Off Topic The Review Thread

[Uber_Hoop]

I'm not quite sure what it was about that that made me laugh so much, Ubes.

Perhaps just that you took the trouble to type all those Dums.

On reflection, I think it was the Diddly Dee.

On a serous note, Strolls, have you ever read Benchley’s book, which is quite different?

 

[Stroller]

On a serous note, Strolls, have you ever read Benchley’s book, which is quite different?

No, I haven't. How is it different?

 

[Uber_Hoop]

No, I haven't. How is it different?

Warning: Spoilers.

In the book Hooper has an affair with Chief Brody’s wife, plus is also killed by the shark. The shark is not despatched by Brody’s rifle shot into the gas tank lodged in its jaws, but eventually succumbs to a combination of exhaustion, harpoon wounds and the accumulation of floats attached to the harpoons that prevent it diving to the safety of the depths.

I have always considered what Spielberg did in the film a much better ‘watch’, but what Benchley did in the book a much better ‘read’. I’m not convinced both endings would’ve worked as well the other way around.

Great writer was Benchley (is he still with us?) and have enjoyed both the books and film adaptations of Jaws, The Deep and The Island. Might revisit on holiday this year as a result of this ‘bump’.

 

[kiwiqpr]

other than it being a great movie

what do you think

Calls to axe 'racist' Zulu film from Folkestone's Silver Screen Cinema listings
Published: 13:58, 25 June 2018
| Updated: 08:03, 26 June 2018
Campaigners are calling for a charity showing of epic war film Zulu to be axed over claims it contains “racist overtones.”
The 1964 classic will be aired at Folkestone’s Silver Screen Cinema on Saturday to raise aid for armed forces charity SSAFA.
But in an open letter to Folkestone Mayor and district councillor Ann Berry some 28 people came out in protest this month.

You must log in or register to see images

<img
The charity works to help improve the lives of military veterans and their families.
The letter, addressed to Cllr Berry says: “We wholeheartedly support the efforts being made to raise funds for SSAFA, the Armed Forces Charity.
“(But) we believe that the choice of the film Zulu, with its inaccurate portrayal of historical events and its distortions and racist overtones, could have a negative effect on relationships within the changing and richly diverse communities here in Folkestone.”

You must log in or register to see images

<img
The letter goes on to take issue with perceived factual inaccuracies surrounding the film, including the Battle at Rorkes Drift, the film’s premise.
It continues: “However, the so-called epic story of ‘honour courage and pride’ portrayed is far from the truth about what really happened.
“This film glorifies the myth that was created in 1879 after the humiliation of the British military de-feat at the battle of Isandlwana.
“The Battle of Rorke’s Drift was, in reality, little more than a footnote after a far more important, and far more gory battle earlier in the day, 11 miles away at Isandlwana.”
It goes on to say the protest group has contacted organisers Bigger Boat Pictures in the hope it will cancel the7pm showing, set to be held at the Town Hall in Guildhall Street.
Cllr Berry and Tom Langlands, Bigger Boat Pictures boss have been contacted for comment.

You must log in or register to see images

<img
Meanwhile Bigger Boat’s website says: “We're delighted to announce a special screening of Zulu ahead of Armed Forces Day with proceeds going to SSAFA - The Armed Forces Charity - a winning outcome for all serving members and former members of all ranks of the armed forces and their dependents.”
Organiser Tom Langlands said: "Come and see this rare screening of Zulu (1964) on Armed Forces Day, Saturday 30th June, help raise funds for SSAFA - the Armed Forces Charity (Shorncliffe branch) and make up your own mind whether this is a timeless tale of courage, honour and pride or a product of yesteryear that has no currency and should be banned.
"Everyone is welcome to attend and express their own opinion before and after the screening."
A spokesman for SSAFA added that airing the film could spark discussion about the film's "deeper themes."
“The local White Cliffs division of the Kent branch are hosting a film night to raise money for the Armed Forces community," she explained.
“A vote was held on social media to decide which film would be shown, either Where Eagles Dare or Zulu. Members of the public voted for Zulu to be shown.
“This is a light-hearted fundraiser for an important cause.
“Whilst the film has caused some discussion in more recent times, it is important not to gloss over parts of our history that make us feel uncomfortable.
“Rather than censoring a subject, a viewing could form a basis for discussion about the deeper themes in the film.”
Cllr Berry added: “It’s just a film with a poetic licence, I’ve seen it many times and I don’t see the colour of people’s skin, I see a war between two countries.
“I’m a councillor, I can’t go around telling people what they can and can’t watch.
“And this event is for charity. No I wouldn’t try telling them not to watch it at all.”

 

[West London Willy]

Time to catch up with a few movies I've seen recently:

Had a bit of a binge on the old Sherlock Holmes movies with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. Terror by Night, The Woman in Green, The Secret Weapon, and The Voice of Terror are all pretty formulaic, and present us with a Holmes who seems to get to the result by a combination of a) stumbling on some clue by sheer good fortune, and b) amazing leaps of logic that you simply can't resolve by the detail in the movie. Basically plot resolution enablers. The films are enjoyable, but I can only assume that the movie-going public back in the 40s were a simpler lot who didn't need plots to make any sense.

Speaking of which, I also watched the 2017 live action version of Ghost In The Shell, starring Scarlett Johanssen. Now this was a film where the plot was so paper thin, you wouldn't wipe your arse with it for fear of a finger accident. I reckon about 95% of the budget went on scenery and effects. It looked very good, but you really come away thinking that you've just seen the bastard child of Blade Runner and The Matrix, but that it was adopted to be raised by Pee Wee Herman. Not one I'll be returning to soon, if ever...

 

[BobbyD]

Time to catch up with a few movies I've seen recently:

Had a bit of a binge on the old Sherlock Holmes movies with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. Terror by Night, The Woman in Green, The Secret Weapon, and The Voice of Terror are all pretty formulaic, and present us with a Holmes who seems to get to the result by a combination of a) stumbling on some clue by sheer good fortune, and b) amazing leaps of logic that you simply can't resolve by the detail in the movie. Basically plot resolution enablers. The films are enjoyable, but I can only assume that the movie-going public back in the 40s were a simpler lot who didn't need plots to make any sense.

Speaking of which, I also watched the 2017 live action version of Ghost In The Shell, starring Scarlett Johanssen. Now this was a film where the plot was so paper thin, you wouldn't wipe your arse with it for fear of a finger accident. I reckon about 95% of the budget went on scenery and effects. It looked very good, but you really come away thinking that you've just seen the bastard child of Blade Runner and The Matrix, but that it was adopted to be raised by Pee Wee Herman. Not one I'll be returning to soon, if ever...

not seen ghost in the shell but its actually based on japanese animation. That matrix Green numbers stuff actually ripped off the cartoon .

A lot of people loved that japanese animation but i didn't really understand it (until i read up on it). I'm guessing the film is a very poor adaptation of it

 

[Stroller]

I heard a discussion on the radio earlier about Love Island, which is not something I have watched. Apparently Danny Dyer's daughter, Dani (!), is on the show and has copped off with a bloke called Jack. As a connoisseur of rhyming slang, Mr Dyer must be tearing his hair out.

 

[West London Willy]

not seen ghost in the shell but its actually based on japanese animation. That matrix Green numbers stuff actually ripped off the cartoon .

A lot of people loved that japanese animation but i didn't really understand it (until i read up on it). I'm guessing the film is a very poor adaptation of it

It was as close as possible you can get to bland whilst throwing as much colour and movement at the screen as you can. I love the original animation, but this was... so very dull.

 

[BobbyD]

I heard a discussion on the radio earlier about Love Island, which is not something I have watched. Apparently Danny Dyer's daughter, Dani (!), is on the show and has copped off with a bloke called Jack. As a connoisseur of rhyming slang, Mr Dyer must be tearing his hair out.

my missus loves this so i've seen a few too many episodes being the high brow man i am.

Correct his daughters on it, she's proper essex and she's in looooooooooooooooove with a boy.

Initially she didn't like him as he admitted hes cheated on every girlfriend he has had (in some game - 2 Girls for anyone interested) but they are now an item.

too much information?

 

[West London Willy]

I heard a discussion on the radio earlier about Love Island, which is not something I have watched. Apparently Danny Dyer's daughter, Dani (!), is on the show and has copped off with a bloke called Jack. As a connoisseur of rhyming slang, Mr Dyer must be tearing his hair out.

My youngest is a big fan of the show, so for me it's a challenge to watch as little as possible. Strangely, for a show where there are young women competing to see who can wear the skimpiest bikini and most revealing dresses, it's a complete turn-off, as they are so uniformly vacuous.

And what is it with eyebrows these days? Really? Josef Stalin and Denis Healey are back in fashion?

 

[kiwiqpr]

as movies about a bloke in a car go i enjoyed this tonight

You must log in or register to see media

 

[sb_73]

I succumbed to the inevitable and watched Dunkirk on the plane last night. I fall on the Nines side of the argument, can see that it would be visually interesting on a big screen, but Nolan’s obsession with timelines irritated me this time, the music was intrusive and the format made for virtually zero characterisation. Ninesy pointed out the oddness of the fighter pilot constantly checking his seemingly endless supply of fuel, I found Rylance (surely the most overrated actor working, on the screen at least) piloting his little boat on a virtually deserted channel (where was the flotilla? Too expensive?) strange. Likewise the 400,000 men on the beach were represented mainly by sand, weirdly deserted in many scenes. There was also very little of the grim humour which I think is a characteristic of fighting men. But I will confess to nodding off once or twice, not sure for how long. In my defence it was quite late. I read that the film is pretty historically accurate, so perhaps it’s my image of the events which is out of kilter, and most of the reviews are very positive.

But not too late for me to watch Journey’s End, film adaptation of RC Sherriff’s play about life in the Great War trenches, which he experienced at Loos, Vimy Ridge and Passchendaele, where he was badly wounded. This was brilliant, set over 4 days at the beginning of the last German Spring Offensive in March 1918, which led to 700,000 casualties. Unlike Dunkirk lots of words and talking as the officers use drink mainly to stave off feeling anything. Great acting from a cast most of whom I’d never heard of, except for Paul Bettany, Toby Jones and Bob Glenister. Grim, riveting and heartbreaking. And really excellent music, composed by an Icelandic cellist.

PS, just remembered that Journey’s End is the play that Marwood (I) gets a leading role in at the end of Withnail and I. My favourite film.

 

[sb_73]

Probably because there is no plot mate. Where to begin?

From what I understood Dunkirk was a massive operation involving the huge evacuation of over 300,000 soldiers. They even mention this in the film but you only see a few hand fulls of troops on the near empty beach. I thought there was a huge flotilla of personal boats and naval vessels that went to rescue the troops, but this film depicts a dozen at best. Then there's the squadrons of spitfires, well just the three aircraft to take on the Luftwaffe according to this film.

What the director Nolan has done is turned it into a sixth form student's attempt at a minimalist arthouse movie. It's devoid of plot, dialogue or character and after twenty minutes your left yawning and couldn't care less for the people in the film. It's a big waste to have this budget to spend on a film with a whole raft of British talented actors who don't get to show off their skills. What's the point of getting Kenneth Branagh in to just stroll up and down the pier? The cinematography is good though.

The attempt at three focus points, the cowardly soldier, the spitfire pilot and the tug boat is both confusing and unnatural. The timeline of these doesn't move along in a linear fashion. One minute it's calm and sunny, the next it's night time followed by day light and choppy seas and jumping around the three perspectives. It doesn't work and is a shocking mess.
The behaviour of all three when reacting to the circumstances around them them doesn't display normal behaviour. I get what the director is trying to do but he's treating us like fools if he thinks that we don't realise that war is not nice and can be dehumanising. To reduce every person involved in this debacle to what is effectively an automaton does everyone a disservice. Trying to do something different doesn't always equate it to being good or great.

A few other niggly bits are ... although we're told that the troops are suffering heavy bombardment the town is picture postcard perfect. No damage whatsoever.

When you see the Tommies on the beach none of them are talking to each other, they're just staring out to sea. Every single one of them.

When the young lad dies on the tug boat there's no reaction at all from the old boy.

Despite having to enter my pin number you don't see anyone maimed or seriously injured despite a bomb falling on them.

The spitfire pilot, despite being obsessed with his fuel gauge reading every few moments he still manages to ( surprise surprise ) run out of fuel. He then defies the laws of physics and gravity by gliding around for another half hour flying up and down the beach a few times and even managing to save the day by shooting a Stukka out of the sky. He could've returned to blighty in that time.

No mention of the enemy. It's only at the end where you see a silhouette of a few Germans, otherwise it's as if they don't exist. ( Don't mention the German's! )

The film score - I usually like Hans Zimmer ( Ironically German ) and was surprised when I looked up who did it that it was him. There are points in the film that when the little dialogue that does take place is spoken, it's drowned out by this horrendous cacophony of noise. A cat being ironed alive would make for a more pleasant listen. What he'd done here is stumbled upon this effect called the shephard tone. This is where you layer the soundtrack on a loop between two octaves to give an audio illusion that the pitch is always increasing to ratchet up the tension. Which is fine, but not at every given opportunity throughout the film!

As you can probably tell, I wasn't impressed and was left completely unsatisfied.

Having just re read this I should have just said that Ninesy’s review was spot on. Absolutely spot on.

 

[Stroller]

Having just re read this I should have just said that Ninesy’s review was spot on. Absolutely spot on.

At the risk of repeating myself (something I do a lot apparently, especially when pissed), you (and Ninesy) needed to have watched it on a big screen with surround sound. You have only yourselves to blame for missing out on a wonderful cinematic experience.

 

[sb_73]

At the risk of repeating myself (something I do a lot apparently, especially when pissed), you (and Ninesy) needed to have watched it on a big screen with surround sound. You have only yourselves to blame for missing out on a wonderful cinematic experience.

I think my appreciation of the film making would certainly be greater, but the fundamental problems Ninesy and I saw in the film as a piece of drama would remain. I was using Bose noise cancelling headphones, pretty sure that I got a good approximation of the intended aural experience.

It seems most people, and the majority of critics, agree with you Strolls, just ignore us old contrarians.

Have you seen Journey’s End?

 

[Stroller]

I think my appreciation of the film making would certainly be greater, but the fundamental problems Ninesy and I saw in the film as a piece of drama would remain. I was using Bose noise cancelling headphones, pretty sure that I got a good approximation of the intended aural experience.

It seems most people, and the majority of critics, agree with you Strolls, just ignore us old contrarians.

Have you seen Journey’s End?

I really think you would have a different opinion of the film if you'd seen it in a cinema, mate. None of the plot quibbles that you and Ninesy have matter when you are immersed in the visual and aural experience.

No, I haven't seen Journey's End - sounds good though. I really like Toby Jones.

 

[Steelmonkey]

I really think you would have a different opinion of the film if you'd seen it in a cinema, mate. None of the plot quibbles that you and Ninesy have matter when you are immersed in the visual and aural experience.

No, I haven't seen Journey's End - sounds good though. I really like Toby Jones.

Agree Stroller - we saw it in the cinema, and were quite blown away by the visual aspect of the film. The music seemed to heighten the tension too with the dolby full surround (even fantastic headphones wouldn't heighten the effect, unless you were in the house with an 80" TV, curtains drawn and popcorn stuffed on your lap!!). Yes, the plot has holes you could drive a Panzer tank through, but as a spectacle it was an enjoyable couple of hours (even if my son asked me half way through was it WW1 or WW2 )

 

[Stroller]

Agree Stroller - we saw it in the cinema, and were quite blown away by the visual aspect of the film. The music seemed to heighten the tension too with the dolby full surround (even fantastic headphones wouldn't heighten the effect, unless you were in the house with an 80" TV, curtains drawn and popcorn stuffed on your lap!!). Yes, the plot has holes you could drive a Panzer tank through, but as a spectacle it was an enjoyable couple of hours (even if my son asked me half way through was it WW1 or WW2 )

Yeah, for Stan to have said that the music was intrusive just didn't seem right to me. I thought it was entirely complimentary and made the tension almost unbearable at times.

 

[sb_73]

I really think you would have a different opinion of the film if you'd seen it in a cinema, mate. None of the plot quibbles that you and Ninesy have matter when you are immersed in the visual and aural experience.

No, I haven't seen Journey's End - sounds good though. I really like Toby Jones.

Agree Stroller - we saw it in the cinema, and were quite blown away by the visual aspect of the film. The music seemed to heighten the tension too with the dolby full surround (even fantastic headphones wouldn't heighten the effect, unless you were in the house with an 80" TV, curtains drawn and popcorn stuffed on your lap!!). Yes, the plot has holes you could drive a Panzer tank through, but as a spectacle it was an enjoyable couple of hours (even if my son asked me half way through was it WW1 or WW2 )

Well, set up a screening at an IMAX local to me and we’ll see. And then conclude that Ninesy and I are right. You have to concede though that the visceral experience of the first scene on the beach of Saving Private Ryan is not touched by anything in Dunkirk (retreats to bunker.....)

 

[Stroller]

Well, set up a screening at an IMAX local to me and we’ll see. And then conclude that Ninesy and I are right. You have to concede though that the visceral experience of the first scene on the beach of Saving Private Ryan is not touched by anything in Dunkirk (retreats to bunker.....)

The opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan are stunning, and maybe more powerful than anything in Dunkirk, but ultimately it's a **** film. I think my favourite scene in Dunkirk is the Spitfire, out of fuel, gliding across the beach. Just beautiful.

Did you get the Michael Caine cameo?