What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[Ira Gaines]

Big movie in not really going for facts shocker.

[Armand 2]

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

[Ranaldo Bairn]

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?

[Bully Wee Villa]

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

[jimmy boo]

Searching.

Guys daughter goes missing after school one day and he resorts to trawling her laptop for clues to whats happened to her. Film is entirely made up of screenshots of him going through all the usual social media sites and youtube and some i've never heard of. Other scenes are CCTV, news clips online and spy camera stuff. Really well done and tension ramps up from half way through with a few twists along the way. I'm guessing the slight buffering all the way through was intentional and not my stream. Hooked after five minutes and loved it....8/10.

 

[GrahamJags]

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.
 

Saw this tonight, and this is bang on my thoughts (except I didn’t particularly like Split).

What an utter mess of a film.

[Christophe]

(15-20)

Signed back up to Mubi now that they’ve canned Filmstruck so been hitting that quite hard: 

Blood Simple 7/10

Really obvious this is a debut film and v much the Coens finding their feet/losing their way a bit now and again, but covering a lot of themes they’ll go on to look at again in later work. DOES have some great individual scenes even if the whole story kind of doesn’t completely work. Found the guy who plays the boyfriend quite annoying tho. (Mubi)

Funny Haha 7/10

Ultra low budget film about the generation whatever it was that came before millennials, mostly just bumming about a bit. Some people say this kickstared the whole mumblecore movement, pretttttttty sure this would irritate the SHIT out of 90% of people that watched it but I actually quite like the weird aesthetic and badly improvised dialogue in a lot of these films for some reason. (Mubi)

Island of Hungry Ghosts 7/10

Feels like an almost set formula these days where a doco about a serious subject  (Australia sticking refugees in what really are basically concentration camps for indefinite detention on islands in the Indian Ocean) has to have another strand to it to sort of relive the horrors a bit (in this case the...analogy alert!...migration of baby crabs from inland to the sea helped by locals to stop them getting run over). Did find it v watchable, and well made, but felt slightly disappointed that it wasn’t as insightful on the former topic as it felt like it could have been, more just giving you fleeting glimpses through the eyes of a disillusioned therapist working with the refugees (although tbf I can imagine the Australian govt weren’t exactly keen on giving them any access). (Mubi)

The Upside 5/10

I really can’t help liking Kevin Hart and I already love Bryan Cranston, and their performances and chemistry together are both great. But it’s an obviously manipulative film and the redemptions feel unearned. (cinema)

Iron Man 7/10

The 2008 one, the first one in the current Marvel Cinematic Universe, which I bought for a quid in CEX because I found myself pressed into delivering a class on it. I first saw this on night shift in the summer of 2009 with the colleague who was training me as he farted through it. Given how gross and detestable I find this region of cinema, I was reasonably surprised to find that this is a decent and at times good film for many reasons that the newer ones are not. Namely it has charm, a bit of wit, it’s politics are not completely stupid, and the economy of storytelling and genera restraint is fairly admirable. The second act, essentially a build to a climatic battle, is far weaker than the first, where arms manufacturer and general Elon Musk-crossed-with-Robert Downey Jr antihero Tony Stark is kidnapped after a demonstration of a superweapon he’s just constructed. Under duress and in Ill health he must construct the same weapon for the generic Muslims who have kidnapped him, but he also constructs a supersuit to power his way out of Tora Bora. It’s completely predictable and hits all the storyline beats you’d expect (he comes to love his cellmate...though they are opposites!...and then he dies!) but with a fair amount of style and tongue-in-cheek. After he gets out and returns to America it is a bit more of a trudge, and yet the apex of this filmic world, more or less. (DVD)

Glass 4/10

A sequel to both Unbreakable and also Split. I saw the former, and enjoyed it to a point. Many people say that it’s Shyamalan’s best film. I haven’t seen Split but it was received better than many of his films. But there was a scene at the end of Split which included Bruce Willis from Unbreakable. So, this film is a sequel to both Unbreakable (which is nearly 20 yrs old) and Split (which is much more recent). So here’s the thing. It was a well crafted film which made perfect sense within it’s own rules. There’s a “twist” towards the end and it’s much like all of Shyamalan’s films where the twist is the whole point of the film. In this case, it wasn’t really! It’s all about the origins of the superhero, in the most general sense. And in that respect it really kinda works. James McAvoy is absolutely brilliant as a split personality, his physical acting is just phenomenal. Everything about this film screams “this is a really clever film about the nature and origin of superheroes” and it is! It really is and James McAvoy is absolutely amazing. Problem is, it’s so fucking BORING. I’ve never been so bored before, there are good things going on but it’s so fucking BORING. Nearly nodded off at least 3 times. Absolute borefest. If it thinks it’s setting up another film in the Unbreakable/Split/Glass trilogy then by GOD I hope they don’t do it. I give it a few points because James McAvoy was so good and the story was, like, ok. (cinema) 

 

[tongue_tied_danny]

I love Blood Simple, even if it does come across like a student project at times. Anything with M Emmett Walsh is fine by me...

[killiepiemuncher]

Mary Queen of Scots. 2/10

A load of shite. 2 points for Saoirse Ronans’ big nips in a wet simmit.

[SmartMU]

Just overwatched the Unbreakable. The movie is awesome. Split and the Glass are next

[buchan30]

What like are the pirates of the Caribbean? Good/funny/shite caught 5 mins of one the other day and it looked ok. Worth watching?

[munro7]

What like are the pirates of the Caribbean? Good/funny/shite caught 5 mins of one the other day and it looked ok. Worth watching?

The first one’s very good. They get progressively worse as they rip the arse out of the one-note joke.

[DA Baracus]

Sausage Party

8/10 

Deeply amusing concept mixed with very juvenile humour meant this would always be for me.

[mizfit]

Sausage Party
8/10 
Deeply amusing concept mixed with very juvenile humour meant this would always be for me.

I wen to see it in the cinema.
The last 10 minutes saw people walking out and others closing their eyes.

[accies1874]

Beautiful Boy (2019):
I thought this started (for at least an hour) dreadfully. The constant time jumps left me a bit confused as to when we were and at what stage Nick's recovery was at, so I couldn't really begin to care about him getting better. I actually got the impression that there were scenes missing. Maybe a second watch would clear things up.
Once its timeline settled down, I was a bit more invested, but most of that can be attributed to Steve Carrell and Maura Tierney. They really carried it and while Chalamet was pretty decent, my sole engagement with his character was through his dad and step-mum. It did seem to be focussed on what addiction can do to a family as opposed to an individual which was somewhat interesting.
The scene with the notebook is one of the worst and on-the-nose moments in cinema I've seen in a while, and the whole "everything, everything" patter felt exclusively to be used in the trailer but unnatural in the film.
At times it was almost quite good, but it never really got beyond that.

[well fan for life]

Watched Solo last night. More than anything it was just good fun. Probably my favourite in the new Star Wars films.

[DA Baracus]

4 hours ago, mizfit said:

 

 

I wen to see it in the cinema.
The last 10 minutes saw people walking out and others closing their eyes.

 

 

Aye the ending is quite something 

[Bluenortherner]

Mary Queen of Scots 1/10

Very boring

[ecto]

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Never saw this when it came out. Very good, sparely written with really good balance of comedy, shock and poignancy.

I also missed this at the cinema, watched it over the Christmas holidays, it is wonderful

[Christophe]

(21-22)

Alien 3 6.5/10

The original theatrical release, not the ‘special edition’ overseen by someone who isn’t David Fincher. Not seen this in a while but after some careful thought i came to realise that if I had to flag wave for one ‘franchise’ (blood just turned to shit-flavoured gravy saying that) then it would be Alien. The first two films are twin titans of cinema: better than any two first films from any series of films, Star War, Godfather, Toy Story, Brother, Terminator, Nolan Batman...The Hobbit! They’re that good that I’m still willingly seeing ‘universe’ based sequels/prequels. Plus I bought the first four films in a box set for a fiver in HMV when they looked like they were going under. Obviously there’s a lot of chat about how there was tension between Fincher and the studio but I think it’s still notable as some of it is on screen. There are some really subtle touches of a visual thinker (like the scenes where computer graphics overlay faces in the opening that is repeated when Ripley realises she’s at third trimester with a yung alien) and some really hacky bits, like the really laughable CGI alien that pops up from time to time and the exteriors that look very Red Dwarf. The first two films were scarier with LESS technology and world-built better with LESS money. The film also feels like it was designed around the journey of the alien from incubation to death, with the characterisation, story, and world-building not quite at the level of the prequels. Take for instance Clemens, played by Charles Dance. It’s good acting and time spent with him is always good. He gets a lot of exposition and ‘backstory’, but in service of what? This is interesting to me beacuse there’s this idea in the academic enterprise of screenwriting that characters need to be more that 2D ‘types’, and yet Vasquez and Apone and Hicks all felt more fleshed out despite learning very little about them in Aliens. Backstory has to be coupled to some kind of direction in the plot, ultimately. Was this more fleshed out in the Fincher version? This is neither here-nor-there but I wouldn’t have started it by killing off two central characters from Aliens at the outset, including Newt. I get it, I get it, this is a world of chaos and shit, but I wouldn’t have done it. There. The prisoners in the space jail are a mixed bag, too. It gets a bit OI BLOIMEY GUVNA YOU CAHHNT with the British scene-chewing bollocks, but I did like Brian Glover and Pete Postlethwaite, and they both died in very cool ways. It also features Niall Buggy in a very small role. You might know him as Henry Sellers from Father Ted, but to me he’s always going to be the I’M CHANGING...I’M CHAAAAANGING! guy from Cruise of the Gods. Oh and it’s kess funny than either of the prequels, even though they weren’t laugh-a-minute there were some low-level bro laughs. This goes from child death to attempted rape to suicide and it’s like CHRIST levity PLEASE. The positives are overlooked though. Namely: Ripley is still very good, and her turn as the martyred Jesus for the Church of the Space Rapist is actually well done and probably was missed by a lot of people. It is a good and serviceable action film and retains a very Gen X suspicion of selling out and aligning with big corporations. It’s also never actively stupid like loads of latter-day action films, however unlikely it is. (DVD)

Mary Queen of Scots 8/10

I thought this was absolutely splendid despite some flaws. Ronan and especially Robbie are just unbelievable, arguably the two best actresses going right now, utterly phenomenal. It was sumptuous - in a very different way to The Favourite, but in no way less so - and visceral. This is a very feminist movie in the sense that you see these two powerful, strong women, who are still completely at the whim of their consorts and advisors. Well worth watching just for the leads. (cinema)