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

    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
    • The purge of hard left members that were part of Corbyn's, Mcdonnel's and Lansmans momentum that purged the party of right wing and centrist members. That's politics. It's what Blair did to win, its what Starmer had to do to win. This country doesn't vote in extreme left or right governments. That's partly why Corbyn lost  We're pretty much a centrist bunch.  It doesn't make it false either. It's an opinion based on the voting patterns, demography and statistics. Can you explain then why former mining constituencies that despise the tories voted for them or abstained rather than vote for Corbyns Labour?  What is the truth then? But he never got elected!!! Why? He should have been binned off there and then. Why he was allowed to hang about is an outrage. I hold him party responsible for the shit show that we've had to endure since. 
    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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