villa4europe Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 Yeah that looks half decent pleasd to see they're making another jack reacher film, I know there's a lot of book fans who can't look past the fact cruise isn't 6ft10" like he should be but I really enjoyed the first one, hard genre to crack too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboyangel Posted June 24, 2016 Share Posted June 24, 2016 On 22/06/2016 at 14:38, Designer1 said: Filmed around the West Midlands and starring Paddy Considine, Gemma Arterton and Glenn Close. Has a 28 Days Later vibe to it and looks promising from this trailer. My friends daughter is in this! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted June 25, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted June 25, 2016 Saw the Conjuring 2 this week. I'm not really a horror movie fan, I find too many of them rely on hackneyed jump scares which require no craft or skill to create, it's just manipulating a unthinking reaction in a very clumsy way. I've buying against watching a horror movie, but I prefer that feeling of being unsettled and on edge than something that is going make the lizard end of my brain get shocked. And I've never seen the first Conjuring movie either. But, I like the story of the Enfield Haunting, I know a fair bit about it, and I'm intrigued by the story of the Warrens, and I generally like paranormal stuff and I like Wilson and Farmiga. So we went to see it. The plot revolves around Ed and Lorraine Warren, 'paranormal investigators' who famously were involved in the Amityville case after the initial story broke, becoming involved in the famous 70s alleged haunting (read: hoax) in Enfield, where a young family were allegedly troubled by paranormal activity that seemed to centre on of the children, Janet. Poltergeist activity and apparent possession of Janet with the 'spirit', Bill, talking through her became a national sensation and one of the most famous hauntings of all time. The story opens with the Warrens attending the famous 'psychic' investigation of the Amityville house. Lorraine, allegedly a psychic, projects herself into the night of the DeFeo murders, witnesses them chest hand, but is in turn touched by the evil presence that inspired it and is shaken by her experience enough to consider quiting the couple's role with a threat made against Ed by a demonic entity. Meanwhile in Enfield the Hodgson family begin to experience bizarre paranormal events, furniture moving, apparitions, and mysterious noises. The case becomes a national story, with local paranormal investigators Maurice Grosse and Guy Playfair in the scene quickly, and comes to attention of the Warrens. After they arrive the activity heightens and it becomes increasingly personal... It's worth noting that this takes 'basis' from the Enfield case, and while there are definitely elements of the true story there, it quickly descends into hysteria to tie into the Warrens story (who are actually a tiny part of what actually happened in the 70s in Enfield). You know your territory when you see the Hodgson's house, which looks like it would have done in 70s if it was condemned. Unfortunately it is another horror movie that relies on the jump scare and has an exceptionally annoying habit of 'teasing' a jump scare. The movie basically has entire scenes where it goes 'I'mgonnamakeyoujumpimgonnamakejump! Not really! ' that it does again and again, made all the worse by doing so in really obvious ways. A game to play while you're watching, count how many times does the movie do long slow panning shots where it tries to make you expect something will enter the frame. There is only 1 scene with any particular skill in developing a jump scare and it's by far the most successful scene of the film, involving a TV. There are elements of developing a creepy atmosphere, but most of it is due to the nature of the Enfield case itself. Even as a hoax, the basic story is **** creepy. You don't need to do much beyond translate it to the screen to get something unsettling. The problem then becomes putting the Warrens in it. The Warrens didn't have much to do with the original case. Most reports largely ignored their part in it. And the Warrens brought their own baggage to everything. They were keen to market themselves as disciples of the church and tended to frame everything in terms of their own faith, which in this film means they effectively smash another story into the one you actually care about, which ultimately consumes the one you care about and sends things into the realms of the absolutely insane and away from this creepy little story. I actually like Wilson and Farmiga as the Warrens and I like their presence in the film, but their story is shit. That shit infects the Enfield story and ramps up the stairs until you've departed so far from the Enfield case they may well have not bothered. It says a lot that the final half hour of the film is so daft that the credits, which feature actual photos and recordings of the actual case, are far creepier than the last 30 mins of film. Saying all that, it's well made, well acted (some ropey cockney aside, cor blimey guv'nah, apples and pears!), there is some atmosphere, it does have a jump that's the closest to artful i can recall, and it's a fun ride. But don't expect much insight or adaptation into the actual story - that isn't what the movie is here for. As an aside the original story was a fairly simple hoax. Janet and her older sister were caught more than once planning and putting together the events, but for some reason a few involved, like Grosse, wouldn't accept that's all it was. But even knowing that, if you let yourself be taken away by the story it's a curiously creepy series of events. Unfortunately I listened to a podcast recently which featured the haunting which also ruined the story a bit, by pointing out that the voice of 'Bill' sounded like that old advert with a dog saying 'Sausages'. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicho Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 (edited) Bloody hell @Chindie it's a horror film. Did you shit yourself yes/no? Move on. ......then revote. Edited June 25, 2016 by Nicho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogso Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 (edited) ~*~*~*~*~/ Welcome to hogso's review of Independence Day: Resurgence \~*~*~*~*~ 6/10 I've started with a rating rather than ending with one, as it is the easiest way to sum up this movie. It is OK. Just OK. Not great, not terrible. If you love the first film you may find it pushes 7, and if you don't care for the original, it may barely register a 5. I have very fond memories of the original, and having rewatched it before going to see this, I found that I could recite whole passages of dialogue which is some feat as I probably haven't seen it for 5 odd years. So I may have watched it through the rose tinted glasses of my 10 year old self, and for it's foibles I found it holds up pretty well. This gets off to a far slower start than the original movie, but by and large it follows the same pattern. Exactly. As such there are moments you'll be wondering which film it is you're watching exactly, such do the lines blur. More critically it borrows very, very heavily from Sci-Fi classics - you'll recognise Close Encounters, Star Wars, Hitchhikers Guide, Godzilla and Aliens to name just a few. The lack of new ideas is not unexpected of course - the trailers and simple premise of the film being 'they come back' means it plays out exactly as you'd expect. On the plus side, it is self aware, and doesn't try to kid the audience by shying away from the fact this is the same story, by and large. It is the same story, but it is bigger, as is the current want of big bucks box office cinema. It up's the ante in a big way in regards to city/Earth destruction scenes and for what it's worth it does them as good as say, Avengers. The special effects are extremely good, and the soundtrack works in a way the original did - practical without quite being spectacular. Performances are alright, there's some good ones, some bad ones, and then there's Jeff Goldblum being Jeff Goldblum which honestly I could of watched for the whole 2 hours. Brett Spiner (aka Data from Star Trek) on the other hand, I would not be able to handle for 2 whole hours, but his scenes is few and far between and better for it. In a similar way the cameos of characters from the first movie work and do not work. Some are fleeting but serve as a nice nod to the previous events, others get way too much screen time and add literally nothing to the story. This can also be said of the cast of new characters, some of whom solely take up the role of comic relief to varying degrees of success, and some who are void of any redeeming features. And as such, yeah, the whole thing is just OK. You can find good and bad across the board, which cancel each other out to leave you with an average modern day box office movie. Which isn't really saying much, is it? I'll spoiler this next bit for anyone who plans on seeing it and wants to go in without knowing the ending, which did, actually, manage to spring a surprise. Although in hindsight, it probably shouldn't of. Spoiler There's quite a bit of ground work laid down for another film. A survivor from another planet is introduced who is the last of their species, of whom the aliens (I don't think they ever get a name (They should have a name) I'll call them Harvesters (like the food place lol)) have wiped out hundred or thousands of years ago. This thing has evolved to a purely digital level of being and is housed in a big white sphere. It is slowly revealed that it travelled to Earth from a 'refugee planet' it calls home, that houses other survivors of the Harvesters galactic conqest, to warn the human race that they're coming back. That doesn't quite work out the way it planned so obviously it isn't that smart, but nevertheless, as a result of the humans repelling the Harvester attack, it agrees to bestow upon Dat-, sorry, Dr. Okun the secrets of it's technology. This means interstellar travel. Which means the humans will be able to travel to the 'refugee planet' and assemble a ragtag band of intergalactic fighters, and take out the Harvesters once and for all! ...by which time the 3rd movie will almost certainly resemble part of the Star Wars canon. Criticise the film all you like, but the writer's aren't silly. Put out a final chapter to a fondly remembered 90s flick which looks and sounds like a Star Wars movie at a time Star Wars is huge again, they'll surely make big $. Edited June 27, 2016 by hogso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_c Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 On Independence Day Spoiler I can't be the only one that when they said the aliens are the Harvesters, thought I'll be pissed if they get defeated by a choice of red, blue or green light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 (edited) Independence Day tonight as sequels go it just stole the award from Matrix 2 for worse ever sequel every plot move was as predictable as a sterling mis-control , the acting was mostly terrible , if they make the 3rd one We should firebomb the studio Not even trying to picture the cute Chinese girl naked saved this film Edited June 29, 2016 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Designer1 Posted June 29, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted June 29, 2016 (edited) 22 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: Independence Day tonight as sequels go it just stole the award from Matrix 2 for worse ever sequel every plot move was as predictable as a sterling mis-control , the acting was mostly terrible , if they make the 3rd one We should firebomb the studio Not even trying to picture the cute Chinese girl naked saved this film I'd rather staple my foreskin to a table than sit through the first Independence Day again so **** knows how bad the second one must be Edited June 29, 2016 by Designer1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted June 30, 2016 Moderator Share Posted June 30, 2016 The Fault In Our Stars Another one not entirely dissimilar to 'Me and Earl and the dying girl'. A coming of age slash terminal illness journey. Again, I really enjoyed it. Thankfully it's also not overly smoochy despite the cover photo (which very nearly turned me away). Another very good up and coming cast and for me another solid 8/10. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCDAN Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 (edited) 39 minutes ago, BOF said: The Fault In Our Stars Another one not entirely dissimilar to 'Me and Earl and the dying girl'. A coming of age slash terminal illness journey. Again, I really enjoyed it. Thankfully it's also not overly smoochy despite the cover photo (which very nearly turned me away). Another very good up and coming cast and for me another solid 8/10. Honest trailers says Hi. I'm sure the only good thing about that film is Shailene Woodley, if you want to see her in something else check out The Spectacular Now, I really enjoyed that. Edited June 30, 2016 by AVFCDAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted June 30, 2016 Moderator Share Posted June 30, 2016 Just now, AVFCDAN said: Honest trailers says Hi. I'll have a looksee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Watched Blue is the Warmest Colour the other day. Ooh la la! Aside from the graphic lesbo porn, I really enjoyed it. The two lead actresses were both superb, and it really did just feel like you were watching a real relationship. 9/10 WB. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Designer1 Posted June 30, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted June 30, 2016 Just now, dAVe80 said: Watched Blue is the Warmest Colour the other day. Ooh la la! Aside from the graphic lesbo porn, I really enjoyed it. The two lead actresses were both superb, and it really did just feel like you were watching a real relationship. 9/10 WB. I take it you know about the controversy re.the actors and their criticism of the director? if not, well worth a read. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Just now, Designer1 said: I take it you know about the controversy re.the actors and their criticism of the director? if not, well worth a read. Yeah, I did. Sounds like he's an absolute nutter, although it turned out to be worth it, due to the performances he got out of the two main actresses. I read that Adele was actually crying for real, during the break up scene, as he had them filming it again and again, all night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Designer1 Posted June 30, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted June 30, 2016 Might be worth a read Dave Quote A Brief History of All the Drama Surrounding Blue Is the Warmest Color 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted June 30, 2016 Moderator Share Posted June 30, 2016 14 minutes ago, dAVe80 said: Watched Blue is the Warmest Colour the other day. Ooh la la! Aside from the graphic lesbo porn, I really enjoyed it. The two lead actresses were both superb, and it really did just feel like you were watching a real relationship. 9/10 WB. Aside from it? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 7 minutes ago, BOF said: Aside from it? To clarify, I mean it goes without saying I enjoyed that, but I also really enjoyed the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogso Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 That whole episode reminded me of the stories that came out about Von Trier and Bjork after making Dancer in the Dark. In both cases, yeah, it seems things should've been more pleasant on set, but gee they sure got results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 30, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted June 30, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Designer1 said: Might be worth a read Dave Quote In an unsurprising move, Sundance Selects announces that the movie will be released in the U.S. with an NC-17 rating. Meanwhile, in France, where they are a little more lackadaisical when it comes to onscreen scissoring, the film is rated “12.” I've seen the sex scene from that film (yeah, I looked it up, wanna fight about it?) France must be very VERY laid back about that sort of thing Edited June 30, 2016 by Stevo985 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 went to see Central Intelligence with absolute dread and surprisingly not bad mainly because The Rock is just so likeable Kevin Hart on the other hand is just a Chris Tucker wannabee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts