List the films you've seen at the cinema: 2017

[redsquirrel]

I'm not asking for essays, I just want some fucking content rather than twatter shit. A380's posts above are a perfect example.

It's brilliant. Probably the best British Film for the last couple of years. Go and see it. It's got almost everything.

That's what I thought. Till I saw it.

Far better.

3 posts full of nothing. What is it about Their Finest that they like? How is it different from the films you listed? It's the best British film for the last couple of years and they can't say anything more than the empty shit above. It's the same in politics, people posting empty twitter rubbish is ruining threads. As I said I'm not asking for posts like Gramaci's one on Neruda (though that is great if people want to do that) but I am asking for some content.

 

[Orang Utan]

it's not nothing - people are saying what film they've seen and what they think of it. whether they choose to be verbose or concise is up to them

 

[Orang Utan]

it's very easy to skip over the posts that you perceive to be contentless, you know

 

[redsquirrel]

It is nothing, there are words but they tell nobody anything about the film. It's makes the thread into a nothing more than a list. Older years weren't like this.

And it's not easy to ignore them if most of the thread consists of them.

Really having people say why they like something is hardly asking for a essay.

 

[Orang Utan]

It is nothing, there are words but they tell nobody anything about the film. It's makes the thread into a nothing more than a list. Older years weren't like this.

And it's not easy to ignore them if most of the thread consists of them.

Really having people say why they like something is hardly asking for a essay.

sure, but complaining about the nature of a thread that has been started by the person you seem to be particularly vexed by seems a bit churlish.
What's wrong with a mix of posts? That's what I like about this place.
You could always start a What film have you seen at the cinema (INTELLIGENT THOUGHTFUL REVIEWS ONLY) thread but you'd get short shrift

 

[redsquirrel]

sure, but complaining about the nature of a thread that has been started by the person you seem to be particularly vexed by seems a bit churlish.
What's wrong with a mix of posts? That's what I like about this place.

The "Films You've Seen at the Cinema: XXXX" has been a stable for ages, the fact that this year the OP happened to twitter wanker is neither here nor there. There's nothing wrong with a mix, it's the current mix - 10 tweets to every decent post that is the problem.

You could always start a What film have you seen at the cinema (INTELLIGENT THOUGHTFUL REVIEWS ONLY) thread but you'd get short shrift

And thats why I asked the question, to see if there was any appetite for starting a new thread and how it should be done. If it's just me I guess I'll just have to post on this thread but if there are other people that feel the same way maybe we can come up with something to do about it.

 

[Gramsci]

That's for everything tho, films, TV series whatever, and it suffers from some of the same problems this one does. I was thinking of a thread just for film discussion but not specifically for films at the cinema so that we could attract people who, for the reasons who mentioned, don't go to the cinema that often.

Maybe, but this one isn't.

Just had a look at DVD thread and ur right its about everything.

Considering that people often watch films online and DVD as its cheaper and convenient could be idea to have thread for film that covers that as well as cinema. I don't watch much outside cinema myself.

Also, in place like London, there is gallery based film. Which is free. May put up review of one I saw to show what I mean.

 

[A380]

I'm not asking for essays, I just want some fucking content rather than twatter shit. A380's posts above are a perfect example.





3 posts full of nothing. What is it about Their Finest that they like? How is it different from the films you listed? It's the best British film for the last couple of years and they can't say anything more than the empty shit above. It's the same in politics, people posting empty twitter rubbish is ruining threads. As I said I'm not asking for posts like Gramaci's one on Neruda (though that is great if people want to do that) but I am asking for some content.

Ok.

 

[bluescreen]

Their Finest.

It's brilliant. Probably the best British Film for the last couple of years. Go and see it. It's got almost everything.

I've just come back from seeing this and came on here to see what others thought. I am disappointed in you.

The film was a load of sentimental clichéd toss. It could have been good, dealing with truth/propaganda, working people/elite, women's equality, war. And a dog. But it was a barrage of zingers held together with slop. Maybe I missed the point and it was all supposed to be terribly knowing and ironic, mocking the war story genre, with every clichéd camera angle and detail, plotting and music. And patronising towards the skills of people who actually made films at the time. There certainly were a few intentional laughs, but it was no Grand Budapest Hotel, or Berberian Sound Studio. At least Bill Nighy was convincing, playing an actor embarrassed to be taking part.

I could go on, but it's late and I'm feeling too pissed off.

 

[bluescreen]

Oh, and if it was so important to the plot that the main character be Welsh, couldn't they at least have had a Welsh actor?

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

Great, thanks for that info, very informative. FFS the Paul Ross's have destroyed this thread.

Have you, even for a second, considered that you might be a colossal arsehole? The thread is titled "List the films..". Perhaps you *should* start another film thread where you can post "neoliberal" and "Blairite" with the frequency of the spatterings on a plasterer's radio, like you do on every other subject.

 

[killer b]

I didn't recognise the thread you were complaining about redsquirrel, so I looked back a few pages. I still don't. Reckon you probably need to chill a bit.

 

[A380]

I'm not asking for essays, I just want some fucking content rather than twatter shit. A380's posts above are a perfect example.





3 posts full of nothing. What is it about Their Finest that they like? How is it different from the films you listed? It's the best British film for the last couple of years and they can't say anything more than the empty shit above. It's the same in politics, people posting empty twitter rubbish is ruining threads. As I said I'm not asking for posts like Gramaci's one on Neruda (though that is great if people want to do that) but I am asking for some content.

The thread is titled 'List the Films you hve Seen at the Cinema 2017'.

It's not called 'write a detailed analysis on the film in context of the wider cinema - preferably focusing on obscure references to other films only released in four cinemas all operated by men with ironic beards' .

I feel I'm probably stepping outside the brief slightly by stating whether I liked them or not.

If you don't like short posts, skip over them. That's quite easy with short posts.

 

[A380]

Great, thanks for that info, very informative. FFS the Paul Ross's have destroyed this thread.

If fact would anyone else be interested in a new film thread? I've been thinking of starting one for a while now, one of the problems with this thread this year is that we've lost people like Reno, who are tending to watch more stuff at home than at the cinema, while gaining the Paul Ross's.

So I was thinking about a new thread that would be for films but not make any distinction between the cinema or home, and with provision that people should at give at least some fucking f the films they've seen in their posts. I'm not asking for posts as long as Gramsci's above (though that would be very welcome) but just the type of posts people used to make in previous years. Anyone else interested? Or should we just continue with this thread and try to tune out the "Great!" wankers?

*/*****

 

[Nanker Phelge]

Get Out - a satirical horror film with nods to Rosemary's Baby and The Stepford Wives, nicely summed up here:

"Peele’s film is using a well-worn horror-movie narrative (specifically, the narrative of The Stepford Wives – a paranoid 1970s chiller in which a women discovers that the men of her suspiciously-perfect small town are replacing their “difficult” feminist wives with obedient, submissive 1950s-style robot duplicates) in order to needle a very specific subset of White racism: “Nice” Liberals who are insistent of their non-racism because they admire an abstract ideal of Blackness while not actually engaging or regularly encountering any actual Black people."

The cast were all excellent, but Daniel Kaluuya lead performance really made the film for me.

Catherine Keener, as always, is excellent too.

 

[redsquirrel]

I didn't recognise the thread you were complaining about redsquirrel, so I looked back a few pages. I still don't. Reckon you probably need to chill a bit.

Sorry not sure what you mean. Are you saying you can't see how this years thread differs from past years? If so we'll just have to disagree, IMO past years had a much smaller ratio of twitter posts, or see the theatre thread.

It's not called 'write a detailed analysis on the film in context of the wider cinema - preferably focusing on obscure references to other films only released in four cinemas all operated by men with ironic beards'.

For the fourth time I'm not asking for anything like that I'm saying that you're an empty vessel if you can't even say why you think a film is the best British film of the last two years.

Nanker's post below doesn't have any obscure references it just has some content.

 

[killer b]

Sorry not sure what you mean. Are you saying you can't see how this years thread differs from past years? If so we'll just have to disagree, IMO past years had a much smaller ratio of twitter posts, or see the theatre thread.

I don't see that many content free posts. I'm not going to do a post-by-post comparison to previous years though - I suppose there probably is a trend towards shorter posting. Not sure what shouting at posters about it is meant to achieve though.

 

[The39thStep]

1900. Bertolucci's five and a half hour epic of life in the Po Valley in the first half of the 30th century. Interesting politically, well shot but pretty flawed.

Very black and white and would've massively benefitted from more grey. And for all its length, left feeling I learned very little about the characters involved, especially De Niro's.

I saw that when it first came out lol and I had never seen a film that lasted more than two hours . I remember trying to talk about it at work ( I was working in an engineering factory at the time) and people sort of looked at me with glazed eyes.

 

[Kesher]

Rules Don't Apply

Set during the period 1958 to 1964 mostly in Hollywood. Story revolves around an aspiring actress whose under contract to Howard Hughes, and his personal assistant. The story seems to meander at first and initially left me wondering where's this going; but it improves and is funny at times even farcical particularly when Hughes' behaviour becomes increasingly demanding and erratic. Warren Beatty does a fine job of playing Hughes. The film has something of a Coen Brothers feel to it. Overall I enjoyed it.

 

[The39thStep]

Could we have a watermark for posts/ reviews that redsquirrel thinks are of a sufficient standard? It could simply be a smiling squirrel or a frowny one and perhaps two rutting squirrels for those of a particularly high standard .

 

[bluescreen]

"I am not your negro"; Raoul Peck's Baldwin documentary.
See it.

Seconded. Powerful and shocking. Very artfully and thoughtfully put together with historic and contemporary footage, and Baldwin's words voiced over by Samuel L Jackson, and intercut with some actual footage of Baldwin on a chat show and at the Cambridge Union. It's not an easy watch, especially as this shit is still happening.

ETA: this review gives a good account. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/movies/review-i-am-not-your-negro-review-james-baldwin.html

 

[redsquirrel]

Could we have a watermark for posts/ reviews that redsquirrel thinks are of a sufficient standard? It could simply be a smiling squirrel or a frowny one and perhaps two rutting squirrels for those of a particularly high standard .

Get me the app and I'll use it. Has to be red squirrels though, not grey ones.

 

[Kesher]

The Belko Experiment

80 staff in an isolated corporate, office block are locked in and a voice informs them that they have 30 minutes to select two colleagues and kill them or repercussions will follow. Reality sets in and the nightmare begins. B-movie gore, interesting because it raises the obvious question, lots of suspense. Let down by the ending and certain scenes lack viability. Acting is quite good.

 

[Sue]

Raw. Young vegetarian woman, forced into eating meat in a university initiation, develops a lust for blood.

Not a horror fan but thought this was really good, if I did gasp and watch bits of it through my fingers. Reckon being a veggie didn't help...

Low key, intelligent and interesting take on a horror standard.

 

[A380]

Guardians of the Galaxy 2:

 

[Kesher]

(3D) Guardians of the Galaxy 1

Didn't see this in 2014 and had only recently seen it on TV left me thinking that this would look good on the big screen, and so I had the chance to see it as part of a double bill with Vol 2. Seeing it at the cinema gave me the impression that I hadn't really seen the film recently such was the auditory and visual upgrade.

 

[Sue]

Free Fire. Cillian Murphy and Michael Smiley play 1970s IRA men trying to buy guns from a South African arms dealer. Naturally it all goes horribly wrong.

Essentially it's an hour and a half of people shooting at each other. Very well shot (I know) and choreographed but ultimately a wee bit dull. Some of the dialogue is good but really more dialogue and less shooting would've made for a much better film.

I still think Kill List is the best film Ben Wheatley's made but this is better than High Rise (which I thought was a mess). Still, feels a bit like he's just cycling through the genres because he can. Guess that's his Tarrantino one done.

The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946). Bit of classic noir. Slightly strangely, the woman sitting next to me was eating boiled cabbage. Definitely a cinema first...

 

[ginger_syn]

Guardians of the galaxy 2,totally enjoyed the unabashed escapism of the film, also first time I've been to the cinema since 2008, might go again soon.

 

[Gramsci]

Saw it today. Alien Covenant.

I like sci fi and liked Aliens one and two.

After reading the Independent review was intrigued and thought I would give it a go.

It's a frustrating film. There were patches were I could see this could have been a much more interesting film.

The beginning is great. A philosophical discussion between the android and his creator. Fassbender makes this film worth seeing. The best scenes are him. Some really weird scenes between Fassbender and himself. Weird in a good way. A homo erotic relationship between the two Fassbender s. (He is the android on the colony vessel "Walter"and "David" the first android marooned on the planet.)

"David" is a Colonel Kurtz figure. The scenes in his cave reminded me of Brando in Apocalypse Now. A flawed genius who had taken the path to the dark side. The film uses Wagner as well.

David names himself after the statue by Michelangelo. The perfect human. In his discussion with Walter he asks Walter why his helping the human race. David sees there wish to start again and colonise another planet as a desperate attempt and a sign they are finished as a species.

This goes through all the Alien films. The human race are the cause of there misfortunes. It's a dark view of the future of humans.

The aliens are amoral and perfect. A perverse "David". The Renaissance put the human race at the apex of creation. This is hubris. The aliens are pure existential life force. But not one that one leads to finding the meaning of life. Which Davids creator wanted.

A plotline that was not developed was the Captain. Early on its let known to us he has a Christian faith. I thought this would be used later on.

The planet can be seen as Hell. With David as the fallen angel. But it's not followed up. The planet looks perfect but it's not right somehow. This worked well imo. Genuinely creepy in an understated way.

I wished for more of this. The action is good but it repeats a lot of scenes from previous Alien films.

I would still say go and see this film. It's better than Prometheus. It's that there was a much better film trying to get out of it.

Still it's great to see a popular film quoting Shelley at length.

 

[Orang Utan]

Did you mean Alien Covenant Gramsci ? There IS a film called It out, but it looks like you've reviewed the new Ridley Scott film.