planetf1.com

mac_d wrote:

SchumieRules wrote:
I'm with you, I meant for her as April O'Neil. Although, I always had April as a ginger in my mind...

I've not seen TMNT, but April was always ginger in the cartoons! I know it's not a defining characteristic but it bugs me a little when they just ignore stuff like that.




Tonight is a special night. One of my very close friends and I have a thing about watching the excellent, if also somewhat nonsensical *Definitely True* film that is "The Core". We once watched it together and both loved it. And now have a somewhat weird habit of doing a running commentary over it, acting bits out and we even bring our own peaches and hair spray (that will make sense if you remember the film). It's pretty ridiculous behaviour but so much fun. We started doing this in high school. I also love her dearly and haven't seen her in quite a while.

To review: the film is total BS. The plot is mediocre, the details are ridiculous but it falls into the "so bad, it's good" category (in my head it goes (Great, Good, Bad, So bad it's good, So bad it's just bad) with enjoyment dropping over the first three, spiking in the 4th again and dropping for the final one). Just don't take it too seriously and I think it's great. I don't know if I'd have liked it if not seeing it with her for the first time, but this film will forever hold a special place in my heart.

In fact, it's her birthday soon. I'm going to head into Town and see if I can find it on blu-ray for her.

I've been a little down in the dumps lately, but this has cheered me up to no end.

A ridiculous film with a ridiculous budget of $60 million! I mean who really thought that was a good enough idea to spend that sort of money on?! However I think the fact that it tried to be a serious disaster movie made the ridiculousness even more fun!

Shame I didn't realise just quite how stupid it was when I watched it for the first time around aged 14... It would have saved me embarrassing myself in front of my class by asking my chemistry teacher why 'Unobtainium' wasn't on the periodic table.

Watched Interstellar on Sunday, it was a long one (nearly 3h) but I enjoyed it very much.

coulthards chin wrote:(in reference to The Core) ... It would have saved me embarrassing myself in front of my class by asking my chemistry teacher why 'Unobtainium' wasn't on the periodic table.

Was this not the material that was being mined in the film Avatar also? For a material that implies that it cannot be sourced, it is becoming increasingly popular!

tootsie323 wrote:

coulthards chin wrote:(in reference to The Core) ... It would have saved me embarrassing myself in front of my class by asking my chemistry teacher why 'Unobtainium' wasn't on the periodic table.

Was this not the material that was being mined in the film Avatar also? For a material that implies that it cannot be sourced, it is becoming increasingly popular!

Yeah, it's relatively standard actually yeah. In fairness, it is quite a good name for both sounding like a chemical element and covering the fact it is clearly nonsense.

Though, I'd point out the core makes it clear this is not an element but is infact a compound that is 37 syllables long. And so that character says "I call it unobtanium". So if you had asked why it wasn't on the periodic table you'd have been embarassed even in the phsyics defying universe of The Core. It's rather sad I can remember that off the top of my head given I haven't seen the film in years.

Btw, I had a substantial leak in my flat that evening so couldn't make my viewing of this film. I was actually rather gutted. Moreso about not seeing all my friends at the same time given how rarely we all manage to get together.

Watched the Les Mis movie last night, about two years late. Vocally, Anne Hathaway was pretty impressive, as was the woman playing Éponine. Hugh Jackman wasn't that great, imo. He seemed to belt everything out at 100%, there were no dynamics. It made the big moments less impressive. Russel Crowe actually sounded better, although I suspect his lines were re-recorded and maybe edited. Everyone else was alright, save Helena Bonham Carter, but I assume that was intentional, and Marius, who has one great song near the end, and is otherwise good enough.

The film's main attraction, IMO, is the visuals. There are some striking and powerful shots throughout. It's very stylized, as a musical often has to be. The Battle of Waterloo isn't even mentioned (even though there is a long and detailed description in the book), and there are several other things missing from the story, but nothing you'll miss if you haven't read the book. At about two and three-quarter hours long, I can understand the cutting.

It's pretty hard to give this a bad rating, it's only comparison that I have seen as far as musicals go being the woeful Phantom of the Opera film by Joel Schumacher, and the Rocky Horror Picture Show. However, it's not something I'd watch again, and there were moments where the pacing was a bit off, and i got somewhat bored. I did the telltale sign of checking my watch and seeing how long the movie had to go. The endless singing actually got on my nerves in moments where there wasn't really a song to be sung, it was pointlessly singing dialogue. Having said that, I did end up feeling for the characters, and being sucked in to the story more towards the end.

I'm going to give this one a 6/10. Enough to put it in to positive numbers, but dont be in a rush to see it (if you haven't seen it yet, you're probably not in any hurry anyway).

I don't agree with what you said Les Mis - with that style of musical, it's more the pronunciation and rhythm of words that give us emotion and I thought Jackman did a good job. Crowe on the other hand was really weak all the way through and although could sing in tune, didn't have the power and authority in his voice for the dramatic songs especially.

From what I read, the vocals were all recorded live and not over dubbed later as most films are, so they all did a decent job. You've got to also remember its verging on an opera rather than a musical and the film 'dumbed down' the vocals a bit by not holding notes and making a lot of the singing more talk singing.

The other thing to think about is that it is based on the musical which is based in the book, so you can't really be upset that it didn't follow the book. But I agree that the visuals are one if the major plus sides of the film, they're really stunning at times and combined with the music make for some dramatic scenes.

minchy wrote:I don't agree with what you said Les Mis - with that style of musical, it's more the pronunciation and rhythm of words that give us emotion and I thought Jackman did a good job. Crowe on the other hand was really weak all the way through and although could sing in tune, didn't have the power and authority in his voice for the dramatic songs especially.

From what I read, the vocals were all recorded live and not over dubbed later as most films are, so they all did a decent job. You've got to also remember its verging on an opera rather than a musical and the film 'dumbed down' the vocals a bit by not holding notes and making a lot of the singing more talk singing.

The other thing to think about is that it is based on the musical which is based in the book, so you can't really be upset that it didn't follow the book. But I agree that the visuals are one if the major plus sides of the film, they're really stunning at times and combined with the music make for some dramatic scenes.

I completely understand the purpose of it, I just don't particularly like it. I found it a bit jarring. As for Crowe vs. Jackman, I agree Jackman is a better singer technically, I just didn't like his tone, while Crowe's was a lot... smoother? For lack of a better word. Entirely personal preference. Neither were that great though.

The recording was only referring to Crowe, his vocals sounded a lot more compressed than everyone elses, although that might be because he was so much louder. I feel that if they got a West End cast to do it, instead of relying on star power, it would have beeen much better, in regards to singing.

I haven't seen the show, so I can only base it on the book (an abridged version at that). I did the same for Phantom of the Opera, and it fared much, much worse.

AngusWolfe wrote:

minchy wrote:I don't agree with what you said Les Mis - with that style of musical, it's more the pronunciation and rhythm of words that give us emotion and I thought Jackman did a good job. Crowe on the other hand was really weak all the way through and although could sing in tune, didn't have the power and authority in his voice for the dramatic songs especially.

From what I read, the vocals were all recorded live and not over dubbed later as most films are, so they all did a decent job. You've got to also remember its verging on an opera rather than a musical and the film 'dumbed down' the vocals a bit by not holding notes and making a lot of the singing more talk singing.

The other thing to think about is that it is based on the musical which is based in the book, so you can't really be upset that it didn't follow the book. But I agree that the visuals are one if the major plus sides of the film, they're really stunning at times and combined with the music make for some dramatic scenes.

I completely understand the purpose of it, I just don't particularly like it. I found it a bit jarring. As for Crowe vs. Jackman, I agree Jackman is a better singer technically, I just didn't like his tone, while Crowe's was a lot... smoother? For lack of a better word. Entirely personal preference. Neither were that great though.

The recording was only referring to Crowe, his vocals sounded a lot more compressed than everyone elses, although that might be because he was so much louder. I feel that if they got a West End cast to do it, instead of relying on star power, it would have beeen much better, in regards to singing.

I haven't seen the show, so I can only base it on the book (an abridged version at that). I did the same for Phantom of the Opera, and it fared much, much worse.

Would've made sense to get professional singers to do it (Samantha Barks who plays Éponine is a pro and played the same part in the stage show), they did that for Frozen and it worked well (admittedly it was an animation nit live action). I just though the entire film would've been better if they hadn't cast Crowe or Cater! I think Crowe sounded compressed simply because that's how he sings, some people simply can't sing in their 'normal' voice (I'm one of them!) and as a result can't produce the same power as others.

There was nothing wrong with Crowe being smoother at times, but for solo songs such As Lucifer Fell, ut needed the power that he couldn't produce. Like you say, personal preference, but at least the orchestra was great!

minchy wrote:

AngusWolfe wrote:

minchy wrote:I don't agree with what you said Les Mis - with that style of musical, it's more the pronunciation and rhythm of words that give us emotion and I thought Jackman did a good job. Crowe on the other hand was really weak all the way through and although could sing in tune, didn't have the power and authority in his voice for the dramatic songs especially.

From what I read, the vocals were all recorded live and not over dubbed later as most films are, so they all did a decent job. You've got to also remember its verging on an opera rather than a musical and the film 'dumbed down' the vocals a bit by not holding notes and making a lot of the singing more talk singing.

The other thing to think about is that it is based on the musical which is based in the book, so you can't really be upset that it didn't follow the book. But I agree that the visuals are one if the major plus sides of the film, they're really stunning at times and combined with the music make for some dramatic scenes.

I completely understand the purpose of it, I just don't particularly like it. I found it a bit jarring. As for Crowe vs. Jackman, I agree Jackman is a better singer technically, I just didn't like his tone, while Crowe's was a lot... smoother? For lack of a better word. Entirely personal preference. Neither were that great though.

The recording was only referring to Crowe, his vocals sounded a lot more compressed than everyone elses, although that might be because he was so much louder. I feel that if they got a West End cast to do it, instead of relying on star power, it would have beeen much better, in regards to singing.

I haven't seen the show, so I can only base it on the book (an abridged version at that). I did the same for Phantom of the Opera, and it fared much, much worse.

Would've made sense to get professional singers to do it (Samantha Barks who plays Éponine is a pro and played the same part in the stage show), they did that for Frozen and it worked well (admittedly it was an animation nit live action). I just though the entire film would've been better if they hadn't cast Crowe or Cater! I think Crowe sounded compressed simply because that's how he sings, some people simply can't sing in their 'normal' voice (I'm one of them!) and as a result can't produce the same power as others.

There was nothing wrong with Crowe being smoother at times, but for solo songs such As Lucifer Fell, ut needed the power that he couldn't produce. Like you say, personal preference, but at least the orchestra was great!

Explains why I thought she was one of the best!

Otherwise, I agree. There are some very powerful singers in the West End and around the world who could have done much better.

So I saw The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 over the weekend, keep in mind I have not read any of the books.

The movie was alright, not as good as the first two movies but it's pretty much a build up for Part 2. Summed up the movie is all about propaganda and recruitment, don't expect any large fights, conclusions or character development as it looks like they are saving all that for the next installment. It's very similar layout to Harry Potter: Deathly Hallows Part 1, getting in all the back story as much as possible before showing the events people want to see.

Wold I recommend it?
Yes, not as a movie to watch as it's own but to watch along with the other Hunger Games Movies, it doesn't have enough substance to stand on it's own feet.

With that said I do have some griefs that I wish were expanded upon.

Interstellar

Slow at times, it all makes sense at the end, brilliant movie. A tad long, but I loved it.

Not loved the idiot next to me who kept going out to buy beers, kept burping and thought that the cinema is the pub...

SchumieRules wrote:Interstellar

Not loved the idiot next to me who kept going out to buy beers, kept burping and thought that the cinema is the pub...

Yeah I had fears about something like that when I went to see Interstellar too.
I had waited for this movie a long time so...
I was surprised when it turned out that the people at the cinema was actually there to watch the movie!

I liked Interstellar but as you say.. maybe just a bit too long.

I haven't seen any of the Hunger Games films.

They just looked a lot like Battle Royale. I've since heard that that is often the smart pickle response, but in this case I just thought they looked similar.

On the plus side, I now know who Jennifer Lawrence is. I don't really keep up with celeb culture and especially movies.



Regarding above beer buying - Where do you guys live?

Mr-E wrote:

SchumieRules wrote:Interstellar

Not loved the idiot next to me who kept going out to buy beers, kept burping and thought that the cinema is the pub...

Yeah I had fears about something like that when I went to see Interstellar too.
I had waited for this movie a long time so...
I was surprised when it turned out that the people at the cinema was actually there to watch the movie!

I liked Interstellar but as you say.. maybe just a bit too long.

The longer a movie is, the better! But, it's abnormal for even Nolan to have three hour movies. I've been looking forward to it for a long time, too. Massive fan of Nolan's movies so far, Inception and the trilogy were fantastic. I will probably watch it this weekend with the crowds dying down as well. Friend of mine said it could be better than Inception, but I rate that movie extremely highly (2nd best in my books ). In school, a Physics and Chemistry class are going to see it, so I might have to do some persuading to my Physic's teacher! But it's one to watch completely alone, nobody disturb me!

mac_d wrote:I haven't seen any of the Hunger Games films.

They just looked a lot like Battle Royale. I've since heard that that is often the smart pickle response, but in this case I just thought they looked similar.

On the plus side, I now know who Jennifer Lawrence is. I don't really keep up with celeb culture and especially movies.

I haven't seen Battle Royale, but I know what you mean. At first I wasn't interested in the Hunger Games as it came across as some teenage girl Twilight franchise so I kind of avoided it, plus I'm also not interested in celeb gossip. I noticed the movie was showing on TV one night and my sister told me to watch it so I decided to give it a chance and I was pleasantly surprised by how good the movie actually was. I saw the second movie (Catching Fire) a couple of weeks ago and it is by far the best of the franchise so far from both a plot and action stand point hence why I decided to see out the rest of the movies.

My parents and brother also were not interested in the franchise and thought the same as I did but after seeing it they actually quite like the movies too, so I would recommend giving it at least a chance.

Now with that said I have also seen 2 of the twilight movies and arrrghghewluFUPDsfhaguuauuablaaarggghhhhh...... what a load of crap. I had to watch Blade to gain any credibility of Vampires back again.

Mr-E wrote:

SchumieRules wrote:Interstellar

Not loved the idiot next to me who kept going out to buy beers, kept burping and thought that the cinema is the pub...

Yeah I had fears about something like that when I went to see Interstellar too.
I had waited for this movie a long time so...
I was surprised when it turned out that the people at the cinema was actually there to watch the movie!

I liked Interstellar but as you say.. maybe just a bit too long.

Hehe,

Thinking about it, I can't think of any section of the movie that I'd cut to make it shorter. It felt dragging at points, but it all ties up at the end. So I enjoyed it. Very emotional at the end too.

9/10 easily for me

specdecible wrote:

mac_d wrote:I haven't seen any of the Hunger Games films.

They just looked a lot like Battle Royale. I've since heard that that is often the smart pickle response, but in this case I just thought they looked similar.

On the plus side, I now know who Jennifer Lawrence is. I don't really keep up with celeb culture and especially movies.

I haven't seen Battle Royale, but I know what you mean. At first I wasn't interested in the Hunger Games as it came across as some teenage girl Twilight franchise so I kind of avoided it, plus I'm also not interested in celeb gossip. I noticed the movie was showing on TV one night and my sister told me to watch it so I decided to give it a chance and I was pleasantly surprised by how good the movie actually was. I saw the second movie (Catching Fire) a couple of weeks ago and it is by far the best of the franchise so far from both a plot and action stand point hence why I decided to see out the rest of the movies.

My parents and brother also were not interested in the franchise and thought the same as I did but after seeing it they actually quite like the movies too, so I would recommend giving it at least a chance.

Now with that said I have also seen 2 of the twilight movies and arrrghghewluFUPDsfhaguuauuablaaarggghhhhh...... what a load of crap. I had to watch Blade to gain any credibility of Vampires back again.

Battle Royale in defiantly worth a watch if you can manage subtitled films.

I never much cared for Jurassic Park. It's a decent film, but I do consider it vastly over-rated. Even when I was a child, I thought the little girl being able to "hack" the computer system was nonsense. But the dinosaurs were pretty cool. And the effects (I think now too, but especially then) were mind-blowing.


Jurassic World. I got a text from my best mate about it. He attached the picture of Randy Marsh shooting his load everywhere. However, I think it looks like shameless, pointless cashing in. By making the "villain" a genetically engineered dinosaur, I really think it is going off the rails as a series. I'm really not excited for this film, in fact, it looks like a shameless lovely individual child of Jurassic Park and the ridiculous number of films that already have some kind of genetically engineered monster. But hey, ducking with a good franchise and messing with the "bad guy" worked a treat for Alien Resurrection...
I just hope they don't do everything with CGI. CGI is good and useful but somethings look better with animatronics and "real" effects.




While on youtube watching the Jurassic World trailer, I saw the Dumb and Dumber To trailer. I won't go to see this at the cinema, but I'd watch it on TV or Netflix or if I saw it cheap in tesco. I really like Jim Carrey (who has aged orders of magnitude better than Jeff Daniels) and love his stupid, goofy comedy. The trailer made me laugh a few times. Also found one of the jokes just awful, but I really rate the original.

Also, they are making a Ouija film? It's a ducking joke board game. Seriously. No interest. Plus horror movies at the cinema suck. A proper scary film is much, much scarier when alone. Cinema kills the atmosphere for me.

And here endeth my watching trailers and ranting about them session for today.

There is a Justice League: Dark script in producer's hands now. They can shot for shot refilm Batman & Robin, nipples and all, and as long as JL:D is good I won't care. Stupidly excited about a hero movie for the first time since Thor.

The Jurrasic World trailer looks so bad.. But I guess they'll make their money so..

Mr-E wrote:The Jurrasic World trailer looks so bad.. But I guess they'll make their money so..

Just watched it. I agree fully, it looks horrible

SchumieRules wrote:

Mr-E wrote:The Jurrasic World trailer looks so bad.. But I guess they'll make their money so..

Just watched it. I agree fully, it looks horrible

To me it kind of looked promising until the part with the genetically engineered super dinosaur.

Covalent wrote:

SchumieRules wrote:

Mr-E wrote:The Jurrasic World trailer looks so bad.. But I guess they'll make their money so..

Just watched it. I agree fully, it looks horrible

To me it kind of looked promising until the part with the genetically engineered super dinosaur.

"genetically engineered super dinosaur" just comes across as so cliche. Looks like they are trying to make it a horror movie, I don't have high expectations. Expect lots of flashing lights, dark corridors, jump scares, sparking wires and lots and lots of shaky cam.

On a side note excessive shaky cam in high budget movies is one of my biggest pet peeves, its just a cheap lazy way to create a sense of action especially when they combine it with "fast cuts". A little bit is fine, but when it's all or the majority of the action it just ruins the whole scene.

Here's two examples of a very similar scene from high budget movies of a chase through a forest. First one is from Harry Potter Deathly Hallows Pt. 1, it uses a lot of fast cuts, close up shots and plenty of shaky cam. To me it makes the scene hard to follow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYbkRq6Iw7I

The second example is a scene from Sherlock Holmes 2 which in my opinion is the best way to use shaky cam and fast cuts. It uses a greater amount of wide angle and slow motion but more importantly it holds onto certain shots for that bit longer to let you absorb what is happening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RUXyHVn0Fk

anyway that is my opinion, I just like to see what is happening.

Mr-E wrote:The Jurrasic World trailer looks so bad.. But I guess they'll make their money so..

I saw that trailer and it made me sad. I love the old Jurrasic Park movies but your right, this does look very bad. And I was really excited for it too.

I've seen Interstellar and it's partly brilliant, partly absolutely terrible. For example the dialogue where they discuss on which planet they should land, is probably one of the worst in history. Why they didn't plan anything before the start of the mission? The amateurish navigation and landings shouldn't happen too. I also think the ending was silly and while it makes sense, it's still silly. What I liked about the movie is that it looks absolutely brilliant and a lot of scenes where very well filmed. I loved the scene where they need to synchronize rotation to dock the station. So tense and the music was fantastic in that scene.

Generally fine movie, good idea for the movie, but few extremely silly things spoil the movie.

specdecible wrote:

Covalent wrote:

SchumieRules wrote:

Mr-E wrote:The Jurrasic World trailer looks so bad.. But I guess they'll make their money so..

Just watched it. I agree fully, it looks horrible

To me it kind of looked promising until the part with the genetically engineered super dinosaur.

"genetically engineered super dinosaur" just comes across as so cliche. Looks like they are trying to make it a horror movie, I don't have high expectations. Expect lots of flashing lights, dark corridors, jump scares, sparking wires and lots and lots of shaky cam.

On a side note excessive shaky cam in high budget movies is one of my biggest pet peeves, its just a cheap lazy way to create a sense of action especially when they combine it with "fast cuts". A little bit is fine, but when it's all or the majority of the action it just ruins the whole scene.

Here's two examples of a very similar scene from high budget movies of a chase through a forest. First one is from Harry Potter Deathly Hallows Pt. 1, it uses a lot of fast cuts, close up shots and plenty of shaky cam. To me it makes the scene hard to follow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYbkRq6Iw7I

The second example is a scene from Sherlock Holmes 2 which in my opinion is the best way to use shaky cam and fast cuts. It uses a greater amount of wide angle and slow motion but more importantly it holds onto certain shots for that bit longer to let you absorb what is happening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RUXyHVn0Fk

anyway that is my opinion, I just like to see what is happening.

Don't get me started mate!

Wow, Guardians of the Galaxy was pretty damn good. I'd need to wait a while and re-watch but at the moment I'd put it at the higher end of the Marvel films.

mac_d wrote:Wow, Guardians of the Galaxy was pretty damn good. I'd need to wait a while and re-watch but at the moment I'd put it at the higher end of the Marvel films.

I liked it because it doesn't take itself too seriously. It knows that it's a silly concept and embraces it rather than try to turn it into a serious film like most of the other Marvel ones do. And the soundtrack (and the reasons why certain music is played) was just outstanding.

Before I Go to Sleep. Those who liked Gone Girl will probably like this, and Vice Versa.

Woman has a form of Amnesia where she forgets her entire day when she goes to sleep. She wakes up thinking she's in her early twenties. Usual thriller stuff happens where we try and find out who she was and what happened to her, but she has to start again each day.

Colin Firth and Nicole Kidman give it better star power than Gone Girl, I think Fincher and his cast were superb, while something about this film is... lacking. I felt the same about Brighton Rock (also by Rowan Joffe), that while there's nothing particularly wrong with it, there's nothing new or exciting or different about it to make it worth while. I imagine Channel 5 will therefore be repeating it twice a month in 15 years time.

Still, if you're like my mother, coming down from Gone Girl having never been in to crime thrillers, and you want something to satisfy you in a similar way to a McDonald's salad, Watch Before I Go To Sleep. Or, you could watch a good film, Like Se7en. Or the Game. Or Zodiac.

mac_d wrote:Wow, Guardians of the Galaxy was pretty damn good. I'd need to wait a while and re-watch but at the moment I'd put it at the higher end of the Marvel films.

Agreed - although all of the Marvels have been pretty damned good. I too have to rewatch as we saw an afternoon show and the kids are pretty loud during those sessions. Hopefully when they release it will come with extra bits.

Yeah. GotG did a very good job at introducing 5 characters from scratch. Groot was well written as I pretty much felt what I expect the writer wanted me to think of Groot at every point. I think Batista was great as Drax. From what I've heard he was a huge fan and was very excited to get the role. He has the size and was definitely a good enough actor for this role. I'm not suggesting he be cast as Oskar Schindler in a remake next week, but at the very least he was competent. Better than he was in Smallville a few years ago. Pratt, who has an amusing surname now I think of it, was pretty solid at playing the role between bad donkey/normal/heartfelt guy/loner rather well. Actually, every character that was either on the side of good or somewhat neutral was well written.

The biggest flaw with GotG is the villains. I never really cared about Ronan. He wasn't introduced very much and wasn't fleshed out as we went on. Thanos is getting his own film as the bad guy so also wasn't really built up. Between the two we ended up with no real central villain for my money. I'd liked to have seen Ronan's motivations and actions a good deal more than we ever did. Or Thanos' and just have it be somewhat clear that Thanos is the puppet master here. I really think this was a critical flaw in the film. Though I suppose, at least to the bulk of the people who went to see it, the Guardians coming together was essentially more important than the bad guy.

I do think films are starting to get a little bit long. I've enjoyed the Marvel films but they are all about 2 hours long now. I somewhat feel my batteries for watching action drop a little if we go far beyond this. Transformers 4 and it's 3 hour run time for example was just awful (though that'd still be awful if it had been 5 minutes long. That was just an awful film).


I got GotG on Blu-ray and it did look fantastic. I generally buy blu-ray now over DVD but generally I don't think it makes the world of difference. Nature documentaries are well worth spending the extra for blu-ray quality. Most other films and shows etc I've seen it as optional. Looks a bit nicer on blu-ray but costs £5 more etc. Given how much work they put into the visuals in this, blu-ray lets them really shine. Wouldn't matter much in the bulk of the film but the big explosions and panoramic views look ****-hot on Blu-ray.



And they announced the other half of the Suicide Squad cast. They've cast Will Smith as Deadshot. I really think that is a terrible idea. I think we are going to end up with Deadshot being defacto leader and central character and it'll be him that saves the day etc. I really think Will Smith is not right for this part. (FYI, I was never, and likely will never be, against Ben Affleck. Guy is a great actor)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_77GeNEzFQ

Covalent wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_77GeNEzFQ

I had no idea they were making a new Terminator film.

I love Arnie, but he is way too old to play Termie now. He was pushing credibility (in a film about giant evil AI robots) in T3.

mac_d wrote:

Covalent wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_77GeNEzFQ

I had no idea they were making a new Terminator film.

I love Arnie, but he is way too old to play Termie now. He was pushing credibility (in a film about giant evil AI robots) in T3.

Yeah I know, but I hope the difference between T3 and Genisys is that while in T3 they still tried to pull of Arnie being the same man he was in the two previous films, while in Genisys they will actually need to include the ageing in the script.

Covalent wrote: Yeah I know, but I hope the difference between T3 and Genisys is that while in T3 they still tried to pull of Arnie being the same man he was in the two previous films, while in Genisys they will actually need to include the ageing in the script.

I just wonder how it'd make sense. Why would you make your robot killing machine look older? I expect we'll see a poor quality, not very convincing reason just to facilitate Arnie. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Though given Terminator 2 is probably as close to a perfect action film as there is, I can see the allure to all invovled, though I doubt it'd be as good. T2 is f***king fantastic. I'm gonna text some pals and see if we can get together and watch it sometime soon.

So new Bond movie will be titled "Spectre" and Christoph Waltz will be in it and Sam Mendes directing. Can't wait!

Mr-E wrote:So new Bond movie will be titled "Spectre" and Christoph Waltz will be in it and Sam Mendes directing. Can't wait!

But who's doing the song?

mac_d wrote:

Covalent wrote: Yeah I know, but I hope the difference between T3 and Genisys is that while in T3 they still tried to pull of Arnie being the same man he was in the two previous films, while in Genisys they will actually need to include the ageing in the script.

I just wonder how it'd make sense. Why would you make your robot killing machine look older? I expect we'll see a poor quality, not very convincing reason just to facilitate Arnie. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Though given Terminator 2 is probably as close to a perfect action film as there is, I can see the allure to all invovled, though I doubt it'd be as good. T2 is f***king fantastic. I'm gonna text some pals and see if we can get together and watch it sometime soon.

I absolutely love the first two terminator films, and I can't even begin to count how many times I've seen T2, so will definitely see this new one as well although my expectations aren't too high. Can't be worse than T3 though.

mac_d wrote:Wow, Guardians of the Galaxy was pretty damn good. I'd need to wait a while and re-watch but at the moment I'd put it at the higher end of the Marvel films.

Yes, one of the better Marvel films.

mac_d wrote:

Covalent wrote: Yeah I know, but I hope the difference between T3 and Genisys is that while in T3 they still tried to pull of Arnie being the same man he was in the two previous films, while in Genisys they will actually need to include the ageing in the script.

I just wonder how it'd make sense. Why would you make your robot killing machine look older? I expect we'll see a poor quality, not very convincing reason just to facilitate Arnie. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Though given Terminator 2 is probably as close to a perfect action film as there is, I can see the allure to all invovled, though I doubt it'd be as good. T2 is f***king fantastic. I'm gonna text some pals and see if we can get together and watch it sometime soon.

The trailer looks awful. It looks like it's set inbetween T1 and T2, but like The Sarah Connor Chronicles, set in an 'alternative reality' so they can deus ex machina pretty much everything from the first two films and still keep it canon (like TSCC did without making it suck).
Personally, I'm a bit bored of the strong man Terminator. We're expected to believe that Skynet can plot to destroy the world, but can't think of some better battle tactics than the same thing every time?