Upcoming films

Hipster_Nebula wrote:
My favourite Kubrick film is actually Eyes Wide Shut, I've no doubt I'm completely alone in that thinking.

I am amazed. Care to elaborate on why you rate it so highly?

xmiles wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:
My favourite Kubrick film is actually Eyes Wide Shut, I've no doubt I'm completely alone in that thinking.

I am amazed. Care to elaborate on why you rate it so highly?

Everything about it, the cinematography, the story, the acting, the sense of mystery, claustrophobia, the score. I just love it.

I watched "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" last night on Film4, the original Swedish version. Absolutely brilliant and I urge anyone who hasn't seen it to do so. I believe there's an American remake - I can't imagine it will be anywhere near as good.

I agree, this is an excellent film. The girl in the lead role was brilliant.

This is the problem with Hollywood though. The Swedish language film was so fantastic that rather than distribute and market it they just make it again in English for the benefit of all the retards who won't watch a film unless it's in English and they recognise most of the actors.

largehat wrote:I agree, this is an excellent film. The girl in the lead role was brilliant.

This is the problem with Hollywood though. The Swedish language film was so fantastic that rather than distribute and market it they just make it again in English for the benefit of all the retards who won't watch a film unless it's in English and they recognise most of the actors.

Couldn't agree more. It has Daniel Craig in it I believe, hopefully not playing Lisbeth.

You know why I like this film though, it had a proper ending. Harriott was still alive and got to meet her uncle who had been looking for her for 40 years. I hate films that don't want to complete the story just to appear "arty" or clever.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

You know why I like this film though, it had a proper ending. Harriott was still alive and got to meet her uncle who had been looking for her for 40 years. I hate films that don't want to complete the story just to appear "arty" or clever.

I'm a bit disappointed that you agreed with my cynical post about the motivations for the remake, and then followed it up with this.

Hollywood has conditioned viewers over the years that the end of films must tie everything together into a neat and rational parcel, but that's an artificial desire because it isn't a reflection of real life.

It works fine in blockbuster action films like Armageddon or Independence Day, you know the formula I mean - some planet threatening crisis appears out of nowhere, there is some exposition, and then the Americans save the world again, all in 2 hours. Nice one. It's entertaining.

It also works fine in some of the greatest movies ever made, admittedly. Most of Hitchcock's films ended in a definitive conclusion and future problems for the characters were only hinted at, but these were largely lost on mainstream audiences at the time. But Shakespeare started this, often his comedies had a conclusion where couples were paired up at the end and all seemed well, but there were characters for whom this resolution clearly did not fit, such as Malvolio in Twelfth Night and Angelo in Measure For Measure. So on one level the Elizabethan audience saw a happy ending but on another, Shakespeare was subverting the conventions of the time by contriving an ending on a superficial level.

If you look at what Tarantino did with Pulp Fiction, the ending takes place two thirds the way through the movie, with Butch riding off into the sunset. In Reservoir Dogs we don't know if Mr Pink got away with the diamonds. In Jackie Brown, the last time we see Max Cherry, in the penultimate scene, the camera shot makes the room behind him deliberately blurry. Cherry then enters that blurry room, suggesting an uncertain future for the character. In Kill Bill, the bride gets her revenge and all the members of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad are dead, but surely Vernita Green's daughter will herself seek revenge on the bride later in life. The cycle of life.

So I think it's often the role of a film to capture the essence of something, rather than emulate the narrative structure of a fairy tale.

I perhaps didn't make myself clear.

I liked the ending because I like to see happy people. A lot of modern films would have ended the film with the killer burning in the car - the uncle meeting his neice after 40 years would have been left to the imagination. But after I've watched a film for two hours and got involved with the characters I want to see things like this for myself.

I accept what you're saying about Pulp Fiction & Reservoir Dogs, but they are different kinds of films.

Looking forward to later in the year when The Sweeney gets released at the cinemas. Ray Winston as Regan - possibly worth a good punt.

Well, finally seeing The Dark Knight Rises tonight. I pre-booked the best two seats in the house at the IMAX in Manchester for tonight about 2 days after creating this thread.

I will let you know what I thought later, without spoiling it for anyone.

Enjoy LH, think I am going to watch it at the IMAX sometime next week.

largehat wrote:I pre-booked the best two seats in the house

Why do you need two seats, are you chubby?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

largehat wrote:I pre-booked the best two seats in the house

Why do you need two seats, are you chubby?

Even Bolton Hater wouldn't need two seats there, they are huge. I'm going with a mate. The one who got that bird up the duff.

largehat wrote:

Even Bolton Hater wouldn't need two seats there, they are huge. I'm going with a mate. The one who got that bird up the duff.

People often give up their seat for me, cocks are well known in Blackburn and Darwen.

largehat wrote:Well, finally seeing The Dark Knight Rises tonight. I pre-booked the best two seats in the house at the IMAX in Manchester for tonight about 2 days after creating this thread.

I will let you know what I thought later, without spoiling it for anyone.

Will be interested to hear what you think.

My son, whose opinion I respect, says the critics had it wrong and it is worth seeing.

The critics loved it pretty much. Well, it has 78 on metacritic, with only 2 negative reviews out of over 50.

xmiles wrote:
Will be interested to hear what you think.

My son, whose opinion I respect, says the critics had it wrong and it is worth seeing.

OK, I'll do my best to give my thoughts without spoiling it.

There's no doubt that if you've read any reviews from critics that slate this film, then you should ignore them. It is a fantastic film and rightly stands alongside 'Batman Begins' and 'The Dark Knight' - it does not let the trilogy down. 'The Dark Knight' is near to perfection, but 'Rises' is a worthy conclusion to the story.

The film introduces too many new characters in the first hour, and builds much more slowly than its predecessor.

Once again, the legacy of the comic book genre is cast aside. This is not a movie about super powers and featuring cartoon violence; it deals with the breakdown of social order, the ambivalent morality of our institutions and the very 21st century threat of urban terrorism.

Anne Hathaway's 'Catwoman' does not wash her ears, meow or carry a whip as Michelle Pfeiffer's did in 'Batman Returns'. Like Heath Ledger's Joker, this villain is raw, reduced and edgy. Anne Hathaway is well cast, and while it was too much to expect a newcomer to the franchise to come even close to the incredible heights of Heath Ledger's performance in the previous film, you can imagine Halle Barry cringing at the contrast to her heinous performance in the role a decade ago.

Catwoman and Batman are alter egos, The Joker was The Joker 24 hours a day, and it is interesting to see how she is with and without her mask, as it has always been with Christian Bale. In common with The Joker, there is no treatment of Catwoman's origin story: she just is. This is not the case with Bane. Unfortunately the mask which covers his mouth detracts from character development, it is akin at times to Darth Vader in the original Star Wars triology: all booming mouth and no trousers.

The film was orginally slated to be shot entirely in IMAX (in the end, over an hour is in the format compared to less than half an hour of 'The Dark Knight') and therefore if at all possible it merits an IMAX viewing, You can't beat that experience of your seat rumbling during an explosion, and viewing intricately detailed cityscapes on a screen 7 storeys high; it's worth the extra money for this film perhaps more than any other.

There are two or three incredibly moving scenes which are the product of the director's storytelling skill and great performances from the peripheral characters, though, and you do not need the IMAX experience to appreciate their power.

There is a mass street fight which reminded me of the rawness and chaos of the brawl between the Mods and the police in Quadrophenia and the intensity and realism of the battle of Helm's Deep in The Lord of the Rings.

I was disappointed with the amount of screen time Batman receives and the resolution provided to the Catwoman character.

I was pleased that the film's plot borrowed as much from the first installment of the trilogy as the second. I was pleased that Nolan attempted to complete some circles in his finale, which is one of beginnings as much as of endings.

Make no mistake though, this is a dark, dramatic film with an absolutely sensational final hour.

Thanks largehat - I will definitely be going to see it.

thanks for your review largehat, i am going to see it this afternoon with my mum.

Good review LH. I'll certainly check it out. Glad to hear that Catwoman didn't become a complete parody as was my worry.