Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Not popped into this thread before.


12 Years A Slave is bona fide masterpiece. Has to be seen at the cinema and don't plan on doing anything afterwords, as you won't want to.


Ejiofor (Dulwich College student), Fassbender, Nyong'o and Dano were all outstanding. The direction is brutal but balanced with just the right amount of sympathy and despite some of the obvious explicit brutality, it's some of the scenes that aren't so graphic that are the most terrifying (Epps' chase and fight in the yard with Northup, which feels almost playful, and the way he leans on Northup's shoulder sometimes when he's talking, like an old pal- both with the menace just simmering under the surface).


Not a word was uttered by anyone in the cinema after it finished, and I didn't hear anyone say anything until we got outside. It almost felt disrespectful to.



It was humbling, affecting and quite brilliant watch and the best thing i've seen since There Will Be Blood- probably even better. 10/10

12 Years a Slave - saw it today. It's basically Roots ll, or Roots Re-visited. Great photography etc, and some good acting but nothing new and nothing to write home about. If you haven't seen Roots you will be impressed, but it's just another re-telling. Over hyped IMO.

Oh such lazy comments. 40 years later and it's Roots revisited? The fact that the only reference point you can use is 40 years old tells you most of what you need to know.


A film like this has never been made before- nothing this uncompromising, unsentimental and realistic about the American slave trade has had a big budget release. But it must just be a Roots rehash.


And it's a brilliant bit of filmmaking regardless of the subject matter.


Some people just love being contrary.


Give over



Drunk rant over.

Dallas Buyers Club


Another terrific watch.


The headlines are rightly about McConaughey and i'm now less surprised that Chiwetel Ejiofor didn't bag the Golden Globe. Thought Jared Leto was excellent too.


It's difficult to talk too much about the movie for want of giving loads away, but the 'bad guy turns good and takes on the real bad guys' story never tires and it's always more satisfying when it's true. There's no need for any dressing up of the story, just sensitive direction and excellent acting. Oh and a cameo from Bradford Cox.


9/10

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh such lazy comments. 40 years later and it's

> Roots revisited? The fact that the only reference

> point you can use is 40 years old tells you most

> of what you need to know.

>

> A film like this has never been made before-

> nothing this uncompromising, unsentimental and

> realistic about the American slave trade has had a

> big budget release. But it must just be a Roots

> rehash.

>

> And it's a brilliant bit of filmmaking regardless

> of the subject matter.

>

> Some people just love being contrary.

>

> Give over

>

>

> Drunk rant over.


Drunk it maybe, spot on it most certainly is.

'bout now Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> titch juicy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Oh such lazy comments. 40 years later and it's

> > Roots revisited? The fact that the only

> reference

> > point you can use is 40 years old tells you

> most

> > of what you need to know.

> >

> > A film like this has never been made before-

> > nothing this uncompromising, unsentimental and

> > realistic about the American slave trade has had

> a

> > big budget release. But it must just be a Roots

> > rehash.

> >

> > And it's a brilliant bit of filmmaking

> regardless

> > of the subject matter.

> >

> > Some people just love being contrary.

> >

> > Give over

> >

> >

> > Drunk rant over.

>

> Drunk it maybe, spot on it most certainly is.


Do you really need the latest film technology showing black people whipped, raped, and generally abused because you didn't quite get it when you watched Roots? The film is nothing new, nothing different other than clearer images of abuse.

Wolf of Wall Street


A bit boring basically. It left me not caring enough one way or the other. Whether it's because it was overlong and I got bored or whether it's because it's just a tedious story (we all know Wall Street- Goldman Sachs and the like- with the hideous excess) but I came out of it just thinking meh. Excess like that is fun for half an hour and in these movies the empire crumbling is usually the most interesting bit, but not here.


For a character driven movie I found myself not loving or hating any characters, and this movie should elicit all kinds of hate for the main protagonists.


I'm not sure if it's just that Scorcese chose the wrong story to make a movie from or he's just going through the motions and a long long way from his glory days- but unless he steps up with another game changer like Taxi Driver, Raging Bull or Goodfellas he should bow out now before he starts making stinkers like his protege De Niro.


Di Caprio, however was and is flipping great and there were some great comedy moments. But of the three true stories I've seen on the Oscars short list this was by far the least interesting and entertaining.




6/10

unlurked Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 'bout now Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > titch juicy Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Oh such lazy comments. 40 years later and

> it's

> > > Roots revisited? The fact that the only

> > reference

> > > point you can use is 40 years old tells you

> > most

> > > of what you need to know.

> > >

> > > A film like this has never been made before-

> > > nothing this uncompromising, unsentimental

> and

> > > realistic about the American slave trade has

> had

> > a

> > > big budget release. But it must just be a

> Roots

> > > rehash.

> > >

> > > And it's a brilliant bit of filmmaking

> > regardless

> > > of the subject matter.

> > >

> > > Some people just love being contrary.

> > >

> > > Give over

> > >

> > >

> > > Drunk rant over.

> >

> > Drunk it maybe, spot on it most certainly is.

>

> Do you really need the latest film technology

> showing black people whipped, raped, and generally

> abused because you didn't quite get it when you

> watched Roots? The film is nothing new, nothing

> different other than clearer images of abuse.


Yep, it's only about the physical abuse.

I don't know why anyone bothers about anything, I mean Roots was really just Euripides' Τρῳάδες.

Who needs to see a series of still pictures flicked quickly through, with a bright light behind it when you can have a bunch of blokes with stone masks at your local amphitheatre.

titch juicy - spot on re 12 years a Slave - I was so moved, some very powerful, hard to watch scenes which had absolutely no brutal violence in them.


If people who watched this film saw only a film about abuse - physical and verbal, then IMO they have totally missed the point. As for sighting Roots... sigh....


Hadnt thought about going to see Dallas Buyers Club...will do though!

OD Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> titch juicy - spot on re 12 years a Slave - I was

> so moved, some very powerful, hard to watch scenes

> which had absolutely no brutal violence in them.

>

> If people who watched this film saw only a film

> about abuse - physical and verbal, then IMO they

> have totally missed the point. As for sighting

> Roots... sigh....

>

> Hadnt thought about going to see Dallas Buyers

> Club...will do though!


Did you mean citing or did I miss the point? Lol.

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 5 months later...

Watched The Guard, rather silly but very enjoyable Brendan Gleason vehicle as a rural policeman taking on police corruption and international drug gangs.

Much lower key than it sounds, a fine turn by Mark Strong as a jaded drug baron and Don Cheadle, having already mangled an English accent in Oceans x, manages to mangle an American one! He's still curiously watchable despite this.

not saying i was expecting the same, but same writer, director, actor combo should hopefully produce the same quality again.

Have read mostly positive reviews, though one took umbrage that it felt it was trying to rehabilitiate the church in the post paedo climate (I paraphrase).

  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
    • Niko 07818 607 583 has been doing jobs for us for several years, he is reliable, always there for us, highly recommended! 
    • I am keeping my fingers crossed the next few days are not so loud. I honestly think it is the private, back garden displays that are most problematic as, in general, there is no way of knowing when and where they might happen. For those letting off a few bangers in the garden I get it is tempting to think what's the harm in a few minutes of 'fun', but it is the absolute randomness of sudden bangs that can do irreparable damage to people and animals. With organised events that are well advertised there is some forewarning at least, and the hope is that organisers of such events can be persuaded to adopt and make a virtue of using only low noise displays in future.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...