needed to be driven home harder. Like when Robert Frobisher writes the Cloud Atlas Sextet, I felt there should have been a melody that the character hums or whistles in a life before his current, and then I get that Luisa Rey hears the music play on the turntable in the record store, and I think it plays in the restaurant, but I think it needed to be more obvious like a motif that connects them all thematically. And at the end when Tom Hanks and Halle Berry's character are together, the child asks if he loves her (Berry's character), Instead of basically just saying yes, I felt like he should have said words the the effect, I always have done, and I always will do. As in a previous life they almost end up together, and then he felt they had something despite just meeting her. I get that Hae-Joo Chang / Adam Ewing both try and stop slavery in both lifes, but I felt like they should perhaps have hammered home the idea of life being eternal, and certain things that are meant to be. Almost like pre destiny. I feel like that's the sort of theme that holds the whole thing together, like this inexplicable tie certain people have throughout time, who go through the same things and feel the same things. But all we really get is Sonmi-451 with the one door closes another opens part of the speech, which to me came across more as a sort of, you don't die, you just get reincarnated. The sense of connection that I felt should have been there just wasn't for me.

However it's not all bad. Like I say, fantastic acting, scenery, shots. It was a really good film, and would make however many great short films, it's just the tying together of them that was the only let down for me. One chap loudly exclaimed, that was the longest 3 hours of my life when it finished. But I very much disagree, it didn't seem that long at all to me. I'd still give it 4 fists fists easily, despite my criticisms.

Re: movies

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:30 am
by Andy Hall
I agree with that completely, I think that the fact I would have watched all the films seperately if they were released as stand alone films says a lot about how good they were

The 2 really young guys that were opposite me hated it mind you,didn't understand it at all :lol:

Re: movies

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:43 am
by Fjar
Neil, I think the fact you picked up on all those things tells me that they achieved their goal in getting those concepts across. I personally think that anything more obvious than how it was would have been too much of a slap in the face. I liked the subtlety.

My only gripe was the make-up and prosthesis, actually. I'm not surprised that the team weren't nominated for the Oscar. The Mexican woman at the end of Luisa Rey's story was Doona Bae, but the prosthesis was so heavy on her that her face hardly moved when she spoke her lines.

Re: movies

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 11:13 am
by AnnihiSlateR
I don't know if I agree with you. I think as a piece of film rather than what I assume is some sort of meditation on the nature of existence in terms of the story itself, I think you need the pay off after the investment you make into it. To me as much as aspects of the end were fantastic, a lot just felt a bit too understated. They're dealing with this idea that is huge, and I just felt like it was brushed under the carpet a bit at the end. Yes, I did get the key ideas, but they were sort of pieced together along the way, I'd have just liked to go out with a big life affirming bang, confirming what's been suggested all along and giving you that sense of satisfaction. Tom Hanks as the old Zachry at the end saying "I always have, I always will" when asked by the kid if he loved Meronym, I don't think would have been too big of a spoon feeding, you have to understand what's going on to understand what he would have meant by that, and it's deeper significance. Rather than whatever he actually said which was tantamount to 'yes'.

Re: movies

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 11:15 am
by angel_of_death
AnnihiSlateR wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:Just got back from Cloud Atlas, amazing film, I will be seeing it again because I did get lost once or twice then clicked again, but clever, ambitious and I would have watchedeach film as stand alone movies


I can see many hating it though, but for me 9/10 what cinema was built for

I saw it too tonight. (this is copied from another forum I use)

Obviously, Spoilers ahead to others.


First thing I'd like to moan about, it's a big multiplex, there's 2 or 3 floors so no shortage of screens. So why was a film with this sort of scope on the night of release put in the smallest screen I've been in at that cinema (with I'd say 2/3 of seats filled), and Movie 43 the other week in probably the biggest screen in the building (with not even 2/3 of a row filled).



I haven't seen it yet, so I can't comment on the film itself, but despite the cast it seems to have had a very Indie style handling. I've seen very little press for it, I think I've only seen one trailer for it, and I don't think I've seen many posters for it either. I'm not surprised it was in the smallest screen, and, if it flops the studio have nobody to blame but themselves.

Re: movies

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:06 pm
by Fjar
AnnihiSlateR wrote:I don't know if I agree with you. I think as a piece of film rather than what I assume is some sort of meditation on the nature of existence in terms of the story itself, I think you need the pay off after the investment you make into it. To me as much as aspects of the end were fantastic, a lot just felt a bit too understated. They're dealing with this idea that is huge, and I just felt like it was brushed under the carpet a bit at the end. Yes, I did get the key ideas, but they were sort of pieced together along the way, I'd have just liked to go out with a big life affirming bang, confirming what's been suggested all along and giving you that sense of satisfaction. Tom Hanks as the old Zachry at the end saying "I always have, I always will" when asked by the kid if he loved Meronym, I don't think would have been too big of a spoon feeding, you have to understand what's going on to understand what he would have meant by that, and it's deeper significance. Rather than whatever he actually said which was tantamount to 'yes'.


But [SPOILERS, OH HOLY CHRIST THE SPOILERS] Tom Hanks' character in the South Pacific story is a deranged, murderous doctor, and Halle Berry's character is a slave. They don't love each other, and they only begin to notice each other in the Luisa Rey storyline, which ends prematurely and badly for him, and the Tim Cavendish storyline barely points out the relationship at all. They don't meet in the Sonmi-451 story, so it's all in the final Zachry-Meronym story that the relationship even begins to evolve.

I just don't think it's that much of a significant part of the film, and to give the audience the 'life affirming bang' would place too much emphasis on the Zachry-Meronym story at the expense of the Sonmi-Hae Joo, Tim-Ursula, Adam-Tilda, Robert-Sixsmith stories. I think they were all nicely balanced out and they did all they could to resolve the film.

Re: movies

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:07 pm
by Andy Hall
SPOILERS BIG TIME

The thing is though if Hanks had said that, that would say he knew about his past lives, which I didn't get any feeling they were supposed to

And the whole film was based around love crossing time and space, there were only 2 characters, the 2 guys were also the other 2 that found love in each story, they become every character in each, when he's in the house he becomes the slave, his lover the guy trying to save him, ad time goes on he becomes the next character as the slave be that man or woman

Well that's how I took it, Tom Hanks was also the assassin but it wad his soul in the other men not his physical shape, so he becomes the assassin in the next story too, but in another form, the twist being that original form of Tom Hanks character falls for the slave he was originally trying to kill, love and redemption

Ie don't look at the actors, it's the soul of the charcter that is what this is about, the assassin is the same assassin in ever character, the slave the same slave etc etc, no matter who plays them, when Tom Hanks dies, the assassin finally gets his man, the twist being it's his original body he kills, but he managed to kill him so he has not failed unlike his past life

Re: movies

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 3:33 pm
by Luke_X
Working my way through the Resident Evil films as I'm bought them on offer on blu ray.

Resident Evil - your basic zombie film with the occasional fight/action sequence. The film finishes with plenty of potential. 7/10

Resident Evil Apocalypse - basically its an action film with zombies in it, and take a big shit on the 2/3 games its taking elements from. Well its starts off ok but quickly spirals into unbelievability and stupidity. Still doesn't change my mind about being one of the worst films I've ever seen. 3/10

On to the next lot later.

Re: movies

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 4:57 pm
by AnnihiSlateR
Andy Hall wrote:SPOILERS BIG TIME

The thing is though if Hanks had said that, that would say he knew about his past lives, which I didn't get any feeling they were supposed to


That's a point I hadn't thought about.

Fjar wrote:
I just don't think it's that much of a significant part of the film, and to give the audience the 'life affirming bang' would place too much emphasis on the Zachry-Meronym story at the expense of the Sonmi-Hae Joo, Tim-Ursula, Adam-Tilda, Robert-Sixsmith stories. I think they were all nicely balanced out and they did all they could to resolve the film.

Also a fair point. I slightly disagree in as much as that scene bookends the film, and I feel it would have provided a nice summation. But I do see your point.

I've ordered the book, so I'm going to see how different or similar it is in there.

Re: movies

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 7:59 pm
by Applecore
Watched Father's Day again last night, from Troma and Astron-6 (the guys behind ManBorg, and starring most of the cast).
An otherworldly serial killer that rapes and kills fathers gets taken out by a man named Ahab, nobody knows if he was avenging his own father, or just crazy. Anyway, years later the killer returns and it's up to Ahab to team up with a male prostitute, a priest and his stripper sister to take down the Fuchman once and for all.
Boobs, gore, maple syrup.
8/10

Re: movies

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:37 am
by Delightful-Jim
The Oscar winners were hilariously predictable.


I'd have loved it if Seth McFarlene won the Oscar for best Original Song, because it means beating Adele in something :lol:

Re: movies

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:13 am
by Moonburp
Just watched Rango. Absolutely loved it and the sound design was boss.

Re: movies

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:15 pm
by Applecore
Rango is awesome. I like how total hyperactivity and batshit mental characters seem to be an ongoing thing with most kids animation films. Especially Dreamworks.