General Films thread
7 August 2015 at 02:35 #41603Anonymous @
“But the main problem with the films for me is that Batman exists in this rather odd world (even by superhero standards) of a hero having an eccentric to say the least reaction to what are the problems of a recognisably real world. It’s not a problem that afflicts say the X-Men or the Avengers because they don’t really belong to that world, even though they walk in it.”
This is interesting. And I agree. I saw the Avengers a year ago -at least i think it was (both the film and time span) and thought it was a bit nutty (from the vision of Joss Whedon it began: I said “Who is this person” to a friend, who said “you know: Buffy, right?” I said, “Ah, no, not really” -this before I was told, “watch Buffy. Watch Angel and watch Serenity”) but I recognised that they’re not normal people. Nothing they say fits the normal human condition. They’re out of touch, averse to lives of tedium and believe themselves incredibly funny. But it’s the way of the world: their reaction explains their general personalities and behaviour whereas Wayne’s (in Keaton’s movie, at least) does not.
What I can’t fault in Whedon’s TV shows and the movie, Serenity, is that the world, the people, the reactions and the personalities are shaped by that world, completely. So you buy the whole picture -circumstances dictate their responses and responses have consequences. This was the same in the Buffyverse, too. I find Batman’s general response -a human guy with enormous wealth, robbed of his parents, strange.
However, I’m told that the film wherein Wayne is a younger man, captured by…whomever and eventually makes a dare-devil escape, suggests his mind’s cracked and so turning into a bat (I can’t believe I’m writing this) and becoming this night-time avenger, makes some sense. I didn’t see that particular film -I really tried but it was very long and so I stalked off to do other jobs instead of wading thru the whole DVD.
I assume this was the early Christian Bale version and Liam Neeson (maybe not the latter?) and probably is Batman Begins?? If it’s good and people have suggested it’s not bad -compared with say, the third in the series, I’ll go back and try again. Thanks @craig for that.
My failure was in not knowing the directors properly and hinging discussions on Bale or Keaton rather than the directors like Christopher Nolan: that way I’ll be on the same page as you. I don’t know what of Nolan’s work I’ve seen – or should I say oeuvre? :/ so I should do an IMdb check.
Boy Ilion finds super-hero movies “tragically predictable” these days but I’m trying to reintroduce him to the originals (of course, that way lies comics!) such as the first Superman, which, as a kid, I loved, mainly because of Lois Lane’s performance -but I was 12, so hey…And of course, Whedon’s movies should be as exciting and unpredictable as possible -but I just don’t know enough to have an opinion. I’ve heard that they’re “what you’d expect” which doesn’t sound particularly promising.
Cheers, puro.7 August 2015 at 03:13 #41604Anonymous @
this was an awesome morning. Purely because of Kevin Smith at Clark. Awesome. I was there once: nice place with a lovely auditorium.
I had no idea who Smith was -and it’s very easy to assume he’s a comedian. His dialogue about “being from the streets” together with the exec, John Peters at “Wayne Manor” saying “no suit, no flying and a giant spider” as the “spider is the fiercest insect in the animal kingdom” left me rolling on the floor. Then he talks about The Fortress of Solitude wherein Superman has to have guards (“it’s solitude right?”) and if not, then a polar bear…as: “it’s the fiercest creature in the animal kingdom.” ROFL.
Also, “we really need a gay R2D2 and if possible, a chewie in this movie so we can have toys. Maybe Brainiac has a sidekick and so we can have that [damn] toy.”
Honestly, is this Hollywood? I can’t believe it! To have this Peters guy, “all hair and manor” actually making any money at all completely amazes me. To be so dumb and vague and yet so vainly assuming of his ability to tap into the “movie market” just stuns me.
What a glorious morning. And I’m far, far from Hollywood but very very glad!8 August 2015 at 00:01 #41632
@purofilion Glad you liked it. Kevin Smith on YouTube is always worth a watch. He’s a natural comedian. This is how it continues. I think the full thing is online somewhere. But he sums up my feelings about the Tim Burton Batman movies in this one – Tim Burton says “Anyone who knows me knows that I would not read a comic book”. As Smith says, that explains “Batman”.8 August 2015 at 01:00 #41633Anonymous @
Good Morning Puro
that was unbelievably funny -again thank you
“smith furious at Burton” tihihiti
And the comment about the comic book. Good heavens. What a horrible thing to say -& a stupid thing to say too. He’s doing comic books into films, no??
And Burton is totally weird -just my opinion. Who walks around like that? 🙂 🙂8 August 2015 at 03:35 #41636
RIP Rowdy Roddy Piper who wore those iconic sunglasses in the cult classic “They Live”
This was a very interesting article. The author is tying together the fact that within this great
movie there was a metaphor about politics and life (just like in any great science fiction)
with the current social-political atmosphere that presently exists in the states. I felt it was a
very well written piece and if you like mixing politics with your sci-fi then this might be for you.8 August 2015 at 10:58 #41644
Ah @lisa I missed that sad bit of news. Great article. Many thanks.
Seems as good a reason as any to repost this. In memoriam!8 August 2015 at 22:59 #41658
@George Bailey Thanks for the flick snippet! John Carpenter is responsible for some
amazing cult classics! Mark Gatiss did a documentary series called “History of Horror”
for the BBC and included Carpenter in it. I like that ‘symmetry’– the interconnectedness
of all my favorite sci-fi talents!8 August 2015 at 23:05 #41659
@craig — aka Goerge Bailey So very sorry but I seem to have had a small @ issue
in my previous post to you 🙁 – I’m just so goofy sometimes 🙂8 August 2015 at 23:55 #41660blenkinsopthebrave @blenkinsopthebrave9 August 2015 at 00:48 #41665
I actually resisted seeing the first Burton Batman film for quite a while. It was possibly the most aggressive advertising campaign that Warner ever launched and it just put me off.
I generally like Burtons work (the Dark Goth Fairytale stuff works for me) but I can’t help thinking the first film showed signs of “engineering for success” by the studio. I think we both agreed that Jack Nicholsons performance (and Kubricks focus on it) harmed The Shining. It’s a similar proposition here, I think. Add in that much hyped Prince Soundtrack (which doesn’t really suit the aesthetic at all) and it comes across as a bit forced.
The casting of Micheal Keaton as Batman, on the face of it, seems pretty weird because the script doesn’t leave him much to do in the first film. There was a “conspiracy theory” about the time of the movie that the original concept drew upon one of the most famous graphic novels of the time, a prestige “one off” called The Killing Joke by Alan Moore (which is one I’d suggest to @thekrynoidman – check out second hand comics stores. Is the bookstall in Grainger Market still in Newcastle? Killing Joke has been reprinted that many times you can usually find good used copies of it)
It’s about the position of Batman and Joker as Nemesis. Flip sides of a coin. The suggestion was that the original concept would have been Keaton playing both roles to emphasise this point. That sounds pretty weird until you remember that Keaton had appeared in Burtons Beetlejuice the year before this. Because what is that character except a high octane supernatural Joker? The theory goes that Nicholson was cast on studio orders as a “big name”. If this is true or not is kind off irrelevant now, but it is an enticing “what if?”.
The second film is much better, but it is interesting that Keaton, while his part is augmented, still comes off poorly in scene setting by the “villains” of the piece, Danny Devito, Michelle Pfeiffer and Rutger Hauer. The soundtrack for the second jettisoned Prince and featured a one off by legendary Punk/Goth Siouxsie and the Banshees (I think I’ll post the video on the music thread later). I agree with @jimthefish that it comes across as a better (or at least more well balanced) film.
I actually like the first two Nolan films. Ledger gives an astonishing turn as The Joker in the second. The only drawback is the legacy aspect. It’s an approach that many sought to emulate very quickly and we had a generation of that type of character. It shouldn’t rob Ledger of that performance though.9 August 2015 at 01:15 #41668Anonymous @
is this the place to admit I never ever saw Beetlejuice? Oh Boy. And I like Burton -not having seen too much of his stuff but I like what I saw; it’s him I have a problem with! Those glasses, gosh, come on.
Having said that I’m now watching bits of it on Y’tube9 August 2015 at 01:32 #41669
@blenkinsopthebrave I can only say to you in response – Ah yes the inhibitors aka
republicans that can only win elections if they disenfranchise those that would vote
against them. Even though in voting for them they vote against their own interests.
Hm? I also recently saw a comment being made about the Catholic church being more
progressive than the GOP!
Oh and BTW – Sorry for posting this to you on the wrong thread!!9 August 2015 at 07:47 #41684
@phaseshift I’ve seen The Killing Joke in several book shops around town, so I should easily be able to get it.9 August 2015 at 10:54 #41686JimTheFish @jimthefishTime Lord
To echo @phaseshift‘s call-out for The Killing Joke — it’s a small but perfectly formed work.
I’d never heard the the dual-role rumour regarding the first Batman. That’s an interesting idea and I think Keaton could have pulled it off. But I always got the impression that he got the gig because Burton saw something beyond the overtly wacky in Keaton — he’s always at his best, I think, when he’s allowed a bit of quiet with his crazy. He’s good at conveying a barely suppressed danger and I think this is what he brought to his Wayne — in the minimal of scenes he has as him, I might add. Bale gets lots more Wayne-time and always still seemed bland and lifeless.
On Nicholson — at that time I think he was the name the more prosaic minds that tend to run studios would light upon immediately and then not be able to get past. Not that he couldn’t have been a great Joker, and he was OK. It’s just that he was indulged just a bit too much. It’s not so much a serious performance we get, but Jack Nicholson goofing around in make-up for two hours.
Compare that with Ledger, who, I think, is the first actor on screen to actually try to give a character performance as the Joker, to take the part seriously in itself. And it very much takes its cue from the Killing Joke version of the character. And he did kind of set a template for genre villains, I suppose. (Though when I try to come up with some examples, I come up surprisingly blank. Although Missy is certainly among them).
I must watch Batman Begins again as I’m possibly being unfair on it. But I think it’s part of a general problem I have with Christopher Nolan films in general. I always find myself admiring their cleverness, their ingenuity, and their wealth of ideas but in the end they rather leave me a bit cold. His work, to me, always sacrifices heart for intellect.16 August 2015 at 03:20 #41857Anonymous @
Now I have egg on my face. For some reason I wasn’t reading properly and missed the whole Primer Conversation. There are 2 Youtube explanations (one with a guy with screwy curls and a mini white board which you should miss) and another ‘typed’ on screen in DOS mode which is awesome. It really helps with the explanation.
I actually found it quite wonderful. Not that complicated. Once I saw it 8 times, that is. I think it was released at the Sundance film festival: according to a friend who was travelling that way back in 2004/05. He loved it and is a time travel film buff with a degree in physics which helps -a lot.
The sound is a bit crap and the overexposure gives me headaches but I like the practical aspects of the dialogue: the situation regarding the duplicates, having to drug and/or knock out the ‘other’ duplicate -at the time there’d be one, and then two Adam’s or Aarons or Abe’s (I can’t even get the names right) and then the appearance of Rachel’s father. The film became confusing with the arrival of the ‘fail safe’ and the fact there were two ( I think).
The fact that the one guy is chatting with another on the park bench and we think this is the first conversation for one, the second conversation for the other, is blown away with the reveal that the guy on the bench has heard the conversation (because he’s been there too!) and thus records the exact conversation which is playing thru his ear plugs. Amazing.
Of course, I found the ending a bit abrupt but when you think about it, there’s no ‘proper’ ending: it would be exactly like this (what am I talking about? There is no ‘exactly like’ this!)
@barnable did you see Project Almanac? Any opinions?
Still, The Doctor Who Forum needs a totally rounded out explanation of Primer!! Pip? Pip!16 August 2015 at 08:24 #41861Anonymous @
So, @craig I’m watching Primer having seen it maybe, 6 months ago, once, but before that 5 times back in ’05 -around Who re-boot time.
What amazes me is the beautiful ‘loopy’ score. What alarms me is the SD, the monologue-style narration which becomes a little Dickensian in process and the beige colour is pretty tiring but all in all it’s what you might expect in a ‘sudden stumbling upon something amazing’ such as this -and the ‘this’ is pretty thrilling!21 August 2015 at 16:35 #41974
By the way @purofilion I just saw Man from U.N.C.L.E. today. It was enjoyable but not that memorable, I probably won’t remember it in about a week. I thought Henry Cavill was good as Solo but the bloke who played Illya was nothing like the character from the series. The film also couldn’t decide weather or not it wanted to be serious or light hearted and campy like the series, which made it quite inconsistent.21 August 2015 at 22:27 #41979ichabod @ichabod
@thecrynoidman Thanks; I’d about made up my mind not to bother with this, due to a killer review in The New Yorker Magazine. Your comments have completed the decision. Re-makes are always iffie; I usually avoid them like the plague anyway.22 August 2015 at 00:40 #41980Anonymous @
Hey! That’s great. Still, I know what you mean -a bit of explosions, bit of eye candy and then off back home. Still, I like the opening sequence -all I’ve actually seen!
I like Cavill though. Quite the man around town.22 August 2015 at 07:38 #41983
@purofilion Yup, easy to see why he was the second choice for Bond if Daniel Craig couldn’t do it.31 August 2015 at 07:41 #42192
I’ve just found out horror film legend Wes Craven, who directed A Nightmare on Elm Street, has sadly passed away.31 August 2015 at 09:55 #42193Anonymous @
I had NO idea: and yet the telly’s been on all day.
I’m sorry to hear that.
I came to this thread because I’d seen a 90 mis programme/short movie called Showrunners.
It was impressive. I have no idea, to this day, how the chaos of an American writer’s room produces material, how a show runner working slowly up from writer to story editor to producer, exec- producer eventually becomes this lauded figure. It was interesting listening to the guy who ran House of Lies starring Don Cheadle and how ‘fortunate’ that was.
Most of the shows I’ve heard of, but never watched: Sons of Anarchy, Fringe, Revenge, Lost, The Shield, Terriers (which died) but it was really moving watching Mike Royce, for example, talk, with tears in his eyes, about how his show tanked. It led me to understand that this job is like nursing an ailing child -unless you’re JJ Abrams and you can do absolutely no wrong.
A pair of showrunners mentioned that there are people who run, not one, but three series at once: therefore “they have to drop the ball. I mean come on!”
I knew what was coming: a picture of Buffy, Angel and Firefly with the “maverick” Joss Whedon saying “everyone was expecting me to drop S4 of Angel, so I knew I HAD to keep my eye on THAT”.
I think S4 was pretty terrible, personally and have no idea how that managed to keep going and yet Firefly was shut down! Poor Joss: I think it was down to Charisma and the undisclosed pregnancy. I’m surprised they even talk!
By the end of the film I’m staring at Jane Espenson who hasn’t aged at all and who is loving House Husbands and wondering whether I need a dose of anti-acid medication myself! How do these people cope? DO they? Cope, I mean. Because it looks stressful as all hell.
And it’s telly: “we’re not curing cancer here”
Interesting film. Worth a watch -oh, there was 3 seconds of S. Moffat. So I’m being (vaguely) relevant.
So, is Lost any good? Everybody talks about it. All. The. Time. Hmmm.31 August 2015 at 18:26 #42194
Apropos of something I had to do while I was between houses, should you find yourself in the position of needing something to lift your spirits then I highly recommend Pitch Perfect. Despite the cheesy premise, it is not only one of the funniest films I’ve seen for ages but a complete and utter joy from beginning to end.31 August 2015 at 18:44 #42196Arbutus @arbutus
@purofilion A pair of showrunners mentioned that there are people who run, not one, but three series at once: therefore “they have to drop the ball. I mean come on!
Isn’t that what the Moffat-haters are always on about? “He’s giving too much attention to Sherlock, so Doctor Who suffers… He should leave DW to someone who has the time to do it properly!” Conveniently ignoring the fact that there is so little Sherlock actually produced that it’s hard to believe it’s taking all that much of his time to do a few episodes every couple of years. Artists in other areas (I’m thinking here of the worlds of literature and music) seem to keep multiple balls in the air a lot of the time, with a fair bit of success.31 August 2015 at 20:29 #42200
*cough* Film Thread *cough*31 August 2015 at 23:29 #42209Anonymous @
@pedant It was a film.
Called Show runners. (90 mins)
Totally relevant. Pitch Perfect in fact.
Are you going to get up my nose now? 🙂
yes FILM writers and others tend to say that a lot about Moffatt. From what I’ve been told here, some show runners -whether American or English then move from telly into film. I guess Whedon was/is one of them with his Marvel stuff.18 September 2015 at 12:44 #42843Jude@Fjackets @judefjackets-2
Suicide Squad anyone3 October 2015 at 18:38 #43964
While I was away, I caught a bit of The Prestige. I love The Prestige. It’s a great film. It also, unfortunately, sets me off on a bit of a rant.
We’ve had historicals dealing with Queens, writers and painters in Doctor Who. Huzzah for Victoria, Agatha Christie, Dickens and Vincent. Great subjects that deserve the Who touch.
But let’s have a scientist please. A bizarre one. One who won the war in bringing electricity to our homes. One who dabbled in weird science, believing he could harness cosmic rays to solve the world’s problems and aleviate poverty. One Who thought developing an ultimate death Ray and giving it to all sides would make war redundant.
I’d love Nikola Tesla to be in a Doctor Who episode. Such a massive figure who deserves to be a bit more well known.
We could go mad and ask, I don’t know, a weirdo like David Bowie to play him. I’d watch it.3 October 2015 at 18:48 #43965
@phaseshift Good call. I don’t know if you follow The Oatmeal but this is a classic:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla (share with all your friends!)
And he’s now building a Tesla museum… http://theoatmeal.com/blog/tesla_museum_saved
I think Tesla could give The Doctor a run for his money (or lack of), just as Shakespeare did (who’s smarter, really?)3 October 2015 at 19:18 #43972
Great links @craig and a heartwarming story about the potential museum. I think it’s actually pretty horrific that the mud Edison slung at Tesla stuck in many ways, which means he has never quite been celebrated.
I think that is why he’s perfect for Who though. He was essentially an idealistic socialist working in a system where his investors constantly asked “what’s in this for us,exactly?”.
His dream of transmitting electricity through the air and his work on static electricity were obviously referenced in the first two Dalek stories, so I take it Terry Nation was a fan.3 October 2015 at 19:24 #43973
@phaseshift Yes! Or Newton or Darwin etc. Also get young ones
to think about science if we were to see the Doctor sharing tea with
scientists. I’m glad that Musk named his company after Tesla too!
David Bowie – definitely!
23 October 2015 at 20:15 #439753 October 2015 at 21:05 #439773 October 2015 at 21:18 #43979
@craig The effort you put into creating this environment is worth more than what
money can buy! IMHO you have created the definitive ultimate Whovian website!
Just saying…….. 🙂3 October 2015 at 21:24 #43980
@ BTW That previous sentiment goes for @phaseshift and all of the Mods !
and really everyone – Thanks ! I think we all get something out of sharing
our impressions in this place
done 😉16 October 2015 at 22:12 #44879
Some of my favorite classic films by Kubrick and Hitchcock edited brilliantly together
into this mash up. I thought a lot of Whovians might enjoy this17 October 2015 at 01:33 #44889Anonymous @
@lisa I forgot what I was looking at until nearly the end of Rear Window (1) where all of a sudden I see Jack’s face.
Wow, great with the morning coffee, thanks 😉
I always loved The Shining but I thought poor Jack did make it a bit dismal -took me a few years to realise this (probably because I had difficulty watching it again!).
As for Eyes Wide Shut, I never saw it: was it Kidman and Cruise? I remember Kidman in an interview with it, all ‘academic’ and ‘I’m such an A list amazzing actorrr with my craft and my skill’
Boy, did I dislike her. Still, she did alright in the Moulin Rouge, I suppose.17 October 2015 at 02:20 #44894
@Purofilion Sorry about the coffee — oops! Strangely for me its Cruise that I have
some peculiar issues with. I’m always thinking that some other actor could probably be
pulling off his parts better then he does.17 October 2015 at 03:35 #44901Anonymous @
@lisa my fav action film recently has starred Cruise -Knight and Day?
Great -funny and doesn’t take itself seriously. The fact, though, that Cruise, a dark haired, dark eyed, fairly short man is playing the 6 foot 5″ Jack Reacher- Scandinavian in looks, by the books – is an odd choice.17 October 2015 at 03:56 #44903ichabod @ichabod
@purofilion Cruise, a dark haired, dark eyed, fairly short man is playing the 6 foot 5″ Jack Reacher- Scandinavian in looks, by the books – is an odd choice.
Money choice. Like Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut, but nothing since. It’s all the blowhard macho crap that a) drives me nuts and b), when I’m tired of being nuts, puts me to sleep. He seems so desperate to be tall . . . a really poor choice of things to be desperate about.31 October 2015 at 13:20 #45958
Just to mention a film that immediately came to mind with the Highwayman theme of The Woman who lived.
Plunkett and Macleane. It’s pretty divisive I think because it lapses into anachronistic dialogue and music on occasion. I find it really enjoyable though and it has a lot of people in it who have been in Doctor Who.
I found this clip, which is dubbed into French, but there isn’t an awful lot of dialogue, as one of the hero’s Faces the Tyburn knot. A good illustration of how public execution was entertainment.
Standouts in the film are Ken Stott who is a mesmerising villain, and Robert Carlisle. Believe it or not, before Eccleston was cast in 2004, he was the top of my dream list to play the Doctor.3 November 2015 at 09:12 #46250Anonymous @
without a doubt I think the remake of the body snatchers which I saw again today was an absolutely brilliant film -proof that in the right hands, like Kaufman’s, remakes can absolutely work. I didn’t realise Duvall had a cameo appearance as did Kaufman himself and even his wife. The composer, interestingly never composed another score though had helped Star Wars in the same year.
Great stuff. Must look for more…..5 November 2015 at 02:46 #46379
Remember, remember the fifth of November,
Gunpowder, Treason and Plot.
I see no reason that the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.
I think I’ve mentioned before that, as a child, I was more likely focused on November 5th than Halloween. Ostensibly, it’s the date the UK celebrate the triumph of Protestants over Catholics by ritually burning an effigy of a man who wanted to reverse that dynamic.
Or it was. Even before I was born it seemed to become something else. A surly resistance against authoritarianism. Because authorities really didn’t like us building bonfires that could get out of control. Even if we turned out to be good at it and stood about, as families, baking our potatoes on a huge conflagration we kids had erected on a public space.
Guy Fawkes will always be ‘A Penny for the Guy’ but the effigy we built and threw on the fire transmuted over the years. For much of my youth it was Margaret Thatcher. And Reagan. Briefly Major or George Bush. Blair. Dubbya. Brown. Cameron.
It became the night of sticking your fingers up at the authorities who tried to tear down your bonfire and you built it again. And again. And so a stupid celebration of one potential theocracy over another just became a symbol of sticking your fingers up at authoritarianism.
So, to remember the 5th, you need V for Vendetta. Originally a comic book, and then a movie, I’ll always direct people to the graphic novel first and foremost, but I’m one of those who still love the movie as well.
A sprawling tale of a ‘1984’ style fascist Government gaining power, and an individual who stands for anarchy, for freedom and ultimately for Vengeance against them. It was astonishing work in the 80s but I think the movie, though not having the weight of multiple Plot lines that benefited the comic, ultimately conveyed the same message adapted to new times.
Seek out the movie, or the graphic novel, but Remember.
A few reasons why I love the movie:
People of the Nation, please attend.
It doesn’t quite match the mad lordly satire of the comic, as V addresses his audience as the faithful staff to his employer, but this is pretty good, and we get a glimpse of Bollocks girl.
Bollocks girl was a symbol of youthful rebellion in a few panels in the book. She’s wove into the film a bit more as a major piece in the Domino effect.
The single most emotive episode in the original book, which is pivotal to Vs and Eveys rebirth.
5 November 2015 at 04:00 #46383
@phaseshift Thanks for sharing this! I shared it on to a few more friends
and I know they will appreciate seeing this as much as I have! We have a epidemic
of poor governance in so many places. It’s more than just about sticking your finger up.
Its also about staying informed and making smart choices so that we get good government too.5 November 2015 at 05:16 #46385Anonymous @5 November 2015 at 13:35 #46396blenkinsopthebrave @blenkinsopthebrave
Over here in polite Canada (for the most part anyway) the people recently jettisoned the awful conservative regime in favour of something hopefully more positive.
But at the end of the day, as we used to say, “It doesn’t matter who won the election, the government got in”.
It would be good if Moore’s comic, and the film, were as widely known as Orwell’s 1984, (And it would be good if more people read Orwell, as well!)13 January 2016 at 04:15 #50106gamergirlavatar @gamergirlavatar
I watch a great movie today that Neil Degrasse Tyson couldn’t find a plot whole in (well, maybe one). The movie is titled The Martian and out of five stars, I would give it five stars. Matt Damon’s performance was perfect in every way. There were great lines and brilliant humor. I won’t give anything away but the movie really made you real as if you were on Mars. The story line grabs a hold of you and you won’t be able to leave your seat. The science and math in the movie is very realistic and I encourage anybody who enjoys science fiction and doesn’t enjoy plot wholes to watch this movie.2 February 2016 at 03:01 #50769Anonymous @
aaaand anyone who likes (good) movies:
Is anyone about to see, or has seen, the new Steve Jobs movie by Aaron Sorkin?
It’s got a 8.5 Rotten Tomatoes score but various US magazines are complaining it’s “too negative” -so typical of some Americans who feel films must “feel good” to work.
Shame – A Wanted Man wasn’t exactly “entertaining” but boy, was it good! Excellent, even.
Just wonderin’ -it may end up on video shortly. 🙂
PuroSolo2 February 2016 at 10:45 #50775JimTheFish @jimthefishTime Lord
@puroandson– haven’t seen it as just couldn’t really work up the enthusiasm for it. I was also curiously disappointed in A Most Wanted Man too. Great performance from Seymour Hoffman but curiously flat after that. Not a patch on The Constant Gardener as a Le Carre adaptation.
On an entirely incongruous note, just watched Paddington which had me frankly in mush. And it served as a reminder to just what a great comic actor Peter Capaldi is. It’s a shame we don’t see more of that side of him in Who.2 February 2016 at 14:38 #50780
Nope. No real interest. Sorkin is another one who I wish would get back to his own characters.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.