planetf1.com

Black_Flag_11 wrote:At both of my local cineworlds (other cinemas are available) there are 15 mins of adverts followed by about 10 mins of trailers, then the same Kevin Bacon EE ad right before the film. Every. F***ing. time.

So the film comes on half an hour after the listed start time here.

I don't go all that often, but that sounds like the same thing I get at my local CineWorld.

It really annoys me as quite often it means a film touted for 7pm is actually at 7:30pm, and a 2-2.5 hour film then means the audience can't get a train home. And if I meeting someone after work, I'd like to be able to have a pint and get a bite and 7pm is the earliest showing that is feasible.

Actually, I do find this rather rude on behalf of the cinema. I know they gotta make their money somewhere (and apparently ticket sales are not the way) but really the do take the gherkin. 10 minutes of trailers and adverts would be quite a lot but I wouldn't bother about it.




Anyway, I just saw the Age of Ultron second trailer. I think they are doing an absolutely crap job advertising this. Luckily, people like me and many others will go see it anyway so it's not gonna cost them.

I don't know if cinemas have similar thinking, but quite a few theatres I've been to put the doors time on the ticket. If people aim for that time and they miss a bus/get caught in traffic, etc, they don't miss the show and they don't interrupt the show by coming in late.

My weekend movie viewing was with an old pal, and a fair few beers.

We had:
Initial Spoiler as the movie, mentioned previously in the thread, has a name which I guess was intended to shock/offend in a spoof-y way. Crank 2: High Voltage - It ain't Schindler's List, it's much better. Sure, it's pretty low brow but I really love this film. It's got over the top action but at least it doesn't try to hide it. The plot is ridiculous, but they don't try to hide it. Basically, this is an action movie designed to just be an action movie without trying to have some deeper allegory or some *Definitely True* like that. This is also my post-funeral film. Gotta do something to take your mind off it.
Neds - I really, really like this film. I really rate this as an excellent coming of age type film and maybe should have been a bit of a bigger hit within the UK at least. I'm not sure how much life was like that in the 1970s. A world of difference exists between trying to show a true story and something "based on a true story". But I really do like this film. I'm going to have to check out a bit more of Peter Mullan's work behind the camera.
Rocknrolla - The best British Gangster film I've seen. Alas, no one else seemed to like it. I think it's got a good plot, excellent characters and some truly fantastic dialogue.

So that, along with 14 bottles of Tequila infused beer was my Saturday night.

Whiplash.

Good film. Pretty much how I expected it to go. Great performance by J.K. Simmons.

The ending has the little twist that everyone would expect, but still very enjoyable.

I'd give it easily 7/10, maybe a bit more if I liked the lead boy more!

With my pals tonight, part of the entertainment was trawling Netflix for some kind of horror film to watch. We selected, assuming it'd be rather poor, Midnight Meat Train starring Vinnie Jones and Bradley Cooper (before he got really famous).

It was awful.

For any criteria I can think of to judge a film by, it was pretty poor.

I like a "bad" horror film in the so bad it's good way. This was just bad. We talking over a decent amount of it.

mac_d wrote:With my pals tonight, part of the entertainment was trawling Netflix for some kind of horror film to watch.

Have you stumbled across "Cabin in the Woods", starring Thor/James Hunt and directed by Joss Whedon, yet? It's not really horror. More horror satire. But I thought it was great for as silly as it was, and it's on Netflix currently.

specdecible wrote:Saw The Imitation Game the other day.

Good movie, not sure how historically accurate it is as I have only heard bits and pieces regarding the enigma code and those who tried to break it. The ending seems to just sort of end which kind of threw me a bit, but the acting was good and story entertaining so I would recommend it.

On a separate note the pre movie ads lasted for 30 minuets and only two of those ads were trailers for other movies. Not sure what it is like where you guys live but usually the ads run for 15 minuets with the majority of them being trailers so.... yeah...

I saw The Imitation Game a couple of weekends ago. I really liked it, acting and cinematography was good but there were a couple of gripes with the plot. Some of those I guess come from my computer science background, since the film does take a lot of liberties with the decoding process... but then again it's to be expected that such a film does that, it would be quite boring to anyone but a gearhead if they went into a lot more detail of how the decryption processes and machines worked. So this is forgivable.

But there were a couple of scenes that produced a WTF?

Amazingly (pun intended) Sony and Disney have come to an agreement and Marvel can now have Spiderman in their films.

If they get the rights to X-men from Fox then I'd go mental. And I mean more than Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch.

The Imitation Game is superb, not particularly historically accurate, but a fantastic film.

As for Spidey, I'm kind of worried about that. He was never in the Avengers for more than five minutes, and while the forthcoming Civil War film does really need him, something tells me that's not going to be the only time they use the character.

Now that I've seen it I'm not sure what all the fuss is about:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:Now that I've seen it I'm not sure what all the fuss is about:

You are not alone it seems...
When a "big" movie hits the screen it normally gets a high rating on IMDB from "fans".
This one.... 3.7 out of 10 so far..

Mr-E wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:Now that I've seen it I'm not sure what all the fuss is about:

You are not alone it seems...
When a "big" movie hits the screen it normally gets a high rating on IMDB from "fans".
This one.... 3.7 out of 10 so far..

Just to clarify, I've not actually seen it - I just wanted to post that joke - so can't comment on the movie itself. Everything I've heard suggests it's one to avoid though.

Judging from what I saw from the Imdb comments I think this movie will become Razzie fodder next year!

Just seen a clip from last nights Graham Norton show and it was dire! It didn't make me want to watch any more. Maybe in context within the film it is better, but the script was bland, the acting was really flat and I didn't want to find out more about the characters from watching that bit.

Probably didn't help that right after they showed a clip with Julie Walters in her new tv mini series in which she was great and made me want to watch it!

Watched The Maze Runner this evening on DVD. Not the greatest movie ever but very entertaining and well acted. Nice bit of action and adventure with a nice twist at the end.

Asphalt_World wrote:Watched The Maze Runner this evening on DVD. Not the greatest movie ever but very entertaining and well acted. Nice bit of action and adventure with a nice twist at the end.

I enjoyed the Maze Runner and I agree, for a fairly young cast it was well acted. I wouldn't go out of my way to see it or go to the cinema for the sequel, but good adventure /action film.

Has anyone else seen it who's played Destiny? Anyone else think the maze architecture looked very similar to the Vex structures from the game and the final scene looks like another part of the game too?

Been watching a lot of films this weekend to kick off my half term. Started with The Exorcist and Psycho. Both are good films, but not scary 40-50 years after the fact. Mostly because films made since then have focused on jump scares rather than building tension so I've become desensitised to jump scares, and building tension for one jump scare doesn't scare because I'm expecting it to happen.

Today I watched Fight Club and American History X for the first time. American History X is a generic 'bad guy becomes good' story, but Ed Norton is incredible in the lead role, and the story is told in a convincing way. I enjoyed it a lot even if it's hard to watch in places.
Fight Club is just disturbing. Not for the twist, but because Ed Norton's character is so ordinary. A disillusioned person that uses subterfuge to pretend to his friends and co-workers (and himself), that everything is ok. Everybody does that to a degree

Not a review as such, but you know when you see a movie or plot point from old movie and realise how modern technology would crap all over it.

Like in Johnny Mnemonic (I admit, I had to google how to spell that) Keanu smuggles data in a 160GB hard drive in his head. These days you can get 128GB microSD cards. I have a 3TB HDD that is easily portable next door. It doesn't kill the movie for me, I just always get a little tickled by stuff like that.

There is an episode of Friends from the earlier part of their run when Chandler gets a new laptop and gives it's stats and it sounded hilariously dated a 10 years ago. Again, doesn't much detract from anything, but tickles me.

In an odd nostalgia/weird tribute I watched Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan this afternoon. After the passing of Leonard Nimoy, I decided I was going to do this. Excellent film.

Kingsmen: The Secret Service - enjoyable.

bourbon19 wrote:Kingsmen: The Secret Service - enjoyable.

Just watched it. Brilliant!

Watched The Equalizer recently staring Denzel Washington. My husband & I both agreed that it was a great movie, something that doesn't happen very often

DrG wrote:Watched The Equalizer recently staring Denzel Washington. My husband & I both agreed that it was a great movie, something that doesn't happen very often

I enjoyed it as well.

The one thing I didn't like or found it unnecessary, was

Finally got around to the Theory of Everything today. I avaoided it for months because I knew it would be about his life, family and struggles, not about his work and career. And I was right. I respect Dr. Hawking extremely, and know he has been through things I could not imagine. However, I would rather the film was made about his work. That has changed our understanding of the universe and its origins. Instead it gradually became more about the woman he divorced twenty years ago, and as much as I respect her andstory, it doesn't interest me nearly as much as the science that made Hawking a household name.

I cannot, however, fault the filmmakers. An outstanding peice of work from all involved, especially Redmayne.

Completely concur about The Equalizer. While Denzel has had better acting performances in his career, I felt this was the most well made, filmed, edited, and scripted movie he'd been a part of. I absolutely loved that one.

Wild Things: Foursome

Imagine a situation where they cast a whole bunch of attractive no name actors and have them do sex scenes for about 40% of the run time and the other 60% insinuating sexual intentions while having them all kill each other so there can be a murder mystery plot so they can release this as a movie instead of a porno.

specdecible wrote:Wild Things: Foursome

Imagine a situation where they cast a whole bunch of attractive no name actors and have them do sex scenes for about 40% of the run time and the other 60% insinuating sexual intentions while having them all kill each other so there can be a murder mystery plot so they can release this as a movie instead of a porno.

Have you ever seen 9 Songs? They have a similar philosophy.

AngusWolfe wrote:

specdecible wrote:Wild Things: Foursome

Imagine a situation where they cast a whole bunch of attractive no name actors and have them do sex scenes for about 40% of the run time and the other 60% insinuating sexual intentions while having them all kill each other so there can be a murder mystery plot so they can release this as a movie instead of a porno.

Have you ever seen 9 Songs? They have a similar philosophy.

Might have to for "research" purposes.

specdecible wrote:

AngusWolfe wrote:

specdecible wrote:Wild Things: Foursome

Imagine a situation where they cast a whole bunch of attractive no name actors and have them do sex scenes for about 40% of the run time and the other 60% insinuating sexual intentions while having them all kill each other so there can be a murder mystery plot so they can release this as a movie instead of a porno.

Have you ever seen 9 Songs? They have a similar philosophy.

Might have to for "research" purposes.

I think that 9 Songs might be a little different to Wild Things: Foursome.

Reading up on Wild Things: Foursome, it is a Hollywood straight to DVD movie and is only R rated.

9 Songs is a British art house movie that features many (well I'm assuming 9, by the title) unsimulated sex scenes between the two leads, and created a massive stir when it was released 10 years ago as being the first film that the BFCC gave a regular certificate to (ie 18 rather than R18)

I can't imagine that the two films have much in common.

Although if you are watching for 'research purposes' I guess that's not that important.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

specdecible wrote:

AngusWolfe wrote:

specdecible wrote:Wild Things: Foursome

Imagine a situation where they cast a whole bunch of attractive no name actors and have them do sex scenes for about 40% of the run time and the other 60% insinuating sexual intentions while having them all kill each other so there can be a murder mystery plot so they can release this as a movie instead of a porno.

Have you ever seen 9 Songs? They have a similar philosophy.

Might have to for "research" purposes.

I think that 9 Songs might be a little different to Wild Things: Foursome.

Reading up on Wild Things: Foursome, it is a Hollywood straight to DVD movie and is only R rated.

9 Songs is a British art house movie that features many (well I'm assuming 9, by the title) unsimulated sex scenes between the two leads, and created a massive stir when it was released 10 years ago as being the first film that the BFCC gave a regular certificate to (ie 18 rather than R18)

I can't imagine that the two films have much in common.

Although if you are watching for 'research purposes' I guess that's not that important.

Having a quick look at them, they both have the same ratings on Imdb, but have the high and low ratings from a very different demographic of viewers!

By the looks of it, 9 songs is a very good film if you understand what the director was doing and watch it from a arty point of view (and lets be fair, artists have been interested in porn (sorry, the human form) since forever!) but if you watch it as a film purely for entertainment it really isn't that good. The exact opposite seems to be true for Wild Things: Foursome.

I'd also be interested in watching them for 'research' purposes too! Much the same way I've watched a fair few of the old video nasties and more recently banned-in-some-countries films just to see what all the fuss is about. And to be honest, most of these films aren't that bad (except A Serbian film, that had more than its share of just plain disturbing moments) and 9 songs might be a nice change being a porn film with actually decent acting for a change!!!!!

Just seen the Ant Man trailer. And now we know when the Marvel movie streak is going to end with the bubble bursting...

Watched Fast and Furious 7 last night.

It was bad, horrible really. Just a pop-corn action flick, couldn't stop laughing with my girlfriend with all the testosterone and macho-man talk.

Good fun otherwise!

SchumieRules wrote:Watched Fast and Furious 7 last night.

It was bad, horrible really. Just a pop-corn action flick, couldn't stop laughing with my girlfriend with all the testosterone and macho-man talk.

Good fun otherwise!

Did you expect anything else? Were you really waiting to see the same well written character development and emotional storyline we've seen from characters such as Dutch from Predator?

I'm off to see it tonight with a few friends with some beers afterwards, hopefully it'll be good fun as you said with no need for any kind of mental work needed to watch it and a good night out. Mind numbingly simplistic entertainment is sometimes the way to go!

minchy wrote:

SchumieRules wrote:Watched Fast and Furious 7 last night.

It was bad, horrible really. Just a pop-corn action flick, couldn't stop laughing with my girlfriend with all the testosterone and macho-man talk.

Good fun otherwise!

Did you expect anything else? Were you really waiting to see the same well written character development and emotional storyline we've seen from characters such as Dutch from Predator?

I'm off to see it tonight with a few friends with some beers afterwards, hopefully it'll be good fun as you said with no need for any kind of mental work needed to watch it and a good night out. Mind numbingly simplistic entertainment is sometimes the way to go!

Absolutely. I always laugh with people coming out a Bond movie saying "oh, that could never happen, a watch with lasers and cars that fly and he always saves everyone and can operate any machinery, etc."... Well, it's a Bond movie, what did you expect???

But the acting of FF7 was horrible. Some sentimental scenes were just absolutely terrible. Anyway, good fun for a night out!

The fast & furious franchise is mad, loud, insane, crazy fun... It always has been and always will be... And I've greatly enjoyed watching all of them.

Fast 7 is crazy. From Statham's Terminator like entrances to the Rock's ambulance driving and all the flying cars in between. The final scenes were well done.

My favourite thing from Fast and Furious was Vin Diesel saying 'family'. The way he says it, sounds so monotonous yet so meaningful. So I just kept on trying to imitate him all movie

I didn't get round to seeing FF7 as one of my friends had a copy of Dead Rising: Watchtower. So it round to his house instead of the cinema!

It really a great little film. The effects weren't all great, but it fits perfectly into the Dead Rising franchise and fitted loads of little bits of the games in (including Frank West being a complete pickle whilst being interviewed by a news channel) and is definitely a homage to games as opposed to a stand alone film. I don't care if it's only got 5.5 on imdb, it's a must see for any fans of the games.

Maybe I'll get round to FF7 tomorrow.

I know it was discussed a while back, but the new Terminator Genesys (why does that need to be misspelled?) trailer has got me actually rather interested. I might even go see this at the cinema. The series does now look utterly over-convoluted, but I did like the fact they absolutely nailed the shots that are supposed to look like the original movie. I thought it was a remake briefly. However, I do think any Terminator film is going to suffer because Terminator 2 is probably in the top 5 action movies ever made. I mean, that film has action and plot interspersed until about 1 hour left when they just start blowing sh*t up, crashing helicopters, bikes, trucks, the rather iconic liquid nitrogen + bullet shattering the T-1000 etc. I adore T2. Though last time we watched it, they got to Mexico in the story and we actually stopped the movie and went to the local mexican take out place and got a burrito each. Then resumed film. Film = good. Film with belly full of burrito = better.

And Age of Ultron. Looking forward to that. Going to book tickets soon for that film. Really excited to see how it all plays out. I really rate Avengers Assemble so we'll have to see if this can be as good. Though given they've told us all that several of these guys have another movie at least each, it does mitigate the feeling that anyone could die. I know that's kinda meta-analysis but I think it helps.

I may be in the minority here, but Age of Ultron was a bit of a disappointment for me.

There was the first sequence, the Iron-man/Hulk fight (that we've all seen anyway) and the final battle scene. Everything inbetween just seemed really clichéd and boring. I actually think I was more entertained watching Ruffalo, Olsen and Renner on Graham Norton the other night than in the full 2 hours of the film.