What was the last film you watched?

[Angela Channing]

Top Gun Maverick.

I gotta say... it's pretty good. Not Tom's best cinematic offering, but still a good romp.

Some comedy, some nicely shot action, some romance for our man here, and unlike last time, female fighter pilots get recognition. Yu Xu and Kara Hultergreen anyone?

Beginning to end, just a jolly good lark of a movie, with a hat tip to the late Goose!

I saw Top Gun: Maverick recently and thought it was a very good film. I knew nothing about the original film so all the references to it and the characters from it was lost on me but that didn't matter because it works as a stand alone film.

 

[Angela Channing]

Nope (2022)

I didn't like this as much as Jordan Peele's other 2 films (Get Out and Us) but there was still a lot to like about Nope. I read an article in which it was described it as a horror but it's not, it more of a science fiction film with elements of a thriller.

I don't want to say too much about the plot because it's hard to do it justice without giving away spoilers but it's about a mystery thing seen in the sky that is thought to be sucking up horses and then dropping the waste products from what's left back on earth. There are various subplots, including one about a chimpanzee and a child actorwho both starred in a TV sitcom until the chimp flips and attacks the cast.

There's a lot of subtext, much of which I missed, so I think I would appreciate this film even more on a second viewing. Donna Mills (Abby Cunningham from Knots Landing) appears in one scene near the start of the film but even her role is brief, it's nice to see her still working in her 80s.

 

[Luke_Krebbs_Ewing]

I watched Carry On Jack on Saturday night as another tribute to the late Bernard Cribbins.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Another 1990s space classic revisited. but unfortunately not as successful as Galaxy Quest.

The first half is interesting, that monstrous spaceship with its ridiculous gothic set design, like a Haunted Mansion In Space, and they could have done SO much more with it.
While the idea is that the spaceship comes alive it really never does. Characters start to hallucinate and chase ghosts - did they really have to travel into deep space for that?
There's a lot of spectacle and explosions but that never means anything and they only die in the most stupid ways. Well, it complements the horrible, wooden acting.
All the characters are "kick-ass with an attitude" and the black guy gets the obligatory clowny part.

It's an awful movie and I constantly had the feeling there was something funny going with the aspect ratio. Which could have been utilized as an element of disorientating horror, but no, it just looked bad.

Perhaps my memory had remixed it with that other Sam Neill movie, DEAD CALM.

 

[Rove]

​

Awful. I'm thankful this popped up on Disney+ rather than in my shopping basket. I'm of the opinion they now make these movies because they can. While I enjoyed the humour in Thor: Ragnarök the over-the-top camp in this was akin to watching the worst of The CW Dynasty. I'm now of the impression Chris Hemsworth is a one trick pony and when the words, 'Thor will return' popped up in the end credits I could have thrown the last remnants of the popcorn at the television screen.

0/10....enough already.​

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I'm of the opinion they now make these movies because they can.

Agreed. It's become a soulless production line. Phase Four has had the occasional moment of greatness, but I'd say there have been more misses than hits for me. It's nothing like earlier Phases where every film - even if it didn't speak to me as much as others - felt important.

While I enjoyed the humour in Thor: Ragnarök the over-the-top camp in this was akin to watching the worst of The CW Dynasty.

Ragnarok was towards the bottom end of my rankings of the MCU. I think at that point in the release timeline it took the very lowest place. I hated the humour which seemed to mock the very character. Mark Ruffalo's Bruce/Hulk has rarely-to-never worked for me anyway, and as for Chris Hemsworth...

I'm now of the impression Chris Hemsworth is a one trick pony

Yes. I really liked the portrayal in his first few films, but Thor's has become more and more of a cardboard caricature. He plays him like Zapp Branigan, as this send up of masculinity, there to be laughed at by the audience. Any nuance is lost and there's no nobility or dignity to the character at all. I'll be actively avoiding Love & Thunder, and it's the film that swung it for me when deciding to let my D+ subscription lapse a couple of months ago.

when the words, 'Thor will return' popped up in the end credits I could have thrown the last remnants of the popcorn at the television screen.

 

[Willie Oleson]

My first official streaming purchase! (well, a rental, but it's the same idea).
Yes, we're in the thick of bohemia now, Mr. Briggs.

I think Daniel Craig's Southern accent was more fun to him than it was to me because it was impossible not to be aware of it. And maybe that was the point but 2+ hours is a very long point to make.
And then he ends up singing along to a Pet Shop Boys song anyway.
There were moments when the story lost its intensity, and unlike the more "classic" cinema it has very little to fall back on to. But when it works it's great.
The set design is fabulous and extremely detailed (although that's pretty standard these days) and yet it has that strange CGI feel to it, even if it isn't.
What I mean to say is that it never feels as if I'm standing in the room with them and that I could touch any of it. Maybe it's the result of looking too perfect, or the choice of camera technique, I don't know.

I watched it in two parts. No matter how tired I am, if I'm feeling very excited or intrigued by a story I will stop at nothing to finish it.
The final twist during the big reveal was very surprising, and I refuse to believe comments like "I saw it coming".
It was fun (enough) but I don't think it will ever make the re-watch list.

But now I know the whole rental thing works (it didn't when I tried it on UK Prime some time ago, although no specific error was given).

 

[Biggie]

Save The Last Dance.

Maybe the third time I've watched this but still found it engaging and easy to fall into. Julia Stiles paired up with love interest Sean Thomas against a backdrop of the racial divide that seems to permeate through all tiers of American society captured one's attention.

The soundtrack I found excellent. Hip-hop is not to everyone's tastes but if you ever watch Save The Last Dance, I urge you to take note of the set piece nightclub scene when the main protagonists finally bond (for want of a better phrase). The Ice Cube....f*** it, I'm gonna post it.

Ice Cube, Mack 10 and Ms Toi.

 

[Willie Oleson]

A sci-fi tech-noir thriller in German Expressionism style (kinda like THE MATRIX meets METROPOLIS).
The special effects appear to be outdated but personally I don't see it. How real does a fantasy have to look anyway?

It's a zany, fabulous and timeless gem that requires your attention, but don't overthink the convoluted practices.

 

[darkshadows38]

Dark City (1998) i will never get why that movie flopped back than it's f.. Brilliant! i just watched the original Cheaper by the Dozen (1950) holy sh*t did it take me ages to warm up to it's lead not Myrna Loy she was lovely and her character as well but the father played by Clifton Webb he was good in it but him trying to control everything even the kids surgery for their tonsils to what grade they are gonna be in! that's just too much honestly i think the (2003) version is better and that's because it had a more likable lead Steve Martin. his character i mean. apparently they remade it yet again WHY? that's coming out this year as for the film i dunno i'd say 7/10

oh i nearly forgot to add the house that's used well the sets anyways that's used for the big house they move into though dressed differently is the same set that's used for Dark Shadows the 60's tv show how cool is that? you can tell too i was reading up on the trivia

 

[Willie Oleson]

It doesn't matter if you've seen the 1989 version, the story is inherently spoilerish - with an unrelated sub-plot for extra horror effects.
Once the dead cat has returned it's a matter of waiting for the inevitable, and then all that stuff happens.
An eerie procession scene at the beginning of the story proves to be a one-off and there's the father's paranormal/dream experiences that doesn't influence the story in any way what.so.ever.
It seems to me that this remake tasks itself with the cover-up for a lame story. It could have focused on the dilemma: what would you do if you had the choice?
You can find a much more intriguing interpretation in BLACK MIRROR's fourth episode "Be Right Back".

 

[Seaviewer]

just watched the original Cheaper by the Dozen (1950) holy sh*t did it take me ages to warm up to it's lead not Myrna Loy she was lovely and her character as well but the father played by Clifton Webb he was good in it but him trying to control everything even the kids surgery for their tonsils to what grade they are gonna be in! that's just too much honestly i think the (2003) version is better and that's because it had a more likable lead Steve Martin. his character i mean.

Maybe it's a generational thing but I'd watch Clifton Webb over Steve Martin any day.

 

[darkshadows38]

no it's not i just thought that for the vast majority of the film Clifton Webb who was brilliant in it was a prick and an unlikable guy that's all. i just got done watching Belles on their Toes (1952) the sequel and i loved this one i found it a far better film to be honest. as for the Pet Sematary Remake from (2019) holy hell is that one bad, i bought on 4K cause i got it on whim i was also buying the (1989) classic which i love as well. it took me ages to watch it and i think i posted about it on here, there's deleted scenes that SHOULD have been in the film. such as more scenes with Jud where you can tell they actually are close and are actual friends, in the released version it was nothing it was like it was an Acquaintance where they see each other once in a while and have a beer. not like the (1989) film where they are actually close friends. than you have that ending oh that pissed me off

wow so much about this film is bad that i have a fan edit that i at some point plan on watching with the Original Ending which should have been used over that awful ending. it's like they took the heart out of the novel and the (1989) film and had some big fat guy sit on it and kill it to death. i have not seen the Firestarter remake from last year (2021) it's suppose to be even worse i love the (1984) film and i have since i was a kid but the remake bleh. look up the deleted scenes i'm sure you tube has them and you will see Character Development for one. the cast was fine i have no issues on that i'm sorry Ellie being the killer really angers me cause it should have been Gage. people got nightmares from the (1989) film i know i have growing up from that image of him coming at you. part of that was the actual kid actor and the rest was i think fake for obvious reasons. one thing that they didn't put in either version was in the book for those who haven't read it

after Rachel, Louis lost his mind i mean his hair went completely white and one part in the book neither film touched upon was how much power those woods have an example when a friend from work comes over and is worried about Louis he sees what he looks like and Louis tries to get him to go into the woods with him but the guy senses the evil and how powerful it is and he quit his job and got the hell out of dodge and we learn later that night hundreds of miles away he still felt that power and he never went back to Main ever again. that's something neither film hit upon.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Instead of seeing ghosts from the past, the gifted characters in this movie can see and communicate with other living characters across the globe.
Wait, it gets better: they can FLY across the globe.
It is endless torture of nonsensical rubbish, a story without rules and boring characters and zero atmosphere. I'll give it a big fat zero.

On the upside, it might cure your insomnia - at least for one night.

 

[Angela Channing]

Beast (2022)

Well, this was a nice surprise. I didn't expect too much from this film but I needed a break from the never ending royal coverage on TV and this film it and it turned out to be surprisingly good. A lion seeks revenge by killing people after poachers kill his pride is not exactly the most realistic premise for a film but if you just go with it, you're in for a very entertaining ride. The lion sets his sights on a doctor, played by Idris Elba, and his 2 daughters the results are an action packed film that is gripping and full of tension.

 

[Angela Channing]

Where The Crawdads Sing (2022)

Daisy Edgar-Jones must have a really good USA agent because this is the third production I've seen her in in the last 3 months. Here she plays girl called Kya with an abusive father who is left to bring herself up after her mother and siblings are forced to leave because of his violence and then she in turn is abandoned by her father. As a women she becomes the subject of a murder trial after her boyfriend is found dead. It's a nice film, beautifully shot and well acted but it never really completely comes to life and I felt aspects of the plot were a bit predictable.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

It is endless torture of nonsensical rubbish, a story without rules and boring characters and zero atmosphere. I'll give it a big fat zero.

On the upside, it might cure your insomnia - at least for one night.

Ha ha. I was feeling a little more generous after watching it:

I rewatched The Shining last year for the first time in decades. I really didn't think it needed a sequel, but this looked far enough removed from the original for me to watch it without too much comparison. As it turned out I was impressed by how the new story managed to work in references to (plus characters and locations from) the original in a way that felt natural and unforced.

A lion seeks revenge by killing people after poachers kill his pride is not exactly the most realistic premise for a film but if you just go with it, you're in for a very entertaining ride.

The creature's motivation for going rogue sounds similar to that of 1977's Orca, where the titular "antagonist" aims to get revenge on a sea captain who killed the Orca's pregnant mate. It's a slightly cheeky attempt to legitimise what is essentially an exploitation film by incorporating an ecological message.

I hadn't heard of Beast and will look out for it when it makes it to home media. I do like a good "humans stalked by wild animal" film.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

The Vanishing (2019)
a.k.a. "Keepers"

Last week I visited (among other places) the beautiful Mull Of Galloway where a noticeboard at the lighthouse at Scotland's Southernmost tip had details of a film shot there and in some other nearby locations I'd visited (including Port Logan harbour), said to be based on the real life disappearance of three Scottish lighthouse keepers in 1900.​

Like 90% of "based on true events", this film's claim can be taken with a pinch of salt. The disappearance was real enough, but the film's story is pure fiction, with only the most tenuous of connections. With that accepted, it becomes more enjoyable.

It's a well-made psychological thriller. Slow burning, leisurely paced which allowed for much character. I could easily see this becoming a stage play with minimal sets and cast.

It's filled with a dark, brooding atmosphere and feels very noir-ish. And in particular, Nordic noir (the director, cinematographer and at least one of the featured actors are Danish), and the occasional bursts of brutal horror feel wholly appropriate. It looks gorgeous as well.

The performances by the lead actors are, by and large, very impressive. However...

Letting the film down for me was a lack of attention to detail in terms of language and delivery style. There were far too many contemporary speech patterns (in particular that US teen drama thing of using the name of the character being addressed at the end of a sentence, but leaving a noticeable beat before saying it so that it sounds like an afterthought). But more concerning was the modern slang that found its way in. The biggest offender, "OK", was used numerous times (this is Scotland in 1900, people), and the Millennial actor even did that thing of unconsciously (and unnecessarily) beginning a "mid-paragraph" sentence with it. They ended sentences with "right?" After a falling out, one character asked another "Are we good?" And in response to her husband saying "I love you", a woman with vocal fry responded "Me too". There are many more examples, and I could go on about it all day long. But since overall I found the film well worth watching, I'll stop.

 

[Rove]

This has been on watch list since popping up on Netflix. Despite some negative criticism of this movie, I thoroughly enjoyed it. It's a bit of a slow burn and the ending clearly has been left for sequels. Time will tell if that happens.​

 

[Angela Channing]

View attachment 40726

This has been on watch list since popping up on Netflix. Despite some negative criticism of this movie, I thoroughly enjoyed it. It's a bit of a slow burn and the ending clearly has been left for sequels. Time will tell if that happens.​

This film really has split opinions, people seem to either love it or hate it. I'm in the hate camp and not only did I not like it, because it was over 2.5 hours long, I didn't like it for longer than was necessary. However, subsequently I've heard and read many people saying how much they enjoyed it so there is clearly something in the film that was lost on me that others are connecting with.