Last Movie you Watched?

1593594596598599984

Comments

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,807
    The newer OSS 117 films are fantastic, very entertaining.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Blade of the Immortal

    Damn, what a bloody, unrelenting thrill ride this is. Fans of Miike's work will know what they're signing up for with this one, and damn, does it more than deliver for his 100th installment. I'd liken it to 13 Assassins - roughly the same runtime, overly bloody, with an ecclectic cast of characters with their own set of skills, as they hack, slash, cut, and stab their way through scores of bad guys. Of course, this one isn't in the same exact vein plot wise, as we follow an immortal warrior who has vowed revenge on an elite group of samurai who slaughtered a young girl's family - having said that, it's a satisfying tale of revenge, and doesn't fail to slow down or grow dull throughout whatsoever. Highly recommended.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    The old OSS 117 by Andre Hunebelle in the sixties are also very worthy. Don't know much about the first two starring Kerwin Matthews (bland actor), but Frederick Stafford (basically a European Sean Connery he is!) and John Gavin are fantastic.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The old OSS 117 by Andre Hunebelle in the sixties are also very worthy. Don't know much about the first two starring Kerwin Matthews (bland actor), but Frederick Stafford (basically a European Sean Connery he is!) and John Gavin are fantastic.

    I might check out the old ones, but the Dujardin film was horrible imo.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    v1.bjsxMzM2MDk7ajsxNzUwNjsxMjAwOzE4MzA7MTM3Mw
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    @Creasy47
    You recommend, I watch.
    So, Blade of the Immortal it is.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    The old OSS 117 by Andre Hunebelle in the sixties are also very worthy. Don't know much about the first two starring Kerwin Matthews (bland actor), but Frederick Stafford (basically a European Sean Connery he is!) and John Gavin are fantastic.

    I might check out the old ones, but the Dujardin film was horrible imo.
    Now I know you're from Asgard! :))
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @DarthDimi, many thanks, I do hope you enjoy it then! It's a wild ride for sure.
  • Posts: 5,994
    Thor : Ragnarok, of course. Loved it. Great, outstanding cast, lots of laughs, great action scenes, great cameos (Stan Lee, of course, but also Benedict Cumberbatch), plus Cate Blanchett et Tessa Thompon. What's not to love ?
  • Posts: 12,526
    Thor Ragnorok.

    Well? I had an absolute blast watching this today. Great dialogue, action and humour! Roll on Infinity War!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Murder on the Orient Express (2017)
    yVLTZkg.jpg
    The chilling Sidney Lumet original from 1974 is one of my favourite films in the 'whodunnit' genre, so as one can imagine I was somewhat concerned to learn that the film was being remade. Kenneth Branagh has a decent track record as a director, but it is quite an undertaking to tackle something that was executed so brilliantly (imho) the first time out. So what can I say? Well, to summarize and keep it short, if you've seen the original like me and really liked it, perhaps you should just rewatch that again on blu ray. It is by far the superior adaptation of this Agatha Christie novel. If on the other hand you are somewhat unfamiliar with that entry, then you may enjoy this film more than I did.

    There's really nothing objectively wrong with this remake. It's quite slickly put together, and the performances are all relatively decent, especially from Branagh himself as the famous Belgian sleuth Hercule Poirot (apart from that horrendous moustache) & from Michelle Pfeiffer as Mrs. Hubbard. The issue is that it's absolutely impossible to surpass the performances and gravitas of the legendary 'who's who' original cast (Albert Finney, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Sean Connery, Wendy Hiller, John Gielgud, Jacqueline Bisset, Vanessa Redgrave, Anthony Perkins, Richard Widmark, Vernon Dobtcheff, Martin Balsam et al.). So the question is why try really? Although Branagh tries to differentiate his effort by filming key scenes and encounters in a manner so as not to remind the viewer of the earlier film, it's nearly impossible for that not to happen given the confined quarters.

    Unfortunately therefore, this film captures for me the essence of the problem with Hollywood these days. Uncreative and resorting to rehashed efforts rampant with CGI, theatrics, sentimentality and sensationalism (all of which this film has 'in comparison' to the original) in lieu of quality 'on point' screenplays, dialogue & performances. It's sad to be made so blatantly aware of it (like a punch in the gut), but that's what happens when one tries to remake a classic.

    I repeat again that my disappointment is only in comparison to the first film. On its own, this isn't a bad effort at all. However, I doubt anyone will remember it in a few years, let alone 40.
  • Posts: 17,756
    bondjames wrote: »
    Murder on the Orient Express (2017)
    yVLTZkg.jpg
    The chilling Sidney Lumet original from 1974 is one of my favourite films in the 'whodunnit' genre, so as one can imagine I was somewhat concerned to learn that the film was being remade. Kenneth Branagh has a decent track record as a director, but it is quite an undertaking to tackle something that was executed so brilliantly (imho) the first time out. So what can I say? Well, to summarize and keep it short, if you've seen the original like me and really liked it, perhaps you should just rewatch that again on blu ray. It is by far the superior adaptation of this Agatha Christie novel. If on the other hand you are somewhat unfamiliar with that entry, then you may enjoy this film more than I did.

    There's really nothing objectively wrong with this remake. It's quite slickly put together, and the performances are all relatively decent, especially from Branagh himself as the famous Belgian sleuth Hercule Poirot (apart from that horrendous moustache) & from Michelle Pfeiffer as Mrs. Hubbard. The issue is that it's absolutely impossible to surpass the performances and gravitas of the legendary 'who's who' original cast (Albert Finney, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Sean Connery, Wendy Hiller, John Gielgud, Jacqueline Bisset, Vanessa Redgrave, Anthony Perkins, Richard Widmark, Vernon Dobtcheff, Martin Balsam et al.). So the question is why try really? Although Branagh tries to differentiate his effort by filming key scenes and encounters in a manner so as not to remind the viewer of the earlier film, it's nearly impossible for that not to happen given the confined quarters.

    Unfortunately therefore, this film captures for me the essence of the problem with Hollywood these days. Uncreative and resorting to rehashed efforts rampant with CGI, theatrics, sentimentality and sensationalism (all of which this film has 'in comparison' to the original) in lieu of quality 'on point' screenplays, dialogue & performances. It's sad to be made so blatantly aware of it (like a punch in the gut), but that's what happens when one tries to remake a classic.

    I repeat again that my disappointment is only in comparison to the first film. On its own, this isn't a bad effort at all. However, I doubt anyone will remember it in a few years, let alone 40.

    Have yet to see either of the two adaptions. Read the book years ago, as well as catching the tv series-adaption with the wonderful David Suchet a few years back. Might check out the 2017 version when it's available to buy; the 1974 version is one I hope to see very soon – perhaps during christmas.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,589
    I saw it Friday night. Never saw the original or had read the book. It was decent enough but definitely one of those "one and done" movies.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Have yet to see either of the two adaptions. Read the book years ago, as well as catching the tv series-adaption with the wonderful David Suchet a few years back. Might check out the 2017 version when it's available to buy; the 1974 version is one I hope to see very soon – perhaps during christmas.
    I've actually not seen the Suchet TV adaptation of this story, or any of the episodes of the long running tv series. I've been meaning to get a hold of the boxset.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,137
    Becoming Bond a must for well everyone on here.

    Future World It's a mixed BD transfer though a step up from the dvd I have, it's not as good as Westworld though expands on some themes its a decent science fiction film.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    I saw it Friday night. Never saw the original or had read the book. It was decent enough but definitely one of those "one and done" movies.

    Exactly! I saw it too and while I can’t pinpoint anything particularly wrong with it, I struggle to think of revisiting it.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 684
    I saw it (ORIENT EXPRESS) this passed Friday. Having never seen the '74 or read the Christie source, I did quite enjoy it. I'd wager it'll end up falling mid-pack for me in terms of 2017 releases. Perhaps just a bit higher. Made for an enjoyable night out at the pictures — which is really exactly how I've felt about the other two Branagh films of recent years, CINDERELLA and SHADOW RECRUIT.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    The problem with Shadow Recruit was that it played the whole thing too safe. In this day and age, an original story script hardly achieves successful embrace in the house of critics and box office gross. Because today’s writers don’t know much about storytelling. Not the mainstream Hollywood writers anyway. It should’ve been based on a Tom Clancy novel when there over 15 Jack Ryan novels alone.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2017 Posts: 23,883
    The problem with Shadow Recruit was that it played the whole thing too safe. In this day and age, an original story script hardly achieves successful embrace in the house of critics and box office gross. Because today’s writers don’t know much about storytelling. Not the mainstream Hollywood writers anyway. It should’ve been based on a Tom Clancy novel when there over 15 Jack Ryan novels alone.
    Interestingly, that is one of my criticisms of the Orient remake. It also played it too safe (it was almost sanitized), whereas the 1974 original was far more risque and edgy, particularly for a film made at that time.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    The problem with Shadow Recruit was that it played the whole thing too safe. In this day and age, an original story script hardly achieves successful embrace in the house of critics and box office gross. Because today’s writers don’t know much about storytelling. Not the mainstream Hollywood writers anyway. It should’ve been based on a Tom Clancy novel when there over 15 Jack Ryan novels alone.
    Interestingly, that is one of my criticisms of the Orient remake. It also played it too safe (it was almost sanitized), whereas the 1974 original was far more risque and edgy, particularly for a film made at that time.
    I didn't have high hopes for the new Orient adaptation (can't call it a remake, because it's based on a novel, so adaptation would suffice, imo), @bondjames, especially since the first trailer dropped. It was too much style over substance it copied BBC Sherlock's style, so I dropped my instant hopes.

    And Johnny Depp in it looks far more like Poirot than anybody else. :))
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    The problem with Shadow Recruit was that it played the whole thing too safe. In this day and age, an original story script hardly achieves successful embrace in the house of critics and box office gross. Because today’s writers don’t know much about storytelling. Not the mainstream Hollywood writers anyway. It should’ve been based on a Tom Clancy novel when there over 15 Jack Ryan novels alone.
    Interestingly, that is one of my criticisms of the Orient remake. It also played it too safe (it was almost sanitized), whereas the 1974 original was far more risque and edgy, particularly for a film made at that time.
    I didn't have high hopes for the new Orient adaptation (can't call it a remake, because it's based on a novel, so adaptation would suffice, imo), @bondjames, especially since the first trailer dropped. It was too much style over substance it copied BBC Sherlock's style, so I dropped my instant hopes.

    And Johnny Depp in it looks far more like Poirot than anybody else. :))
    Agreed on both fronts @ClarkDevlin. It is indeed more 'style over substance' and Depp does remind me of Poirot too, now that you mention it.
  • Posts: 17,756
    bondjames wrote: »
    Have yet to see either of the two adaptions. Read the book years ago, as well as catching the tv series-adaption with the wonderful David Suchet a few years back. Might check out the 2017 version when it's available to buy; the 1974 version is one I hope to see very soon – perhaps during christmas.
    I've actually not seen the Suchet TV adaptation of this story, or any of the episodes of the long running tv series. I've been meaning to get a hold of the boxset.

    The tv adaption is a good one. You are getting your typical period tv drama/mystery, but it's a well produced one – which can be said of the series in whole. Recommend checking out Agatha Christie's Poirot if you're a fan of these types of tv shows.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Have yet to see either of the two adaptions. Read the book years ago, as well as catching the tv series-adaption with the wonderful David Suchet a few years back. Might check out the 2017 version when it's available to buy; the 1974 version is one I hope to see very soon – perhaps during christmas.
    I've actually not seen the Suchet TV adaptation of this story, or any of the episodes of the long running tv series. I've been meaning to get a hold of the boxset.

    The tv adaption is a good one. You are getting your typical period tv drama/mystery, but it's a well produced one – which can be said of the series in whole. Recommend checking out Agatha Christie's Poirot if you're a fan of these types of tv shows.
    I will. Thanks for letting me know about them.
  • Becoming Bond a must for well everyone on here.

    Definitely a movie made for the likes of us!
    I always thought George’s story was such an amazing tale that they should make a movie of it.

    I really liked the dude playing George! “ G’day mate! Give us a dry martini! Shaken, stirred, doesn’t matter! ”
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Becoming Bond a must for well everyone on here.

    Definitely a movie made for the likes of us!
    I always thought George’s story was such an amazing tale that they should make a movie of it.

    Of all the Bonds, his is probably the most interesting.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 17,756
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Have yet to see either of the two adaptions. Read the book years ago, as well as catching the tv series-adaption with the wonderful David Suchet a few years back. Might check out the 2017 version when it's available to buy; the 1974 version is one I hope to see very soon – perhaps during christmas.
    I've actually not seen the Suchet TV adaptation of this story, or any of the episodes of the long running tv series. I've been meaning to get a hold of the boxset.

    The tv adaption is a good one. You are getting your typical period tv drama/mystery, but it's a well produced one – which can be said of the series in whole. Recommend checking out Agatha Christie's Poirot if you're a fan of these types of tv shows.
    I will. Thanks for letting me know about them.

    Prefer the later seasons – 2000s and onwards, as the earlier seasons do look a bit more dated in comparison. But even the earlier seasons have some good episodes.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    God of War

    I dare say this is the best Chinese historical film I've seen in ages, perhaps out of all of the ones I've seen off the top of my head. The attention to detail, the cinematography/landscapes/variety in all the action sequences was applause-worthy, and the film didn't remotely slow down throughout the two plus hour running time. I figured they might just cram all the action bits into the trailer and leave me to follow alongside a slow historic tale that might prove tough to follow, but absolutely not. I'd say I'd liken it to Red Cliff, but only a lot more practical and bloody. Each battle has its own feel, given the change in scenery, night/day, etc. The film opens up on a rainy, muddy conquest to take a garrison back from pirates, and travels through snowy landscapes where armies go head to head, nighttime cityscape shots as the armies continue to clash in tight, narrow corridors (with the fires throughout the city making for some breathtaking shots), and more. Highly recommended, if this genre is your kind of thing. You won't be bored or disappointed.
  • Posts: 12,473
    Akira (1988). A really good, classic anime film. I don’t watch a lot of anime, but I heard this was a must-see, and it was definitely worth it. Maybe a bit overrated, but still pretty good stuff.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    Thor: Ragnarok
    Thor-Ragnarok-Soundtrack.jpg

    I loved this movie but I was also disappointed by it. Loved the story, acting, action, characters, and most of the soundtrack. Disappointed by the terrible CGI (I saw it in IMAX so maybe it wasn't as noticeably bad in standard?) and worst of all, the humor.
    Thor shouldn't be this funny. It got to the point that it took me out of the movie every time a joke was made. I'm okay with humor but it was just too much and Thor himself was the brunt of most of the jokes. It was funny in the first film when he was the brunt of some jokes because he didn't have his powers and wasn't used to life on Earth.
    The soundtrack was good but half the time I was expecting The Guardians of the Galaxy to show up. Thor should have epic original music and not something Star Lord would on his mix.
Sign In or Register to comment.