› ›

Last Movie you Watched?

1…710711713715716…983

Comments

  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,744
    Murdock wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I severely disliked that character, and the annoying actor who played him.
    Same here. Can't stand Shia Labeouf

    I didn't mind him in The Company You Keep, but there he played alongside Robert Redford, Julie Christie, Susan Sarandon, Stanley Tucci, Terrence Howard, Richard Jenkins, Brendan Gleeson, etc. That'll help anyone's performance.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,020
    I don't particularly care for LaBeouf's performance in Indiana Jones, myself. Nor his rather crazy attitude.

    Somewhat paradoxically perhaps, I also have problems with LaBeouf's comments that it was his job as an actor to make something like the vine swinging with monkeys believable. That's one thing that he can't be reasonably held responsible for, as it suggests a problem on a storytelling level, and yet he blamed himself for it.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited September 2018 Posts: 8,207
    CRYSTAL SKULL is woeful. I remember being so excited for it, and it actually gets wors3 on repeat viewings for a variety of reasons.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I never blamed him for the monkey swinging scene. I just hated the scene in general. Nobody would have made it convincing.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    bondjames wrote: »
    Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
    2GOIszf.jpg
    I just finished the third installment in the Indy series. This remains my favourite of the lot after this viewing, although the gap between it and Temple of Doom has narrowed somewhat. I still prefer both to the lauded Raiders. What makes this film work so well for me in addition to the action is the tone and humour. It all clicks so well and is delivered in just the right quantities for my palette. There’s a bit of Bondian style and glamour here too, courtesy of Miss Jenny Flex herself. The lovely Alison Doody plays historian Dr. Elsa Schneider and maintains a half credible Austrian accent throughout. However what makes this film, imho, is the legend himself: Big Sean Connery. Casting him as Indy’s son was a masterstroke by Spielberg. Harrison Ford is one of the most charismatic and famous actors ever - a true star of the first order. Who better to play his dad than one of the most commanding screen presences of all time. Connery is a delight here, and marvelously plays against type. His bespectacled, almost bumbling stern bookworm character is a hoot, and Ford and he play off each other beautifully. Both had the privilege of getting it on with Dr. Schneider and the repartee regarding such encounter is especially memorable, among other fun banter.

    The action set pieces are superbly staged as expected in this franchise, and Spielberg once again shows why he is one of the best in the business, effortlessly balancing and coordinating the humour, suspense and tension. If there is a complaint, it’s that this film is a bit too reminiscent of Raiders, but that’s a minor quibble. Ultimately it does what it should, which is to entertain and amuse. Lots of Bond film actors show up here too, which is an added bonus. Apart from Connery and Doody, there’s also Julian Glover, John Rhys-Davies, Michael Byrne, Pat Roach and Vernon Dobtcheff. No wonder this is my favourite! This was the biggest film globally of 1989, besting Batman and thrashing LTK, whose global gross it considerably beat just in the US alone. It was a good note to go out on.

    Connery is indeed excellent in it and i just loved the 'PTS' with River Phoenix.

    Problems i have with the film is that, yes, it's basically a remake of Raiders (Not suprising after the flak Temple of Doom took) and scriptwise it's inferior. Also some of the special effects are a bit ropey and the editing is poor in some scenes.

    As i mentioned before, the intelligent Marcus from Raiders is turned into a buffoon in this film simply for cheap laughs.

    Highlights for me are the chemistry between Ford and Connery and the brilliant tank chase.

    The ending with the holy grail is certainly interesting and a novel idea but it's kind of dull compared with the power of the ark and the rope bridge sequence from Doom.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Murdock wrote: »
    I never blamed him for the monkey swinging scene. I just hated the scene in general. Nobody would have made it convincing.

    At least we were spared a Tarzan yell.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
    2GOIszf.jpg
    I just finished the third installment in the Indy series. This remains my favourite of the lot after this viewing, although the gap between it and Temple of Doom has narrowed somewhat. I still prefer both to the lauded Raiders. What makes this film work so well for me in addition to the action is the tone and humour. It all clicks so well and is delivered in just the right quantities for my palette. There’s a bit of Bondian style and glamour here too, courtesy of Miss Jenny Flex herself. The lovely Alison Doody plays historian Dr. Elsa Schneider and maintains a half credible Austrian accent throughout. However what makes this film, imho, is the legend himself: Big Sean Connery. Casting him as Indy’s son was a masterstroke by Spielberg. Harrison Ford is one of the most charismatic and famous actors ever - a true star of the first order. Who better to play his dad than one of the most commanding screen presences of all time. Connery is a delight here, and marvelously plays against type. His bespectacled, almost bumbling stern bookworm character is a hoot, and Ford and he play off each other beautifully. Both had the privilege of getting it on with Dr. Schneider and the repartee regarding such encounter is especially memorable, among other fun banter.

    The action set pieces are superbly staged as expected in this franchise, and Spielberg once again shows why he is one of the best in the business, effortlessly balancing and coordinating the humour, suspense and tension. If there is a complaint, it’s that this film is a bit too reminiscent of Raiders, but that’s a minor quibble. Ultimately it does what it should, which is to entertain and amuse. Lots of Bond film actors show up here too, which is an added bonus. Apart from Connery and Doody, there’s also Julian Glover, John Rhys-Davies, Michael Byrne, Pat Roach and Vernon Dobtcheff. No wonder this is my favourite! This was the biggest film globally of 1989, besting Batman and thrashing LTK, whose global gross it considerably beat just in the US alone. It was a good note to go out on.

    Connery is indeed excellent in it and i just loved the 'PTS' with River Phoenix.

    Problems i have with the film is that, yes, it's basically a remake of Raiders (Not suprising after the flak Temple of Doom took) and scriptwise it's inferior. Also some of the special effects are a bit ropey and the editing is poor in some scenes.

    As i mentioned before, the intelligent Marcus from Raiders is turned into a buffoon in this film simply for cheap laughs.

    Highlights for me are the chemistry between Ford and Connery and the brilliant tank chase.

    The ending with the holy grail is certainly interesting and a novel idea but it's kind of dull compared with the power of the ark and the rope bridge sequence from Doom.
    You raise good points. I noticed that it was a pseudo remake of Raiders on this go around. It's the first time I've seen the films so closely together before. In a way, that's why my appreciation for Temple has increased somewhat. At least they tried something different with that one, even if it wasn't entirely successful tonally.

    I completely agree on the PTS as well. Superbly directed by Spielberg, with a bit of OP thrown in (circus train).

    The special effects are definitely a bit suspect (particularly during the aerial sequences) and I should have mentioned that. Temple is superior in this respect despite being made 5 years prior.

    While watching these films I was especially conscious of the time in which they were made and what Bond was doing at the same point. I can appreciate how LTK must have seemed quite pedestrian to a degree (with its tv style drug plot) in comparison to the ambition of this film, and Dalton particular dour, especially for US audiences. After all, the smooth talking, quip cracking Willis had just starred in the game changing Die Hard the year prior, and both Gibson and Ford were wisecracking their way to box office gold at the same time as OO7 was all doom and gloom. At least Moore put up a fight with OP & FYEO.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    bondjames wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
    2GOIszf.jpg
    I just finished the third installment in the Indy series. This remains my favourite of the lot after this viewing, although the gap between it and Temple of Doom has narrowed somewhat. I still prefer both to the lauded Raiders. What makes this film work so well for me in addition to the action is the tone and humour. It all clicks so well and is delivered in just the right quantities for my palette. There’s a bit of Bondian style and glamour here too, courtesy of Miss Jenny Flex herself. The lovely Alison Doody plays historian Dr. Elsa Schneider and maintains a half credible Austrian accent throughout. However what makes this film, imho, is the legend himself: Big Sean Connery. Casting him as Indy’s son was a masterstroke by Spielberg. Harrison Ford is one of the most charismatic and famous actors ever - a true star of the first order. Who better to play his dad than one of the most commanding screen presences of all time. Connery is a delight here, and marvelously plays against type. His bespectacled, almost bumbling stern bookworm character is a hoot, and Ford and he play off each other beautifully. Both had the privilege of getting it on with Dr. Schneider and the repartee regarding such encounter is especially memorable, among other fun banter.

    The action set pieces are superbly staged as expected in this franchise, and Spielberg once again shows why he is one of the best in the business, effortlessly balancing and coordinating the humour, suspense and tension. If there is a complaint, it’s that this film is a bit too reminiscent of Raiders, but that’s a minor quibble. Ultimately it does what it should, which is to entertain and amuse. Lots of Bond film actors show up here too, which is an added bonus. Apart from Connery and Doody, there’s also Julian Glover, John Rhys-Davies, Michael Byrne, Pat Roach and Vernon Dobtcheff. No wonder this is my favourite! This was the biggest film globally of 1989, besting Batman and thrashing LTK, whose global gross it considerably beat just in the US alone. It was a good note to go out on.

    Connery is indeed excellent in it and i just loved the 'PTS' with River Phoenix.

    Problems i have with the film is that, yes, it's basically a remake of Raiders (Not suprising after the flak Temple of Doom took) and scriptwise it's inferior. Also some of the special effects are a bit ropey and the editing is poor in some scenes.

    As i mentioned before, the intelligent Marcus from Raiders is turned into a buffoon in this film simply for cheap laughs.

    Highlights for me are the chemistry between Ford and Connery and the brilliant tank chase.

    The ending with the holy grail is certainly interesting and a novel idea but it's kind of dull compared with the power of the ark and the rope bridge sequence from Doom.
    You raise good points. I noticed that it was a pseudo remake of Raiders on this go around. It's the first time I've seen the films so closely together before. In a way, that's why my appreciation for Temple has increased somewhat. At least they tried something different with that one, even if it wasn't entirely successful tonally.

    I completely agree on the PTS as well. Superbly directed by Spielberg, with a bit of OP thrown in (circus train).

    The special effects are definitely a bit suspect (particularly during the aerial sequences) and I should have mentioned that. Temple is superior in this respect despite being made 5 years prior.

    While watching these films I was especially conscious of the time in which they were made and what Bond was doing at the same point. I can appreciate how LTK must have seemed quite pedestrian to a degree (with its tv style drug plot) in comparison to the ambition of this film, and Dalton particular dour, especially for US audiences. After all, the smooth talking, quip cracking Willis had just starred in the game changing Die Hard the year prior, and both Gibson and Ford were wisecracking their way to box office gold at the same time as OO7 was all doom and gloom. At least Moore put up a fight with OP & FYEO.

    Well i saw all these films at the cinema and it was a bumper year for good big budget movies. (Die Hard was released in 1989 in England)

    LTK got kind of squashed at the box office because there were so many 'event' movies that year. I did see LTK twice at the cinema to support dear James, although i also saw Batman twice as well...!

    Best film of 89 for me was Michael Mann's Manhunter. Still watch it at least once a year.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    Like it usually goes with this thread, all this revived Indiana Jones talk has me wanting to rewatch the films - it has been a while.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
    2GOIszf.jpg
    I just finished the third installment in the Indy series. This remains my favourite of the lot after this viewing, although the gap between it and Temple of Doom has narrowed somewhat. I still prefer both to the lauded Raiders. What makes this film work so well for me in addition to the action is the tone and humour. It all clicks so well and is delivered in just the right quantities for my palette. There’s a bit of Bondian style and glamour here too, courtesy of Miss Jenny Flex herself. The lovely Alison Doody plays historian Dr. Elsa Schneider and maintains a half credible Austrian accent throughout. However what makes this film, imho, is the legend himself: Big Sean Connery. Casting him as Indy’s son was a masterstroke by Spielberg. Harrison Ford is one of the most charismatic and famous actors ever - a true star of the first order. Who better to play his dad than one of the most commanding screen presences of all time. Connery is a delight here, and marvelously plays against type. His bespectacled, almost bumbling stern bookworm character is a hoot, and Ford and he play off each other beautifully. Both had the privilege of getting it on with Dr. Schneider and the repartee regarding such encounter is especially memorable, among other fun banter.

    The action set pieces are superbly staged as expected in this franchise, and Spielberg once again shows why he is one of the best in the business, effortlessly balancing and coordinating the humour, suspense and tension. If there is a complaint, it’s that this film is a bit too reminiscent of Raiders, but that’s a minor quibble. Ultimately it does what it should, which is to entertain and amuse. Lots of Bond film actors show up here too, which is an added bonus. Apart from Connery and Doody, there’s also Julian Glover, John Rhys-Davies, Michael Byrne, Pat Roach and Vernon Dobtcheff. No wonder this is my favourite! This was the biggest film globally of 1989, besting Batman and thrashing LTK, whose global gross it considerably beat just in the US alone. It was a good note to go out on.

    Connery is indeed excellent in it and i just loved the 'PTS' with River Phoenix.

    Problems i have with the film is that, yes, it's basically a remake of Raiders (Not suprising after the flak Temple of Doom took) and scriptwise it's inferior. Also some of the special effects are a bit ropey and the editing is poor in some scenes.

    As i mentioned before, the intelligent Marcus from Raiders is turned into a buffoon in this film simply for cheap laughs.

    Highlights for me are the chemistry between Ford and Connery and the brilliant tank chase.

    The ending with the holy grail is certainly interesting and a novel idea but it's kind of dull compared with the power of the ark and the rope bridge sequence from Doom.
    You raise good points. I noticed that it was a pseudo remake of Raiders on this go around. It's the first time I've seen the films so closely together before. In a way, that's why my appreciation for Temple has increased somewhat. At least they tried something different with that one, even if it wasn't entirely successful tonally.

    I completely agree on the PTS as well. Superbly directed by Spielberg, with a bit of OP thrown in (circus train).

    The special effects are definitely a bit suspect (particularly during the aerial sequences) and I should have mentioned that. Temple is superior in this respect despite being made 5 years prior.

    While watching these films I was especially conscious of the time in which they were made and what Bond was doing at the same point. I can appreciate how LTK must have seemed quite pedestrian to a degree (with its tv style drug plot) in comparison to the ambition of this film, and Dalton particular dour, especially for US audiences. After all, the smooth talking, quip cracking Willis had just starred in the game changing Die Hard the year prior, and both Gibson and Ford were wisecracking their way to box office gold at the same time as OO7 was all doom and gloom. At least Moore put up a fight with OP & FYEO.

    Well i saw all these films at the cinema and it was a bumper year for good big budget movies. (Die Hard was released in 1989 in England)

    LTK got kind of squashed at the box office because there were so many 'event' movies that year. I did see LTK twice at the cinema to support dear James, although i also saw Batman twice as well...!

    Best film of 89 for me was Michael Mann's Manhunter. Still watch it at least once a year.
    They released Manhunter in 1989 in the UK? That was three years after the US release!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Like it usually goes with this thread, all this revived Indiana Jones talk has me wanting to rewatch the films - it has been a while.

    Same here. Last time this happened I did the Nolan Batman trilogy. I'm gonna do a Jones marathon this week, including Crystal Skull...
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    @chrisisall, I might've talked to you around the time I did my last Nolan trilogy runthrough in 4K. Mesmerizing, as always. Good to include KOTCS just for the sake of consistency - I could use a viewing of it just because of how long it has been.

    @bondjames, there were some internal issues so the film wasn't even screened at any film festivals in UK for over a year, then it took another year and a half to get a wide release there. Crazy turnaround!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @bondjames, there were some internal issues so the film wasn't even screened at any film festivals in UK for over a year, then it took another year and a half to get a wide release there. Crazy turnaround!
    That's amazing @Creasy47. I'd hope they didn't have the video release available otherwise box office would have suffered. Just two years prior to Silence of the Lambs too.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited September 2018 Posts: 45,489
    THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

    Definitely worth a watch. Thanks to @PrinceKamalKhan for the recommendation. Unfortunately I fell asleep several times, but as luck would have it it was loaded with hideously loud ads throughout, so didn t miss much.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    edited September 2018 Posts: 16,149
    MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT

    Just saw this yesterday. I still haven't seen the previous 2 entries, but the hype on this one made me curious. I did enjoy it. I was the only one in the theater, though so I kind of had the auditorium to myself.
    Of the M:I films I've seen, this one I thought was the best. I had some things to pick up afterwards and I casually mentioned to the cashier I had just seen FALLOUT. He asked if it was as good as the others, and I replied: "I've only seen a few. I'm more of a James Bond guy." He said, "Me, too! Without a doubt!"

    I imagine if I were to have a similar interaction with any casual movie goer on the street the response would be the same. Bond is universally loved.

    The stunt-work and action sequences were most definitely exciting. There's been much discussion on whether the Bond series can live up to or top the action in this film. I say no need to worry. Of course Bond can. The element FALLOUT had that the recent Bonds have lacked to a degree is a sense of fun to go along with the suspense. It was a blast watching Ethan Hunt dangle from the helicopter, ride the motorbike, etc. Also the chase sequences didn't go on too long and were timed perfectly, IMO.
    I don't think Eon need worry about this franchise, but might look for inspiration regarding that balance between fun, suspense and humor.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    bondjames wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
    2GOIszf.jpg
    I just finished the third installment in the Indy series. This remains my favourite of the lot after this viewing, although the gap between it and Temple of Doom has narrowed somewhat. I still prefer both to the lauded Raiders. What makes this film work so well for me in addition to the action is the tone and humour. It all clicks so well and is delivered in just the right quantities for my palette. There’s a bit of Bondian style and glamour here too, courtesy of Miss Jenny Flex herself. The lovely Alison Doody plays historian Dr. Elsa Schneider and maintains a half credible Austrian accent throughout. However what makes this film, imho, is the legend himself: Big Sean Connery. Casting him as Indy’s son was a masterstroke by Spielberg. Harrison Ford is one of the most charismatic and famous actors ever - a true star of the first order. Who better to play his dad than one of the most commanding screen presences of all time. Connery is a delight here, and marvelously plays against type. His bespectacled, almost bumbling stern bookworm character is a hoot, and Ford and he play off each other beautifully. Both had the privilege of getting it on with Dr. Schneider and the repartee regarding such encounter is especially memorable, among other fun banter.

    The action set pieces are superbly staged as expected in this franchise, and Spielberg once again shows why he is one of the best in the business, effortlessly balancing and coordinating the humour, suspense and tension. If there is a complaint, it’s that this film is a bit too reminiscent of Raiders, but that’s a minor quibble. Ultimately it does what it should, which is to entertain and amuse. Lots of Bond film actors show up here too, which is an added bonus. Apart from Connery and Doody, there’s also Julian Glover, John Rhys-Davies, Michael Byrne, Pat Roach and Vernon Dobtcheff. No wonder this is my favourite! This was the biggest film globally of 1989, besting Batman and thrashing LTK, whose global gross it considerably beat just in the US alone. It was a good note to go out on.

    Connery is indeed excellent in it and i just loved the 'PTS' with River Phoenix.

    Problems i have with the film is that, yes, it's basically a remake of Raiders (Not suprising after the flak Temple of Doom took) and scriptwise it's inferior. Also some of the special effects are a bit ropey and the editing is poor in some scenes.

    As i mentioned before, the intelligent Marcus from Raiders is turned into a buffoon in this film simply for cheap laughs.

    Highlights for me are the chemistry between Ford and Connery and the brilliant tank chase.

    The ending with the holy grail is certainly interesting and a novel idea but it's kind of dull compared with the power of the ark and the rope bridge sequence from Doom.
    You raise good points. I noticed that it was a pseudo remake of Raiders on this go around. It's the first time I've seen the films so closely together before. In a way, that's why my appreciation for Temple has increased somewhat. At least they tried something different with that one, even if it wasn't entirely successful tonally.

    I completely agree on the PTS as well. Superbly directed by Spielberg, with a bit of OP thrown in (circus train).

    The special effects are definitely a bit suspect (particularly during the aerial sequences) and I should have mentioned that. Temple is superior in this respect despite being made 5 years prior.

    While watching these films I was especially conscious of the time in which they were made and what Bond was doing at the same point. I can appreciate how LTK must have seemed quite pedestrian to a degree (with its tv style drug plot) in comparison to the ambition of this film, and Dalton particular dour, especially for US audiences. After all, the smooth talking, quip cracking Willis had just starred in the game changing Die Hard the year prior, and both Gibson and Ford were wisecracking their way to box office gold at the same time as OO7 was all doom and gloom. At least Moore put up a fight with OP & FYEO.

    Well i saw all these films at the cinema and it was a bumper year for good big budget movies. (Die Hard was released in 1989 in England)

    LTK got kind of squashed at the box office because there were so many 'event' movies that year. I did see LTK twice at the cinema to support dear James, although i also saw Batman twice as well...!

    Best film of 89 for me was Michael Mann's Manhunter. Still watch it at least once a year.
    They released Manhunter in 1989 in the UK? That was three years after the US release!

    Yeah, i don't know what the delay was...!
  • SharkBaitSharkBait
    Posts: 2,107
    What's Eating Gilbert Grape?
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,047
    Finally got round to watching The Dark Knight in 4K god this film is awesome, it's one of the best transfers of any movie I have ever seen, though being a Chris Nolan film it's no surprise.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    Finally got round to watching The Dark Knight in 4K god this film is awesome, it's one of the best transfers of any movie I have ever seen, though being a Chris Nolan film it's no surprise.
    I actually have the set in 4K but have yet to get round to it. Looking forward to it and I'm not surprised it's amazing.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT

    Just saw this yesterday. I still haven't seen the previous 2 entries, but the hype on this one made me curious. I did enjoy it. I was the only one in the theater, though so I kind of had the auditorium to myself.
    @ToTheRight I'm glad you got round to seeing this, but you really should have seen MI:GP and particularly MI:RN first, as this sort of carries on from those two. Hope you get to those some time soon!
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,047
    @bondjames I bought the boxset a few months back Batman Begins was the only one I had got round to watching until today and that looked phenomenal. I am actually looking forward to the third film the most as the IMAX sequences in that film were already mind blowing.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I hear you @Fire_and_Ice_returns . I've been meaning to get to it and you've inspired me to get a move on. TDKR would surely be amazing. I can't wait to hear Zimmer's score blaring in this format.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,047
    bondjames wrote: »
    I hear you @Fire_and_Ice_returns . I've been meaning to get to it and you've inspired me to get a move on. TDKR would surely be amazing. I can't wait to hear Zimmer's score blaring in this format.

    Superb scores I have them on download, the use of Windows in TDK really gives this film a massive continuous city scope, the improved resolution really makes it more apparent. Nolan really is a brilliant film maker.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I hear you @Fire_and_Ice_returns . I've been meaning to get to it and you've inspired me to get a move on. TDKR would surely be amazing. I can't wait to hear Zimmer's score blaring in this format.

    Superb scores I have them on download, the use of Windows in TDK really gives this film a massive continuous city scope, the improved resolution really makes it more apparent. Nolan really is a brilliant film maker.
    I hadn't noticed that previously. Will look out for it this time.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,047
    bondjames wrote: »
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I hear you @Fire_and_Ice_returns . I've been meaning to get to it and you've inspired me to get a move on. TDKR would surely be amazing. I can't wait to hear Zimmer's score blaring in this format.

    Superb scores I have them on download, the use of Windows in TDK really gives this film a massive continuous city scope, the improved resolution really makes it more apparent. Nolan really is a brilliant film maker.
    I hadn't noticed that previously. Will look out for it this time.

    Me neither to this extent, the scenes in offices with huge windows for example with Dent look amazing with the city in the back ground.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Hard Target 2
    tumblr_ommx32e7Lc1t8sijuo2_400.gif
    More of a remake of the JCVD original. Scott Adkins takes the lead as Wes 'The Jailor' Baylor, a washed up MMA fighter, offered $1M for a fight in Myanmar. It turns out that the fight doesn't exist. Instead, Wes has been selected as the target in the same game as that from the first film.
    Not quite a match for the original (peak Van Damme in one of my favourite action thrillers), but still better than average for a DTV film, and Adkins is damn good at kicking ass. Robert Knepper, the films villain, starts to channel Lance Henrikson as the film goes on, and in the final showdown, he even uses the Thompson/Center Contender pistol that Lance Henrikson uses in the original.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Watched this two years ago and liked it myself! Your opinions on it reflects mine word for word, Major.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,047
    The Dark Knight Rises first watch in 4k, I do watch this film the most from the trilogy though watching it immediately after TDK there is a obvious drop in quality in the script.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    The Dark Knight Rises first watch in 4k, I do watch this film the most from the trilogy though watching it immediately after TDK there is a obvious drop in quality in the script.

    It's not as sharp, but it IS more epic, IMHO.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,047
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    The Dark Knight Rises first watch in 4k, I do watch this film the most from the trilogy though watching it immediately after TDK there is a obvious drop in quality in the script.

    It's not as sharp, but it IS more epic, IMHO.

    Agree the Bane v Batman pt 1 is intense, Bane is totally believable as a formidable adversary.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited September 2018 Posts: 17,789
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    The Dark Knight Rises first watch in 4k, I do watch this film the most from the trilogy though watching it immediately after TDK there is a obvious drop in quality in the script.

    It's not as sharp, but it IS more epic, IMHO.

    Agree the Bane v Batman pt 1 is intense, Bane is totally believable as a formidable adversary.

    It's like Nolan was going for a realist progression from inception to force of nature to last gasp. His trilogy was like... life...
Sign In or Register to comment.