What general film/series have you just seen.. marks out of 5

luckystars · Post by **luckystars** » 13 Apr 2009, 22:05

It didn't

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 13 Apr 2009, 22:15

Aren't EiV just great

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 13 Apr 2009, 23:00

gasteropod wrote:If I remember correctly, the Rush Hour DVD didn't even contain English subtitles at all!

We understood you the first time you said it

.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 13 Apr 2009, 23:41

Some people were on about DVDs where the English subs don't automatically come up, but I then remembered that the Rush Hour one just didn't contain them full stop, so shush.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 14 Apr 2009, 10:51

They did that on the Mummy DVD as well (the Brendan Fraser one), they didn't have the theatrical subtitles so you have to turn on English subs to understand what is being said when characters speak Egyptian

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 14 Apr 2009, 12:24

bradavon wrote:I heard Taken is full of European stereotypes and in case you didn't spot the French men, he has a massive baguette under his arm.

Who gives a toss about political correctness in a big dumb action film? This isn't Bourne, now is it?

Actually, it's better for them to be as un-PC as possible, because that way they're more like the genre's 1980's output. Fuck this inoffensive PG-13 bullshit that they've been shitting for the past several years.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 14 Apr 2009, 12:29

EvaUnit02 wrote:
bradavon wrote:I heard Taken is full of European stereotypes and in case you didn't spot the French men, he has a massive baguette under his arm.
Who gives a toss about political correctness in a big dumb action film? This isn't Bourne, now is it?

Did Brad actually mean that as criticism?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 14 Apr 2009, 13:52

No he didn't. Thanks Hung.

degeneration · Post by **degeneration** » 14 Apr 2009, 20:41

Red Dwarf: Back To Earth

I'm still not sure about this one. The biggest flaw was the lack of a laughter track, this is a program that really needs it, otherwise it seems more forced in its humour.

The first episode was quite slow, and I guess part of the problem with it was just getting back used to Red Dwarf. That being said, I did think some of hte humour wasn't actually that funny, and I think it could have been better written.

Part 2 was getting a bit more on form, although it still wasn't as good as I was hoping for. Some good touches in there though. I was starting to question the plot a little bit though.

Part 3 despite deliberately being the biggest rip off of Blade Runner I've seen, and the plot becoming very questionable in the "why did they make this the plot?" sense, this was the best episode. There were a few classic Red Dwarf quality moments in there, and this was probably the only episode where I strongly laughed out loud. The twist at the end made the plot more acceptable.

SO I don't know how to rate it. On a scale of what I was hoping for, it gets a 2/5, as it was no where near as good as I would have liked it to be.

On a scale of what it probably deserves, it gets a 3.5/5. With the episodes getting something like 3, 3.5 and 4 respectively.

Not a return to classic Red Dwarf, but it was nice to see it on the screen again.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 14 Apr 2009, 21:51

The League of Gentlemen tried to do it with their 'Apocalypse' film and it didn't really work, and now Red Dwarf's done the same thing lol *sigh*.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 15 Apr 2009, 13:40

The lack of laughter tracks makes you realise just how unfunny what you're watching really is. That's why their removal bothers some people. You're not being told where to laugh.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 15 Apr 2009, 13:55

I always find them really fake and annoying. What's the point?

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 15 Apr 2009, 14:40

I agree with Degeneration. The lack of a laughter track felt really odd at times. I agree with 3.5/5

Curses for not seeing BR yet. I thought the 3rd part especially was very good and I liked the twist

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 17 Apr 2009, 16:51

STEP BROTHERS 1.5/5

Lazy, slapdash, foul-mouthed "comedy" starring two unfunny actors. Pass.

BURN AFTER READING 2/5

Some Coen Bros films I "get"... some I don't. This one left me cold.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 17 Apr 2009, 16:56

Markgway wrote:STEP BROTHERS 1.5/5

Lazy, slapdash, foul-mouthed "comedy" starring two unfunny actors. Pass.

BURN AFTER READING 2/5

Some Coen Bros films I "get"... some I don't. This one left me cold.

I would rather never see Step Brothers in my life, hate them two actors and hope their carears go bad and they never do a film again.

Burn After Reading also left me cold as hell, average stamped on it from a mile above and unfunny, which when its a comedy is a fail and a half.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 17 Apr 2009, 18:43

Burn After Reading has a type of humour which you need to be in tune with, similar to the films of Wes Anderson in a way. I remember when I first saw Rushmore and The Life Aquatic ages ago I didn't find them at all funny on the whole, and was a little bored, but I did like their artistic style. But then when I watched them again I started to get it, and each subsequent viewing made me like them more and more and find them incredibly funny.

Burn After Reading I 'got' in the cinema though, I was laughing my head off.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 17 Apr 2009, 18:55

Yeah, comedy is the single most subjective genre and very often one man's classic is another man's piece of shit. I did "get" Fargo though. I think "Burn After Reading" was just below par. But maybe Coen fans will disagree.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 17 Apr 2009, 19:10

Fargo's one I didn't 'get' originally, but yeah now I do.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 18 Apr 2009, 00:29

Markgway wrote:Yeah, comedy is the single most subjective genre and very often one man's classic is another man's piece of shit. I did "get" Fargo though. I think "Burn After Reading" was just below par. But maybe Coen fans will disagree.

I'm the biggest Coen bros' fan out there - they're easily my favourite filmmakers - and I'd agree that it is below par for them. I did enjoy the film, but the humour wasn't nearly snappy enough to carry the almost non-existant narrative. Great final scene though!

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 18 Apr 2009, 00:40

The word Smarmy springs to mind for Burn After Reading, as does Smug. Not fun at all apart from Brad Pitt at times. I am also a massive Coen fan, only a few of their films I dont like Razing Arizona and Hudsucker Proxy (but it has been over 10 years since I saw them both, so I may have changed).

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 18 Apr 2009, 16:32

THE HUDSUCKER PROXY is my favourite Coen Bros film.

BURN AFTER READING lacked a character to care about. It should've been John Malkovitch's character (it's he after all who is wronged by the other characters) but he's not likeable in the least and bizarrely shoots a man dead in cold blood. Nothing rings true.

You could go thru their best films and point out their best, most-rounded characters; in FARGO even William H. Macy's villain is somewhat sympathetic (and that's largely down to his winning performance).

You NEED to care about SOMEONE. But BAR doesn't have that. It's just a bunch of selfish pricks stabbing each other in the back. And whilst that may seem fun on paper it doesn't play out so well on screen for 90 mins.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 18 Apr 2009, 21:05

Transporter 3 BD 3.5/5

Third film in one of my favourite movie series

is a solid actioner ,probably more subdued than the two earlier films but very entertaining nonetheless. though Statham is pretty one-dimensional as Frank the Transporter he's quite charismatic in his own way...let's hope for part 4

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 Apr 2009, 16:41

Lets hope for a good director for part 4

and some action! with an editor who can edit!

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 19 Apr 2009, 18:13

Crank:High Voltage 4.5/5

Utterly crazed sequel to the manic original is as far over the top a film as i think i've seen.Superbly entertaining this follow-on is short,funny and action-packed.it doesn't make any sense but i think that's the point. Roll on part 3

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 Apr 2009, 18:30

saltysam wrote:Crank:High Voltage 4.5/5

Utterly crazed sequel to the manic original is as far over the top a film as i think i've seen.Superbly entertaining this follow-on is short,funny and action-packed.it doesn't make any sense but i think that's the point. Roll on part 3

Same as what I thought. Superb film, easily the funniest thing I have ever seen at the cinema. I thought I was going to piss myself I was laughing so much.