Blue Maverick
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 21,421
Watched last night, like you say better than most of the sequels and shorter which is a blessing.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Last Film You Saw
- Thread starter FantasyIreland
- Start date
heslops barnet
Well-Known Member
Watched Thelma & Louise on BBC4 last night for the first time…..enjoyed
Asteroid City - 5/10.
Been looking forward to this for a while.
It won’t appeal to most.
For me though it was a bit too quirky for its own good. Bit of a let down.
I think even people who love Wes Anderson would only go as high as 7/10. It’s not one of his best.
Most people though I can see giving it a 2 or 3 as it is quite pointless and ermm different ha.
also Asteroid City - 7/10
i'm interested in Wes Anderson films because they are not of the mainstream making, he has carved out a very unique style, which i respect in an art form. I'm not a devoted 'fan' by any stretch though. However his films do seem to be becoming cliches of themselves, particularly his previous outing, the French Dispatch. Anyway, this film is a little odd, as you'd expect, but the usual beautiful pastel colours and deadpan cinematography is there (both in acting and shots). It's got more meaning to it than some recent ones, which ticks it up from 6 to 7.
Kompany Car
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 3,595
Its cinematically beautiful but there is just nothing else. Its just a movie where nothing much happens.also Asteroid City - 7/10
i'm interested in Wes Anderson films because they are not of the mainstream making, he has carved out a very unique style, which i respect in an art form. I'm not a devoted 'fan' by any stretch though. However his films do seem to be becoming cliches of themselves, particularly his previous outing, the French Dispatch. Anyway, this film is a little odd, as you'd expect, but the usual beautiful pastel colours and deadpan cinematography is there (both in acting and shots). It's got more meaning to it than some recent ones, which ticks it up from 6 to 7.
It depends I suppose if you want your cinema to be art or entertainment. If you can get both then its exceptional, but in this medium, for the vast majority of the cinema going audience a movie can get away with being only entertaining, but unless you're at the Sundance film festival, being artistic alone isn't enough.
Its cinematically beautiful but there is just nothing else. Its just a movie where nothing much happens.
It depends I suppose if you want your cinema to be art or entertainment. If you can get both then its exceptional, but in this medium, for the vast majority of the cinema going audience a movie can get away with being only entertaining, but unless you're at the Sundance film festival, being artistic alone isn't enough.
well i dont mind a film being art or entertainment, or a mixture of both, i will take it on its merits and judge it as it is.
i take your point, i think it was a bit beautiful without loads else, but this time there was a message about grief and allowing yourself to drift away into dreams and grief and so on, to repair or realise the way forwards (hence "you cant wake up if you dont fall asleep").
on your last point i disagree, you can be artistic alone if you want, it is completely up to the film-maker. You dont have to be at Sundance to produce a beautiful bit of art, look at the 100s of 'world' cinema films (i dont like that term) that are produced for arts sake. Granted they dont get far financially/commercially, but it is enough on its own, if that's what you want to produce.
Kompany Car
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 3,595
I don’t disagree, if the film can get the green light from the producers with the view that it’s probably not going to be a commercial success then good for them. All I was pointing out was that it’s not going to appeal to the vast majority of cinema goers and maybe it isn’t designed to. That of course doesn’t mean artistic films shouldn’t exist, they absolutely have their place.well i dont mind a film being art or entertainment, or a mixture of both, i will take it on its merits and judge it as it is.
i take your point, i think it was a bit beautiful without loads else, but this time there was a message about grief and allowing yourself to drift away into dreams and grief and so on, to repair or realise the way forwards (hence "you cant wake up if you dont fall asleep").
on your last point i disagree, you can be artistic alone if you want, it is completely up to the film-maker. You dont have to be at Sundance to produce a beautiful bit of art, look at the 100s of 'world' cinema films (i dont like that term) that are produced for arts sake. Granted they dont get far financially/commercially, but it is enough on its own, if that's what you want to produce.
Would I recommend those that want an entertainment element to view it, probably not.
Goater=Legend
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2006
- Messages
- 6,602
Anyone watched Sound of Freedom on Prime? Been getting rave reviews everywhere.
Yep, agreed on thatI don’t disagree, if the film can get the green light from the producers with the view that it’s probably not going to be a commercial success then good for them. All I was pointing out was that it’s not going to appeal to the vast majority of cinema goers and maybe it isn’t designed to. That of course doesn’t mean artistic films shouldn’t exist, they absolutely have their place.
Would I recommend those that want an entertainment element to view it, probably not.
Went to see the new mission impossible last night.
Overall it’s good. Definitely has the right tone, doesn’t take itself too seriously but still has incredibly effective action scenes and the fact everyone knows Cruise is doing the stunts himself does add to the action.
A few good female characters too, not damsels in distress or 1 dimensional.
My only gripe is that it’s too long, I don’t like Action films broken up into 2 parts - seriously we didnt need 6 hours split over 2 films 3 or 4 years apart to resolve this storyline.
Oh the only thing that really annoyed me in terms of plot holes was
Overall it’s good. Definitely has the right tone, doesn’t take itself too seriously but still has incredibly effective action scenes and the fact everyone knows Cruise is doing the stunts himself does add to the action.
A few good female characters too, not damsels in distress or 1 dimensional.
My only gripe is that it’s too long, I don’t like Action films broken up into 2 parts - seriously we didnt need 6 hours split over 2 films 3 or 4 years apart to resolve this storyline.
Oh the only thing that really annoyed me in terms of plot holes was
that at the end they’re on a coal train, they make a really big deal of it. Show us the coal store, show us the furnace, name it as the orient express - but Gabriel kills both the driver and shovelers. No one has shovelled fuel into the coal powered train for hours and it just keeps going full speed towards doom.