Film/moving picture show you most recently watched

[luckypierre 0]

So I went to see the Departed at the Silverlink Odeon last night instead, a wise move move I think. Highly enjoyable gangster film (irish instead of italian for a change), great acting, sound if slightly far fetched plot, no sickly ending. Classic Scorsese, undoubtedly a return of form and his best effort since Goodfella. Go and see it.

 

Is that the Infernal Affairs remake? Dont know how it compares to the original but I'd check it out if I was you, its superb

 

Edit: Yes it is

Edited October 8, 2006 by luckypierre

[Happy Face 29]

Brick

 

A 21st century Bugsy Malone. I thought it was shit.

Edited October 9, 2006 by Happy Face

[Renton 21983]

I normally don't pay too much attention to reviews or personal opinions about films, but I've made an exception about World Trade Centre. Firstly, everyone I know who has seen it (which admittedly is not many) has said it is poor, and is an object lession in American triumphalism. Secondly, even some of the US reviews on Rotten Tomatoes have said this. Is it true that Stone blatently alludes to the connection with Iraq, with one of the characters getting "his revenge" by joining the army and helping to topple Hussein? Well fuck that for a game of soldiers (pun intended), I'm not paying any money to help perpetuate that particular myth.

 

 

I think WTC is a fantastic dig at George Bush and his administration. But I seem to be a dissenting voice.

 

Well is the bit about Iraq true or not, because if you say it isn't I can direct to a review which directly contradicts you? Also, I think you'll find that the far right of America were more than happy with Stone's efforts.

 

As far as I recollect, I don't think Iraq or Hussain were mentioned. That specific character does say they'll need to get revenge, but that doesn't make it Stone's opinion. You wouldn't have a gun toting, kick ass, patriotic marine saying "Let's get the diplomatic talks started".

 

Although the right do love it and I do too, for a lot of the same reasons (how the horror of it is depicted, the tribute it pays to the emergency services of NY, the message of hope, we will not be defeated etc.) I was most impressed at how Stone recognises that this event is above him, George Bush, Saddam Hussain, the election...whatever. If anyone makes films with political context in mind, it's Stone, but this film doesn't have any - on the surface. Perhaps if George Bush could make a political speech without resorting to whipping up 9/11 hysteria this film wouldn't reflect so badly upon him in my opinion.

 

This is an excerpt from the Los Angele's Times review:

 

Then comes the coup de grâce. "They're going to need some good men to avenge this," Karnes says ominously, and the next thing you know, a title card tells us that the man reenlisted in the Marines and served two tours of duty in Iraq. Even the conspiracy theories that Stone floated in "JFK" pale beside this blatant support of the big lie linking Iraq and Sept. 11.

 

Having read this and some other reviews now, I'll think I'll wait 'til DVD, if at all.

[Happy Face 29]

 

This is an excerpt from the Los Angele's Times review:

 

Then comes the coup de grâce. "They're going to need some good men to avenge this," Karnes says ominously, and the next thing you know, a title card tells us that the man reenlisted in the Marines and served two tours of duty in Iraq. Even the conspiracy theories that Stone floated in "JFK" pale beside this blatant support of the big lie linking Iraq and Sept. 11.

 

Having read this and some other reviews now, I'll think I'll wait 'til DVD, if at all.

 

 

It's not fiction you know. This happened. Every main character has a title card to let us know how they're doing these days. The bloke that found the survivors was a marine who later went to Iraq, why should that be left out?

Edited October 8, 2006 by Happy Face

[Renton 21983]

 

This is an excerpt from the Los Angele's Times review:

 

Then comes the coup de grâce. "They're going to need some good men to avenge this," Karnes says ominously, and the next thing you know, a title card tells us that the man reenlisted in the Marines and served two tours of duty in Iraq. Even the conspiracy theories that Stone floated in "JFK" pale beside this blatant support of the big lie linking Iraq and Sept. 11.

 

Having read this and some other reviews now, I'll think I'll wait 'til DVD, if at all.

 

 

It's not fiction you know. This happened. Every main character has a title card to let us know how they're doing these days. The bloke that found the survivors was a marine who later went to Iraq, why should that be left out?

 

You can be factually correct but still be deliberately misleading. Stone clearly seems to be suggesting Iraq and 9/11 were linked according to this review. Fine, it's his film, he can do what he likes, but he'll not be getting subsidised off me in the process (I'm sure he'll be gutted).

 

Btw, the review also reminded me of his other abomination, JFK. Stone couldn't give a shit about the truth if it gets in the way of his film scripts tbh.

[Happy Face 29]

 

 

You can be factually correct but still be deliberately misleading. Stone clearly seems to be suggesting Iraq and 9/11 were linked according to this review. Fine, it's his film, he can do what he likes, but he'll not be getting subsidised off me in the process (I'm sure he'll be gutted).

 

Btw, the review also reminded me of his other abomination, JFK. Stone couldn't give a shit about the truth if it gets in the way of his film scripts tbh.

 

Good use of the word "clearly" from someone who hasn't seen the film. If you're going to have an opinion on a film make it your own rather than regurgitating someone else's point of view.

 

I've been to read the whole review and he talks crap throughout. He says Stone has been grinded down by the studio system, which is bollocks. Stone has only made 2 studio film in 7 years now, all his other time has been spent on controversial independent films about Castro, he still has a passion for telling his stories his way. The review also states that the film makes an "explicit link" between 9/11 and Iraq. That's just a lie. A title card saying what happened to one of the rescuers is not a justification of what resulted.

[Renton 21983]

 

 

You can be factually correct but still be deliberately misleading. Stone clearly seems to be suggesting Iraq and 9/11 were linked according to this review. Fine, it's his film, he can do what he likes, but he'll not be getting subsidised off me in the process (I'm sure he'll be gutted).

 

Btw, the review also reminded me of his other abomination, JFK. Stone couldn't give a shit about the truth if it gets in the way of his film scripts tbh.

 

Good use of the word "clearly" from someone who hasn't seen the film. If you're going to have an opinion on a film make it your own rather than regurgitating someone else's point of view.

 

I've been to read the whole review and he talks crap throughout. He says Stone has been grinded down by the studio system, which is bollocks. Stone has only made 2 studio film in 7 years now, all his other time has been spent on controversial independent films about Castro, he still has a passion for telling his stories his way. The review also states that the film makes an "explicit link" between 9/11 and Iraq. That's just a lie. A title card saying what happened to one of the rescuers is not a justification of what resulted.

 

It's been picked up on by other people too though HF. You're right though, I haven't seen the film, which gives me the dilemma of do I pay good money to see it (over 6 quid nowadays) knowing there is a good possibility it will piss me off? In the end I've read enough reviews and meta-reviews to wait til I can see it for free or very cheaply I think.

 

After JFK I find it hard to trust Stone though. In that film, he constantly presented, unchallenged, a pack of blatent lies as fact. Says a lot about his character imo.

[Happy Face 29]

After JFK I find it hard to trust Stone though. In that film, he constantly presented, unchallenged, a pack of blatent lies as fact. Says a lot about his character imo.

 

 

I know it's frowned upon to suggest a book about films on here and I'll get shit for it for ever more, but far from being unchallenged Stone got a whole heap of shit for making that film as he did. So much so that he released an annotated screenplay where he justifies and attributes every claim made in the film.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/JFK-Book-Film-Appl...TF8&s=books

 

If the claims in the film are true or not is down to the opriginal people making them, more than the director presenting them.

[Renton 21983]

After JFK I find it hard to trust Stone though. In that film, he constantly presented, unchallenged, a pack of blatent lies as fact. Says a lot about his character imo.

 

 

I know it's frowned upon to suggest a book about films on here and I'll get shit for it for ever more, but far from being unchallenged Stone got a whole heap of shit for making that film as he did. So much so that he released an annotated screenplay where he justifies and attributes every claim made in the film.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/JFK-Book-Film-Appl...TF8&s=books

 

If the claims in the film are true or not is down to the opriginal people making them, more than the director presenting them.

 

Aye, well, you are setting yourself up ridicule like. Without reading a whole frigging book about the sceenplay, I know for a fact that many of the claims were false. Stone presented them in such a way as to make them seem like fact though. Is this harmless? I don't think so judging by the amount of people who believe in the conspiracy theory surrounding JFK's death, and similarly, the amount of American citizens who still believe Iraq was to blame for 9/11.

[Happy Face 29]

After JFK I find it hard to trust Stone though. In that film, he constantly presented, unchallenged, a pack of blatent lies as fact. Says a lot about his character imo.

 

 

I know it's frowned upon to suggest a book about films on here and I'll get shit for it for ever more, but far from being unchallenged Stone got a whole heap of shit for making that film as he did. So much so that he released an annotated screenplay where he justifies and attributes every claim made in the film.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/JFK-Book-Film-Appl...TF8&s=books

 

If the claims in the film are true or not is down to the opriginal people making them, more than the director presenting them.

 

Aye, well, you are setting yourself up ridicule like. Without reading a whole frigging book about the sceenplay, I know for a fact that many of the claims were false. Stone presented them in such a way as to make them seem like fact though. Is this harmless? I don't think so judging by the amount of people who believe in the conspiracy theory surrounding JFK's death, and similarly, the amount of American citizens who still believe Iraq was to blame for 9/11.

 

Whatever the truth of the matter, I think the barrage of conspiracy theories he presents is reprasentative of the distrust felt by many from long before the film came out, not as a result of the film, similarly the belief of some Americans that there is a link between 9/11 and Iraq is one that already existed. The difference is, Stone supports the notion in JFK, in WTC he leans neither way whatsoever.

[Brock Manson 0]

A Bug's Life. Antz is a better film though.

 

It's part of my Disney Marathon.

[Tooj 17]

Well The Departed lived upto every bit of the hype, I thought it was excellent.

[ewerk 31195]

Well The Departed lived upto every bit of the hype, I thought it was excellent.

 

Disappointed me, it never really got going.

[ewerk 31195]

And the end was shit too.

[Ted Maul 0]

Well The Departed lived upto every bit of the hype, I thought it was excellent.

 

Just saw it today too and I thought it was excellent. Slow to get going but once it was in full flow I was on the edge of my seat.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3964]

Saw Nacho Libre last night and was disappointed. Never really got going. JB never really got into the role. Hope the Tenacious D film is better.

[Happy Face 29]

Syriana

 

I'm happy to be lost after the first act of a film as long as I feel comfortable that the film knows where it's going, if theres still no discernable plot after the second act it needs to pull something special out of the bag (something Usual Suspects esque). This didn't. I don't like it when a film is so incoherent you have to watch it twice, it should give you at least the chance to follow what's going on the first time.

 

If you weren't bored an hour into it, you're either cleverer than me or a bigger sucker.

Edited October 9, 2006 by Happy Face

[wykikitoon 20713]

Wacthed Stand By Me last night.

 

Classic

[ewerk 31195]

Well The Departed lived upto every bit of the hype, I thought it was excellent.

 

Just saw it today too and I thought it was excellent. Slow to get going but once it was in full flow I was on the edge of my seat.

 

 

Aye but

 

 

***********SPOILER WARNING*****************

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The end seemed like it was tacked on at the last minute, suddenly up pops Chase, shoots DiCaprio and then everyone else dies, not exactly a dramatic climax or twist which could have been guessed, a complete let-down IMO.

[Renton 21983]

Agree Ewerk, the ending was as weak as piss. It was a good film imo, but not a masterpiece and not want I'll be wanting to watch again in a hurry. I also found the whole shared girl friend thing pretty contrived.

[ewerk 31195]

I'm no film buff but I do have to say that the acting from Di Caprio, Baldwin and Wahlberg (even though the last two weren't major characters) was all superb.

Edited October 9, 2006 by ewerk

[Lazarus 0]

i havnt seen the departed and not surer i want to cos tyhe original is such a great film.

[Happy Face 29]

i havnt seen the departed and not surer i want to cos tyhe original is such a great film.

 

 

I never really liked Infernal Affairs that much. Couldn't see why the fuss.

[Tooj 17]

The Karate Kid

 

'You're The Best Daniel!'

[Ted Maul 0]

Well The Departed lived upto every bit of the hype, I thought it was excellent.

 

Just saw it today too and I thought it was excellent. Slow to get going but once it was in full flow I was on the edge of my seat.

 

 

Aye but

 

 

***********SPOILER WARNING*****************

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The end seemed like it was tacked on at the last minute, suddenly up pops Chase, shoots DiCaprio and then everyone else dies, not exactly a dramatic climax or twist which could have been guessed, a complete let-down IMO.

 

 

Aye, the ending was probably the low point of the film. I was worried that it would drag on a bit too much but I didn't mind the length, not like Pirates of the Carribean which I couldn't wait to get out of.