Re: The even-newer film thread – MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! : Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:19 am  

TaxingChimp wrote:

Anyone seen the trailer for World War Z? As a fan of the book I'm not too impressed tbh. I mean it looks like it could be a decent zombie film, but I think it'll lose something by going with fast zombies instead of slow.

Having fast, ant-like zombies that can climb walls by working together is one thing - completely missing the point of the zombie as a shambling, never-ceasing monster - but the biggest bollock-drop is turning this into 'Bradley Pitt Saves The World'. They did the same thing with I Am Legend and turned wonderful source material into a puddle of steaming dog diaorrhea.

I expect very little from World War Z alas.....

Re: The even-newer film thread – MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! : Sun Nov 18, 2012 5:17 pm  

McClennan wrote:

You know it is possible for somebody to like a film for reasons that are not linked to your own prejudices you know lol. I mean, I know most people don't like it but I could probably pick four or five action scenes from QoS that are better than all in Skyfall bar the skyscraper scene which was shot well e.g. opening car chase, run through Sienna, the opera, scaffolding, plane.

I understand that and it's part of the reason why I was a bit meh after I'd seen it. I like films to be a little more unique and it seemed like they were trying to do something different with QoS. Instead they've decided they don't want to build a Ritz, Savoy or Plaza Athenee and are happy to just have Holiday Inns. Nothing wrong with that if you like Holiday Inns.

I agree that its always good to see a film with a tinge of uniqueness to them, but certain film 'franchises' (God, I hate that term ) don't need messing with and Craig's first two Bond films, especially QofS, were messed about with and left them looking like pretty bog standard spy thrillers, which when you are making a Bond film really isn't what people want to see.

Its like the Die Hard franchise - You know what you are getting before you enter the cinema, but it doesn't stop them being entertaining films....If you actually tinkered with them and tried to create a uniqueness, then it would probably make it a less enjoyable watch.

Re: The even-newer film thread – MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! : Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:28 pm  

Rocky Bobby wrote:

Having fast, ant-like zombies that can climb walls by working together is one thing - completely missing the point of the zombie as a shambling, never-ceasing monster - but the biggest bollock-drop is turning this into 'Bradley Pitt Saves The World'. They did the same thing with I Am Legend and turned wonderful source material into a puddle of steaming dog diaorrhea.

I expect very little from World War Z alas.....

Spot on mate. Would have no problem if it just had a different name or something. But linking it with the book creates expectations that just aren't going to be met, especially when the source material is treated with contempt rather than respect!

Re: The even-newer film thread – MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! : Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:35 pm  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

Its like the Die Hard franchise - You know what you are getting before you enter the cinema, but it doesn't stop them being entertaining films....If you actually tinkered with them and tried to create a uniqueness, then it would probably make it a less enjoyable watch.

Whereas if you don't tinker with them you get the Die Hard franchise which also meets that criteria of making it a less enjoyable watch Add to that Indiana Jones and in the future Star Wars.

Re: The even-newer film thread – MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! : Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:48 pm  

Saw Bond the other day, my view as a person that's actually never watched a Bond movie before (Don't know why, I just haven't) is that it was a pretty damn good film. About 8/9 out of 10. Now as a "Bond" movie I can't comment, but by it's own merits very good imo

Re: The even-newer film thread – MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! : Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:55 pm  

Just seen End Of Watch it's a cracking film and would deffo recommend everyone to go see it.

Re: The even-newer film thread – MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! : Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:49 pm  

TaxingChimp wrote:

as a person that's actually never watched a Bond movie before (Don't know why, I just haven't)

How is that possible!

Re: The even-newer film thread – MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! : Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:18 pm  

Mark_W wrote:

How is that possible!

As a guy who quite likes his films I guess that's my biggest embarassment

I'm gonna have to sit down & start from the beginning one day. Franchises with depth like the bond films can be quite daunting to get in to from the outside

Re: The even-newer film thread – MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! : Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:43 pm  

Watched Gambit last night, and would have to put it down as a disappointment, especially considering it was a Coen brothers film.

Without giving the script away, Rickman could have been more ott, Diaz was too ott and was,nt really suited to the film, whilst Firth,s acting was very flat and Eastenders quality.

4/10

Re: The even-newer film thread – MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! : Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:47 am  

Enjoyed Skyfall although not quite as good as Casino Royal for me.

The only issues with Skyfall is that it played it safe (perhaps understandably so after QOS).

It ticked all the right boxes for a Bond film without pushing any boundaries.