PongRiddims Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Don't be, you lose a lot in everyday conversation as there are more film references used than you would imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 I've only ever seen four films, ET, American Pie, Scarface and Rocky and I only watched Rocky for the first time today, two hours and it turns out it's all about love what a crock. This is why I don't watch films, he didn't even win the fight absolutely devastated for him, his missus is a bit rope too I watched more than that on a flight to Oz But Christmas at your house must have been pants without the traditional James Bond film after the Xmas Turkey ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 I've only ever seen four films, ET, American Pie, Scarface and Rocky and I only watched Rocky for the first time today, two hours and it turns out it's all about love what a crock. This is why I don't watch films, he didn't even win the fight absolutely devastated for him, his missus is a bit rope too FFS Spoilers mate Yeah shit sorry I can only possibly ruin three other films though on the plus side, American Pie he **** the ginger one, ET he goes home and Scarface he goes bat shit crazy. ****spoilers above please don't read if you haven't seen the films mentioned above**** just f*** off now 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 I've only ever seen four films, ET, American Pie, Scarface and Rocky and I only watched Rocky for the first time today, two hours and it turns out it's all about love what a crock. This is why I don't watch films, he didn't even win the fight absolutely devastated for him, his missus is a bit rope too Perhaps it's time for you to try some films made for grown-ups? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chindie Posted July 19, 2015 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) So, Ant-Man. Marvel's 12th installment in it's Cinematic Universe, and a new character to most people, comes to the screen after a long and rocky development. Edgar Wright, the man behind Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and Scott Pilgrim versus the World, had wanted to make an Ant-Man movie for years, before even Iron Man was a twinkle in Marvel's movie eye, but the project constantly stalled and span it's wheels, until finally with the Marvel juggernaut seemingly unstoppable Marvel committed to actually making the movie. It made sense for the studio. The character is actually one with a long and storied history in the Marvel comics. There have been 4 Ant-Men over the years, Hank Pym, Scott Lang, Eric O'Grady and Chris McCarthy, but people only tend to care about the first 2 (notably I suspect because Eric O'Grady was a pervert in the comics in essence, and Hank and Scott had the longest and most interesting histories of the lot), and each have been Avengers mainstays, with Hank Pym in particular being a character that is at this point a foundation of the Avengers to the extent it's hard to remove him from it, and has numerous storylines and 'moments' in his back story that are easy to mine for movie plots. So it came to be that we'd have an Ant-Man film, Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish drafting numerous scripts and after years in development finally getting started with a movie in 2013. For about 6 months. Edgar Wright had a difference of opinion with the studio, left the project he'd worked on for the best part of a decade, and Peyton Reed was parachuted in to save the whole thing. Paul Rudd had been hired to play Scott Lang and went through the whole script with Adam McKay (who briefly was considered to take on the directors chair himself) making small adjustments to Wright and Cornish's script to tie it more successfully to Marvel's Universe, which the studio guards jealously. Given the problems the film has had, from it getting off the ground at all to a last minute director change and rewrite, and the inherent issue that the character is a bit daft in the eyes of most people (something the film acknowledged in it's first trailer, which seemed almost embarrassed of itself), and tha fact it sits as an odd footnote to Phase 2 after the (literally) earth shattering finale of Age of Ultron, it's hard not to be skeptical of Ant-Man. I certainly was. As much as I love these movies I know they are not flawless, and thats even when you expect them to knock it out of the park (Age of Ultron should have been a homerun from the moment someone thought to do a sequel to Avengers, and whilst it was certainly a good blockbuster it was a bit of a stumble from the standard of the first movie, and we all know Iron Man 2 was a bit ropey). That feeling wasn't helped by word of mouth at preview screenings attached to Jurassic World showings in the US, which noted odd and flat humour and the whole thing feeling more than a little dull. And then the reviews came out last week. Which generally said this was the best of Marvel's efforts this year. Hmm... We open with a shot of the Triskelion, SHIELD's HQ last seen having a helicarrier smash into it in Captain America Winter Soldier. It's 1989 and the building isn't actually finished yet, and we cut to the expected secret boardroom bunker thing with some familiar faces in suits, with Hank Pym (a digitally altered younger looking Michael Douglas) striding in and pissed off. Hank has discovered that SHIELD wants his technology, a serum he has developed that allows the user immense abilities. He resigns SHIELD on the spot and vows they'll never have access to it. We cut to the present day with Rudd's Scott Lang leaving prison. He's served a 3 year sentence for burglary, and we discover that he has been an adept cat burglar, but needs to go straight if he's ever to spend any time as a figure in his daughters life. Of course, that can't last and soon he's back in the game... He and his crew have heard about a rich old guy having a safe in his basement clearly filled with valuables and the old man is away for the week. We see the crew at work, the safe is cracked and they discover it to be empty, bar some odd almost retro suit and helmet... What follows is a heist movie as we watch Scott Lang, mentored by Hank Pym and his daughter, become the Ant-Man to steal a new threat that is inspired by the Ant-Man technology but doesn't consider the risks inherent in using that tech... Everything about Ant-Man coming out of the media has been how this is a small scale movie, one where the stakes are altered from the usual superhero comic book fare. And that is refreshing. Our villain here isn't some intergalactic despot, nor does he plot world domination. He just wants to develop a new piece of technology to sell to the highest bidder and is ruthless in his ways and means to do it. Our hero isn't a billionaire playboy philanthropist with an indestructible suit of armor, nor does he have a magic hammer, turn into a green rage monster nor is he a paragon of righteousness instilled in the height of human capability. He's a thief who doesn't like violence and had a bit of a Robin Hood streak, who gets a suit that makes him tiny but increases his strength, and is mentored by an old man with a haunted look in his eye and a temper. We've come to expect bigger more fantastical spectacle from our blockbusters than the set up Ant-Man provides, and yet it's satisfying still. The film subverts some of these expectations in very knowing ways - we get our CGI specatacular closing action sequence but the scale is appropriately reduced, and the whole thing is mined for gags. It does try to make the stakes more impactful, with some shallow and hamfisted attempts to underline that we are talking world altering ramifications if the heroes fail, but it doesn't really need it. The stakes obviously on offer are enough, even if they, from a pure plot logic point of view would have you say afterwards 'Actually... why were they even trying to stop him?'. It is a comedy. From the get go with a undercurrent of jokes and gags, some fantastic visual gags (special call out to the 'do you want any sugar' scene - a very British visual gag played perfectly with 2 pay offs), and a whole character that steals every scene he's in basically being comic relief, the film wants to amuse you. Amuse is the right word here. It's not expecting to have you rolling in the aisles. It wants to have you smile and giggle and snigger. And it is funny. It missteps though. There are a lot of gags the film almost throws away. Lines that might have raised a smile if they played them differently. Too often there are lines that the film throws in with no attention to paid to them or any room to breath and the obviously funny line is swept over. It's very strange and I do wonder if these lines are holdovers from the Wright and Cornish script - their films have lots of these gags and they know how to play them to just draw enough attention to them to earn the laugh without signposting it. Here the joke isn't signposted at all and the laugh misses the junction entirely. But even saying that, you will laugh and smile. Michael Pena is the corner stone of the film's humour and many reviews are right in saying he's a scene stealer. A slightly dozy associate of Scott Lang, he grins his way through the whole movie and jokes and comedic scenes hang off the character like tinsel on a Christmas tree, including a couple of very Wright esque scenes that work brilliantly. Mentioning Wright again, it's fairly easy to see why he might have felt he needed to leave this project. The film slaps references to Marvels other properties everywhere. Names are dropped, cameos happen (most of them, to the film's credit, unexpected), theres a whole sequence at the end I would stake good money will be revisted by another character in the future. There is the hand of the studio all over it and you can see the joints where Wright's enigmatic style smashes into the Marvel behemoth and gets neutered a little. You are left with the feeling that Wright's movie would have been a more over all interesting and worthy thing, but would sit as an even more awkward oddity in the Marvel stable than it was already going to be, and ultimately the studio was not going to let that happen. This makes the tone odd as well. It's a comedy movie but it has some strange less light moments where it builds mythos or ties in to the existing Marvel legend (almost always involving Hank Pyms past) that almost feel like a different movie, although to be entirely clear a movie I would happily watch. The cast is pretty good across the board. Paul Rudd is a presence in movies I don't usually like but here does good work with a character that is in all honestly a bit bland, Scott Lang isn't defined by anything like his superhero stable mates so ultimately we have a fairly normal guy who can crack a gag. Michael Douglas is probably the standout of the bunch as Hank Pym. He captures elements of the comic character brilliantly - Hank in the comics is a flawed character, he's not blessed with patience and is haunted by horrors of his own design (he is the creator of Ultron, for example, in the paper based universe) - with a performance that seems to have the anger and pathos of the character just hidden from view. The film also knows that members of the audience expect certain things of Pym knowing his character from years of plots, so plays with those expectations, going to the extent of laying hints of seeds of a plot as red herrings that I enjoyed immensely. Evangeline Lilly plays Pym's somewhat estranged daughter Hope, a spicy prickly woman who, to the films credit, is not overtly sexualised, but is also a bit of a thin character that the film could have probably excised entirely. Corey Stroll plays Darren Cross, Pyms former protege who has superceded him and is now developing his own version of the Ant-Man tech, the Yellowjacket (which in the comics was actually one of Pyms alteregos, fact fans). Stroll suffers from the usual issue with Marvel villains, they aren't terribly well developed, but he makes a good fist of it. I actually think the film might have benefitted from more time with Cross, he's given his motivations (and they aren't bad - he's not simply evil) but they could have been developed further, as the film has the tantalising glimpse of an idea that it never fully plays with when you consider Cross, Lang and Hope together - that is that all of them are in some way effected by their relationship with Pym as a father figure that has ultimately made them what they are. Effects are great (to the extent I would say that, if you have a problem with ants, or insects in general, I'd possibly skip this film as it's going to have you uneasy in your seat) although there was a notable scene where even on an imax screen the film struggled to compensate for 3d and some effects against a background, leaving a somewhat blurry mess, but this isn't a deal breaker as it's a very minor scene and I'd bet many people won't even notice it. It's shot well, if a little blandly - the screen doesn't grab you, there aren't any shots that etch themselves on to your brain, theres no great art in the way the film looks. There are a couple of editing sequences that are very Wright-esque, which are easily spotted and almost feel like they came from a different film (I guess they did, really) where you can actually feel the movie change gear briefly. It also absolutely rattles along. It's not a long movie but it feels shorter, it moves with real swiftness and doesn't linger much at any point, meaning you get pulled along with it and barely have time to take some of it in. One of the few movies I've seen recently that could have benefitted from another 10 minutes to smack some development in to some characters, mostly Cross. Ultimately, Ant-Man is an odd little movie. It's a superhero movie that bucks the 'stakes' trend - there is no city being smashed in the earth here - but it wants the stakes to be worthwhile. It's a comedy that only wants the gags as a bass note to the whole shebang. It wants to be a footnote the Phase 2 but it follows a movie that for all intents and purposes represented an obvious, final and clanging booming full stop to Phase 2, but it also wants to be seperate to it as well as tie itself into the cinematic universe whilst being this odd little wholly new thing. It's a curio, a weird idea smashed into a strange comic book character jammed into this movie colossus universe and trying to paper itself over cracks as to exactly where it fits. You can see where it's been stitched together, you can feel the odd make up in it's development. But that doesn't hurt it. I liked the story, I liked the characters, I liked the ideas, it made me smile, and subverted my expectations of it and it's characters. It played with my thoughts as I was trying to run ahead of the plot with Pym's arc in the story. It's probably in Marvel's top tier of work, for me, and worth your time. I suspect it will be a fairly divisive movie, though, some people are not going to get on with it at all, especially if the humour doesn't work for you, as it is oddly bland in many facets. As usual we have a couple of stingers at the end of the film and unusually this time both are quite weighty ones. The first is very much an Ant-Man sequel nod and is a nice touch for fans who know that no Ant-Man vehicle is quite complete without a full appearance of a certain something. The second is more universe building and a set up for a coming film. Not an earth shatterer, it might have actually worked better having been left to the movie it belongs to really, but probably suggests that that film is going to have so much going on they need the ground work in place now as much as possible. If you're invested in the Marvel series, both are worth your time and the credits aren't that long, thankfully. Edited July 19, 2015 by Chindie 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Ant Man: Its good, go see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Ant Man: Its good, go see it. thats mainly what I wanted to know no offence Chindie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 I watched this so no-one else has to. Utter shit 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 19, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 19, 2015 Ant Man: Its good, go see it. Pooligan > Chindie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Tldr LMAO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginko Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) Pooligan's Ant-man review: I hadn't seen this film before, probably because it's only just come out so I didn't watch it with my dad when I was younger. It was okay, but not what I was expecting. I went into it looking forward to seeing a Hollywood version of the origins of one Anthony McPartlin, perhaps taking us through his childhood through his Biker Grove days, hitting the dizzying heights of Let's Get Ready to Rumble and culminating in an exciting finale comprising of a mash-up of the many adventures that stemmed from the delightful Saturday Night Takeaway and I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here! televisual shows, with more personal interviews regarding his somewhat homosexual relationship with Dec spliced in along the way. Instead I watched an ex-con shrink down to the size of an insect and beat some shit up - 4.5/10 Edited July 19, 2015 by Ginko 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboyangel Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Just watched kon-tiki, the dramatization of the true story of a Norwegian explorer, Thor heyerdahl who proved peruvians founded the Polynesian islands by drifting there on a balsa wood raft. A good, honest boys own adventure. Well worth looking at if you fancy a bit of derring do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Just watched kon-tiki, the dramatization of the true story of a Norwegian explorer, Thor heyerdahl who proved peruvians founded the Polynesian islands by drifting there on a balsa wood raft. A good, honest boys own adventure. Well worth looking at if you fancy a bit of derring do! I saw this in 2012 thought it was a really good film ( almost ruined by the shark bit ) , glad it's finally got a UK release on DVD I've been to the exhibition in Oslo he / they were completely bonkers crossing the ocean on that thing !! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Man pints lost, but watching Love Actually again and I still like it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted July 19, 2015 Moderator Share Posted July 19, 2015 Guilty pleasure 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meath_Villan Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 19, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 19, 2015 Watched "24 Hour Party People" last night. Decent enough. Didn't know what to expect. I only watched it because I loved "Control" and heard this was a different sort of perspective on Joy Division (even though that's only one part of this movie) Worth a watch. Thought Coogan played the part well, although I don't recall seeing much of Tony Wilson in real life so people might tell me he was way off. Good insight into the Manchester Music scene at that time. Or at least, again, for someone like me who is too young to remember it in person. Again, someone who was there at the time might tell me it was nothing like that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 "I only got a blowjob. That's full penetration." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC_Hitz Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 A Good Man Steven Segal kills people with a sword and then puts josticks in their dead hands. Set in Romania. 1000.5/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Got to watch the beautifully restored Blu-ray edition of The Third Man yesterday and it looked gorgeous. Still a wonderful film. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts