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

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Jun 2009, 15:50

Shingster wrote:And exactly how many times have you gone off on a rant about people who listen to the opinion of film critics are idiots? I lost count years ago!

Exactly. Well said!

If you don't like to listen to critics, don't listen. If you do, listen. Simple! Don't chastise those who choice to listen.

I for one hate watching shite movies, I simply don't have time to watch all movies, so find critics/fan forums useful. If everyone says it's shit, it's likely to be shit. That's been my experience, on the whole anyway. If it's mixed, then I may just like it but if I spent my time watching films based solely on a trailer. I'd likely see so many shit films I'm disappointed with.

Of course there examples where I've liked a largely hated film but they are few and far between.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Jun 2009, 16:03

Terminator Salvation: 8 out of 10

Of course it goes without saying this isn't as good as T1 or T2 but boy it's a billion times better than the shite that is T3.

I was so pleased it was largely played straight, no dumb jokes here. It was also nice and dark, nice and moody. Christian Bale is as ever excellent. Sam Worthington was also excellent. The action was fantastic too.

It's a shame they didn't get Linda Hamilton to record her voice, that would've been a nice touch. The idea of a Human/Terminator hybrid is an odd one, when the reasoning that he can infiltrate humans much better makes no sense when Kyle Reese tells us you cannot spot a T800, they look human. It also brings into question, the fact "humans" not Terminator created Marcus.

The Arnie cameo was so darn clever. I'm unsure if it was really Arnie or some sort CGI. I'm inclined to think the latter. He looked in way too good shape for the Arnie of today. I think it was a look-a-like plus clever CGI.

Moon Bloodgood is super hot too. I cannot really fault it to be honest. Star Trek is still the Blockbuster highlight for me but this comes in second. I'm genuinely surprised at what a good job McG has done. Bring on the next part of the instalment.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 07 Jun 2009, 16:08

romerojpg wrote:Mindless Sheep the lot of them.

You've used that term as many times as Brad as ever said "over rated"!

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 07 Jun 2009, 16:09

No way you just said that about the CGI man

if you thought it was real in any way, your mental.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Jun 2009, 16:34

Coming from the "only" forum member who didn't spot the dodgy CGI in Wolverine, that means a lot

. Even I spotted the dodgy CGI and you all think I'm thick.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 07 Jun 2009, 16:41

bradavon wrote:you all think I'm thick.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 07 Jun 2009, 17:18

bradavon wrote:
It's a shame they didn't get Linda Hamilton to record her voice, that would've been a nice touch.

They did. http://www.wharf.co.uk/2009/05/linda-ha ... -shou.html

bradavon wrote: Bring on the next part of the instalment.

will there be one? box office has been disappointing apparently.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Jun 2009, 18:00

Who knows, according to IMDB it's coming but that's hardly much evidence.

Crikey, it sounds virtually nothing like her.

Thanks for the link btw. She's right Cameron who drove the films forward and that doesn't stop T4 from still being very good. And much of the TV was also very good, particularly in Series 1. There was some real depth to many of those episodes. Besides the man vs. machine motif is timeless.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 08 Jun 2009, 00:25

bradavon wrote: Crikey, it sounds virtually nothing like her.

It sounded exactly like her to me in the first section (the second lesser), guess it is a fair few years later on from part 2, so in theory she will have changed a bit.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 Jun 2009, 09:36

True. I just didn't recognise it at all. Normally voices still sounded pretty similar.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 09 Jun 2009, 13:15

My Bloody Valentine 3-d BD 2.5/5

Routine slasher remake is enlivened by it's 3d effects,which worked quite well at home.bloody awkward putting crappy paper glasses over normal glasses though

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 09 Jun 2009, 16:37

The films 3D in the cinema was pretty superb, sadly home 3D is just shit for me, never has worked at all in my opinion, the image is just poor and the colours a mess. Not see MBV3D at home yet mind you.
Still who knows what the next few years hold with all the next cash being ivnested in 3D for cinema and home.

The film was fun, but shit

that end knocked 1 star at least off my score

the crowd I was in with got on my nerves after about 10 seconds

some people act like they are on crack watching films in the cinema in 3D, I have seen 3 year old toddlers act more mature.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 10 Jun 2009, 00:48

yeah the colours look washed out and crappy to me. i hope it's not the way forward tbh.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 13 Jun 2009, 03:10

MARTYRS No stars.

Well, that'll teach me for renting a DVD without reading reviews.

French horror film? Check.
Five-star quotes from Empire and Total Film on the sleeve. Check.
Interesting premise contained within the synopsis. Check.

So WTF did I end up watching??

Fucking torture porn.
Subtitled and pretentious torture porn, but torture porn all the same.

This is the sickest, nastiest, more disgusting, most relentlessly depraved movie I think I've ever seen. I couldn't possibly begin to defend it on any level. It has no moral point to make, no insight into human behaviour. It exists purely to give a cheap thrill to the kind of perverts who think Hostel is "fun" and watching young women be mutilated and brutalised constitutes "a good time".

You want to see children bound and tortured?
You want to see a woman cut herself to ribbons with an open razor?
You want to see a woman's head bashed in with a hammer?
You want to see an emaciated psychologically-fucked woman cut off her own arm?
You want to see a woman stripped of her skin?

Just some of the goodies on display here.

This is not entertainment.

Excuse the rant but consider yourself forewarned.

diceman · Post by **diceman** » 13 Jun 2009, 03:53

Watched it on big screen.

Actually this is way above Torture Porn, because the violence isn't sexualized the slightest bit. Watch "Hostel 2" for some truly nasty (and stupid) Torture Porn. "Martyrs" may be gruesome and shocking, but also a highly intelligent piece of work, other than, for example, the self-indulgent "Saw"-Franchise. It's even beyond exploitation, because it actually evokes genuine emotions like grief and compassion, instead of just delivering another blood-thirsty Revenge-Show. While the first half still succeeds as an all-out Horror-Flick, even the second half (which, by the way, shouldn't be spoiled) has a story behind it. That's what makes it so special and powerful, although I kinda doubt that I could ever watch it again; there are parts which are just too freaking intense. All in all I think of it a bit like a big-budget "Audition": hard to take, but not without merits.

Sort of Five Stars. Now, that's my opinion.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 13 Jun 2009, 05:29

diceman wrote:Actually this is way above Torture Porn, because the violence isn't sexualized the slightest bit.

The use of the term 'porn' in 'torture porn' doesn't actually imply a literal sexual element. It's meant to relate the idea that the torture is presented in a pornographic manner (ie. it's designed to "turn the viewer on" in the sense that they are enjoying what they see). I feel that MARTYRS falls into this cateogry.

"Martyrs" may be gruesome and shocking, but also a highly intelligent piece of work, other than, for example, the self-indulgent "Saw"-Franchise.

There is nothing in this film that even remotely justifies the depravity of its content. It's easy to confuse pretence with intelligence. Intelligence means that it's about something tangible and merely uses the graphic depictions of violence and horror to relate its ideas and themes. Martyrs isn't actually about anything. It has no points to make (I found the half-baked Martyr-syndrome justification an insult to my intelligence) and offers no real insight into human behaviour beyond torture fucks you up - no shit!! Pretence (aplicable in this instance) is when a film pretends to be about something but is in reality about very little - if nothing - at all. The level of intensity and abuse piled on in this film far outweighed that in Saw (a gimmicky thriller I didn't care much for).

It's even beyond exploitation, because it actually evokes genuine emotions like grief and compassion, instead of just delivering another blood-thirsty Revenge-Show.

Honestly, the only emotion I felt was revultion. Where was the grief or the compassion? The (always controversial) theme of child abuse is merely a springboard for acts of sickening cruelty and bloodshed. Abuse has a terribly damaging, long-lasting effect on a child (or adult as it turns out - since the film discards the idea that it's about child abuse). Obviously. Does it take scene after scene of mutilation and psychological torment to bludgeon that into the audience's collectively thick head?

While the first half still succeeds as an all-out Horror-Flick, even the second half (which, by the way, shouldn't be spoiled) has a story behind it.

I'll do my best not to 'spoil' it. I disagree with those who say that it's better to come in blind because that way the twist(?) is more shocking and powerful. The film is shocking alright - for all the wrong reasons. Powerful? No, because then it would have to be about something. This is the cinematic equivilent of being kicked in the stomach. Martyrs elicits a visceral reaction, for sure. But then so does a car crash. That's not profound is it? Martyrs doesn't make you think because it gives you nothing to think about? What is the subject? What points are made? There is nothing - unless you really think 'how much pain can someone endure' a reasonable topic for deep analysis.

All in all I think of it a bit like a big-budget "Audition": hard to take, but not without merits.

I saw that many years ago. I sorta liked it -- until the torture. Then it lost me because it ceased to be about anything. Who? What? Where? Why? Fuck it - let's show some gore and try to gross people out. Disgusting an audience takes no talent.

Sort of Five Stars. Now, that's my opinion.

Which you're entitled to... I would like it if you could explain in more detail why you rate it as a masterpiece though?

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 13 Jun 2009, 14:57

Any film descibed as "Torture" porn is sad, its a lame and pathetic description of a film. Most people who use the term have no clue and over use it and wrongly use it

Not that this is the case with this film, but many use it all the time for so many films, but only in the last 6 years or so. When films like this have been around forever!!!!! and none of them get described as so, just the ones from the last few years.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 13 Jun 2009, 18:20

Terminator: Salvation - 2.5/5

I was entertained. The action was decent, but nowhere near as well directed as T1&2. TBH, The Future War flash-forwards in the first two films looked way better than all of T4.

John Connor pretty much did fuck all in this movie, you can tell that they expanded his role to satisfy Bale's big ego. Honestly Marcus and Kyle Reese were much more interesting characters.

The script was dreadful. Nothing was achieved in the entire film, they just went from Point A to Point A.

How would Skynet at this point in time know that John Connor would eventually bring about its downfall and how would it have known that Kyle Reese would eventually father John Connor? This is a Skynet that has yet to defeated and won't send back Terminator assassins through time until at least another decade. There's just no way it would know.

RE: Skynet's master plan was absolutely ludicrous. It devises this ridiculously complex master plan with the fake jamming signal and Marcus unwittingly getting Kyle Reese captured and then leading Connor to this facility where Reese is being held (in order to rescue him) and then what? There's no plan after that, there's no death traps waiting for Connor, he's just free to dick about. Sending a Arnie T-800 prototype to chase Connor around the building was the best idea that is infinitely smart Artificial Intelligence could come with?!

Aside from the action sequences involved, the ending of the film is fucking shit. The original one which they had scripted was terrific, they should've used it (Google it).

Star Trek (2009) - 4/5
This film was bucket loads of fun. It was really well cast and well acted (My God, did you see Karl Urban? It was likely he channelled DeForest Kelley's spirit!). They had good chemistry too. The action was exciting, aside from the stupid shaky cam photography.

The plot was stupid though, but I had so much fun seeing the relationships develop between the main characters, so I was okay with plot lacking for the most part. But this aspect doesn't sit well with me - how on does Kirk go from being a cadet who hasn't graduated to being captain of Starfleet's flagship within the space of a day? In no military organisation would that ever happen.

Nero was a pretty weak villain for the most part, but since this is basically the equivalent of a superhero origins story, I'll it slide. But could somebody explain this one to me, - so Nero's ship gets thrown back to the past and then he just sits doing nothing for 25 years whilst waiting for future Spock to show up? It didn't dawn on him that he could go warn the Romulans that their homeworld would be destroyed this one particular Star-Date down the road? He was in the past, he could've done anything he wanted, but no, he just parks his cloaked ship and waits.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 13 Jun 2009, 18:24

EvaUnit02 wrote:Terminator: Salvation - 2.5/5
TBH, The Future War flash-forwards in the first two films looked way better than all of T4.

Well as thats a long way down the line from T4, maybe T5 will be set in that further future

At least you never had the film ruined by chavs in the cinema like me, thats a fucking joke.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 13 Jun 2009, 18:24

Hehe, sounds like Mark got a bit angry at the film. And obviously he’s very easily offended when it comes to graphic violence.

In Audition Miike used 75 minutes for the build up, but that wasn’t enough to get him through the last 15 minutes. Even though he liked the film till that point. Would it be safe to say that Mark will always be put off by ultra-graphic violence, no matter how good the film is?

One of the good and bad things about Martyrs is that it constantly changes genre and style, and never stops surprising you. The opening makes you belive it’s a psychological horror film about two kids. The next scene (which is effective as hell) turns it into a violent revenge film. After that the director borrows imagery from supernatural horror movies (which didn’t work because it was obvious that it’s all in the character’s head). And then one the main characters is killed when the film hasn’t even reached the 1 hour mark. And so on and so on.

One of the film’s agendas is to punch you in the face and then kick you in the back before you’ve recovered from the previous strike. It’s meant to hurt like hell, to leave you feeling like you were hit by a truck. That’s why it’s called a hardcore horror movie. It’s not meant for people who want to leave the cinema with a smile on their face.

Martyrs also provides brainwork to do, but little answers. If you want an easy film, you can watch those movies where the message is typed on screen, or a voice over explains it to the poor viewer. Martyrs is much more open. One of my favourite scenes is the long beating sequence at the end. At first you think that ”ah, just another dull torture scene”. But as it goes on and on, at some point you will start thinking what is the director trying to tell you?

Martyrs is very uneven, going up and down, from brilliancy to disappointment and back to brilliancy and another disappointment.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 13 Jun 2009, 18:25

I still have yet to see Martyrs, I wanted to go to the cinema, but obviously it was on very limied release

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 13 Jun 2009, 19:30

romerojpg wrote:Any film descibed as "Torture" porn is sad, its a lame and pathetic description of a film. Most people who use the term have no clue and over use it and wrongly use it. Not that this is the case with this film, but many use it all the time for so many films, but only in the last 6 years or so. When films like this have been around forever!!!!! and none of them get described as so, just the ones from the last few years.

I think it's because there's been a spate of them. It's developed into a subgenre. You get one film that's a success and every talentless hack and his brother follows suit. Hence why there are five (is it five?) SAW movies. Its cheap and easy to make a quick buck simulating torture and degradation on camera.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 13 Jun 2009, 19:57

HungFist wrote:Hehe, sounds like Mark got a bit angry at the film.

Yes, I did. But also angry at myself for renting it.

And obviously he’s very easily offended when it comes to graphic violence.

I completely resent that remark given that most viewers would likely find the graphic violence in the film offensive. Very easily offended? So what would difficult to offend be? Actual torture, perhaps? I've seen all manner of violence in films. You know that, because I talk about them here. But to suggest I'm very easily offended because I found Martyrs offensive is as cheap a shot as it is inaccurate. I'm not easily offended at all. I just have standards and refuse to accept any sick shit that a filmmaker serves up. There are some people who believe that anything is justifiable once it's captured on camera. I'm not one of those people. But if it makes you feel like a big man to wallow in Martyrs' torture go right ahead. It says more about you than it does me.

Would it be safe to say that Mark will always be put off by ultra-graphic violence, no matter how good the film is?

No. And I don't know why you would think that? I thought my justifications for rejecting torture porn (I know some don't like the term but it gets the point across quickly) were succinct. If there's anything you didn't understand just ask and I'll try to clarify. Martyrs is a lot fresher in my mind than Audition which I saw only once close to its DVD release. I thought the relationship between the two characters in the Takeshi Miike film was well-drawn and observed. Why he felt it necessary to turn the film into an endurance test (and yes I made it to the end without turning away) is beyond me. The violence served no purpose. It was never explained why the girl wanted to torture the man. It just happened. What was the point the director was trying to make? Maybe I missed something important?

One of the good and bad things about Martyrs is that it constantly changes genre and style, and never stops surprising you.

Here's an example why Martyrs is badly made: The abused girl's killing of the two teenage children was done purely for shock. It served no purpose to either the story or her character. She knew before she shot them that they weren't involved in the torture. She did it anyway. Why? The filmmakers couldn't even be bothered to come up with a justification for her actions. How can we empathise with someone who murders innocent kids knowing that they're innocent? The whole episode exists just so the audience can say "oh, I didn't expect that!" Not good enough.

One of the film’s agendas is to punch you in the face and then kick you in the back before you’ve recovered from the previous strike. It’s meant to hurt like hell, to leave you feeling like you were hit by a truck.

Why though? Why do people want to subject themselves to 90 mins of intolerable pain and cruelty? Being punched and kicked is not a pleasure experience... and neither is this movie. So why put yourself through it? What's the attraction? There's no point thus nothing to think about. There's no genuine emotion thus no catharsis. So what is there other than pain? If I had a camera and a make up artist at my disposal I could film 90 mins of intense torture and brutaility. Would you watch the result of that? Could you find a means of defending it?

One of my favourite scenes is the long beating sequence at the end. At first you think that ”ah, just another dull torture scene”. But as it goes on and on, at some point you will start thinking what is the director trying to tell you?

Ha-Ha! Nothing! He's trying to tell you nothing. There is nothing. You're trying to pretend that there is something to tell in order to justfy the fact that you enjoyed the beating (one of your favourite scenes no less). I'm not a stupid person - far from it. But there was no message in that scene or any other. The beating was there because the filmmakers wanted to show a girl being beaten to a pulp. The scene is there because audiences want to see a girl being beaten to a pulp. That's it. If I'm soooo wrong then please tell me what the message was.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 13 Jun 2009, 21:31

EvaUnit02 wrote:How would Skynet at this point in time know that John Connor would eventually bring about its downfall and how would it have known that Kyle Reese would eventually father John Connor? This is a Skynet that has yet to defeated and won't send back Terminator assassins through time until at least another decade. There's just no way it would know.

Given that they know what happens in the past, surely it makes sense to start early?

I found T4 great, so much better than T3 and it's unfair to even compare it to T1/T2. It's a given it won't be as good. I'll definitely be buying the BD. I agree with many of your points but ultimately they didn't hinder the film for me.

Star Trek was excellent. The script was strong and like you say, what fantastic casting. I will definitely be buying the BD of this. Easily JJ Abraham's best work (I've not seen Lost).

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 13 Jun 2009, 22:02

I said you’re easily offended because
a) you reacted rather emotionally (my reaction, in your position, would have been simply boredom). But don’t take it as critisism. If you had not reacted emotionally, we wouldn't have anything to talk about here, except Terminator 4, and that would certainly have been a loss.
b) I wanted to ensure a strong response from you.

Markgway wrote:Why he felt it necessary to turn the film into an endurance test (and yes I made it to the end without turning away) is beyond me. The violence served no purpose.

That was one of Miike’s filmmaking rules before he went mainstream. To deny genre limitations, and allow movies to go to any direction, just like real life. A film could start as romance and end as horror, or it could start as romance and end as romance. That’s the great thing about late 90’s / early 2000’s Miike; you never know what’s coming.

To me Audition was a highly rewarding experience. It was very difficult to endure (which was because the characters were so good... with lesser characters the ending would have been just boring) but if you made it, you felt like you’ve succeeded in something.

This is also the basic element of films like Martyrs. Not to enjoy the gore and brutality, but to challenge yourself. Can you survive till the end, or will you escape from the theater?

Markgway wrote:Why though? Why do people want to subject themselves to 90 mins of intolerable pain and cruelty? Being punched and kicked is not a pleasure experience... and neither is this movie. So why put yourself through it? What's the attraction? There's no point thus nothing to think about. There's no genuine emotion thus no catharsis. So what is there other than pain? If I had a camera and a make up artist at my disposal I could film 90 mins of intense torture and brutaility. Would you watch the result of that? Could you find a means of defending it?

Why do people people climb mountains? For the scenery? No. But because of the extreme experience. The feeling of success they get after it’s done. It was difficult and it was a pain, but I survived it. That’s the reason.

And making good hardcore horror isn't at all that easy. Anyone can shoot 90 minutes of brutality, but very few can make it have an effect on the viewer. If it's badly made, people will just turn it off after 5 minutes. It takes talent to keep the viewer watching - and appreciate the experience - even when the content is so difficult to endure.

Markgway wrote:The abused girl's killing of the two teenage children was done purely for shock. It served no purpose to either the story or her character. She knew before she shot them that they weren't involved in the torture. She did it anyway. Why? The filmmakers couldn't even be bothered to come up with a justification for her actions. How can we empathise with someone who murders innocent kids knowing that they're innocent? The whole episode exists just so the audience can say "oh, I didn't expect that!" Not good enough.

In this case ”didn’t expect that” was very much good enough. One of the most surprising scenes I have seen in a long time. Although maybe that was because after 4 films my concentration wasn’t that great and I actually thought the mother was one of those two girls we saw in the opening scene. So it all came to me as a total surprise and shock. And I’m rarely shocked.

Funny that you mention justifying it. How do you justify a mass murder? Would that scene be somehow better if there was a justification?

Markgway wrote:Ha-Ha! Nothing! He's trying to tell you nothing. There is nothing. You're trying to pretend that there is something to tell in order to justfy the fact that you enjoyed the beating (one of your favourite scenes no less). I'm not a stupid person - far from it. But there was no message in that scene or any other. The beating was there because the filmmakers wanted to show a girl being beaten to a pulp. The scene is there because audiences want to see a girl being beaten to a pulp. That's it. If I'm soooo wrong then please tell me what the message was.

I didn’t say there was necessarily a message. But the scene made me think if there possibly was. That’s terrific. Usually there are only two types of films; those that can’t make the audience think because the film is so bland and ordinary, and those that preach (which is irritating, unless it’s original enough). That scene in Martyrs was unique. I don’t think anyone has done anything quite like it before. But it would immediately lose its effect if there was a simple explanation to it because then it wouldn't leave much room for the viewers interpretations anymore.

Of course it’s possible that you are right, and that scene was there just because the filmmakers wanted to show a girl being beaten to a pulp. But that doesn’t really matter. Films are separate from their makers. A lot of movies have turned out great by accident, and work in ways that the makers didn't intend.