Bullets 'n' Babes

The Marine kicks shitty 12 Rounds like a red headed step child.

grim_tales wrote:Hey Bruce
Happy New Year

District 9 4/5

Not as original as it thinks it is, but I loved it.

Barton Fink: 4.5/5

What a gem, another awesome Coens film.

Moon: 4/5

It's great that they achieved this on such a low budget, I look forward to more from Doug Jones, he seems like a really nice guy from the BD extras. I'd have preferred the ending to have been slightly expanded upon, though.

North by Northwest: 4/5

Watching this, I just presumed it was from the '60s, definitely ahead of its time and seems to be the precursor to the James Bond films. I did feel it started to drag, though, and ended rather abruptly too. My favourite line was, 'no they didn't give me any chaser!'.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen: 1.5/5

Ugh, the whole world warned me, and I ignored them. I just wanted it to end - it's too long, there's no plot, and the action is boring, and too many silly things from Michael Bay.

brooce-leroy wrote:

grim_tales wrote:Hey Bruce
Happy New Year

District 9 4/5

Not as original as it thinks it is, but I loved it.

Great movie, I liked it too.

Crank 2: High Voltage (USA, 2009) – 3/5
Crank 1 with a new screenplay, basically. It works very well for 40 minutes, then the joke gets a bit old. The ending is great, though.

Wallace and Gromit in 'A Matter of Loaf and Death' (UK, 2008) – 3/5
After the excellent Were-Rabbit the new Wallace and Gromit feels a bit too much of the same. 'A Matter of Loaf and Death' is basically Were-Rabbit in shorter form and with new characters. There’s also some out-of-place violence. Nevertheless, it’s an entertaining 30 minutes.

Tropic Thunder (USA, 2008) – 3,5/5
I had lived under the impression that Tropic Thunder is a pg-13 film. It isn't. What it is instead, is fun and even well written, R-rated comedy about a film crew who goes to shoot a war movie… end ends up in the middle of real war. Downey Jr. is hilarious, and Cruise manages to improve his down the ditch reputation a bit with an awesome asshole role. Director Stiller is still the one who delivers the biggest surprise; this guy may have some talent behind the camera after all.

The Last Hunter (Italy, 1980) – 3,5/5
Antonio Margheriti's Vietnam film is a shamelessly entertaining and ultraviolent jungle actioner. Helicopters, huge explosions, severed limbs, and at least 10 000 bullets fired when David Warbeck goes on a secret mission to destroy a Vietcong radio station. In addition to quality action, the dialogue features memorable lines ("I know exactly what they're up to, I can read the writing on their balls"), and there's an unforgettable "picking up coconuts under enemy fire" scene. The film a rip of off Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter, of course, but an inventive one with a good mix of action, adventure and exploitation.

Watched Kiss Kiss Bang Bang yesterday. Nice movie, but the quality mainly comes from Robert Downey Jr's performance, and the witty dialogue.

I thought the plot was a bit confusing and hard to follow at times, but that's mostly because I'm extremely lousy at memorising names. There were some extremelly funny scenes in the movie (the 'bluff'-scene with 1 bullet), yet also some things that brought it down a bit, like the narrator talking directly into the camera, the visit from Gay Perry to the old man, etc etc.

Overall, I'd score this a 3.5. Entertaining movie, but it could have been better with a slightly less messy plot, some more daytime scenes, and maybe some more interesting characters.

Yi-Long wrote:Watched Kiss Kiss Bang Bang yesterday. Nice movie, but the quality mainly comes from Robert Downey Jr's performance, and the witty dialogue.

Yup shame RDJ pissed on how good he can be by doing Sherkock Holmes

romerojpg wrote:

Yi-Long wrote:Watched Kiss Kiss Bang Bang yesterday. Nice movie, but the quality mainly comes from Robert Downey Jr's performance, and the witty dialogue.

Yup shame RDJ pissed on how good he can be by doing Sherkock Holmes

I'm pretty sure Downey (alongside Jude Law) will also save that movie from being piss-poor to being entertaining.

Not sure if I would like that movie though. Trailer made it look too much like a hectic Hollywood 'buddy-action/comedy movie', set in old England, instead of an interesting crime-thriller with a master-detective.

and I just noticed my miss spelling of Sherlock must have Brads disease and have cock on the mind.

Jarhead 8/10

Good movie, following a soldier during 'Desert Storm', and the frustration and boredom that sets in when you're on the other side of the world having to do shit all.

Great acting by the cast. Interesting story. Nicely filmed. Not a classic, but certainly a movie worth watching.

romerojpg wrote:must have Brads disease and have cock on the mind.

It's a disease now?

The Wrestler: 3.5/5

Reminded me of 8 Mile, was good but the whole bleak tone and setting doesn't appeal to me that much, definitely worth watching though. As if Mickey Rourke did that for free!

Angels & Demons: 3.5/5

Decent, but I actually prefer The Da Vinci Code.

Is there a rumour Rourke made the Wrestler for free?

He even says so on an interview on the BD, he was talking about what Aronofsky said to him, and that he went, 'and we can't afford to pay you'.

A joke?

Nay.

And whilst it's not exactly proof, IMDb says:

Reportedly, both Bruce Springsteen and Mickey Rourke were paid no money for their contributions towards the film.

He got paid loads and does every time the film is sold and played on TV's. It is called bollocks to make a film sound better, more gritty when a star does not get paid, even when he obviously does.

romerojpg wrote:He got paid loads and does every time the film is sold and played on TV's. It is called bollocks to make a film sound better, more gritty when a star does not get paid, even when he obviously does.

Getting paid after the film's release from its profits is a bit different to getting paid a fee to act in a film.

You are correct, Gas.

Well they never ever work for no cash, no matter what they say.
Getting a % of profits and after fees means they always get paid still, no matter what bullshit they say.

Les Diaboliques (1954): 4/5

Very good mystery film.
Didn't see that ending coming....

So in other words, they didn't get paid a flat fee but will instead get a percentage of the profits. Obviously he's still getting paid for it. It's a risk, if the film bombs, you lose out but if it doesn't, you could be rolling in it.

I think it is still the norm for most actors/people involved in films and TV etc.. to get fees every time a dvd is sold, or a film is played on TV, a plane, rentals etc.. it may well not be great for no name little films that 50 people buy a copy of. But The Wrestler has sold millions of units and will be a TV king, so he will end up making a fair chunk of cash for his little dogies.

Yeah, maybe not millions made for all involved, but I do hate the way these massive actors say things like I worked for free. Nearly always something has went on behind the scenes so they always make a little, or even better they kind of knew it was great exposure for them to work with a cool director etc.. unless the film had No budget at all and they do it for a favor to sell the film.
Still The Wrestler was not exactly zero budget, over $7 million is not exactly pennies, but I guess it is when you compare it to actors fees in most films which will be more than that alone.

I still hate actors getting massive pay, if the film does well, then and then only should they get silly amounts of cash. Budgets would be slashed by massive %. Makes me sick when a film pays out $30+ million to one actor up front.