AgreementOriginally Posted by Shush
One thing I'd add is that that the film is very safe for children, grandparents, parents, love interests, etc.
Agreement
But...it was based on a true story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veronica_Franco
Dolphin Tale
A fairly predictable and formulaic, but rather uplifting story of a dolphin whose tail is amputated following getting tangled in fishing gear. My wife described it as "one part Free Willy, one part How To Train Your Dragon". This is pretty much accurate.
Worth a Rent if that sounds like your sort of thing.
"Ember of Dreams"
http://www.amazon.com/Ember-Dreams-C...0408773&sr=1-1
Huh, I guess in 1998 being "based on a True Story" must have meant something then.
Cheapest. Army. Ever. - Armored Company or Stompa Tribe
Varingyr (Neo-Squats) Threads- Background , Concept Art , 40K Rules Dev , and BFG Rules Dev .
Aquanautica Imperialis- FREE, naval game for the 40K Universe. Here: http://www.box.net/shared/e2dmaf1zaj
I'm Not There (2007)
Starring Cate Blanchett, Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Richard Gere, Ben Wishaw (of The Perfume, which I love) and some kid called Marcus Carl Franklin, all playing ... well, aspects of Bob Dylan is probably the best way to describe it. Also including the always lovely Julianne Moore. Directed Todd Haynes, who also did the snooze-fest that is Mildred Pierce.
The film follows six different settings where the six main actors are not Bob Dylan, but more representations of how Dylan was viewed. So Heath Ledger is the father who was not there for his kids, while Christian Bale is more how he appeared to people who thought he was a traitorous hippie, and so on. All of these are filmed in their own styles and could be seen as short films interwoven. Blanchett excels in the slightly surrealist thread and after a while you forget that she is a woman playing a male character.
Quite a nice little thing.
Verdict: Watch
(four out of five)
The Avengers [2D] (2012)
I went to see this one a second time, though in normal-D this time. My conclusion is that the extra you pay to sit there with those annoying glasses is in no way worth it and the movie is just as good in 2D.
Other reasons I enjoyed this movie more than other big blockbusters:
- no overly clever kids
- no idiots
- no father/son issues
- no dog
Verdict: Must-see (still)
(five out of five)
Isn't Loki pretty much the living incarnation of a father-son issue?
You're thinking of the other movie.
He still has daddy issues (implied during his discussion with Thor on that mountain).
The Avengers was brilliant, the Hulk had by far the 2 best and funniest scenes both near the end, 1 with Loki after he screamed hes a god lol and the other with him and Thor "left turn clyde" to use another movie analogy, Best movie of the year so far by miles.
My Warploque Miniatures Halfling blog
There's definitely definitely definitely no logic
to human behaviour...... Bjork
We will launch the MeteorBlitzkreig............. ironsky
Yes, but they are not vital to the movie and there isn't a sub-plot about trying to reconnect with dad.
Did a search and was surprised that this one hasn't come up yet:
Warrior (2011)
The movie follows two brothers who enter an MMA tournament. The fight scenes are good, gritty and (mostly) believable, though one in particular is a bit of a stretch. The real strength of the movie comes from the writing and performances of Nick Nolte, Joel Edgerton and Tom Hardy - the best example of this being the fact that Edgerton and Hardy only have 1 scene of dialogue together, but this scene provides the viewer with a complete understanding of their relationship. I was particularly impressed with Hardy and amazed at his versatility when I realised that I'd seen him in a completely different role in Inception. The final scene is outstanding and I was wet around the eyes when the credits were rolling.
Verdict: Watch 5 out of 5
My 40k Project Log - currently painting Crimson Fists and My (dodgy) modular CoD table project log.
On Games Workshop's Australian prices:
Martyrs: 2008 French Extremism film. Unsure why I sat all the way through it, or what it was trying to say. I'm fine with violent films and horror movies and the like, but it seems that too often now the flimsiest premise of a plot/story/moral is draped over what is effectively just 2 hours of explicit, graphic torture.
I don't know how I feel about this film, but I won't watch it again.
Those who know don't care any more, and those who care don't know.
I've never really understood what draws people to watch those torture-porn movies.
What sick mind actually enjoys watching them?
3 different types of people I've counted so far. Horror film buffs, who see gore in their films all the time and so just laugh along at how ridiculous it is. Those that get vicarious thrills from it and the third type, well, its a family forum so I won't go into it here.
^This is why parts of GW may not like the internet^
I have a plog now! Now with actual painted models
Ridiculous gore I can (usually) take, but these days movies seem to go for extreme realism and I just don't see the point of that.
Not seen Martyrs, but Wolf Creek left me feeling a bit like that. I just felt uncomfortable for most of the film. I don't understand the need for a film like that. Similarly, I've watched the first three Saw films, liked the first one, the second one was unnecessarily gruesome in parts, but the third just seemed like they threw the film together to see how many different, gory ways they could kill people. No intention of watching the rest of them, nor the Hostel films (likewise, I saw the first Hostel, and that just put me off).
Not got a problem with violence/ gore, but when a film relies on it it's a bit pointless.
Last edited by BigbyWolf; 14-05-2012 at 21:47.
Mat Ward Fact #64001- Mat Ward has been described as willowy with elven features.
Same here. I can enjoy all the old Steve Jacksons and stuff like that but the realism things that basically all try to emulate Texas Chainsaw Massacre and put more physical, graphic torture on top are rather uninteresting to me.
Wolf Creek is said to be really, really good though. In the scary way.
Wolf Creek is possibly the worst film ever made. And I've seen some shockers. It's not scary, it's not suspenseful, it's just plain terrible. AVOID.
Those who know don't care any more, and those who care don't know.
I didn't mind it, but wouldn't bother with it again. far from the worst film ever made. John Jarratt is phenominally creepy.
It's best watched with the knowledge that it's loosly based on the story of Ivan Milat (despite the citing of the Falconio case as an influence, I see no connection at all. Far more similarities with Milat).
And yet so far removed from the actual Milat case to be unrecognisable. I didn't find John Jarratt creepy in the slightest, but then ocker bogans don't creep me out. There are massive inconsistencies in the film - it was like the writer/director watched a whole heap of other horror films, and then tried to cram them all into one film whose first 4 hours (slight exaggeration, but this film feels like it is soooo loooong) was purely footage of three annoying backpackers driving in the desert.
I was so disappointed by it. Wolf Creek was being billed as "ZOMG Scariest Moofie EVAR!" and I was fighting off sleep for most of it.
Those who know don't care any more, and those who care don't know.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Avian
Arnizipal
||||||||||||||||| 
|#