Ira Gaines Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 If you could explain the hypocrisy, that'd be great. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightswoodBear Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 34 minutes ago, Mark Connolly said: Put me in the anti-The Favourite crowd. A typical Awards-buzz type film that's average at best, and if it wasn't directed by one of the current indie-esque darlings, no-one would give a single f**k, other than the fact Emma Stone gets her chebs out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 15 minutes ago, Principal Flutie said: If you could explain the hypocrisy, that'd be great. I don't go looking for your posts but from what I've read, you do the same thing: state an opinion as if it's some sort of absolute fact. I mean, nearly everyone does it on the internet so it's a strange thing to pick up on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 I say things are shite and good. But I don't ever project opinions onto other people to try and make them more valid. If Mark decides to say "that was shite", then that's cool. It's shite. Might not agree but it is what it is. But that's not the same as then saying what someone else should or would think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSU Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 I thought The Favourite was great. More surprised by Bohemian Rhapsody getting a nod for Best Picture, tbh, which aside from the music and Rami Malek I thought was dung. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Fairly dull movie but thought Malek was terrific. Not sure I'd have had him in the best actor ahead of Ethan Hawke though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accies1874 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 I'll need to see that, Green Book and Vice. Gonna give Roma a re-watch too as I was grumpy when I saw it - long live multi-platform releases. I found last year's selections really great but this year's a bit alright. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 I loved Green Book. A bit too light on the heavier subjects, but it made it an absolute breeze to sit through. Was mainly focused on just being entertaining, which is no bad thing at all. Played to Farrelly's strengths too being more of a comedy than a drama. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accies1874 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 I get why folk really disagree with awards (comparing Black Panther, Bohemian Rhapsody and Roma is flawed, it's mostly rewarding already rich white men etc), but I must admit that I enjoy picking a film and backing it, and they can help promote smaller films/filmmakers such as Lady Bird and CMBYN last year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Mark Connolly said: Put me in the anti-The Favourite crowd. A typical Awards-buzz type film that's average at best, and if it wasn't directed by one of the current indie-esque darlings, no-one would give a single f**k, other than the fact Emma Stone gets her chebs out. I think the favourite will always split the audience. There's an almost Paul Thomas Anderson feel about Yorgos Lanthimos and his movies in that they really do split people into either love or hate. They're not similar stylistically at all obviously, just the reactions are very rarely lukewarm. I went to see Beautiful Boy last night because of the Oscar buzz around Carrell and Chalamet. Neither were nominated I see so an early evening well spent I thought this was just alright. The performances from both lead actors probably drag this up a couple of points. The film felt both slow and rushed at the same time. Rushed in the respect you don't really see the descent into addiction beyond a 'montage' and it seemed to skip through passages of time and plunk you into scenes without context and slow in that the film took forever to really get anywhere. This is the stereotypical Oscar bait kind of film that doesn't quite hit the right beats. It's watchable, the performances are excellent but I don't think the film is as well made as it could be. Probably could've used an edit and I'd probably remove the stuff about him childhood because it didn't really serve a purpose in the movie. 5/10 (cinema) The Upside I found much more enjoyable a movie going experience. Much more upbeat, much more coherent and I think it's the first time I've been impressed with Kevin Hart the actor, not Kevin Hart the comedian. He delivers his usual one liners but he felt believable with a clearly intelligent character who had made some poor life choices (sometimes through necessity) and was trying to make amends for them. I really enjoyed the chemistry between Hart and Cranston. There's loads of films like this out there - an unlikely carer taking care of a reluctant and difficult caree - but it's definitely worth your time more than Beautiful Boy. 7/10 (cinema) Edit: Given how much I've been looking forward to it, I'm shocked I forgot to mention Mary Queen of Scots. I really enjoyed this. I'm sure historians are rolling their eyes at some of the scenes and set ups but it's a highly entertaining political/period drama. The motivations of all characters were clear and played brilliantly by the entire cast - Ronan and Robbie were as good as you'd expect and I felt David Tennant was a brilliantly loathsome John Knox - and the story moved along at just the right pace. In terms of the history, the only gripe I really have is how sympathetic an airing Elizabeth seems to get. I know there's a strong theme of sisterhood all the way through the movie, but to put all of what Elizabeth did to wrong Mary on her advisers isn't really fair. Saoirse Ronan's Scottish accent is very good. 8/10 Edited January 22, 2019 by Kyle 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 1 minute ago, accies1874 said: I get why folk really disagree with awards (comparing Black Panther, Bohemian Rhapsody and Roma is flawed, it's mostly rewarding already rich white men etc), but I must admit that I enjoy picking a film and backing it, and they can help promote smaller films/filmmakers such as Lady Bird and CMBYN last year. Lady Bird is a tremendous movie and not just because I'm a pure Greta Gerwig fanboy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shandon Par Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Really chuffed BlacKkKLansman has a best picture nomination. Rachel Weisz as best supporting actress too - thought she was fantastic. I get how you could dislike The Favourite if you went along expecting something else. The missus and I had re-watched Dogtooth a few days before so were well aware of the director's style and humour. I've heard a few folk going along thinking it was going to be some historical epic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 The Favourite is probably his most accessible work, although the offbeat style is still there. His previous works are lessons in awkwardness. I thought it worked perfectly with The Killing of a Sacred Deer. Especially Barry Keoghan's unhinged performance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
well fan for life Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 I went to see Into the Spider-Verse last night and it was absolutely class. One of the most slick films I've seen in a long time! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 19 hours ago, Kyle said: I think the favourite will always split the audience. There's an almost Paul Thomas Anderson feel about Yorgos Lanthimos and his movies in that they really do split people into either love or hate. They're not similar stylistically at all obviously, just the reactions are very rarely lukewarm. I went to see Beautiful Boy last night because of the Oscar buzz around Carrell and Chalamet. Neither were nominated I see so an early evening well spent I thought this was just alright. The performances from both lead actors probably drag this up a couple of points. The film felt both slow and rushed at the same time. Rushed in the respect you don't really see the descent into addiction beyond a 'montage' and it seemed to skip through passages of time and plunk you into scenes without context and slow in that the film took forever to really get anywhere. This is the stereotypical Oscar bait kind of film that doesn't quite hit the right beats. It's watchable, the performances are excellent but I don't think the film is as well made as it could be. Probably could've used an edit and I'd probably remove the stuff about him childhood because it didn't really serve a purpose in the movie. 5/10 (cinema) The Upside I found much more enjoyable a movie going experience. Much more upbeat, much more coherent and I think it's the first time I've been impressed with Kevin Hart the actor, not Kevin Hart the comedian. He delivers his usual one liners but he felt believable with a clearly intelligent character who had made some poor life choices (sometimes through necessity) and was trying to make amends for them. I really enjoyed the chemistry between Hart and Cranston. There's loads of films like this out there - an unlikely carer taking care of a reluctant and difficult caree - but it's definitely worth your time more than Beautiful Boy. 7/10 (cinema) Edit: Given how much I've been looking forward to it, I'm shocked I forgot to mention Mary Queen of Scots. I really enjoyed this. I'm sure historians are rolling their eyes at some of the scenes and set ups but it's a highly entertaining political/period drama. The motivations of all characters were clear and played brilliantly by the entire cast - Ronan and Robbie were as good as you'd expect and I felt David Tennant was a brilliantly loathsome John Knox - and the story moved along at just the right pace. In terms of the history, the only gripe I really have is how sympathetic an airing Elizabeth seems to get. I know there's a strong theme of sisterhood all the way through the movie, but to put all of what Elizabeth did to wrong Mary on her advisers isn't really fair. Saoirse Ronan's Scottish accent is very good. 8/10 Did Mary not spend most of her formative years in France? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 1 hour ago, renton said: Did Mary not spend most of her formative years in France? She did yes - the film isn’t exactly brilliant for historical accuracy but big Saoirse’s attempt at our accent is very good nonetheless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Big movie in not really going for facts shocker. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armand 2 Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) Glass - 1/10 Spoiler M. Night Shyamalan returns to form with a power of absolute boring, nonsensical shite. I thought Split was fantastic - mainly because, as a fan of Unbreakable, I had absolutely no idea that they were connected; I genuinely never saw the twist coming . But Glass is proper, proper guff. Some of the lines in it are excruciatingly bad. McAvoy is good again as the Horde and earns the film its sole point but Bruce Willis, whilst criminally underused - lucky if he utters more than one page of script in the whole film - seems to have lost what acting ability that he had. Samuel L Jackson doesn't speak for over an hour. The affinity that the girl from Split has for McAvoy's character is incomprehensible considering he a) abducted her and held her hostage, b) tried to kill her and c) ATE her friends. I mean, there's Stockholm Syndrome then there's this insanity. f**k knows who Sarah Paulson is supposed to be or who she represents; despite running for over 2 hours, the film spends about approximately 1-2 minutes attempting (and failing) to explain this mysterious group of superhero vigilantes around whom the entire film is centred. If their objective is to kill off all kinds of superhero, why didn't they just kill them at the start!? Why put them in an asylum and attempt therapy!? Shyamalan is the only c**t needing put in an asylum. Edited January 24, 2019 by Armand 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 She did yes - the film isn’t exactly brilliant for historical accuracy but big Saoirse’s attempt at our accent is very good nonetheless. Saoirse Ronan, man. *sigh...*Anyway we were talking about that the other night. She would have been speaking in French with her courtiers mostly I suppose, but the language of the court would have been Scots by then wouldn't it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 The language of the court was French, but she spoke Scots fluently, albeit with a French accent. https://www.quora.com/What-accent-would-Mary-Queen-of-Scots-have-had 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.