Last Movie you Watched?

1507508510512513988

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Thanks for the spoiler free overview @DaltonCraig007. Usually I see more enthusiasm when you comment on new films & I know you're generally a glass half full person here so I'm wondering now if I should be worried.

    PS: I loved Prometheus, and as long as visuals are comparable to that film (and we get to see a few Engineers), I should be happy in a few weeks.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2017 Posts: 15,723
    @bondjames Don't get me wrong, it's a really solid new addition to the space horror genre, but I was surprised when I left the cinema earlier than I told myself I enjoyed the recent Life more than 'Covenant'. If you want me to give a rating, 'Covenant' is a solid 7.5/10, if not borderline 8/10. I had a very big hype on this film, so maybe I was expecting something else. But don't worry @bondjames, I'm sure when I rewatch 'Covenant', you'll get my usual enthusiasm on this thread. All I can say is I have a big urge to watch it again soon on Blu Ray.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Great to read that @DaltonCraig007.

    I really enjoyed Life as well.

    I know what you mean. I rewatched Inferno last night and really enjoyed it, which is in contrast to my tepid response on first viewing last year. In fact, it's now probably my 2nd favourite of the Dan Brown adaptations and I actually have an urge to view it again sooner rather than later. Irfan Khan is a riot in it and Omar Sy, Felicity Jones & Sidse Babett Knudsen are all excellent as well. I hope they make more of these and develop the relationship between Elizabeth Sinskey and Langdon more (there's a new novel entitled Origin out later this year) but it's touch and go given Inferno wasn't a huge money maker for Sony.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    @bondjames I'll be going to 'King Arthur: Legend of the Sword' next Wednesday. Currently at 24% on RT, but the trailers really sold me (lots of battles featuring giant elephants and whatnot!). I hope it's a big dose of fun.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    24%?

    You are a a brave man @DaltonCraig007. I wish you luck with the viewing. Hopefully the action makes up for any failure on the script front!
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    @bondjames Thanks, but it does look very action packed, which is why I hope I'll enjoy it.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I think I will rather watch SWORD IN THE STONE again.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @DaltonCraig007, it's not my type of film, but I have to admit it doesn't look all bad. Jude Law always brings it.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,084
    Alien: Covenant (2017)

    Quick no-spoiler review: The first 30 minutes are fantastic, extreme tension as we know what the crew will be faced with thanks to the previous films in the Alien universe. Once the first creature pops up, the tension lowers considerably as nearly all of them are CGI (and not from practical effects), but the sheer energetic directing from Scott and the very gory action bits still maintained my attention. However, a 20/30 minutes sequence near the middle, was very 'Prometheus'-like, and almost put me to sleep. Things picked up for the climax with the main huge creature, but it was very rushed as the climax went on for hardly 10 minutes. I was shocked when the end credits started, wondering if there were bits of the climax missing. All in all, I really liked it more than 'Prometheus', but this new outing is still way below the original films from 1979 and 1986.

    That review has put my mind at rest that I definitely won't bother with it.

    Sick to death of lazy, crap CGI.
  • Posts: 3,333
    I don't get all this ragging on CGI as a means to criticising a movie. Before CGI, people used to complain about it being only a man-in-a-costume, now they criticise it for not being a man-in-a-costume. If Scott had had CGI available to him back in 79, he'd have used it, but because he didn't he had to shoot the movie in such a way as to disguise it was only a costume which was highly restrictive and prevented the costumed-actor from moving very fast. Now that he can fully realise the fluidity of the monster, he gets slated for it. [Shrugs shoulders] Also, @DaltonCraig007, not wanting to pick holes in your critique, but didn't you rave about Skull Island which had an abundance of terrible CGI in it, and was also a terribly uninspiring movie with a weak story, to boot? Surely, Alien Covenant can't be that bad?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2017 Posts: 15,723
    Nowhere did I wrote 'Alien: Covenant' is a bad movie compared to 'Kong: Skull Island'. I never post reviews on this thread based on the quality of the films, but on my enjoyment of them. 'Covenant', by all means is a way better made film than 'Skull Island', but I just had a lot more fun with the latter than the former. 'Criminal', the recent action flick with Kevin Costner, is one my favorite films from 2016. I have no problem admitting it is nowhere close to being a expertly made film, but it did give me maximum entertainment for 2 hours, and that's all I ask for. @bondsum, I advise that you or anyone on MI6Community to never base yourself on my reviews, as they only reflect my personal enjoyment and not in any way the quality of cinematic merit on the films. Bottom line: all my reviews are made using the 'DaltonCraig007 meter', with a 10 DaltonCraig007 out of 10 goes to any movie that knock my pants down (be it Hacksaw Ridge, Inception, or something like Crank, Escape Plan or Run All Night).
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    edited May 2017 Posts: 4,084
    bondsum wrote: »
    I don't get all this ragging on CGI as a means to criticising a movie. Before CGI, people used to complain about it being only a man-in-a-costume, now they criticise it for not being a man-in-a-costume. If Scott had had CGI available to him back in 79, he'd have used it, but because he didn't he had to shoot the movie in such a way as to disguise it was only a costume which was highly restrictive and prevented the costumed-actor from moving very fast. Now that he can fully realise the fluidity of the monster, he gets slated for it. [Shrugs shoulders] Also, @DaltonCraig007, not wanting to pick holes in your critique, but didn't you rave about Skull Island which had an abundance of terrible CGI in it, and was also a terribly uninspiring movie with a weak story, to boot? Surely, Alien Covenant can't be that bad?

    Give me a 'man in a suit' any day of the week. At least I know it's there

    The creature effects in Alien and Aliens are very well done and are far superior to any computer generated effect in my book.

    The makers have to work harder and be more ingenious with practical effects. With CGI everything becomes lazy and nowhere near as effective. Thank Christ it wasn't around back then. The original Alien wouldn't have been half as good.

    Perhaps it's my age....
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I don t get this hatred for cgi, either. It s a fantastic tool that gives film makers a freedom to depict much that was impossible before.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I think the issue people have is with bad CGI.

    Even animatronics & prosthetics can look bad if poorly done. Remember all the crappy horror flicks from the 80's which sported this stuff.

    Bottom line though is that I see far too much bad CGI these days which takes me out of the experience, and that includes at critical moments in some of the recent Bond films. It's just not necessary, because if done well CGI can be quite effective. As I said somewhere, the new Pirates film seems to do a very good job of it based on the trailers.

    I find it works best when augmenting a scene, but the colour palette and granularity gives it away normally (probably done to compensate and hide the effect) when there's too much of it, like in some of the Marvel flicks.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Without CGI, a movie is nothing. This video demonstrates that very well.

  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,084
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think the issue people have is with bad CGI.

    Even animatronics & prosthetics can look bad if poorly done. Remember all the crappy horror flicks from the 80's which sported this stuff.

    Bottom line though is that I see far too much bad CGI these days which takes me out of the experience, and that includes at critical moments in some of the recent Bond films. It's just not necessary, because if done well CGI can be quite effective. As I said somewhere, the new Pirates film seems to do a very good job of it based on the trailers.

    I find it works best when augmenting a scene, but the colour palette and granularity gives it away normally (probably done to compensate and hide the effect) when there's too much of it, like in some of the Marvel flicks.

    Exactly right @bondjames

    CGI when done properly can be effective, but it's used way too much for my liking.

    Bad CGI does take you right out of a movie (That godawful sequence at the start of Age of Ultron is a case in point)

    But it can also be incredibly good (Gollum/ The new Planet Of The Apes films)

    When I stop believing what I'm seeing on screen is real it's game over and you're taken out of the experience as mentioned by bondjames.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think the issue people have is with bad CGI.

    .

    If that were the case, people wouldn t complain about that "bad cgi" when there was no cgi at all in the shot. I have seen it here more than once. Some people (falsely) believe a shot contains cgi and therefore the scene sucks and looks fake. Pretty ironic and revealing.
  • I personally think the Anakin Skywalker CGI in Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith was much worse than Jar-Jar's. At least they animated Jar-Jar.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think the issue people have is with bad CGI.

    .

    If that were the case, people wouldn t complain about that "bad cgi" when there was no cgi at all in the shot. I have seen it here more than once. Some people (falsely) believe a shot contains cgi and therefore the scene sucks and looks fake. Pretty ironic and revealing.
    There are always exceptions to a rule and perhaps you've found one. Could you give us an example?

    If a scene is filmed in a manner which has excessive use of filters or bad lighting, contrast & exposure then it's quite possible that some would think it was done poorly with CGI.

    Such a conclusion, even if incorrect, would be perfectly reasonable I would think, given the prevalence of computer generated graphics we see everywhere in films these days.
  • Seven_Point_Six_FiveSeven_Point_Six_Five Southern California
    Posts: 1,257
    I saw a press screening of King Arthur: Legend of the Sword last night. With the exception of a cool action scene or two, this film didn't interest me in the slightest. This film was just a dizzying parade of boringness and Guy Ritchie'isms.
  • Posts: 19,339
    If thats the case im amazed Jude Law took a role in it...unusual for him.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    King Arthur seems like an interesting experiment, but I think the biggest issue is clear in every trailer: taking a medieval film and giving it a stylized look that is very anachronistic. Richie did sort of the same thing with Victorian London in his Holmes films, but that was more reigned in compared to Arthur, which is a bit too rock'n'roll. The expected slow-mo shots, the tracking, shaky camera close-ups on running characters and the middle-finger raising rebellious nature of its overall mood and style is all very Guy Ritchie. A bit too much Guy Ritchie. He's an interesting filmmaker, but it's why I don't want him touching Bond. Style is great, but one must know the limitations of it.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    Dario Argento's Phenomena - Arrow Video blu-ray limited edition box set. Was not sure what to expect with this one as it has been cited as one of the director's lesser films. But I have to say I enjoyed it, while not having any stand-out set pieces I found the whole film quite enjoyable especially the nods to Argento's previous films.
    This Arrow Video box set is stunning: featuring three cuts of the film; the 116 minute Italian version with hybrid sound, the 110 min international version, and the 83 min America cut which is retitled 'Creepers'. Also a cd of the soundtrack.
    Starring a young Jennifer Connelly, she looks beautiful throughout this film; and a great turn from Donald Pleasence with Scottish accent. Arrow have done a 'phenomenal' job with this release. The whole film looks stunning with some close ups, usually of Pleasence, breathtaking.
    The film does have some logic and wtf moments (as is usual with these types of film), I mean really, who disposes of a straight razor in a public bin?! But all in all a great viewing experience, and I'm looking forward to seeing the 110 and 83 minute cuts to see how they hold up. Arrow should be congratulated on another outstanding release (I do believe this one is almost sold out) and I'm really looking forward to their box set of The Bird With The Crystal Plumage out mid-to-late June
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    King Arthur seems like an interesting experiment, but I think the biggest issue is clear in every trailer: taking a medieval film and giving it a stylized look that is very anachronistic. Richie did sort of the same thing with Victorian London in his Holmes films, but that was more reigned in compared to Arthur, which is a bit too rock'n'roll. The expected slow-mo shots, the tracking, shaky camera close-ups on running characters and the middle-finger raising rebellious nature of its overall mood and style is all very Guy Ritchie. A bit too much Guy Ritchie. He's an interesting filmmaker, but it's why I don't want him touching Bond. Style is great, but one must know the limitations of it.

    And did they really have electric razors back then? Just look at those football hairstyles.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Nowhere did I wrote 'Alien: Covenant' is a bad movie compared to 'Kong: Skull Island'. I never post reviews on this thread based on the quality of the films, but on my enjoyment of them. 'Covenant', by all means is a way better made film than 'Skull Island', but I just had a lot more fun with the latter than the former. 'Criminal', the recent action flick with Kevin Costner, is one my favorite films from 2016. I have no problem admitting it is nowhere close to being a expertly made film, but it did give me maximum entertainment for 2 hours, and that's all I ask for. @bondsum, I advise that you or anyone on MI6Community to never base yourself on my reviews, as they only reflect my personal enjoyment and not in any way the quality of cinematic merit on the films. Bottom line: all my reviews are made using the 'DaltonCraig007 meter', with a 10 DaltonCraig007 out of 10 goes to any movie that knock my pants down (be it Hacksaw Ridge, Inception, or something like Crank, Escape Plan or Run All Night).
    I apologise, @DaltonCraig007. You're quite right, you didn't say that Alien Covenant was a bad movie; you were calling into question the over-use in CGI and not practical effects, which was what I was alluding to in my response, especially as Skull Island was mostly CGI and didn't use any practical effects, and yet you gave the giant ape movie a pass in this department but impugned Covenant for doing the same thing. That was my only reason to question your own hallmark standard in the practical effects verses CGI debate.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2017 Posts: 15,723
    @bondsum No worries, I understand your question! I really don't mind CGI at all, but for 'Alien' I kind of expect the creatures to be made by practical effects, just like I want real stunt work in Bond films but I can still be impressed with CGI action scenes in other blockbusters like 'Doctor Strange'. :)
  • Posts: 3,333
    Cheers, @DaltonCraig007, for your reply. It's always been my understanding that only the first two Alien movies used costumed makeover and practical effects, and Alien3 was when the introduction of CGI first came into the series. Fortunately, I think CGI has come in leaps and bounds since Fincher used it back in '92.

    For the record, I like both CGI and practical effects. I suppose it all depends on its execution as to whether I think it looks good or not. Story-wise, nothing will surpass the original Alien, as it was a smart, compact and prototypical movie. As a prequel, Covenant won't be able to achieve the same level of intensity and originality, especially as we know the ending isn't going to be consequential or unpredictable. The outcome has already been established. That said, it does feel that Scott has abandoned his promise of expanding the Engineer's backstory, which might be a mistake. I'll have a better idea of this when I see Covenant at the end of next week.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @bondsum No worries, I understand your question! I really don't mind CGI at all, but for 'Alien' I kind of expect the creatures to be made by practical effects, just like I want real stunt work in Bond films but I can still be impressed with CGI action scenes in other blockbusters like 'Doctor Strange'. :)
    I'm pretty much the same way. I expect a much higher standard for stunt work & special effects augmentation in reputed series like Alien, Bond and MI.

    I'm more likely to give newcomers like Skull Island a pass because they don't have such a storied history. The trailers definitely indicated to me that the film was played pretty much for laughs anyway. I didn't feel frightened even once because most of it was so fake looking.


    SPY (2015)
    8Rr41rR.jpg

    I was in the mood for something different. I've been getting a kick out of watching some of the Bond films of late, and so wanted to stay in the genre, but decided to give 007 a break. The options included Kingsman, MI or something else. I decided to go for something else, and put in this spy comedy, released in the same crowded year that gave us SP, as well as the superb Vaughn and Cruise entries. Essentially a parody of the genre, it stars the chunky Melissa McCarthy as Susan Cooper, a lowly CIA analyst who is forced to go into the field to avenge a colleague (Jude Law, replete with obvious thick hair transplant & facelift, but yet surprisingly effective as dapper Bond style agent Bradley Fine). The villain responsible for Fine's untimely demise is Rayna Boyanov (played convincingly by the delectable Rose Byrne). The CIA are forced to use Cooper because all their other operatives (including Jason Statham as overconfident show off Rick Ford) have been compromised. Armed with a few embarrasing accessories from the CIA's version of Q branch, Cooper goes to Paris and then Budapest to infiltrate Rayna's operation and bring her down. She is aided by her deskbound analyst friend Nancy (played by the always hilarious Miranda Hart). The film boasts an all star supporting cast, including the charismatic Bobby Cannavale (a terrorist financier), Allison Janney (as CIA boss), Peter Serafinowicz (as randy Italian facilitator) & the lovely Morena Baccarin (as Karen Walker, another CIA operative).

    I viewed the unrated version, which has quite a bit of cuss words & a couple of unexpected but overused shots of a male appendage. The location work is very good in the film, and it's entertaining throughout. There's quite a bit of money up on the screen. McCarthy is certainly not for everyone, but even if she's not one's cup of tea, it's worth watching just for Law, Statham, Byrne and Cannavale hamming it up. There are worse ways to spend a couple of hours.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    My precise feelings for the film. I watched the film for everyone else other than McCarthy. I mean, the Stath, Law, some other known action faces, Peter Serafinowicz (I love that guy!), etc. They made it all funny for me, and Rose Byrne is lovely as a sophisticated villainess. McCarthy, even though she was the star of the whole show, was the most uninteresting point for me.

    I'm really hoping we get a Rick Ford movie someday. Jason Statham was the funniest and the best thing in the film.
  • Posts: 19,339
    I was pleasantly surprised when I watched SPY for the first time.

    Surprised with the great theme and soundrack.
    Surprised how good Jude Law looked in the tuxedo and suits.
    Surprised how funny Jason Statham was,and how good he is at comedy.

    I also loved the colour of the film,and Rose Byrne is brilliant in.

    The only downside is that I would rather have seen a more impressive villain and a big name actor.
Sign In or Register to comment.