What films have you watched recently?

axisus

I fancied a bit of mindless entertainment with Sunday tea, and went for Gods of Egypt. Yes, it was a batsh*t pile of crazy old hokum, but yes, I did enjoy it. Overly CGI'd as most fantasy films are these days, I feel that it would have been better with some good old Harryhausen instead - more like Clash of the titans. If I'd have seen this as a kid I'd have LOVED it. As an adult I was kind of wanting to facepalm a bit early on before I managed to get into my preferred mode of watching a film [don't be too judgemental and 'go with the flow']

If you like a heavily CGI'd ancient Egyptian themed fantasy movie with a few stars thrown in, this could well be in your top ten of that genre. If you want a thought provoking drama full of emotive content and Oscar-worthy performances, try elsewhere. 

A fun 6/10 but I'm not waiting for a sequel with baited breath.

EricTheWeary

Philly_Q said:

Filth (2013) (Amazon Prime)

Bruce Robertson is a Detective Sergeant in the Edinburgh police force.  Desperate for promotion, he's constantly plotting ways to discredit his colleagues.  He's a manipulative, philandering, drug-taking, alcoholic, misogynist, racist, homophobic bully who nevertheless has an air of supreme confidence... but we gradually learn just how fucked up Bruce really is.

This was another random selection from Amazon Prime, who mysteriously described it as an "action" movie.  It's actually a black - very black - comedy based on a book by Irvine Welsh and occupies much the same world as Trainspotting.  Despite a strong cast and a powerful, disturbing central performance from James McAvoy, this really is a deeply unpleasant viewing experience.

I read the novel when it came out. I don't remember a lot of detail but unpleasant would capture what I do remember. He would do a lot of typographical things like
f
il
ling
g
t
he
pag
es
lik
e
t
hi
s
.

and I was never quite sure what to do, wether to give it my full attention or just skip past. I might skip past the film. 

Philly_Q

^^ Apparently there's a part of the book where he gets a tapeworm, and the worm narrates some of the story?  They left that element out of the film.

Philly_Q

Dream Scenario (Amazon Prime)

Paul Matthews, a rather nerdy and unassuming professor of evolutionary biology at a small university, is surprised when friends, colleagues and complete strangers start telling him that he has appeared in their dreams.  He becomes something of a celebrity and sees it as an opportunity to secure an academic publishing deal.  But when the dreams take a darker turn Paul finds people suddenly turning against him...

Well, this is a strange film.  It stars Nicolas Cage in low-key mode, and very good he is too.  It starts as surreal comedy but gradually evolves into a much more serious satire on the nature of celebrity and cancel culture.  Not quite what I was expecting to see, but certainly thought-provoking.

axisus

Philly_Q said:

Dream Scenario (Amazon Prime)

Paul Matthews, a rather nerdy and unassuming professor of evolutionary biology at a small university, is surprised when friends, colleagues and complete strangers start telling him that he has appeared in their dreams.  He becomes something of a celebrity and sees it as an opportunity to secure an academic publishing deal.  But when the dreams take a darker turn Paul finds people suddenly turning against him...

Well, this is a strange film.  It stars Nicolas Cage in low-key mode, and very good he is too.  It starts as surreal comedy but gradually evolves into a much more serious satire on the nature of celebrity and cancel culture.  Not quite what I was expecting to see, but certainly thought-provoking.

Thanks for the reminder, I was interested in that. Nic Cage has good and bad films but I do like him a lot. He's very prolific!

Philly_Q

^^ @axisus I think it's only on Prime for another couple of weeks so now's a good time to watch.

breakstuff

Watched V For Vendetta for the first time since it came out. Way too close to current events to be 'enjoyable' but entertaining all the same.

And Natalie Portman is absolutely gorgeous.

Barquentine

Philly_Q said:

Filth (2013) (Amazon Prime)

Bruce Robertson is a Detective Sergeant in the Edinburgh police force.  Desperate for promotion, he's constantly plotting ways to discredit his colleagues.  He's a manipulative, philandering, drug-taking, alcoholic, misogynist, racist, homophobic bully who nevertheless has an air of supreme confidence... but we gradually learn just how fucked up Bruce really is.

This was another random selection from Amazon Prime, who mysteriously described it as an "action" movie.  It's actually a black - very black - comedy based on a book by Irvine Welsh and occupies much the same world as Trainspotting.  Despite a strong cast and a powerful, disturbing central performance from James McAvoy, this really is a deeply unpleasant viewing experience.

The book is great. The film is terrible - a travesty. 

Dontgiveupyourdayjob

28 Years Later: The Bone Temple (2026) - Local cinema

Prior to seeing it I was keeping expectations under control - I really enjoyed the first of this trilogy right up until the completely bonkers last 5 minutes which threw everything for a loop. Depending on how they transitioned into this film, I figured I would absolutely hate this or absolutely love it. Thankfully, it was the latter! 

Terrifically good fun throughout, with brilliant performances from Ralph Fiennes and Jack O'Connell. There's a scene soundtracked to an Iron Maiden song which was one of the most purely enjoyable 4 mins of cinema I've ever seen - couldn't wipe the smile from my face!

9/10    (word of warning though, some of the violence and gruesome injury detail is really, really graphic, not one for the squeamish!)


The Housemaid (2026) - Local cinema

Boring, predictable, overlong nonsense. Every plot twist was so blatantly foreshadowed and hinted at, and the script was so lacking in subtlety it was completely patronising. Signalled from start to finish exactly what was happening at all times - basically saying "DON'T WORRY GUYS, YOU WON'T HAVE TO ENGAGE YOUR BRAIN AT ANY POINT FOR THE NEXT 140 MINUTES!"

4/10

Barquentine

Offset said:

The Rip (2026). Netflix.

The plot revolves around a bunch of cops and $20m of illicit drugs cash.  Good cast including the excellent Matt Damon and Ben Affleck.  A simple plot made complicated by twists, turns and double-crosses.  It's occasionally hard to follow; there's lots of gunfire, shouting, machismo and cussin'.  It thinks it's a lot cooler than it really is and whilst the prod values were good, at times I couldn't tell who was fighting or shooting who as a lot of the action was in darkness and even subtitles weren't much help.

The plot is strongly reminiscent of Where Eagles Dare.  You'll see what I mean if you watch it.  Sadly, it's unfit to lick that movie's boots however; that said, it isn't without merit and whilst Matt Damon is always watchable my overriding impression throughout was that an actor of his talent was wasted in this.

4.5/10.

Agreed. It has ONE moderately clever plot device which is the only think that elevates it slighly over the quality of most American drivel. A run of the mill UK cop show has a lot more going for it than this crap.

Offset

Barquentine said:

Offset said:

The Rip (2026). Netflix.

4.5/10.

Agreed. It has ONE moderately clever plot device which is the only think that elevates it slighly over the quality of most American drivel. A run of the mill UK cop show has a lot more going for it than this crap.

"Hell yeah!"

EricTheWeary

Philly_Q said:

^^ Apparently there's a part of the book where he gets a tapeworm, and the worm narrates some of the story?  They left that element out of the film.

@Philly_Q yes, that sounds right. It was treading a fine line between genius and shite. 

Offset

Invasion, USA (1952), YT.

Absolutely fascinating drama about nuclear strikes on the USA followed by an invasion.  Classic Cold War fodder and intended as a wake-up call-to-arms for Americans with an apathetic attitude to the eastern menace in the early '50s.

The enemy is never explicitly identified in the film, but it's obviously meant to be the USSR.  The film is framed within a very odd construct which I won't reveal here; against all my instincts, it works rather well however.  The film is bleak and one of the few pieces of  propaganda I can remember seeing for a war that has not yet happened.  And if there was ever any doubt about the film's intentions, it ends with a quote from Washington: "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace".  Indeed...

For those of you who like cold war-era military aviation, there is some decent footage of B-29s, B-36s, P-80s and F-86s.

All in all I thoroughly enjoyed this as a snapshot of post-war American paranoia.  If that's your bag, recommended.

In that context, 6/10.

Brio

axisus said:

I fancied a bit of mindless entertainment with Sunday tea, and went for Gods of Egypt.

A fun 6/10 but I'm not waiting for a sequel with baited breath.

Does baited breath smell of cheese?

Jfingers

Philly_Q said:

^^ Apparently there's a part of the book where he gets a tapeworm, and the worm narrates some of the story?  They left that element out of the film.

I'm a Welsh fan and the film in no way does justice to the book. I enjoyed the the film of Trainspotting, and in no way does that do justice to the book either. I like James McAvoy as an actor but he was too young and handsome to play Bruce Robertson. Massively miscast as a horrendous drug addicted aging cop. The books are very much better in this instance.

sinbaadi

Finally got round to watching TRON:Ares 2025


My expectations were low, and had I hoped for it to be as down right cool as Legacy, then I would have been very disappointed. 

Ares itself is far far far too easily corrupted at the beginning of the movie, they really should have given some history or exposition to make that feel more real and more important. 

We are supposed to be rooting for this program all of a sudden, simply because it seems to have double crossed the really bad guy.

Get past that, go with the flow, and it is a really good looking film, which obviously makes up the laws of physics on the fly, but spectacular nonetheless. 

6/10. Not too long.

rze99

Hamnet
Cinema

As you'll know already, this is a fictional narrative based on a book relating to historical background to William Shakespeare’s tragedy Hamlet, although it can be taken straightforwardly as it is - an historical story about two people that meet, fall in love have kids and are then torn apart by grief and distance due to the father's pursuit of his art away from home. 

In fact that's the way I took it, having no Shakesperean education (we did Chaucer at my school) only a passing experience of Hamlet and having little knowledge of the real Will and Ann or rather, knowledge of the relatively little that is documented. I haven't read the book it is based on, nor have I read Hamlet, so I'd little to go on.

Agnes /  Anne Hathaway, in this telling, is a hawk-owner, a kind of herbalist, one tuned into nature and a people-avoider. Something of a "witch" by reputation and, likewise her deceased mother, and that makes it surprising she is tolerated at all in those times. She lives for nature and her bird.

Will is employed to teach Latin to kids from a wealthy farm family, as well as being a local glove-maker working for a horrible overbearing father who tells him he is useless all the time and that he'll amount to nought. 

Will follows and introduces himself to Agnes and the two are quickly smitten. She is accused of bewitching him, beguiling him. There then follows a pastoral, traditional love story, but sadly no happy ever after ending for these two.

She falls pregnant and her watchful caring brother, her only family, is convinced enough by her lover Will that he allows her to marry. After their first baby arrives (Susanna) next are the unexpected twins Judith and Hamnet who in the script are supposed to look identical which is very odd as the actors playing them look little alike aside from hair colouring.

But William is tortured by his art, writing long into the night by candlelight. He must go to London where he can become 

what he knows he must be. Anne knows she must not forbid him to go.  And it is while he is London that the plague strikes, bringing agonising death to the young boy,  grief and anger to all around.

The central element of this story is grief and the damage it causes. The movie sets out to be moving, it is determined to make you feel the agony and the grief and it certainly works - it is profoundly moving. Pretty much everyone around me in the cinema including me were snivelling away. It is ladeled on 

I think you have to get past the fact that the dialogue is not historically centred as I intuitively expected it to be, it is a kind of modern simplistic spoken English with a few historical phrases used here and there.

I would not recommend this to anyone who is still grieving. It is, or at least I found it,  gut-wretchingly sad. I don't find the death of children easy to bear and I'm moved by grief easily. I was glad to get away from the movie at the end to be frank.

It looks gorgeous. I have a big soft spot for Jessie Buckley and she is absolutely terrific, as is Paul Mescal. The telling of it is nice slow pace initially. I thought the sound track and semi mystical forest / nature noises blended beautifully and  served the movie well, though I know others have moaned about the use of Richter, but it worked for me.

Terrific intense sentimental stuff, if somewhat over-mawkish and directed rather too hard to be a tearjerker, but it works. 

Highly recommended with some caveats - don't expect period correct dialogue and avoid it if you're in some kind of grief processing or have been recently. 

8/10

axisus

@rze99 A good write up, but I can't do grief at all, so good to know it's one to avoid!

Philly_Q

I know Hamnet's going to win about fifty Oscars but it's just not something I'd want to watch.

Offset

Nor me.  Then again, that applies to most films that win shit-loads of Oscars.