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

[Markgway]

Karloff was a great actor, any director would've been fortunate to have him.

[luckystars]

Ditto on Silent Running, Bruce Dern really sells that shit.

[gasteropod]

Land of the Lost: 3.5/5

We were laughing all the way through. Fun, silly, and worth a watch.

[Markgway]

REVENGE - Dir's Cut

Not as good as the 1989 theatrical cut despite what Tony Scott says.

[saltysam]

Amityville 2:The Possession 1.5/5

Not very good prequel, starts off interestingly enough then veers off into Exorcist rip-off territory.

Amityville 3 1.5/5

Another poor sequel,Starring Tony Roberts who sleepwalks through his role as the skeptical journalist who decides to buy the notorious house.

Mummy:Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor 2/5

Tired sequel,everyone looks bored and Maria Bello is totally miscast in the Rachel Weiz role.not a bad film,just a very predictable one.completely wastes Jet Li & Michelle Yeoh.

Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3 (2009) 2/5

Inferior update of the excellent 70's classic. a decent cast but the film just fizzles out towards the end. Washington & Travolta are always watchable but this is by and large a lazy retread.

[saltysam]

Scorpion King 3/5
Spin off from the Mummy Series is better than expected,big,loud and dumb and very entertaining.The Rock had the makings of a decent action star,pity he's gone into the family film genre in recent times.

Blue Thunder BD 4/5

Great 80's entertainment holds up well today.Roy Scheider was a fine leading man and it was a shame to see him reduced to low budget schlock at the end of his career.Malcolm McDowell makes a great pantomine baddie.."catch you later"...

[luckystars]

In The Loop.

5 perfect ★★★★★'s "A Triumph"

In all seriousness the Blu-Ray was a joy to watch - main feature and extras. :woot:

[HungFist]

Brüno (USA, 2009) – 4/5
How much of this is set up is unimportant. What is important is that my face was hurting of after the laughter when I left the theater. Some lesser parts included and sometimes the film drifts into John Waters territory, but the constant over the top gay jokes, Sacha Baron Cohen’s hilarious performance, and numerous jaw droppers easily make up for it. There’s a brilliant mix of written and unwritten humour. Most of the scenarios are funny on their own right, and the reactions by real people only add to the funniness. Great soundtrack, too.

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (USA, 2006) – 1/5
There’s about 2 minutes worth of pure gold in this film. Kazakh reporter Borat travels around the US making fun of real people. Every now and then he manages to reveal people’s unbelievable hypocrisy and racism ”by accident”. But most of the film plays out like average candid camera. Two crazy Kazakhs fighting nude in hotel lobby is not not really funny – unless you’re a Jackass fan – and also loses its cultural edge because the hotel personnel’s reactions have little to do with the cultural aspect. People treat Borat like a child because he acts like one and misunderstands everything, not because he comes from middle east. It becomes very tiresome to follow this unfunny idiot force (more often expected than unexpected) reactions out of people.

[gasteropod]

I'm surprised you have such different opinions on the two films, did you watch Bruno in the cinema, and Borat on DVD?

[grim_tales]

I'm surprised by that too - some of Borat was hilarious, IMO

[HungFist]

did you watch Bruno in the cinema, and Borat on DVD?

Yes.

That probably affected on the experiences (laughter tends to be an infectious disease), but not nearly enough to explain the 1-4 difference.

[Markgway]

Borat was amusing at times... but it's only about 10% genuine satire.

[Markgway]

EXCESSIVE FORCE

Starring, written by, and co-produced by Thomas Ian Griffith, who's career was shorter than the life span of an X Factor finalist. As B-movie fodder this cop-revenge-betrayal-gangster-thriller isn't too bad. There's a fair amount of nasty violence, a half-decent stab at characterisation, and some tits. Mostly you've seen and heard it all before though. Some interesting faces in the cast (Lance Henriksen, James Earl Jones, Tony Todd). Charolotte Lewis is the love interest and though pretty she's a terrible actress. Griffith is OK, kinda Seagal-lite.

[saltysam]

Banilue 13:Ultimatum 2.5/5

Not as good sequel to the fun original.Still a cut above most action fare though.

[romerojpg]

Banilue 13:Ultimatum 2.5/5

Not as good sequel to the fun original.Still a cut above most action fare though.

How did you seee that?

[bradavon]

Moon has gone from my area .

Bruno: 7 out of 10

Instead I saw Bruno with a mate and found it hilarious. I found it better than Borat, simply because I have less problem taking the mick out of homosexuals (which it did a bit) and homophobic people (which it does a lot of) than an entire nation, who didn't deserve to be labled as thick and inbreds. The mate I saw Bruno with is also gay and he too found it hilarious.

Back to Bruno. The 18 rating definitely helped (none of this cut down 15 rating bollocks) and boy did Cohen use it to it's full advantage. Sure it's obvious parts are fake but that doesn't stop it being funny. Incidentally the chat show may have been off the air but I understand Cohen and the TV host sent word out it was coming back, so despite the show being now fake the audience weren't. Even if it was very dubious the entire audience were black.

There were so many hilarious scenes (more than Borat, which I overall enjoyed), such as when Bruno is having oral sex with one of the guys from Mille Vanille except he's not there, Bruno's at a medium. When Bruno is at a swingers party and especially the Wrestling scene at the end). Getting a few celebs involved was clever too.

I didn't think it was lazy satire at all. Cohen is showing how ridiculous homophobia is by taking it as far as he can.

[romerojpg]

Moon has gone from my area .

Thats becuase its on very LIMITED release and they only have a few prints, so they are moving them around to different areas after a week, maybe 2. I saw it Friday, loved it considering it's a fairly small film ($5 million) with not much cash for advertising, its doing fairly well so far beating films with far far far greater budgets in Box office figures.

There is a guy behind the film on another forum telling us whats what with the film on whatever we want to know, interesting stuff

[luckystars]

There is a guy behind the film on another forum telling us whats what with the film on whatever we want to know, interesting stuff

Woa. Got a link for that mate?

[romerojpg]

Not sure if you have to be a member to see the thread but worth a try.

The behind the scenes guy on the film is called huron when he posts. His very first post on the film was number 45, then from there he has just went and told us so much
http://www.thedvdforums.com/forums/show ... p?t=545164

It is a fairly long thread but he has posted quite a bit about the film that's for sure, he is eager to see what we net people think, who we tell and talk about the film to and generally help with questions about the production, script, advertising, availability of the film and where it is released etc.. very imformative stuff.

For instance I thought the film was a poor limited release in the UK (and in america), was quite gutted really. But after his explanation of the film people's side I kind of saw why it was done so the better it does, the more people seem to be going to see it and it is acctually making more cash week on week, which is very rare for any films.

[gasteropod]

Orphan: 3/5

I guessed the twist about halfway through. The main child actor was impressive. The cheap shock tactics let it down, they were so predictable and didn't work at all.

[Markgway]

I didn't think it was lazy satire at all. Cohen is showing how ridiculous homophobia is by taking it as far as he can.

Are most of these "homophobes" actually homophobes though? Or just people who find Bruno himself abhorant? If he's created such an outrageously offensive character is it any surprise so many are offended by him? How is that satire? I will see this film on DVD no doubt but I imagine the number of actual homophobes in the film is a tiny minority. They don't hate Bruno because he's gay... they hate him because he's Bruno. And what is the point of that? Real satire would be making Bruno a normal gay man who encounters unprovoked prejudice. Maybe then there would be a valid point to make.

[gasteropod]

The final skit where he's at a wrestling show as 'Straight Dave' displays a whole building of homophobes.

[bradavon]

Are most of these "homophobes" actually homophobes though? Or just people who find Bruno himself abhorant?

Considering he's being very openly gay, it's one in the same thing. I doubt they'd have any issue with Bruno being straight.

Watch the bloody film Mark before judging it.

Real satire would be making Bruno a normal gay man who encounters unprovoked prejudice.

And boy that would be hilarious. Most gay people shock horror aren't overly gay when solely around straight people, meaning how exactly are you supposed to provoke a bloody reaction?

The final skit where he's at a wrestling show as 'Straight Dave' displays a whole building of homophobes.

When Celine Dion's "My Heart will go on" starts playing I was in fits of laughter.

[gasteropod]

Brad, how did you react to the bit where the penis swings round and then shouts 'BRUNO!!', I couldn't breathe at that point

[Markgway]

Considering he's being very openly gay, it's one in the same thing. I doubt they'd have any issue with Bruno being straight.

I suppose that depends on your definition of what a gay man is.

If you think that a vulgar stereotype like Bruno is a fair representation of a gay man then maybe the homophobia is closer to home.

Watch the bloody film Mark before judging it.

I'm not "judging". I'm merely putting forward some counter-arguments based on what I've seen and read. I'm sure I'll see the film entire on DVD and then be able to make a personal contribution to the debate.

And boy that would be hilarious. Most gay people shock horror aren't overly gay when solely around straight people, meaning how exactly are you supposed to provoke a bloody reaction?

You clearly didn't understand my point. I said unprovoked reactions. That's the real test of homophobia. Having a grossly camp monster of a creation mince about in my face wouldn't impress me much - does that make me a homophobe? It's easy to elicit an outraged reaction by being outrageous. That's not satire. Satire is the humour in reality not an artificial reality in which someone like Bruno is deemed to be a representative of gay men. We're not laughing at the bigotted audience... we're laughing at the obnoxious poof with the silly accent.