Bullets 'n' Babes

It's not really surprising. It's not family friendly and overall probably cannot compete against the latest CGI infested rubbish.

Juno is doing better than expected. The Eye remake is going to suck and completely unneeded. Didn't they learn anything from the Dark Water remake bombing.

Jessica Alba's emulation of Angelica Lee will be truly Oscar worthy.

Rambo not at Odeon

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111798 ... id=13&cs=1

Haha, their loss.

And everyone else whose local cinema is an Odeon too.

Mine is an Odeon :shock:

So's mine. RIP UCI

So is mine. But I don't need Odeon to supply me my movies.

IronMonkey wrote:But I don't need Odeon to supply me my movies.

You cannot IMO compare downloads to seeing a film at the cinema. It's an entirely different type of experience.

Mine is an Odeon too. It will be a right faff to see it elsewhere.

I know that, but when my local cinema can't even be bothered to show a brand new film that is being advertised well, why should they get my money for any other film? £7 a ticket is a rip off, and then they have the cheek to not even show the good films!

I've seen the film, I really enjoyed it, and I will buy the BD. Its a better experience at home anyway - no loud kids, no chair getting kicked, no buzzing speakers, etc.

Just a nice HD picture with proper surround sound, all in the comfort of my own bedroom.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have seen John Rambo at the cinema, its one of those films that deserves a big screen and loud sound, but when I'm not even given the choice, I will download it, then buy it when its released on BD later...

IronMonkey wrote:Why should they get my money for any other film?

You're not going to use them ever again because of Rambo? You must really love it

IronMonkey wrote:£7 a ticket is a rip off, and then they have the cheek to not even show the good films!

Agreed but like going for a meal in a restaurant (which if you break it down is always a major rip off) it's not just the movie (or food) you go for. It's the experience. Well it is in my case.

I usually only pay £4.50 as I see most films at my local arthouse cinema. As a rule I CANNOT stand Multiplexes, their rip off cost is the least of my anger.

IronMonkey wrote:Its a better experience at home anyway - no loud kids, no chair getting kicked, no buzzing speakers, etc.

It's a difference experience, it's not better. The screen is considerably bigger, you get the crowd experience, you get to go out for the evening.

IronMonkey wrote:Just a nice HD picture with proper surround sound, all in the comfort of my own bedroom.

You saw it in HD?

Agreed the Surround Sound is better at Home but it's good enough in the cinema. Both Home and Cinema experiences are different experiences IMO. If I want to see a film I try and always see it at the cinema. I saw House of Flying Daggers on DVD for example and regretted not seeing it first at the cinema.

The quality of most bootlegs don't come close to DVD Quality too, even the very good/best ones.

I will be downloading Planet Terror though as it wasn't shown in any cinemas near me in the slightest (Rambo is but it's a drive) and I'm really not sure I'll like it much so don't want to pay DVD prices. At least if I paid £7 at the cinema I wouldn't let have a DVD to get rid of.

“As the U.K.’s largest cinema chain, Odeon offers its guests a wide range of film genres to appeal to many different audiences. As such the decision not to screen ‘Rambo’ will free up screens to show alternative popular new films such as ‘Jumper,’ ‘Be Kind Rewind’ and ‘Juno’.”



That's the biggest pile of steaming bullshit I've ever read.

Cineworld are showing RAMBO and those above films so bollocks to them, eh?

This is surely a wierd sort of fascism and I hope Sony tell Odeon to get fucked when other big new releases come up for play.

Of course, I worked for Odeon for a while, and they suck massive sweaty ass. I never, ever use them.

You also don't use eBay, you can be a stubborn sod at times

bradavon wrote:Agreed but like going for a meal in a restaurant (which if you break it down is always a major rip off) it's not just the movie (or food) you go for. It's the experience. Well it is in my case.

Except the experience of going to the cinema (in my area) sucks. Food is a different matter - no need to cook, food is brought to you, and it tastes gooooood!

bradavon wrote:It's a difference experience, it's not better. The screen is considerably bigger, you get the crowd experience, you get to go out for the evening.

Speak for yourself!

My home experience is better than the cinema experience. Just because the screen is bigger, doesn't mean it is better! I sit 5 feet away from a 37" screen, I get HD images, proper black levels, all calibrated and I don't get dirt all over the picture, AND my screen lacks the bouncing picture of my local Odeon. I hate that.

bradavon wrote:You saw it in HD?

I never said that. Re-read my post.

bradavon wrote:Agreed the Surround Sound is better at Home but it's good enough in the cinema.

Again, its better at home for me. My local cinema has the sound too loud, so it clips at the top end, the system is not properly balanced, even in the "sweet spots" and it just generally sounds awful. I like the fact that I have complete control over both image and sound at home.

You're repeating yourself IM . I understood all that the first time

I'm not as fussy as you when I go to the cinema but then I don't often to go a multiplex (as a rule I cannot stand them) so don't get expect the latest sound or a massive screen. Also the films I tend to see often tend to be more unusual (note not Hollywood) and as thus the print isn't always in the best shape anyway. It doesn't usually bother me.

They do need to invest in new air conditioning though. It's either boiling or the air con. is so loud it's well annoying. Thankfully most of the time it's okay though.

Rambo: First Blood Part 1

6 out of 10

I saw this 2 weeks ago from an ITV1 transmission.

This is the only one which takes itself 100% seriously but unfortunately thinks a bad plot and poor acting (except for Stallone) is somehow enough.

The beginning and end are very good but the rest is only okay at best. Considering how poor the middle is it really could've done with some action, even if I know that would've gone against the point of the film. This does also stand out rather oddly against the other action orientated films.

I am also ranking this as a drama film so it has more to live up to than a dumb action film. The plot is easily much better than Rambo: First Blood Part 2, but it's not enough.

I won't be buying this. It's pretty overrated really.

Rambo: First Blood Part 2

6.5 out of 10

I saw this last week from an ITV1 transmission.

This is the only one I'd consider a Guilty Pleasure as it really has a dire plot (so poor) and is really just an excuse to get Rambo back in Vietnam. The action is very cool though and also very inventive too. I want that missile bow and arrow!

Fantastic music too.

I will be buying this, probably the HD-DVD. I'm not bothered it's bare-bones.

Rambo 3

6.5 out of 10

I saw the first half Monday night and the second half last night (after Rambo 4), also from an ITV1 transmission.

I was surprised by this. It has a much better plot to Part 2 and takes it's time getting to Afghanistan. It took a bit of getting used to not seeing Rambo in South East Asia (where all the other films are either set or have connections to) but on the other hand it made for an interesting diversion away from all the green of South East Asia.

The action isn't as good as Rambo 2 though, but it's still decent. I'm giving this the same the same rating as Rambo 2 as while it has a much better plot the action isn't as good and therefore isn't as much fun.

I will probably be buying this, probably the HD-DVD. I'm not bothered it's bare-bones.

Rambo 4

8 out of 10

I saw this last night at the cinema. I had to drive somewhere else to see it (it only took 20 minutes though). I discovered Vue cinemas have much, much better audio to Odeon cinemas. The Surround Sound and BASS were awesome. I wouldn't drive there again though unless I had to.

None of this stupid title nonsense, it's Rambo 4. I was really surprised how bloody fantastic this is. It's easily the best action film I've seen in years and was so utterly refreshing to see a real action film again with ATTITUDE!

I'm not sure if it's sick (this is entertainment after all) or adds depth by showing us real life stock footage at the start but it was okay. It's a film of two halves, the first a more serious drama and the second and outright action film.

The cinematography was very good in places and Stallone also did a great job of directing it. Stallone clearly felt so comfortable playing the role.

My god it's violent though. I had no problems with this and in fact it helped greatly. Even if I do think Stallone literally killing a man by sticking his fist through his neck was gratuitous.

The homages to prior Rambo films were great. I loved the bow and arrow, I loved how Stallone looked almost identical to how we first saw him in Rambo 1 (except for his blue than blue jeans), during the touching scene at the end. I also loved the flashback to prior Rambo films. That worked really well.

It definitely should've been rated NC-17 in America. It's way too violent for an R. I'm really not sure why Rambo fans would dislike this. It's everything you'd want from a Rambo film, and maybe some more.

Fantastic music too. I'll DEFINITELY be buying the Sony Blu-ray. Bring on the Lossless Audio!

The new one is not a patch on the earlier ones imo.has a cheap dtv feel to it. but i will be buying it.

My god it's violent though. I had no problems with this and in fact it helped greatly. Even if I do think Stallone literally killing a man by sticking his fist through his neck was gratuitous.

Not a spoiler Brad... we've all seen or heard the shit that happens...

I don't recall that fist thru the neck job...?

Do you mean this bit...? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462499/faq#.2.1.10

I consider it a spoiler and regardless it's my judgement in my review what I consider a spoiler.

I'm not going to add spoiler tags to your post but you should. No not that. Why would I have meant that when that didn't happen in the film?

It's when Rambo goes into the living courters of one of the guards. He puts his fingers into the guards neck and you see blood dripping down the guys chest. It's pretty brutal. I said fist as it convey better what happened. It's actually more his fingers than technically his fist.

saltysam wrote:has a cheap dtv feel to it. but i will be buying it.

Fair enough you didn't think much of it but a "Cheap DTV" feel to it. Did we watch the same film? Surely you cannot think it looks cheaper to Rambo 2? That one looks very cheap at times.

It looked very cinematic to me. Why would you buy a film you didn't really like? In your original review you said you didn't like it much either.

bradavon wrote:
It looked very cinematic to me. Why would you buy a film you didn't really like? In your original review you said you didn't like it much either.

the cast was very much stv standard which was my point.matthew marsden i'll be buying it because though it's to me the least of the series i'm a Rambo fan and a completist. i wasn't fussed on Rocky 5 but i own it.

Oh right I see what you mean.

Except for Stallone most of the cast were very much Straight to Video acting but then so were they mostly in previous Rambo films. Charles Napier anyone?

When watching it these elements about Rambo 4 surprisingly didn't bother me. I think it's because it was otherwise so refreshing to watch a real action film with attitude for once, after so long.

I used to be the same but you then end up owning every single film you marginally like. I am now much stricter and must have some kind of valid reason for keeping it. I own Kill Bill: Vol 1 but will never buy Vol 2.

I down own Matrix 2 and 3 but that's because they're part of the HD-DVD box set and I wanted Part 1.

as i think it's dtv like it may play better to me at home

Charles Napier rules!!

Julie Benz (Rambo 4) was in Buffy/Angel. Quite a looker. I can't wait to see that Dir's Cut where Rambo takes her from behind...

I don't remember any bit where Rambo sticks his fingers through a guy's neck... anyone? I only recall the bit where he ripped out the rapist's throat. The best throat ripping since Swayze in Road House.

Oh, shit. Was that a spoiler???

Any film can be made better if you insert the right new footage. Time will tell if Rambo gets better, as I would like more of the same.

Was reading about the troubles the film had during production and filming, quite nasty stuff went on and it could have been a stupid idea to film over there as the cast could easily have been killed as a political statement or just becuase they were slagging off the Burmese.

The lead bad guy in the film was an ex reble fighter from Burma! becuase he did the film his entire family has now been locked up in prison by the Burmese!

Hope this sort of thing gets on the extras, as damn that place sounds nasty, but the americans pay a fortune to cover it all up every year. Hence why 99% of people have enevr even heard of the shit that goes on, and never will (unless they see Rambo, which they will probibly think is all pure bullshit).

Markgway wrote:I don't remember any bit where Rambo sticks his fingers through a guy's neck... anyone? I only recall the bit where he ripped out the rapist's throat.

How do they differ exactly?

romerojpg wrote:Hope this sort of thing gets on the extras, as damn that place sounds nasty

I doubt very much the problems in Burma will be discussed in any great detail. These sorts of things never air.

Few people who don't live with their heads under the sand don't know about Burma. It's being going for 60+ years and only last September was all over the news for a couple of weeks.