Review the last film you saw

[Patrick Bateman]

 

Aye, well done you psuedo-intellectual tourist Really constructive.

 

 

Btw - I'd also give The diving bell and the butterfly 5 Stars

[Maximus]

Aye, well done you psuedo-intellectual tourist Really constructive.

 

Sorry took your original post the wrong way, I thought you were being sarcastic.

 

1 - gaaaaaaaay

2 - no you didn't! You said you couldn't wait to 'get your hands on a copy' !

1. you wish

2. Where did I say that? I said I was trying to get a copy and was worried by the fact it won awards at Cannes (usually not a good sign).

[Tommy Wiseau]

I thought it was okay.Thomas Turgoose and The Sound track saved the film from being a rotten tomato.Dead Man's shoes was a far better.

 

 

 

One thing I meant to add, which I'm sure won't have been missed by many dedicated movie saddos like myself, is the film's reminiscence of The 400 Blows throughout, culminating in the final scene and shot - a practical lift.

 

I thought it was a nice homage to a film that clearly influenced Meadows. Others may have found it crass.

 

Disagree with you about the soundtrack and Turgoose saving it from disaster, though - I thought it had strength of performances, writing and direction throughout.

 

As I said, I enjoyed Dead Man's Shoes more, but I think This Is England was a better film nonetheless.

[Doogle98]

AVP 2

 

another poor film clinging on for dear life onto what were once 2 great movie franchises .

so to rate them all ..

 

Aliens 5*

Alien 5*

Predator 5*

Alien3 3.5*

Predator2 3*

AVP 3*

AVP2 2*

Alien resurection 1*

[Tommy Wiseau]

Is it just me or would Diane Lane get it?

 

 

No.

 

It's also every red-blooded man who saw Unfaithful and Judge Dredd, or Google searched her without the safe search on...

[Ryan Gosling]

No.

 

It's also every red-blooded man who saw Unfaithful and Judge Dredd, or Google searched her without the safe search on...

 

Sweet Jean Harlow.

[Guest King]

Juno

quite funny, Junos a hotty aswell:heartpump:

[Maximus]

Juno

quite funny, Junos a hotty aswell:heartpump:

You might like the Korean version. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny,_Juno

 

[Craig R]

Transformers

 

 

I was expecting this to be really bad when I started watching, but it almost convinced me it was worthy of 2 stars rather than just the one. That was until about an hour into the movie and the robots started talking to the kids, and the black robot acted like a gangsta rappa and did a little breakdance to introduce himself. I stopped watching at this point and turned it off. Awful, just awful.

[Ivan Drago]

Transformers

 

 

I was expecting this to be really bad when I started watching, but it almost convinced me it was worthy of 2 stars rather than just the one. That was until about an hour into the movie and the robots started talking to the kids, and the black robot acted like a gangsta rappa and did a little breakdance to introduce himself. I stopped watching at this point and turned it off. Awful, just awful.

 

I would give it minus 5. My vitriol for that 'film' knows no bounds. I know hate is a strong word, but i really do hate it, i ****ing despise it with every inch of my body.

 

i hope everyone who was even remotely involved in that film's career dissapears and they end up homeless giving hand-jobs for 50p.

 

The biggest waste of a licence there's ever been, and the worst film i've ever seen, without a shadow of a doubt.

[Craig R]

I would give it minus 5. My vitriol for that 'film' knows no bounds. I know hate is a strong word, but i really do hate it, i ****ing despise it with every inch of my body.

 

i hope everyone who was even remotely involved in that film's career dissapears and they end up homeless giving hand-jobs for 50p.

 

The biggest waste of a licence there's ever been, and the worst film i've ever seen, without a shadow of a doubt.

 

It had been at least watchable up until that scene, but holy crap that bit was cringe-worthy. Can't bring myself to watch the last half of it.

[Maximus]

Hey but Shia Lepoof is the most talented actor of his generation, or at least that is what I have been told to believe.

[Ivan Drago]

Hey but Shia Lepoof is the most talented actor of his generation, or at least that is what I have been told to believe.

 

he's a dick. i'm boycotting the new Indiana Jones film because of that wee scrote, and the franchise-destroyer that is steven spielberg

[Ivan Drago]

It had been at least watchable up until that scene, but holy crap that bit was cringe-worthy. Can't bring myself to watch the last half of it.

 

as soon as it was announced i feared the worst - however i was hopeful that with spielberg on board it would be ok. When i heard Micheal Gay was directing my fears worsened.

 

however after hearing all the praise it was getting i thought i would give it a try, and approached it with an open mind. how i wish i never. the biggest regret of my life.

 

i remember thinking, like yourself, that it wasnt too bad - when you saw

Optimus Prime for the first time i was creaming myself, i thought it was going to be the best film of time, however after that it was all downhill - fast.

 

the only bonus is i watched it on pirate DVD.

 

CCP 1 - ********* 0

[Maximus]

Here is a review of the first major film by "this generation's Kubrick", far more entertaining than his work IMO.

 

http://imdb.com/title/tt0118749/usercomments-54

[Ryan Gosling]

Here is a review of the first major film by "this generation's Kubrick", far more entertaining than his work IMO.

 

http://imdb.com/title/tt0118749/usercomments-54

 

Why are you being such an arse?

 

Just because someone rates something that you don't doesn't make them wrong. That's one review - why not point out the ones that give it 8, 9 or 10 stars?

[Patrick Bateman]

Here is a review of the first major film by "this generation's Kubrick", far more entertaining than his work IMO.

 

http://imdb.com/title/tt0118749/usercomments-54

 

 

Have you seen There Will Be Blood, and if so, would you care to offer an opinion?

 

 

Your "If its American and acclaimed, it's below me" attitude is childish. I could post a thousand other reviews of PTA's films which will praise him to high heavens.

[Prince Buaben]

Last film i saw was Juno!! To be fair the film in general was b@lls!! Couple of good one liners in the middle

[Tommy Wiseau]

Here is a review of the first major film by "this generation's Kubrick", far more entertaining than his work IMO.

 

http://imdb.com/title/tt0118749/usercomments-54

 

 

You scoured IMDB to find a user comment that agreed with your opinion, and then posted it as if it was final proof that PT Anderson is a shyster?

 

Seriously.

[Maximus]

Have you seen There Will Be Blood, and if so, would you care to offer an opinion?

 

 

Your "If its American and acclaimed, it's below me" attitude is childish. I could post a thousand other reviews of PTA's films which will praise him to high heavens.

So they are'nt praising the film?

 

And yes I have seen TWBB and it suffers from the same problems as all his other films - ridiculous levels of self indulgence which weigh down every aspect of the film, needless extravangance (25 minute establishing shots!!) that make Kubrick and Scorsese look like minimalists, over acting from every corner, serious lack of an editor (once again linked to his massive over baring ego), over dramatization and near total concentration on visulas and set pieces rather than plot and character development. The whole film is basically a showcase for DDL, playing the same character from Gangs of New York (another film that collapsed under the weight of his ham).

 

PTA is another one of the 'hack pack' along with Wes Anderson and Tarantino, they are all byproducts of the sad cult of personality/celebrity that has gripped our (and American) culture. Films these days rarely stand out on their own merits, the director has become the star of the show and if a film is by a particular director you are assured it will get praise and awards even if it's a pile of ****e.

 

My beef is'nt with American films as a whole, it is with the increasing levels of hype and media/critical manipulation (Emperor's new clothes syndrome) and the FACT that the supposed 'art' films coming from the States that get all the backing are now far more superficial (dumbed down) than they ever have been and it's directors like Anderson who are at the forefront of this style over substance movement. You'll see plenty of good reviews because they are thrust in your face 24/7, Hollywood is'nt built on talent or art it is built on hype and PTA just happens to be the latest darling of the Hollywood bigwigs. The critics buy into whatever is thrown at them (save for a select few) and joe public jump on the bandwagon, and this happens over and over again - however as public opinion of the likes of Tarantino and Wes Anderson has started to change (people are finally seeing the lack of talent and substance through the flashy visuals) the critics have followed suit, I have no doubt the same will happen with PTA and Hollywood will be forced to look for it's next auteur prodigy to hype to oblivion. One day people will get fed up of these 'auteurs' and demand something with more depth. I hope that day is very close.

[Maximus]

You scoured IMDB to find a user comment that agreed with your opinion, and then posted it as if it was final proof that PT Anderson is a shyster?

 

Seriously.

Just an alternative opinion to the 'professional' 'critics'.

 

Why do you think a user comment is any less worthy than that of a professional critic? That is part of what is wrong with the industry, those at the top are deciding what has 'artistic merit' not the people actually going to see it.

[Tommy Wiseau]

Just an alternative opinion to the 'professional' 'critics'.

 

Why do you think a user comment is any less worthy than that of a professional critic? That is part of what is wrong with the industry, those at the top are deciding what has 'artistic merit' not the people actually going to see it.

 

 

 

 

I never said a user comment was worth any less (although frankly, on a general level, it is - professional film critics, as a rule, have more experience and knowledge of film than 99% of regular film-goers).

 

My point was nothing to do with whether the guy was Peter Bradshaw, David Thomson or Joe Public.

 

My point was that, when you have to look so hard for something that agrees with your opinion, and then present it as though the author is a beacon of truth, seeing through the sycophancy, you've most likely taken a step too far into pomposity.

[i8hibsh]

P.S I love you

 

total *****

[Maximus]

I never said a user comment was worth any less (although frankly, on a general level, it is - professional film critics, as a rule, have more experience and knowledge of film than 99% of regular film-goers). Well let's see what happens 10 years down the line when the internet renders them obsolete, not before time.

 

My point was nothing to do with whether the guy was Peter Bradshaw, David Thomson or Joe Public.

 

My point was that, when you have to look so hard for something that agrees with your opinion, and then present it as though the author is a beacon of truth, seeing through the sycophancy, you've most likely taken a step too far into pomposity. I did'nt have look hard, there are thousands of other reviewers/cinema goers who share a similar opinion. The fact is all that Joe Public generally hears/reads is what the industry puts out for them to hear or for them to read on every square inch of a DVD case - not the sound of all the feet leaving the cinemas early or the groans of unpaid film experts. Critics are no less of a herd than the genenral public despite all their supposed knowledge, if the top critic says it is good then generally the rest will follow, the same happens in regards to who the director of a particular film is etc. You do know about Pauline Kael, don't you?

.

[Gavsy Van Gaverson]

I watched 'A time to kill' last night. I seen it years ago but watched it again last night. Had forgotten how good it was.

 

I also didn't realise it had such a good cast (Matthew McConaughey, Sandra Bullock, Samuel L Jackson, Kevin Spacey, Donald Sutherland, Kiefer Sutherland and Ashley Judd).

 

Samuel L Jackson is as usual, immense.

[Ryan Gosling]

P.S I love you

 

total *****

 

You're giving it 5 stars then?

[Ryan Gosling]

So they are'nt praising the film?

 

And yes I have seen TWBB and it suffers from the same problems as all his other films - ridiculous levels of self indulgence which weigh down every aspect of the film, needless extravangance (25 minute establishing shots!!) that make Kubrick and Scorsese look like minimalists, over acting from every corner, serious lack of an editor (once again linked to his massive over baring ego), over dramatization and near total concentration on visulas and set pieces rather than plot and character development. The whole film is basically a showcase for DDL, playing the same character from Gangs of New York (another film that collapsed under the weight of his ham).

 

PTA is another one of the 'hack pack' along with Wes Anderson and Tarantino, they are all byproducts of the sad cult of personality/celebrity that has gripped our (and American) culture. Films these days rarely stand out on their own merits, the director has become the star of the show and if a film is by a particular director you are assured it will get praise and awards even if it's a pile of ****e.

 

My beef is'nt with American films as a whole, it is with the increasing levels of hype and media/critical manipulation (Emperor's new clothes syndrome) and the FACT that the supposed 'art' films coming from the States that get all the backing are now far more superficial (dumbed down) than they ever have been and it's directors like Anderson who are at the forefront of this style over substance movement. You'll see plenty of good reviews because they are thrust in your face 24/7, Hollywood is'nt built on talent or art it is built on hype and PTA just happens to be the latest darling of the Hollywood bigwigs. The critics buy into whatever is thrown at them (save for a select few) and joe public jump on the bandwagon, and this happens over and over again - however as public opinion of the likes of Tarantino and Wes Anderson has started to change (people are finally seeing the lack of talent and substance through the flashy visuals) the critics have followed suit, I have no doubt the same will happen with PTA and Hollywood will be forced to look for it's next auteur prodigy to hype to oblivion. One day people will get fed up of these 'auteurs' and demand something with more depth. I hope that day is very close.

 

 

Have you ever considered that you're wrong?

[Ryan Gosling]

Just an alternative opinion to the 'professional' 'critics'.

 

Why do you think a user comment is any less worthy than that of a professional critic? That is part of what is wrong with the industry, those at the top are deciding what has 'artistic merit' not the people actually going to see it.

 

I thought 'The Diving Bell and the Butterfly' was crap. No real plot, over-acting all around, and a generally boring flow.

[Ryan Gosling]

Oh and it's too obvious and manipulative. The visuals made me ill. 'Eurotrash' at it's most self-indulgent.

 

Sickening.

[Patrick Bateman]

So they are'nt praising the film?

 

And yes I have seen TWBB and it suffers from the same problems as all his other films - ridiculous levels of self indulgence which weigh down every aspect of the film, needless extravangance (25 minute establishing shots!!) that make Kubrick and Scorsese look like minimalists, over acting from every corner, serious lack of an editor (once again linked to his massive over baring ego), over dramatization and near total concentration on visulas and set pieces rather than plot and character development. The whole film is basically a showcase for DDL, playing the same character from Gangs of New York (another film that collapsed under the weight of his ham).

 

So the film is both a vehicle for PTA's self-indulgence, which is overly dependent on visuals AND its a showcase for DDL at the same time? It is surely one or the other? It IS a film about Daniel Plainview (DDL) and his life, so you'd expect that he'd be central... As for there being 'over-acting' from every corner, what level of acting would you prefer? How about his son, H.W. who is practically silent throughout, or the cast of locals who make up the town and congregation? This film doesn't try to be artsy or to have industrial realism, elements which you seem to judge every film by. Anyway, how would you have improved it?

[Maximus]

So the film is both PTA's self-indulgence which is overly dependent on visuals AND its a showcase for DDL at the same time? It is surely one or the other? It IS a film about Daniel Plainview (DDL) and his life, so you'd expect that he'd be central... As for there being 'over-acting' from every corner, what level of acting would you prefer? How about his son, H.W. who is practically silent throughout, or the cast of locals who make up the town and congregation? This film doesn't try to be artsy or to have industrial realism, elements which you seem to judge every film by. Anyway, how would you have improved it?

The over acting is part of the over indulgence, everything has to be overblown he does not know the meaning of the word subtle. How can it not be a showcase for both? Those are the two most noticable elements that black out everything else, well apart from the score, in true PTA fashion that is also as subtle as a sledge hammer.

 

As for improving it, well for a start the film needed a major edit (removing at least 40 minutes), something this director seems incapable of, and reigning in of the lead actor.

[ArmiyaRomanova]

So they are'nt praising the film?

 

And yes I have seen TWBB and it suffers from the same problems as all his other films - ridiculous levels of self indulgence which weigh down every aspect of the film, needless extravangance (25 minute establishing shots!!) that make Kubrick and Scorsese look like minimalists, over acting from every corner, serious lack of an editor (once again linked to his massive over baring ego), over dramatization and near total concentration on visulas and set pieces rather than plot and character development. The whole film is basically a showcase for DDL, playing the same character from Gangs of New York (another film that collapsed under the weight of his ham).

 

PTA is another one of the 'hack pack' along with Wes Anderson and Tarantino, they are all byproducts of the sad cult of personality/celebrity that has gripped our (and American) culture. Films these days rarely stand out on their own merits, the director has become the star of the show and if a film is by a particular director you are assured it will get praise and awards even if it's a pile of ****e.

 

My beef is'nt with American films as a whole, it is with the increasing levels of hype and media/critical manipulation (Emperor's new clothes syndrome) and the FACT that the supposed 'art' films coming from the States that get all the backing are now far more superficial (dumbed down) than they ever have been and it's directors like Anderson who are at the forefront of this style over substance movement. You'll see plenty of good reviews because they are thrust in your face 24/7, Hollywood is'nt built on talent or art it is built on hype and PTA just happens to be the latest darling of the Hollywood bigwigs. The critics buy into whatever is thrown at them (save for a select few) and joe public jump on the bandwagon, and this happens over and over again - however as public opinion of the likes of Tarantino and Wes Anderson has started to change (people are finally seeing the lack of talent and substance through the flashy visuals) the critics have followed suit, I have no doubt the same will happen with PTA and Hollywood will be forced to look for it's next auteur prodigy to hype to oblivion. One day people will get fed up of these 'auteurs' and demand something with more depth. I hope that day is very close.

 

I understand what you're saying SRB, but I honestly feel that you might look again at TWBB. It's a life story based on a book (which I admit I haven't read), so structurally it's always likely to be an uncomfortable fit.

 

I don't think there's any lack of substance in this particular film - surely it's about the forces of capitalism and organised religion battling for the hearts and minds of a young America? Portraying the worst aspects of both camps.

 

In this case, style does serve substance, in a manner which hopes to draw a wide audience in the US to see something which contains some very uncomfortable truths about their own history. Food for thought at least.

[ArmiyaRomanova]

Oh, and let's face it, if we were to talk about stylistic decisions allegedly taken in the name of cinematic art, TWBB is hardly on a 'poor film' par with the crass and calamitous collision of style and content that was Euro 'auteur' Lars Von Trier's 'Breaking The Waves' is it?

[Maximus]

I understand what you're saying SRB, but I honestly feel that you might look again at TWBB. It's a life story based on a book (which I admit I haven't read), so structurally it's always likely to be an uncomfortable fit.

 

I don't think there's any lack of substance in this particular film - surely it's about the forces of capitalism and organised religion battling for the hearts and minds of a young America? Portraying the worst aspects of both camps.

 

In this case, style does serve substance, in a manner which hopes to draw a wide audience in the US to see something which contains some very uncomfortable truths about their own history. Food for thought at least.

I agree there is the intent to tell something but it is'nt balanced (the portrayal of 'the Church' for example) or concise enough to work IMO, largely because of the director's ego and the overwrought performance of DDL. Like Magnolia and Boogie Nights it spectacularly falls apart in the second half and I got the feeling once again that there was a noble intent that never came to fruition because the director smothered it at birth. Anderson's work is 'craft' at the moment not art, until he can tone down his style and concentrate more on the other aspects of his films (plot and message) he will just continue to make hollow epics, more focused on having large casts and long tracking shots than any serious exploration of their themes.

[Maximus]

Oh, and let's face it, if we were to talk about stylistic decisions allegedly taken in the name of cinematic art, TWBB is hardly on a 'poor film' par with the crass and calamitous collision of style and content that was Euro 'auteur' Lars Von Trier's 'Breaking The Waves' is it?

Nope, have I ever stated any admiration for LVT? I tend not to be a fan of modern auteurs, I like films that can stand on their own merits and not be weighed down by the director's ego, ticks and trademarks.

[Patrick Bateman]

The over acting is part of the over indulgence, everything has to be overblown he does not know the meaning of the word subtle. How can it not be a showcase for both? Those are the two most noticable elements that black out everything else, well apart from the score, in true PTA fashion that is also as subtle as a sledge hammer.

 

As for improving it, well for a start the film needed a major edit (removing at least 40 minutes), something this director seems incapable of, and reigning in of the lead actor.

 

How is DDL's acting a sign of PTA's self-indulgence? His acting and the use of editing, camera-work etc are not particularly connected. The music is by Johnny Greenwood, not PTA, and hardly signposts anything. There are lots of subtle thematic elements to the film, explained below.

 

 

*SPOILER ALERT*

 

 

What does Plainview say to Eli after his baptism? Why does Eli accept him into their church in the first place? Why does Plainview kill the two people who he opens up to? I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones from the top of my head

 

*End Of Spoilers*

 

 

 

 

 

Surely the fact that it has a rating of 8.8 on IMDB from 25,000 votes would suggest that it isn't just the critics who enjoyed it?

[Tommy Wiseau]

Well let's see what happens 10 years down the line when the internet renders them obsolete, not before time.

 

I did'nt have look hard, there are thousands of other reviewers/cinema goers who share a similar opinion. The fact is all that Joe Public generally hears/reads is what the industry puts out for them to hear or for them to read on every square inch of a DVD case - not the sound of all the feet leaving the cinemas early or the groans of unpaid film experts. Critics are no less of a herd than the genenral public despite all their supposed knowledge, if the top critic says it is good then generally the rest will follow, the same happens in regards to who the director of a particular film is etc. You do know about Pauline Kael, don't you?.

 

 

 

So, to summarise; critics and the public are sheep, and don't know what they are talking about. The only people who do know what they are talking about are people who agree with your opinion.

 

I know who Pauline Kael is - and I would argue that her disproportionate influence over the industry is of limited relevance here, given that it was 30 years ago. If you look beyond the likes of Empire magazine, which in recent years has become a glorified promotional tool for distributors, and read other reviewers, particularly those in the broadsheets, there are more conflicting reviews now than I have ever read.

 

I would say, however, that there will always be people with influence to wield in the movie industry, be they critics, money men, distributors, producers, directors, actors or simply people who pay to go and see films. That's the way it is, and the way it's always been. C'est la vie.

[Maximus]

The only people who do know what they are talking about are people who agree with your opinion.

Hmmm, I'm not too different from you in that respect then, c'est la vie.

[Pants Shaton]

There will be blood

 

Review:Sh*t

 

Stars: **

[Maximus]

There will be blood

 

Review:Sh*t

 

Stars: **

Oh, how dare you

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

Hmmm, I'm not too different from you in that respect then, c'est la vie.

 

 

I'd love to know where I ever gave that impression.

[Maximus]

I'd love to know where I ever gave that impression.

From the lecture I received from you after I dared to say some of the Coens' films were 'a bit hollow'.

[Ryan Gosling]

SRB - can you tell us which of these 250 http://www.imdb.com/top_250_films you actually rate?

[Maximus]

SRB - can you tell us which of these 250 http://www.imdb.com/top_250_films you actually rate?

Quite a few of them, not seen all of them though. How many have you seen and what do you think of them? What relevance does that list have anyway? I can't see films like Memento and Fight Club being seen as classics in 20 years time.

 

When I was a teenager I thought Pulp Fiction was a good film, I thought the Matrix was great and Memento was breathtaking cinema. Then when I got to 19 or 20 I got tired of the sheer nihilism of the films being churned out and labled cult classics or a masterpiece so I started to watch older American movies, Kurosawa films and European cinema. Later, when I watched the likes of Pullp Fiction again with a different perspective I ended up thinking - wow, I can't believe I ever though this film was good, it's a load of nonsense. I've noticed a lot of other people's opinions on films and music shift from one extreme to the other like this over a period of time. I don't know you personally but I gather you are still quite young (18/19?) and bright so I think your opinions will change quite dramatically over the next decade or so as well and you will look back at things you thought were great and shake your head.

 

I really can't see the films discussed and argued over in the last part of this thread being remembered in the same way real classics like Taxi Driver and Seven Samuri are, basically because under the surface, they aint really that good. Time will tell I guess.

[Maximus]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044741/

 

Now that is a film of serious quality IMO

[Ryan Gosling]

Quite a few of them, not seen all of them though. How many have you seen and what do you think of them? What relevance does that list have anyway? I can't see films like Memento and Fight Club being seen as classics in 20 years time.

 

When I was a teenager I thought Pulp Fiction was a good film, I thought the Matrix was great and Memento was breathtaking cinema. Then when I got to 19 or 20 I got tired of the sheer nihilism of the films being churned out and labled cult classics or a masterpiece so I started to watch older American movies, Kurosawa films and European cinema. Later, when I watched the likes of Pullp Fiction again with a different perspective I ended up thinking - wow, I can't believe I ever though this film was good, it's a load of nonsense. I've noticed a lot of other people's opinions on films and music shift from one extreme to the other like this over a period of time. I don't know you personally but I gather you are still quite young (18/19?) and bright so I think your opinions will change quite dramatically over the next decade or so as well and you will look back at things you thought were great and shake your head.

 

I really can't see the films discussed and argued over in the last part of this thread being remembered in the same way real classics like Taxi Driver and Seven Samuri are, basically because under the surface, they aint really that good. Time will tell I guess.

 

I've seen 207 of them. And I liked most of them.

 

And I think the most over-rated one of all is Citizen Kane, which I studied in sixth-year. Yes the camera techniques were revolutionary but my god, what a mess.

[Patrick Bateman]

I don't know you personally but I gather you are still quite young (18/19?) and bright so I think your opinions will change quite dramatically over the next decade or so as well and you will look back at things you thought were great and shake your head.

 

 

How patronising. Are film tastes linked to intelligence then?

 

You seem incapable of severing a film from its geographical or historical frame, and romanticise periods of cinema which produced a LOT of guff too.

 

As for films being "nonsense" - So what? Cinema is a means of entertainment, it has no obligation to realism or norms. It can and should allow for escapism without being slandered.

[Maximus]

How patronising. 1 Are film tastes linked to intelligence then?

 

2 You seem incapable of severing a film from its geographical or historical frame, and romanticise periods of cinema which produced a LOT of guff too.

 

3 As for films being "nonsense" - So what? Cinema is a means of entertainment, it has no obligation to realism or norms. It can and should allow for escapism without being slandered.

1. Where did I suggest that? I was just pointing out the fact that our opinions change as we get older, in most cases, and our perspective changes with experience.

 

2. You can tell all that from a dozen posts, I guess you missed my first post on this thread? All time periods in cinema have produced 'guff' as you put it, the guff of the past never got the level of acclaim the guff of today is afforded.

 

3. Junk might have been a better word. I have no problem with escapism, in fact if you had read some of my more positive views on certain films you'd see I actually prefer it in most cases and I also enjoy films made for purely for entertainment value. What I don't understand is nihilism being elevated to the level of profound, 'high art'.

[Ryan Gosling]

1. Where did I suggest that? I was just pointing out the fact that our opinions change as we get older, in most cases, and our perspective changes with experience.

 

Well, when I was 10, my favourite films included Back to the Future, Twister and Terminator 2.

 

Guess what? They're still my favourites.

[PsychocAndy]

Control

 

Life of Ian Curtis.

 

Frighteningly believable performance by Sam Riley. Where he is singing into the microphone and the camera comes up close and you see him rolling his eyes it is quite remarkable. And eerie.

 

All the acting is of an incredibly high standard. The actors who played Sumner and Hookie amazing too. And Samantha Morton, well, she is sheer class.

 

Very good film. Sad though.

 

5 out of 6.

 

All of the above and some. Gave me goosebumps when they played on Tony Wilson's show.

Thought the fella that played Curtis in 24Hour Party People was great but this bloke is better

5 out of 5