List the films you've seen at the cinema: 2014

[Gramsci]

A Touch of Sin



On limited release in London. Should be given bigger release.

I thought it was a bit far fetched. Its several character in modern China who finally lose it and go over the edge in bloody violence.

Couple of days later, however, read this in Evening Standard. Full text in paper edition says:

China has suffered a series of attacks on schools as well as violent communal disputes. Experts have warned of a mental illness crisis, with huge levels of stress and anger in society.

So its not farfetched. The film is banned in China. Not surprising at it takes a swipe at Communist party officials who enrich themselves at expense of the communities they are supposed to govern.

As a state of the nation film it works well. It also shows what rampant soulless capitalism does to a society. It also works due to the way the characters are not just cardboard cutouts. I mean by this it works on small scale as well. Its four stories that take one through Chinese society. In fact any society where money rules.

The director Zhangke Jia himself says:

We have no language to express these new troubles. In the past there would have been systems to give people a sense of meaning. There was potential to find spiritual fulfillment through Buddhism, or a place and support through the family. These traditional sources of personal meaning are gone, and they have been replaced by money - and violence.

 

[redsquirrel]

A Touch of Sin

I quite fancy this, unfortunately and somewhat surprisingly, AFAIK it doesn't have a release date here yet.

 

[Gramsci]

I quite fancy this, unfortunately and somewhat surprisingly, AFAIK it doesn't have a release date here yet.

I wonder if the Chinese government are hindering its release in other countries. They have form on interfering in film festivals if a particular film is considered critical of China government.

Chinese film market is potentially huge and if upset the government they could make life difficult for distributors and film companies wishing to show in Chinese market.

 

[DotCommunist]

I'll post a link to a torrent when I find it. Particularly interested in this. That cleaver attack on children just days ago is the latest in a sequence of horrific stabby flip outs and maybe this can give me some insight as to whats going on.

 

[belboid]

Godzilla

Reasonably entertaining smash em up. Starts well, then takes a bloody age before they show us any monster, and Edwards overplays the 'just show a tiny bit, tease, tease' thing a bit when they finally do show them. The plot is absolutely ludicrous, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Even my 10 year old niece was going 'this is just silly.' But then they got to the really big scraps and much mayhem ensued. Some nice touches, and far better than the last one, but that's as much as can be said for it. 3D was utterly pointless.

 

[Ranbay]

Rio 2

one was better

 

[Dr. Furface]

The Wages of Fear - unlike The Seven Samurai, I'd not seen this before, really enjoyed it, the print wasn't in quite as good condition as The Seven Samurai, but it was still pretty good and the quality of the film made up for any blemishes. The initial setup, showing the boredom and squalor of their lives is done very well indeed, while he scene where they have to blow up the rock blocking their path I found particularly tense.

One of my fave films ever, and IMO one of the greatest. I was going through some old dvd's yesterday with a view to selling them, and I found I had a copy of Wages of Fear that I'd never even opened that I'd forgot about, so I was well chuffed about that and I'll be watching it again soon. Definitely one I won't be selling!

 

[gosub]

Edge of tomorrow - calling it the UDF and putting Brendan Gleesan in charge, really? I suspect the ending was what American audiences wanted, otherwise really enjoyed it. Not really worth bothering with 3d

 

[DexterTCN]

X-Men: Days of Future Past.

If you've seen the trailers, you've pretty much seen most of the plot. It's pleasingly well done though. The effects fit well and the acting is more than above par for this kind of thing. The action sequences are good enough (more in a second) and you may find a weird kind of paranoia setting in as it progresses when you start thinking 'holy fuck...Mystique/Raven could be ANYONE!' and that's cool too.

They successfully delete the shit X-Men movies with the story-line.

Hugh Jackman has the most muscular figure ever seen in any movie.

But there's a gem. And it's not Jennifer Lawrence in blue semi-nakedeness, Fassbender, Picard and McKellen espousing hope and wisdom, McAvoy overcoming his demons. It's not Dinklage (not given a lot to do, sadly), Page or Paquin.

...

Evan Peters, Todd from Kick-Ass, playing a young Quicksilver, steals the entire movie in about 10 minutes and gives us probably the best action in any super-hero movie, ever. There is no reason, none, not to immediately do a Quicksilver movie, based in that time with that actor.

 

[Tankus]

Edge of tomorrow , matrix ,groundhog day and saving private Ryan in one mash ......one of Cruises better ones.....

I enjoyed it.....for mindless mayhem .... worth a punt .

 

[belboid]

X-Men: Days of Future Past.

If you've seen the trailers, you've pretty much seen most of the plot. It's pleasingly well done though. The effects fit well and the acting is more than above par for this kind of thing. The action sequences are good enough (more in a second) and you may find a weird kind of paranoia setting in as it progresses when you start thinking 'holy fuck...Mystique/Raven could be ANYONE!' and that's cool too.

They successfully delete the shit X-Men movies with the story-line.

Hugh Jackman has the most muscular figure ever seen in any movie.

But there's a gem. And it's not Jennifer Lawrence in blue semi-nakedeness, Fassbender, Picard and McKellen espousing hope and wisdom, McAvoy overcoming his demons. It's not Dinklage (not given a lot to do, sadly), Page or Paquin.

...

Evan Peters, Todd from Kick-Ass, playing a young Quicksilver, steals the entire movie in about 10 minutes and gives us probably the best action in any super-hero movie, ever. There is no reason, none, not to immediately do a Quicksilver movie, based in that time with that actor.

I endorse this review

 

[colacubes]

I endorse this review

As do I. Was pretty good fun and the Quiksilver bit was fab List now for this year:

1. The Hobbit 2
2. 12 Years a Slave
3. The Wolf of Wall Street
4. August: Osage County
5. Dallas Buyers Club
6. The Lego Movie
7. The Grand Budapest Hotel
8. The Muppets Again
9. Locke
10. Calvary
11. X Men: Days of Future Past

 

[Gramsci]

Jimmys Hall by Ken Loach and Paul Laverty

Not my first choice to see this weekend. I saw Polanski "Venus in Fur" about S&M relationship as first choice. Film is a good medium to explore the politically incorrect sides of human nature. Jimmys Hall takes a more optimistic view of human nature. An interesting contrast.

Then heard Loach interviewed on radio about Jimmys Hall. Turned out that the interviewer Grandfather had fought for the IRA. In civil war had opposed the treaty. The interviewer said that the film resonated with what she had heard about that time.

This is very good film. I do hope that its not Loach last film. As he said he might retire after this one.

What I liked about it is that its a popular film that manages to say a lot without slipping into Hollywood melodrama. What I mean is that its format with love interest etc is fairly standard one but its message is not. Im not always keen on Loach as he sometimes verges on social realism. One of his best recent (underrated) films is Looking for Eric. A really odd film that works and tells a message without being didactic.

I say its film by Loach and Laverty as Laverty is long time collaborator with Loach as a scriptwriter. This is a joint film. Directors traditionally get the main credit. But imo the best of Loach is when he works with Laverty.

Its set in 1930s republic. Jimmy comes back to Ireland from USA and restarts up a hall ( basically a community centre in modern language). This is seen by the church as a rival for influence.

Its not just an historical film it also is about the importance of a popular culture as a radical force. How ordinary people can build a culture for themselves. In that way the film has an optimistic view of the human spirit. Shows how left politics can tap into peoples emotional needs for community and joy- "If I cant dance its not my revolution". An important point to make when UKIP are managing to present themselves as a populist party. Its does not have to be like this. Reminded me of "Red" Kens GLC of the 80s.

It also does not paint a black and white picture of the opposing view. The priest is an interesting character. The arguments for and against are both put.

Its also wonderfully shot. Loach is often regarded as a political film maker first. Its not acknowledged enough that he really knows the craft of cinema.

 

[Tankus]

hobbits awful ....bloody time went backwards ....and I was 6 hours in the cinema Im sure

 

[Gramsci]

Venus in Fur directed by Polanski



Polanski take on the notorious S&M novel Venus in Fur.

What makes this film work is the two top notch actors Emmanuelle Seigner, Mathieu Amalric

Its a pleasure to see these two work together.

Its based on a play about this novel. A writer ( Mathieu) seeks "Venus" for his stage version of the novel. Its a play within a play.

Very odd and surreal. Its an austere intellectual film. There is little or no actual sex. If you are into S&M it will be a disappointment. Also the play its based on has , to my surprise , a fairly standard view of S&M as about objectifying women and male desire. Even if the women is supposedly the dominant one.

It also looks at Greek theatre in contrast to the view of women from a 19c central European book. This was interesting as its saying that Greek view gave women more agency that 19c novel. I do not know enough about this. This is what I like about film when it proposes different ways to see things.

I am guessing but I expect Polanski stuck fairly closely to the original play.

As I expect from Polanski its well shot. The beginning is a long shot taking one into the theatre. What I like about the film, that goes along with its austere quality , is the way its shows the artifice of film/ theatre. Goes along with some feminist thinking that gender is constructed not the natural order of things. Kind of surprising considering its Polanski.

What is very Polanski is that its a dark film. Builds up and gets darker as it goes along. A disturbing film. Not sure I liked it. Always got that feeling from Polanski films from his first one Knife in the Water.

He was born and grew up in a particularly dark part of Polands history. Not for him the optimism of the will of Loach. An interesting contrast seeing Loachs and Polanskis films on the same weekend.

 

[Ponyutd]

Recreate the joy of buying cinema popcorn by pouring some melted butter over polystyrene and setting fire to a £20 note.

 

[redsquirrel]

From last weekend

Ida - Pawel Pawlikowski's latest, about a young woman meeting her aunt before she takes her vows to become a nun in 60s Poland. A lot of the film deals with the consequences of the Second World War and the Holocaust and lingering anti-semitism still existing. It's beautifully filmed in black and white, the acting is very good.

Shane - classic Western starring Alan Ladd, excellent of course with only the appalling saccharine Joey being a negative.

Under The Skin - I'm another you hasn't read the book, but I didn't think that mattered at all. I still think Birth is Glazer's best film but this is really good. She's been in so much Hollywood recently that I'd forgotten that Johansson is actually a decent actress and she's really good in this. It really well shot and (barring one exception) well edited. If there's one complaint that I'd make it's that I think it's missing a scene between the aborted sex attempt and the forest, not so much because anything is unclear more that I think adding an extra scene there would have made the film work better.

This weekend

The Babadook - low budget Australian horror film. The set up is that single mother Amelia, who's husband died the night their son was born is struggling to bring up their child, Samuel, alone. Samuel is a pretty strange child who suffers from nightmares every night and constructs weapons to fight the monsters from his nightmares. One night he finds a book about a particular monster the Babadook and things go from there. The best parts of the film are in the first half IMO which does a fantastic job of portraying Amelia's utter exhaustion and part resentment of Samuel as well as Samuels fit's and violence. The scenes with violence between mother and son (and vice versa) are really chilling, the second half goes more down the killing the monster stuff and is less original. Essie Davis, an Australian actress who's probably best known in the UK for playing the title role in the Miss Fisher Murder Mysteries, is excellent as Amelia and the kid playing Samuel is great too.

My Sweet Pepper Land - A western set in modern day Kurdistan, a bit of a mixed bag. At it's best dealing with the situation of trying to build a new country using comic touches (the farcical execution that opens the film being a good example), the western set up is rather nice and developed pretty well. The major problems are some of the acting (I'm guessing that a number of the actors are non-professionals and it rather shows) and the editing, with weakens the overall film (there's a couple of scenes that I think are shown out of order).

 

[gosub]

Chef-great sound track, some good looking good and a story line that didn't come across as smaltzy as it would if I explained it. Really enjoyed it

 

[agricola]

Belle - loved it, the only minor gripe was the music being a bit intrusive at some stages.

 

[gosub]

Secret sharer, doesn't quite work, the supporting cast is excellent but the scences between captain and stowaway don't work too well. pity.

 

[Gramsci]

Saw director Bruno Dumont "Camille Claudel 1915" at the Rio in Dalston

Based on the true story of the sculptor who spent most of her life in a mental asylum.

I did not know the actual history of Claudel nor had heard of her before. So came to this film with no expectations of how it should portray her life.

It is a riveting watch despite the uncompromising way its made. I found it one of those films that I wished did not end.

This is because it takes one into a different world. There is something surreal about the film. The asylum is set in stark mountainous countryside. The harsh but beautiful landscape takes on a significance as the film progresses. Its just there in an existential sense.

There is a heavy religious element to the film. Particularly after her brother appears. Both Camille and her brother ,in the film, climb a hill and look back over the countryside. Its hard to ever be sure what Camille is thinking about though we see what she observes. The tree in the wind and the shadow of the sun crossing the room she sits in for example. For her brother the landscape is evidence of the presence of God.

She is a lost soul. Her brother has certainty through belief. But I could not help thinking that his faith is forced. He is harsh and judgemental. He keeps his emotions in check. Her humanity has been crushed. She clearly had strong passions. Its not said in the film but seems to me that her brother has reacted to her mental distress by adopting a rigid faith.

The film does not give easy answers. Its a film that shows rather than tells. Its a film that raises one above mundane reality.

 

[Gramsci]

The Rio is an excellent cinema ( in London) where I saw Camille Claudel.

One of the last independent cinemas. It has good screen. It feels like stepping back in time to the 70s and 80s rep cinemas like Scala at Kings Cross.

Unlike the latest fashion for upmarket cinemas this is the kind of cinema I feel comfortable in. Slightly scruffy and down at heel.

Now the Renoir is closed for "refurbishment" I reckon I will use the Rio. They also still do Sunday double bills.

 

[quimcunx]

I want to see under the skin and Grand Budapest hotel.

I went to see Nymphomaniac weeks and weeks ago and I'm still depressed. It has some amusing moments but it's mostly unrelentingly drear. Uma did a good turn in it.

21/22/23? Jump street was fun and a good foil to Nympho. I haven't seen the first one.

 

[redsquirrel]

The Rover - David Michôd's previous film Animal Kingdom, was truly excellent, meaning that my expectations for this were high (especially as it stars Guy Pearce one of my favourite modern actors). The plot is that ~10 years into the future, Australia has basically broken down, Pearce plays a man pursuing his stolen car alongside Robert Pattinson (the brother of the thief). Overall, I have to say it was a bit of a disappointment, but then much of that is probably because my expectations were so high after Animal Kingdom. Even so there's a lot that's good in the movie, I like that fact that the reason for this breakdown (The Fall) is not explicitly laid out, and Pearce is good. Pattinson is more of a problem, he plays an American and for some reason has decided to go with the Brando route of mumbling his lines, I'm not sure whether that was his idea or the directors but it's a mistake whosever it was. There's more than enough there to make it worth watching but it's not in the same league as Animal Kingdom.

Palo Alto - Youth in revolt/despair film from Gia Coppola (grand-daughter of Francis, niece of Sofia) based on a book of short stories by James Franco (who stars in this). Again rather mixed feelings about this, it's done pretty well with some decent performances from Emma Roberts and Jack Kilmer but I don't really feel it brings a great deal new to a genre that's been mined pretty extensively already. In particular, I couldn't help but comparing it against Sofia Coppola's work as it mirrors it so closely, and compared with The Virgin Suicides and The Bling Ring it's left wanting.

X-Men: Days of Future Past - Mediocre blockbuster, definitely inferior to First Class and The Avengers, it's not bad but it's flabby, there's more cast members than there should be and it's rather too in love with itself at times (an example being the Nixon stuff), also it's just so clearly set up for a sequel that it's irritating. Lawrence is good again and Jackman shows he's nailed this type of role. As mentioned able the Quicksilver scenes are good fun but you do think afterward that if he can do all this why in gods name are they taking him with them to Paris.

Frank - Very, very loosely inspired by Frank Sidebottom. It's much more a comedy of modern indie bands, one that is funny in places. I guess it's unfair to criticise it for not being the film I wanted it to be but I can't help thinking that I'd rather have had Micheal Winterbottom in the directors seat. It was co-written by Jon Ronson, who I've never been a fan of.

The Two Faces of January - I've always loved Highsmith's plots (although her writing has always turned me off the actual books strangely) so I was looking forward to this. It's definitely an above average thriller, though not in the first division. All three members of the main cast are good, Mortensen is always a pleasure to watch, Dunst good and Oscar Isaacs delivers another good performance after Inside Llewyn Davis. It looks good too, taking place in Greece, in fact the general mood of the piece and it's location put me in mind of Michael J. Bird's The Lotus Eaters (70's BBC television series pretty good in itself but also worth watching for curiosity value in the fact that they really don't make them like that anymore).

 

[gosub]

Begin Again, liked it - even James Corden wasn't annoying

 

[Lea]

I saw the Fault In Our Stars last night. It was the saddest tearjerker of a film about 2 teenagers both with illnesses who fall in love. I cried all the way through the film like a big baby. The lady next to me was almost hysterical!

 

[Lea]

Finally got to to see The Grand Budapest Hotel. Really enjoyed it. Good story telling. Great to see Ralph Fiennes in a comedy role.

 

[Dr. Furface]

Boyhood, the new one from Richard Linklater following a boy growing up in Texas over a 12 year period, an ambitious project given that it was filmed at various intervals over that timeframe. I can't argue with the reviews this has received, because it's cast are excellent - esp Ethan Hawke and Ellar Coltrane as the father and son - and it's a moving and generally believeable story with some memorable scenes. However I did find it a little stereotyped and trite in some ways (bitter drunken asshole stepfathers again anyone?) and at almost 3 hrs l-o-n-g the last half hour - which was the weakest part for me - had me itching for the end. But overall, one of the better films this year.

 

[8115]

Chef. Bit basic but very good nonetheless. Spent the whole time scheming how to run away to California to work in a restaurant.

 

[Dr. Furface]

Finding Vivian Maier. Excellent documentary about an amateur New York photographer who nobody knew anything about until a chance discovery of some of her photographs in an auction shortly after she died in 2009. She worked as a nanny but took over a hundred thousand photos (and films) of the highest quality chronicling life in NYC, Chicago, France and other countries, and never even had the vast majority of them developed. It's a fascinating portrait of a woman who was clearly driven to record the world around her but was also strangely reluctant to show her work to anyone. Wonderful - in the truest sense of the word.