comment by Ole-Dirty-Baztard (U19119)
posted about a minute ago
Goid news. There’s something about those 80’s movies that they just don’t seem to be able to recapture these days, the magic and adventure in the likes of goonies, Indiana Jones, ET, ghostbusters etc...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I might actually blame CGI a bit for this. They don't build up to wow scenes of a huge castle or monster or whatever anymore. Not its just an assault on our sense and we are numb to it half way into the film. Also many times characters are just moving placeholders and the action sequences are what they feel brings in the audiences. Its difficult to become attached to the blandly written or largely ignored characters nowadays.

Fantasy films felt more mysterious and magical pre 90s. Now its too much of the same.

That said, there's a fantastic app out right now called Reface. It will superimpose your face onto an actor/actress in one of the many gifs/videos. Having lots of fun bombarding my friends with them now. I look fantastic doing the truffle shuffle.

comment by RtM (U1097)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Ole-Dirty-Baztard (U19119)
posted about a minute ago
Goid news. There’s something about those 80’s movies that they just don’t seem to be able to recapture these days, the magic and adventure in the likes of goonies, Indiana Jones, ET, ghostbusters etc...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I might actually blame CGI a bit for this. They don't build up to wow scenes of a huge castle or monster or whatever anymore. Not its just an assault on our sense and we are numb to it half way into the film. Also many times characters are just moving placeholders and the action sequences are what they feel brings in the audiences. Its difficult to become attached to the blandly written or largely ignored characters nowadays.

Fantasy films felt more mysterious and magical pre 90s. Now its too much of the same.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, there might be something in that. In the original review of ghostbusters roger ebert praised it for using effects to as foil for the cast not the other way round. Perhaps it’s to try hard on the big effects wow, and not enough character building and realisation..

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Still not a fan of Dunkirk.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Tenet is insanity in a movie. Loved watching it but trying to piece it together is impossible.

comment by Perfect Blue (U22288)
posted 47 minutes ago
It is a masterpiece imo. Close to flawless film making

But you aren't alone in not loving it


----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?! You’re forgetting the pilot who runs out of fuel miles over the English Channel but somehow comes back to perform an ariel dual with a German bomber, with no fuel

Aside sillyness like that, it did have great tension building, and was very well done, but masterpiece it’s not. 1917 was better, the part in the burning French town at night was up there with the best I’ve seen, haunting, ethereal and beautiful, Dunkirk can’t really match that.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Perfect Blue (U22288)
posted 3 minutes ago
This is hard disagree from me. 1917 is fine but it is much more generic and works within established rules about the medium.

Dunkirk is a masterful execution in non linear story telling and creating tension and did things with the medium I have never seen.

Also the pilot story makes complete sense, he is low on fuel and decides to stay. You can glide several miles in a plane without fuel and guns are not connected to the fuel engine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but you can’t do much in a gunfight without any fuel, that part was totally stupid. It’s a great movie in that it builds incredible tension (I give the composer a lot of credit in that, aswell as Nolan), but otherwise it’s a little dull.

Even if the copied evil dead, the sheer execution of that scene in 1917 was spell binding, far better than anything in Dunkirk. The flares going overhead, the shadows, it reminded me a little of parts of apocolypse now, where it put you in a very alien zone, it was fantastic, watch it again it’s brilliantly done.

Different films, I feel Nolan was going for tension with largely nothing happening, more of the looming threat getting closer, and did it very well indeed. 2927 was a bit more introspective but found some incredible beauty in the face of desolation. I just enjoyed it more, I’d watch it again, but I don’t really have any desire to revisit Dunkirk..

I think 1917 was the best depiction of the trenches in film though

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I thought parts of it were unnecessary and snapped me out of the experience

Escaping the mine shaft felt like a video game

The girl with the baby could have been cut

The plane crash and then the pilot attacking them was a bit too much as well

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Everything actually in the british trenches was fantastic though. No man's land and the bodies was also fantastic

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Perfect Blue (U22288)
posted 7 minutes ago
Parasite, The Farewell, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, Ad Astra, The Lighthouse, Uncut Gems, Little Women, Pain and Glory, Honey Boy were all better than 1917 last year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for me, I like Nolan’s work, I think he’s a superb director, but ad astra felt a bit pointless- nicely done but aimless. Uncut gems I hated, though I thought Sandler was very good. Once upon a time was typical indulgence of Tarantino a man who’s sooo overated its unbelievable. Event, filler, filler,filler conversation trying to be smart but saying nothing, but it was better than his other recent films. I did like his attention to detail in recreating the era, but overlong and mostly filler..The lighthouse was boring, and the rest I haven’t seen.

Not having a go blue, that’s your tastes, but a lot of people think 1917 was a masterpiece. And as I say I really like Nolan’s work, he rarely hits a bum note, but Dunkirk whilst a good film is a little dull.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator