Author Topic: The RAWK Film Thread  (Read 2938913 times)

Offline Hazell

  • Ultimate Movie Night Draft Winner 2017. King - or Queen - of Mystery. Hyzenthlay. The 5th Benitle's sex conch.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 69,931
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55040 on: August 11, 2022, 12:12:30 am »
Yeah, overall I liked Prey, with several reservations though. It was fun and appropriately gnarly. Still, I can't deny there were several things that bothered me, which if different, could have made for a much better movie.

Spoiler
The choice of revealing the Predator from the start is a bad one for me, even though I understand their logic. "It's a Predator movie, everyone knows how he looks like and what he is", I still think it's severely flawed.

One of the main reasons why the first one works so well, it's because of how patiently they build up the menace from the Predator. We know full well there's some weird alien shit going on. I mean, the first shot of the movie is of a spaceship going to earth. We also have those thermal vision scenes scattered over the first third of the movie, which also reveals it while helping build up the tension. It's subtle, genuinely scary and doesn't undermine the storyline. 

Here, the choice to show the Predator from the start kills any sense of suspense or mystery going forward, which is something you don't know want in a movie about a space travelling alpha hunter. Second, it severely undermines the build-up of the main character, when the movie is consistently cutting to the more intriguing Predator scenes hunting animals. It also telegraphs what the real conflict is going to be, so the stakes in the begging, when the main character is learning to hunt, are just not there.

It's also not a very well-paced, or dare I say directed (apart from the action scenes) movie. At times it just seems like a collection of set pieces without much-connecting tissue between them. It also has a pretty bad sense of geography and space, which the director tries to hide with extreme close-ups with very shallow depths of field. It might look "nice" to some, but it just makes it very confusing for a spectator. Looking "nice" or "cool" is something the movie seems to prefer way too often, instead of more suitably choices.

It just looks too damn clean, pretty and modern for such a gritty story which is supposed to transpire in the 1700s. The scenery was certainly stunning but those beautiful panoramic shots didn't seem to fit the tone of a Predator movie, at all. It looked like something out of Dances with Wolves, but grainless and more artificial. I hate that "glossy look" most direct-to-streaming movies and shows seem to go for. There were some shots of the brother of the protagonist, where he looked like he was a video game character or something. I don't understand how can anyone think that looks good. The CGI was pretty shoddy too, and some of the aerial shots looked like they were made by some cheap commercial drones. It kind of betrayed the movie's budget.

Still, there were several things I enjoyed about the movie though which probably slightly outweigh the negatives.

First, I really liked the setting and the premise of the movie, even though its potential wasn't fully realised. I think it was a very intriguing and fresh way to inject some life into a very stale franchise.

I liked the main character and her brother. They are no Arnie and there's nothing too memorable about them, but they were likeable and have a nice relationship with each other, which made me care about their journey. I also appreciated that they focused on her training extensively, and make her fail a few times earlier on. It doesn't make her transformation into an unstoppable ninja later on completely believable, but it helps... a bit. The dog was also great.

The action scenes were mostly very well done when you had a clear idea of what was happening. The predator hunting scenes, even though I think detract from the main character storylines, as individual scenes are pretty cool. The first fight between the Comanches and the Predator was also great. I liked that they made the Predator not completely overpowered and that we even saw animals and humans being capable of hurting him, even though it felt more like self-sabotaging than anything.

The movie gets incrementally silly towards the last third though, but the action is still pretty thrilling and makes it work. The way the main character "gets" the Predator though... that was just some stupid lazy fucking nonsense. I'm not even sure exactly what happened other than the main character magically learning how the predator mask work and using it against him, with an implausible amount of good luck, planning and the Predator becoming a fucking idiot. It really left me with a bad taste, which is unfortunate because I enjoyed the movie for the most part, even with all the problems I mentioned.
[close]

Interesting post mate. I just watched it today and I liked it a lot. Most of the stuff you mentioned didn't bother me but I've only ever seen the original and while I like that one too, it's nowhere near any of my favourite films so maybe that was a factor. I like that it was something different to the original and has a more modern sensibility, even though, as mentioned above, it was a little heavy handed (which didn't really bother me).

Just on your last paragraph:

Spoiler
The more I think about it, the more I agree with it, although I struggled somewhat with what was actually happening on screen so might need to watch it again. Getting how the Predator's mask works and using it against him in the manner she did did seem really implausible though, which like you say, was unfortunate. But it didn't spoil the film for me. Maybe because I like Amber Midthunder, she was great in Legion and was here as well.
[close]

And the comments about it being too dark, I didn't get that at all, it was absolutely fine for me.
We have to change from doubter to believer. Now.

Offline Lastrador

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,448
  • Not Italian
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55041 on: August 11, 2022, 09:45:37 pm »
Interesting post mate. I just watched it today and I liked it a lot. Most of the stuff you mentioned didn't bother me but I've only ever seen the original and while I like that one too, it's nowhere near any of my favourite films so maybe that was a factor. I like that it was something different to the original and has a more modern sensibility, even though, as mentioned above, it was a little heavy handed (which didn't really bother me).

Just on your last paragraph:

Spoiler
The more I think about it, the more I agree with it, although I struggled somewhat with what was actually happening on screen so might need to watch it again. Getting how the Predator's mask works and using it against him in the manner she did did seem really implausible though, which like you say, was unfortunate. But it didn't spoil the film for me. Maybe because I like Amber Midthunder, she was great in Legion and was here as well.
[close]

And the comments about it being too dark, I didn't get that at all, it was absolutely fine for me.

Oh, I really enjoyed it too. I might have been too harsh on it in my previous post, but it was more out of frustration for what I think could have been a much better film. I admit I'm probably in the minority on some of those criticisms (especially the most technical stuff), and I understand that for most people those things don't take away from their enjoyment, but I'm a bit of a purist, so what can I do.  ;D

Predator is probably my favourite action/sci-fi movie of all time, but I'm completely fine with them going their own way. As I said, I really liked the premise, the setting, the cast and most of the action. The minimalistic story mostly works for me. In many ways, it's the form that bothers me. I'll explain and try to tie it with Armand's reply (which I've just seen, sorry) about the cinematography and colour grading aesthetic choices.

It seems to me that most modern movie makers, especially the ones premiering on streaming platforms, have this idea that films must look beautiful and pristine, no matter what the story is or demands. Call me old-fashioned, but I'm of the idea that any aesthetic choices must be made in favour of telling a story. In Prey, those choices particularly bothered me, because it's a gritty action movie set in the harsh 1700s Northern Great Plains made to look like a beautiful modern commercial. I'm sure these were corporate demands more than artistic choices made by the filmmakers though.

This overly saturated and clean to the point of sterility aesthetic of the movie, might look great on your OLED screen, but does it work in favour of the story? In my opinion, it doesn't, and not only that but it actively detracts from the movie's immersion. It's at odds with the time period, the harsh and dangerous environment it's trying to represent and most importantly, the nature of the film. There's a tonal dissonance between the story and the way the filmmaker chooses to convey it.

When you look at some great period pieces like "There Will be Blood" or "The Assassination of Jesse James..." to name a couple of modern examples, they have this harsh, grainy look to them, that works in favour of the immersion. Because whether we like it or not, our brains associate those kind of images with older periods. They have some beautiful shots in there too, but they are not trying to look pretty at every shot like Prey does. The grainy aspect look also adds an element of weight and tactility to a film. It makes them look cinematic. Prey doesn't look cinematic, it looks like a video game.

it's the modern era but before the industrial revolution and it's shot in pristine canadian wilderness (not comanche territory btw) and yet it is 'grainless and more artificial' (than *Dances with Wolves), how is this prime wilderness artificial? If the director wanted to add noise for tone (ie cinematic camera choices, which it appears you feel it needs), isn't adding 'grain' artificial?

Those beautiful vista shots I called grainless and artificial, are not artificial because of what they show, they look artificial because of the way they are so overly enhanced in post-production and possible CGIed to some extent, to the point they look fake and weightless. They also serve no purpose other than showing off their production values. In a movie like Dances with Wolves, it makes sense for the movie to frequently cut to those types of vista shots, as it's a slow-paced drama about a man that wanted to see the beauty of the American frontier. In an action movie that's about a tribe of Comache Indian fighting against an intergalactic alpha hunter, what's the purpose of those endless beauty shots?

Maybe if the film only focused on the Comanches in the begging, it would make sense to give us a sense of their relationship with their environment, and to mark a shift in tone when the Predator appears. But given that we're frequently interrupted with scenes of the Predator from the begging, it kind of makes them pointless. 

And no, you don't have to artificially add grain in post-production to have a grainy look. The easiest way would have been to shoot it on film, in something like 16mm, which they probably didn't have the budget to it. But there are also ways to have more grainy shots with digital cameras, using higher ISO levels. To be correct, every camera captures some level of grain, even some of the most modern ones. What they never look like, is as clean and pristine as they do in Prey, that's for sure.

the original film is set in central american rainforest (actually shot in mexico) and apart from the encampment scenes at the beginning, all i recall is lush jungle, one wooden bridge and waterfalls

You're right in that the original Predator was shot in a Mexican jungle, but that's about all you're right. The original Predator is an ugly, harsh and grainy-looking movie. It's frequently under-exposed, with a limited colour palette and it never tries to draw the spectator's attention to the beauty of its surroundings. On the contrary, every image tries to convey the harshness and danger of the jungle. That's why almost every shot is at ground level with the group, and not from afar like in Prey, pretty and secure.

I'll end up by saying, that I understand and respect people liking those aspects of modern films. Personally, I detest the way most modern movies, and TV shows for that matter, try to look as pretty and pristine as possible even when at the expense of the story. For me is one of the clearest indications of how big corporations are trying to kill any sense of artistry or personality in modern entertainment.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2022, 09:58:41 pm by Lastrador »

Online afc turkish

  • How long for them sausages? Maggie May's Mythical Turkish Delight. RAWK's Expert Sausage Monster! Oakley Cannonier is fucking boss. Likes blowing his friends? Who nose?!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,780
  • This looks like a nice spot...
    • Flat Back Four
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55042 on: August 11, 2022, 11:56:09 pm »
In many ways, it's the form that bothers me. I'll explain and try to tie it with Armand's reply (which I've just seen, sorry) about the cinematography and colour grading aesthetic choices.

Think you did a really good job explaining your position, and didn't cut down differing viewpoints while so doing.
Since haste quite Schorsch, but Liverpool are genuine fight pigs...

Offline Armand9

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,703
    • http://armand9.deviantart.com/
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55043 on: August 12, 2022, 12:15:07 am »
i disagree with most of that, well not really, that's too sweeping, i understand what you're getting at but you're assuming cos a widlerness is pristine it's not harsh - here's a head's up, all wilderness is harsh, all, no matter the beauty (i recall on its release Last of the Mohicans being criticised in exactly the same way as you see Prey, didn't agree with that assessment, dont agree with this one either)

in short it's as if you're saying the scenery wouldn't have looked like that back then, not that clean, not that pristine but that is clearly wrong, we wouldn't have been able to capture those views back then, but if anything they would've looked even more pristine (i've seen more wildlife docs than i can count, thankfully we still have some pristine wilderness left and you know what, it does looking fucking amazing. now whether you want that for your movie is an aesthetic choice, i think the director did fine, the natives we're living in an incredibly beautiful part of the world and he chose to show it as that

the harsh and gritty nature of Predator in contrast to Prey are the characters more so than scenery - both are harsh challenging environments in different ways (sure, thick jungle is harsher) and i beg to differ that lush jungle isn't pretty (it is in my eyes, on film including Predator and in real life) - contrast the characters of Prey with badass veteran mercenaries and you have a totally different ambience, they bring the gnarly aspect to Predator

and who said anything about adding grain in post production? you actually quote me saying 'cinematic camera choices' when talking about adding grain and then 'school' me on that very thing?   ;D







all pretty to me and a good director making the most of his environs

i've no doubt Predator is shot the way it is cos that's what the director wanted but he is also limited by thick jungle, not a lot of choice there for the majority of his movie, it doesn't lend itself to big open vistas (tho there are wider relatively big type shots when the scenery lends itself), but clearly not in the range of LOTM, DWW and Prey with their more open vistas which allow for that. McTiernan actually said himself that he found jungle uninteresting cinematically cos you can't see anything, with the horizon ending about 4 feet in front of you and they were forever trimming out stuff so he could get long shots

and as you point out, ground level (often tilited up) shots did convey what he wanted in this impenetrable, claustraphobic, world of hurt as blain would say, arguably catching as much of the wilderness he's working with (a clever way to maximise the jungle scenery and the 'problematic' horizon, a smart solution by McTiernan), the director of those other movies did likewise with their movies and environs

you just dont like the fact it looks pretty cos you see that as frivilous/incongruous to the story content, we'll have to disagree on that,
like i said, heard it all before with LOTM, it was wrong then, it's wrong now for me, but it's aesthetics, whenever does that get full agreement? never

btw this isn't me pissing on Predator - i fucking adore that movie, in its genre only second to Carpenter's The Thing for me
« Last Edit: August 12, 2022, 01:49:27 am by Armand9 »
Losing your only chance of silverware this season to your city rival. At home. With the most expensive squad ever assembled.

Have that, you arrogant wanker. CarraG238

Offline Macphisto80

  • The Picasso of RAWK. But wants to shag Charlie Brooker. Go figure! Wants to hear about bi-curious Shauno's fantasies.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 23,702
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55044 on: August 12, 2022, 12:54:35 am »
Oh, I really enjoyed it too. I might have been too harsh on it in my previous post, but it was more out of frustration for what I think could have been a much better film. I admit I'm probably in the minority on some of those criticisms (especially the most technical stuff), and I understand that for most people those things don't take away from their enjoyment, but I'm a bit of a purist, so what can I do.  ;D

Predator is probably my favourite action/sci-fi movie of all time, but I'm completely fine with them going their own way. As I said, I really liked the premise, the setting, the cast and most of the action. The minimalistic story mostly works for me. In many ways, it's the form that bothers me. I'll explain and try to tie it with Armand's reply (which I've just seen, sorry) about the cinematography and colour grading aesthetic choices.

It seems to me that most modern movie makers, especially the ones premiering on streaming platforms, have this idea that films must look beautiful and pristine, no matter what the story is or demands. Call me old-fashioned, but I'm of the idea that any aesthetic choices must be made in favour of telling a story. In Prey, those choices particularly bothered me, because it's a gritty action movie set in the harsh 1700s Northern Great Plains made to look like a beautiful modern commercial. I'm sure these were corporate demands more than artistic choices made by the filmmakers though.

This overly saturated and clean to the point of sterility aesthetic of the movie, might look great on your OLED screen, but does it work in favour of the story? In my opinion, it doesn't, and not only that but it actively detracts from the movie's immersion. It's at odds with the time period, the harsh and dangerous environment it's trying to represent and most importantly, the nature of the film. There's a tonal dissonance between the story and the way the filmmaker chooses to convey it.

When you look at some great period pieces like "There Will be Blood" or "The Assassination of Jesse James..." to name a couple of modern examples, they have this harsh, grainy look to them, that works in favour of the immersion. Because whether we like it or not, our brains associate those kind of images with older periods. They have some beautiful shots in there too, but they are not trying to look pretty at every shot like Prey does. The grainy aspect look also adds an element of weight and tactility to a film. It makes them look cinematic. Prey doesn't look cinematic, it looks like a video game.

Those beautiful vista shots I called grainless and artificial, are not artificial because of what they show, they look artificial because of the way they are so overly enhanced in post-production and possible CGIed to some extent, to the point they look fake and weightless. They also serve no purpose other than showing off their production values. In a movie like Dances with Wolves, it makes sense for the movie to frequently cut to those types of vista shots, as it's a slow-paced drama about a man that wanted to see the beauty of the American frontier. In an action movie that's about a tribe of Comache Indian fighting against an intergalactic alpha hunter, what's the purpose of those endless beauty shots?

Maybe if the film only focused on the Comanches in the begging, it would make sense to give us a sense of their relationship with their environment, and to mark a shift in tone when the Predator appears. But given that we're frequently interrupted with scenes of the Predator from the begging, it kind of makes them pointless. 

And no, you don't have to artificially add grain in post-production to have a grainy look. The easiest way would have been to shoot it on film, in something like 16mm, which they probably didn't have the budget to it. But there are also ways to have more grainy shots with digital cameras, using higher ISO levels. To be correct, every camera captures some level of grain, even some of the most modern ones. What they never look like, is as clean and pristine as they do in Prey, that's for sure.

You're right in that the original Predator was shot in a Mexican jungle, but that's about all you're right. The original Predator is an ugly, harsh and grainy-looking movie. It's frequently under-exposed, with a limited colour palette and it never tries to draw the spectator's attention to the beauty of its surroundings. On the contrary, every image tries to convey the harshness and danger of the jungle. That's why almost every shot is at ground level with the group, and not from afar like in Prey, pretty and secure.

I'll end up by saying, that I understand and respect people liking those aspects of modern films. Personally, I detest the way most modern movies, and TV shows for that matter, try to look as pretty and pristine as possible even when at the expense of the story. For me is one of the clearest indications of how big corporations are trying to kill any sense of artistry or personality in modern entertainment.
I haven't watched Prey yet, but I absolutely 100% agree with most of this post. Jay from RLM said something similar too. I actually remarked about something similar the other day when I was watching something on TV, and without even knowing what it was, I asked "this is some shite off of Netflix, isn't it?". Needless to say, the answer was yes. The give away? How it looked. It was a shite horror film that had Brian Cox and the fella from Homeland in it. Don't know the name, but the most off putting thing about it was how garish and pristine it looked. Everything looked like it was perfectly framed, and over-lit. There was no grit to it. Nothing to indicate that there was someone with vision behind the camera. It was like a by the numbers template where everything looked surgically clean, giving it a veneer of falseness, like everything was just too perfect and digitally correct. Literally everything on Netflix that I've watched has this look to it, and I find it unappealing and disgusting to look at. By contrast, I was flicking through the TV a week or so ago, and came across Starsky and Hutch. I mistook it for a film because of the way it was shot. Gritty, realistic, imperfect, but yet perfect for the eyes. This is a TV show made in the 70's? Yet to me, it looked it had far more craft than the souless shite polluting these streaming services.

Offline Armand9

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,703
    • http://armand9.deviantart.com/
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55045 on: August 12, 2022, 01:09:43 am »
this kinda gives me a vinyl vs digital downlad vibe, it's almost like reading/having the same conversation

that's aesthetics for you

the rabbit hole of all rabbit holes
« Last Edit: August 12, 2022, 01:28:47 am by Armand9 »
Losing your only chance of silverware this season to your city rival. At home. With the most expensive squad ever assembled.

Have that, you arrogant wanker. CarraG238

Offline Lastrador

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,448
  • Not Italian
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55046 on: August 12, 2022, 02:01:44 am »
i disagree with most of that and you're assuming cos a widlerness is pristine it's not harsh - here's a head's up, all wilderness is harsh, all, no matter the beauty (i recall on its release Last of the Mohicans being criticised in exactly the same way as you see Prey, didn't agree with that assessment, dont agree with this one either)

the harsh and gritty nature of Predator in contrast to Prey are the characters more so than scenery - both are harsh challenging environments in different ways (sure, thick jungle is harsher) and i beg to differ that lush jungle isn't pretty (it is in my eyes, on film including Predator and in real life) - contrast the characters of Prey with badass veteran mercenaries and you have a totally different ambience, they bring the gnarly aspect to Predator
I disagree completely with that. Every decision in Predator is made, from the casting to the cinematography, to make the universe look as harsh and dangerous as possible. It's not just one element, it's all of them. And sorry, but are Comanches supposed to look nice and unthreatening? They were one, if not the most feared and brutal Native American tribe. So that point doesn't really stick.

and who said anything about adding grain in post production? you actually quote me saying 'cinematic camera choices' when talking about adding grain and then 'school' me on that very thing?   ???

I didn't try to school you on anything, but to be fair, that sentence was very hard to comprehend. You didn't say adding grain on post-production, no, but that's the only way it can be implied and make sense. Because as I said, all cinema cameras capture images with a certain level of grain. It's in their nature. The cinematic camera choices, as you put it, will denote how much grain there will be. But that's a decision you make previous to filming. There's no "adding" to it, unless you mean on post-production. So when you ask "isn't adding 'grain' artificial?", it makes no sense by the way you frame the question, unless you mean the whole process of filmmaking is artificial. Which then makes the whole thing a moot point.







all pretty to me

i've no doubt Predator is shot the way it is cos that's what the director wanted but he is also limited by thick jungle, not a lot of choice there for the majority of his movie, it doesn't lend itself to big open vistas (tho there are wider relatively big type shots when the scenery lends itself), but clearly not in the range of LOTM, DWW and Prey with their more open vistas which allow for that

and as you point out, ground level (often tilited up) shots did convey what he wanted in this impenetrable, claustraphobic, world of hurt as blain would say, arguably catching as much of the wilderness he's working with (a clever way to maximise the jungle scenery, a good shout), the director of those other movies did likewise with their movies

I think we have fundamentally different views about movies and what constitutes a pretty shot. I don't think of any of those as "pretty", and I don't mean to "school you" but that first frame has been clearly saturated with some image editing software. Well shot? of course. Good and efficient blocking? Betcha. But not pretty, not unless you think pointing the camera in the general direction of nature, makes for a pretty shot. I watched The Last of the Mohicans recently btw, and I had none of those complaints because it makes sense for that film to be pretty, in a cinematic way, not like in a video game.

you just dont like the fact it looks pretty cos you see that as frivilous to the story content, we'll have to disagree on that,
like i said, heard it all before with LOTM, it was wrong then, it's wrong now for me, but it's aesthetics, whenever does that get full agreement? never

I think I know and have articulated my thoughts well enough why I don't like the way that Prey looks. You might disagree, that's perfectly fine, but I certainly don't need you to tell me what I think. Especially not in such a reductive simplistic way.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2022, 02:27:10 am by Lastrador »

Offline Lastrador

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,448
  • Not Italian
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55047 on: August 12, 2022, 04:05:12 am »
I haven't watched Prey yet, but I absolutely 100% agree with most of this post. Jay from RLM said something similar too. I actually remarked about something similar the other day when I was watching something on TV, and without even knowing what it was, I asked "this is some shite off of Netflix, isn't it?". Needless to say, the answer was yes. The give away? How it looked. It was a shite horror film that had Brian Cox and the fella from Homeland in it. Don't know the name, but the most off putting thing about it was how garish and pristine it looked. Everything looked like it was perfectly framed, and over-lit. There was no grit to it. Nothing to indicate that there was someone with vision behind the camera. It was like a by the numbers template where everything looked surgically clean, giving it a veneer of falseness, like everything was just too perfect and digitally correct. Literally everything on Netflix that I've watched has this look to it, and I find it unappealing and disgusting to look at. By contrast, I was flicking through the TV a week or so ago, and came across Starsky and Hutch. I mistook it for a film because of the way it was shot. Gritty, realistic, imperfect, but yet perfect for the eyes. This is a TV show made in the 70's? Yet to me, it looked it had far more craft than the souless shite polluting these streaming services.
Yeah, it's like they made an algorithm to find out what's the most pleasing looking LUT for general audiences and applied it to every fucking movie and show. So even if they think this movie or show is shit, they will still find it pleasant enough to look at on their OLED TV. It's a really cynical thought, but I don't think it's far from the truth. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a grittier uglier version of Prey, that the people on Disney didn't like, because it looked too harsh, and had the filmmakers change it to something prettier and more appealing.

I remember reading once upon a time, a list of all the norms and regulations production companies had to comply with, to make content for Netflix. This was when they really started to crank up all the shite they make. It was incredibly comprehensive and specific. So it isn't surprising that most of their products have this standardized "look".

I think It's partly the fault of the digitalization of cinema cameras, which apart from losing the inherent cinematic look that film possesses, makes it easier and less expensive for filmmakers to make movies. Which in part makes the craft part less important, and so the quality degrades. But mostly it's in the way industrial way this streaming services try to pop up content, without caring about the actual quality of the product. It just has to look nice and shiny and it's ready to be consumed. Like any other product.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2022, 04:28:21 am by Lastrador »

Online Hedley Lamarr

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,526
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55048 on: August 12, 2022, 06:05:03 am »
Prey was shot with the Alexa Mini, the same digital camera Roger Deakins has used since the early 2010's (including on Blade Runner 2049 and 1917), a lot of the latter seasons of Game Of Thrones also used the Alexa.  Prey was also predominantly shot under natural light for the daytime scenes, with the Alexa, during day shots, what you see on screen is what the camera shot, it adds very, very little artifice. 

However, for the night scenes there has to be a certain artifice because of the lighting issues.  You can use lamps/torches for some of it but eventually most night scenes will have to use a condor (think a sort of mobile floodlight) or a softbox, this will make the end result seem 'softer'.  While I had no problem with the night scenes, some obviously did, that could of been a result of the DP trying to use as much natural light as possible.

Offline Armand9

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,703
    • http://armand9.deviantart.com/
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55049 on: August 12, 2022, 08:22:11 am »
I disagree completely with that. Every decision in Predator is made, from the casting to the cinematography, to make the universe look as harsh and dangerous as possible. It's not just one element, it's all of them. And sorry, but are Comanches supposed to look nice and unthreatening? They were one, if not the most feared and brutal Native American tribe. So that point doesn't really stick.

...............

the  filim was shot in the dry season as shooting in the wet season is impossible

as such they were limited to using areas near water, gullies for want of a better word, as that was the only areas that according to the director was green enough and a number of areas they utilised that weren't ravines were heavily watered with fire hoses regularly to artificially bring the vegetation into a lusher state to make it green enough -enabling them to have some 'flat' areas for filming where the scene just wouldn't be possible if shooting on slopes

it was necessity that made them film in the most difficult of all areas, steep slopes for most of it, a choice according to McTiernan no one in their right mind would make if there were viable other options

with regard to the comanches, it's very obvious that film does not portray them as you describe them, the film doesn't really 'go there' - probably cos the film isn't about conflict with other humans but an alien - compare the characters and my point stands, Predator goes out of its way to signal we are all badasses, kind of the point isn't it? it's an ongoing joke through the film that they take the piss out of Dillon (Weathers) for going soft as the pen pusher - the dude with muscles on his eyelids  ;D apart from her brother who is seen as an accomplished hunter the movie doesn't portray any other characters in the fashion you describe (historically you're not wrong with regards to their reputation - tho that has been challenged for its accuracy, just for completeness)

that a young female still honing her skills is the lead character is enough on its own to highlight the chalk and cheese nature between the two sets of characters

im pretty sure it was arnie himself who said he always wanted to make a film like The Wild Bunch or Kelly's Heroes and this (Predator) was that, and if you know those films you know very well what he's getting at

the fact remains a pristine habitat was shot well imo in Prey, and in Predator they also wanted to use a pristine habitat, hence shooting where it was more difficult on slopes next to water and also cos as McTiernan said, 'no one goes there', so it had the appearance of a green lush jungle that he wanted in those areas and those areas they used that didn't they artificially watered to bring it up to pristine condition

which i do find somewhat ironic, both movies were looking for pristine natural habitat for their setting but if any film used artifice for its look it was Predator

now i've got no problem with that, from them reguarly trimming out jungle to allow for longer more open shots cos it was too enclosed to watering the fucking jungle, the results were great but instead of slating Prey as too clean for representing the scenery as it is/was just take it on the chin that you dont like it aesthetically, that's your perogative, that's fine but to frame it as some cinematic faux pas is way off the mark - they shot what was there, as Lamarr has detailed, if you didn't like that, fine, i fucking loved it myself and clearly the director was happy with it aesthetically too and i dont think he deserves criticism for that, dude did a good job and we finally have a good Predator film, it's been a while......



« Last Edit: August 12, 2022, 08:42:11 am by Armand9 »
Losing your only chance of silverware this season to your city rival. At home. With the most expensive squad ever assembled.

Have that, you arrogant wanker. CarraG238

Offline Ycuzz

  • of the wonderful things he does! I've soiled myself..
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,620
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55050 on: August 12, 2022, 09:02:29 am »
Interesting debate lads. And now I have to watch it - so I can find out which camp I end up in ;D
@Yvanicuzz

Offline thejbs

  • well-focussed, deffo not at all bias......ed
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,586
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55051 on: August 12, 2022, 02:40:50 pm »
Interesting debate lads. And now I have to watch it - so I can find out which camp I end up in ;D

Hopefully, it’s an appropriately shot camp.

Off topic, just saw Everything, Everywhere, All At Once. Absolutely wonderful. My favourite film this year.

Offline Armand9

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,703
    • http://armand9.deviantart.com/
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55052 on: August 13, 2022, 09:56:51 am »
Hopefully, it’s an appropriately shot camp.

Off topic, just saw Everything, Everywhere, All At Once. Absolutely wonderful. My favourite film this year.

yeah that was a throughly enjoyable watch that seemed to come out of nowhere

i dont watch trailers generally cos i like to know as little as possible going in but you still see stuff, get a hint here and there of what's coming etc, that came as a total surprise to me

Losing your only chance of silverware this season to your city rival. At home. With the most expensive squad ever assembled.

Have that, you arrogant wanker. CarraG238

Offline Hazell

  • Ultimate Movie Night Draft Winner 2017. King - or Queen - of Mystery. Hyzenthlay. The 5th Benitle's sex conch.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 69,931
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55053 on: August 13, 2022, 09:59:48 am »
Interesting debate lads. And now I have to watch it - so I can find out which camp I end up in ;D

It has been interesting, more technical than anything I know. Nice one Las and Armand, it's been interesting to read :)
We have to change from doubter to believer. Now.

Online Schmidt

  • 's small stretchy scrotum
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,407
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55054 on: August 13, 2022, 01:40:31 pm »
Can't say any of these apparent issues with Prey bothered me, I thought it was a fantastic movie that build well from the start.

Spoiler
I think they did a great job of building up the main character as someone capable of taking down a predator from the start. Her being ignored as not a threat, learning about it's vision being based on heat, how it's weapons worked, that it can be injured pretty easily, all of that led to a fight that she was able to massively stack in her favour from the opening arrow shot.

She's no Arnie in terms of size, but then his squad was full of massive dudes that got torn apart with ease, in the end it was more about strategy than pure strength, same here.

The only thing that slightly bugged me was the videogame-esque roped axe, it looked really cool and she was able to do some great things with it, but it just felt far too much like a Captain America's shield situation. Oh and the main character showing up at the end with a severed alien head and covered with glowing blood, only for her camp to not really give a shit.

[close]
« Last Edit: August 13, 2022, 01:42:12 pm by Schmidt »

Offline Armand9

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,703
    • http://armand9.deviantart.com/
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55055 on: August 13, 2022, 08:54:14 pm »
the thing is, after the original predator, you can't just do that fantastic teased drawn out revelation again hoping for the same impact and i thought they hit a good middle ground on that.

Spoiler
the whole premise is different here, they threw out Alien VS Predator as canon and made this the first visit of a predator to earth. Hence, why we see him working his way up the food chain taking trophies as he observes the planet's predators. Predator and subsequent movies (not including xenomorphs) showed us a more accomplished, fully kitted out antagonist who only had eyes for humans, knowing they were the top predators and who was very careful going about his killing, hunting individuals and even in group scenarios picking individuals off from 'cover' and even knowing when it was time to run and come back another day.

In this movie we have what i assume is an inexperienced Yautja (as they call themselves, Predator is our name for them), which is mirroring Naru's journey of 'killing something that is trying to kill you' - kütaamia, as they called it. Whatever, it's a rights of passage movie for Naru and possibly for him. We see him get tagged even by the animals he hunts before moving on to humans. And later while fighting humans he gets absolutely blasted on a few occasions, the dude is taking some major damage - with next to no armour and a more primitive first aid kit. Unlike the more advanced Predators we're used to, he's more than willing to jump into a crowd and go toe to toe, one of the reasons he takes such a beating over the course of the movie. Retreating, reassing and coming back to fight another day isn't even in this dude's vocabularly, he's more animalistic with everything in your face (the grizzly fight was a great example of that).

In the final fight, it begins with him being shot clean through the head at close range, even for a Yautja, that shit is debilitating. So they built up the possibilty that this very smart but physically insignificant comanche had a chance against a predator that has been beaten the shit out of by the time we get to the finale. She beats him with her brain effectively, which is what arnie did really in the first one, even he couldn't hope to match the physical prowess of his enemy.

Now i dont like the helmet kill at the end - they do set this up in we see her observing that it is his helmet that enables him to target his projectiles. But for me, it's still too much of a stretch for her to intellectually breakdown and then utilise a technology so alien to her and so outside of her brain's scope of understanding, even tho we have witnessed she's a very smart individual that can think outside of the box. With the predator having taken so much damage and in a vulnerable position, i'd liked to have seen a method of delivering the coup de grace more in keeping with her times.

So yeah, overall i think they did a good job there. If this was the Predator from the original movie, everything would've been wiped out without laying a glove on him with his armour, plasma weapons and smarter approach.

On a side note, something i wasn't aware of that i thought was cool - in the final act she whistles to attract the predator to the trapper bait to kick things off. Traditionally whistling at night is forbidden by comanches as it's viewed as calling down spirits. Which is a nice nod to her character -  i dont give a fuck, whatever it takes - and the native lore we saw at the very start when she tells her brother she had seen a thunderbird, a supernatural being of power and strength - to her this is a corporeal spirit and i think that's fucking fair enough  ;D
[close]
« Last Edit: August 14, 2022, 07:21:30 am by Armand9 »
Losing your only chance of silverware this season to your city rival. At home. With the most expensive squad ever assembled.

Have that, you arrogant wanker. CarraG238

Online TepidT2O

  • Deffo NOT 9"! MUFC bedwetter. Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of convicti
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 84,351
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55056 on: August 13, 2022, 09:32:39 pm »
Finally seen the Elvis film….

What a great performance!  But the film drags on far far too long and key events in the story didn’t happen…which I found really irritating.
“Happiness can be found in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light.”
“Generosity always pays off. Generosity in your effort, in your work, in your kindness, in the way you look after people and take care of people. In the long run, if you are generous with a heart, and with humanity, it always pays off.”
W

Offline red mongoose

  • Every day he's funnelling. Twisted firestarter. Just once he'd like to get something right on here. We're waiting too. Everything he does, he does it for us!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,960
  • Crawl in under the shadow of this red rock
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55057 on: August 13, 2022, 10:32:08 pm »
Can't say any of these apparent issues with Prey bothered me, I thought it was a fantastic movie that build well from the start.

Fourteen minutes in, Pred kills a rattlesnake. Fucking awesome.

Less than three minutes later, Naru's brother - the early 18th century warrior - says: "I got this." Fuck's sake.

Still, it was very good overall.
At the hole where he went in
Red-Eye called to Wrinkle-Skin.
Hear what little Red-Eye saith:
"Nag, come up and dance with death!'"

Offline thejbs

  • well-focussed, deffo not at all bias......ed
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,586
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55058 on: August 13, 2022, 11:20:27 pm »
yeah that was a throughly enjoyable watch that seemed to come out of nowhere

i dont watch trailers generally cos i like to know as little as possible going in but you still see stuff, get a hint here and there of what's coming etc, that came as a total surprise to me

I watched the latest dr strange the next night and it faired badly as a result.

Offline So... Howard Phillips

  • Penile Toupé Extender
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,566
  • All I want for Christmas is a half and half scarf
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55059 on: August 13, 2022, 11:38:22 pm »
Fourteen minutes in, Pred kills a rattlesnake. Fucking awesome.

Less than three minutes later, Naru's brother - the early 18th century warrior - says: "I got this." Fuck's sake.

Still, it was very good overall.

The language usage was my biggest beef.

Whilst I didn’t expect the Comanches to talk like Tonto it was disconcerting that they talked like they were in any other American High School romcom - the ones with the jocks, quarterbacks and cheer leaders.

For the record the Comanche were the most effective and violent of the Plains Tribes and there is talk of ‘Empire if the summer moon’ being made into a film, although I doubt they would get a rating if they showed any of the tortures they inflicted on their enemies whether they be white or other tribes.
https://scgwynne.com/product/empire-of-the-summer-moon

Offline Armand9

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,703
    • http://armand9.deviantart.com/
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55060 on: August 14, 2022, 01:44:14 am »
if they're going with the english, they made a smart move by announcing the film with Naru as the narrator - so we're hearing her thoughts, memories, just in a Star Trek universal translator kind of way. So by doing that they make the fact it's all english work, and the reason why the French trappers make no sense to her and that isn't subtitled in the film (normally that would be subtitled), keeping that illusion of it being in her own tongue

so in that regard i think they done all they could with the studio choice of running with it in english

as noted above, the dialogue could've been better, yes they dont want to go with hollywood stilted 'indian' speak as this would be the worst decision of all and so they chose an english version based on modern phrasing/usage rather than those of the times (that would break the illusion of the narrator's language and make no sense at all)

it aint the cool kids on the block modern thank fuck, just usage and phrasing that would sound normal to our ear but there are some poor choices like the one quoted above (the irony would be if 'i got this' is a comanche idiom  ;D) - a bit like if the film was set in Greenland with Innuit characters speaking english and one says pass me my anorak and your mate says fuck that's jarring, then you point out english appropriated that word from the Innuit anoraq

it would be interesting to see how the dialogue 'reads' in the comanche version - i should watch it in that really but watching subs isn't really practical for my set up and so im glad there is the english version

language usage and entymology has always interested me and i've had many long conversation on this very topic in the past (Last of the Mohicans, a prime example) and when you try to construct your version of what you would do, outside of mother tongue (even that isnt' necessarily straightforward), it's far from easy

the fact Prey only has two languages to worry about (with one hardly used) and isn't heavy on dialogue helps it

imagine Last of the Mohicans with different native tribes with multiple dialects and English and French speakers heavily featured as well and they're all interacting - that is an absolute nightmare outside of subtitling mother tongue throughout

For the record the Comanche were the most effective and violent of the Plains Tribes and there is talk of ‘Empire if the summer moon’ being made into a film, although I doubt they would get a rating if they showed any of the tortures they inflicted on their enemies whether they be white or other tribes.
https://scgwynne.com/product/empire-of-the-summer-moon

im sure I've seen the story of Cynthia Ann Parker in film - or maybe it was a character based on her? hmm, uncertain, i've known her story for forever so it may have just been borrowing source material and i recognised it as such, cos i dont recall her child featuring, just her story of capture/naturalisation/'rescue'/going back (that said im sure they used her name). it was really old and in B&W, i recall that much.

Tortures - Soldier Blue got a rating in the early 70s, so maybe? If it's a political thing, both sides were guilty of torture and attrocities so they could maybe view that as 'balancing it out', if it's an extreme violence related thing, rape/gangrape was common on both sides, as was mutilation and torture, as was killing of pregnant women and babies, we've seen all that before, even the proponents taking joy in carrying these things out. What i cant recall is seeing a movie that ran the whole gamut of everything we know all crammed into one movie, and if it was a good script i dont know they'd even need to do that anyway. That's what documentaries are for, rather than movies.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2022, 02:39:03 am by Armand9 »
Losing your only chance of silverware this season to your city rival. At home. With the most expensive squad ever assembled.

Have that, you arrogant wanker. CarraG238

Online Chakan

  • Chaka Chaka.....is in love with Aristotle but only for votes. The proud owner of some very private piles and an inflatable harem!
  • Matchday Commentator
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 85,206
  • Internet Terrorist lvl VI
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55061 on: August 14, 2022, 10:23:03 pm »
1/3rd of the way through Prey.

Spoiler
if the dog dies i'm going to be fucking pissed
[close]

Online Chakan

  • Chaka Chaka.....is in love with Aristotle but only for votes. The proud owner of some very private piles and an inflatable harem!
  • Matchday Commentator
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 85,206
  • Internet Terrorist lvl VI
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55062 on: August 15, 2022, 12:10:56 am »
1/3rd of the way through Prey.

Spoiler
if the dog dies i'm going to be fucking pissed
[close]

Ok good!

Enjoyed Prey a lot, definitely one of the better shot and executed Predator movies. Probably second best to the original for me though.

Offline Lastrador

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,448
  • Not Italian
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55063 on: August 15, 2022, 02:26:36 am »
Ok good!

Enjoyed Prey a lot, definitely one of the better shot and executed Predator movies. Probably second best to the original for me though.

Online Chakan

  • Chaka Chaka.....is in love with Aristotle but only for votes. The proud owner of some very private piles and an inflatable harem!
  • Matchday Commentator
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 85,206
  • Internet Terrorist lvl VI
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55064 on: August 15, 2022, 03:02:46 am »


I’m taking all the predator movies not just the first one. It wasn’t dark for me :P

Offline Lastrador

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,448
  • Not Italian
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55065 on: August 15, 2022, 03:12:33 am »
I’m taking all the predator movies not just the first one. It wasn’t dark for me :P
I think that was only Andy.  :D

Online Chakan

  • Chaka Chaka.....is in love with Aristotle but only for votes. The proud owner of some very private piles and an inflatable harem!
  • Matchday Commentator
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 85,206
  • Internet Terrorist lvl VI
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55066 on: August 15, 2022, 03:14:51 am »
I think that was only Andy.  :D

Haha fair enough.

Spoiler
oh btw with the helmet weapon, she does see how it works when her brother knocks the helmet off and the projectiles embed themselves in the tree in front of her. But as for getting him to stand in that exact spot in the end is ridiculous.
[close]

Online Schmidt

  • 's small stretchy scrotum
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,407
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55067 on: August 15, 2022, 09:52:24 am »
Fourteen minutes in, Pred kills a rattlesnake. Fucking awesome.

Less than three minutes later, Naru's brother - the early 18th century warrior - says: "I got this." Fuck's sake.

Still, it was very good overall.

That bit did jar with me too actually!

Offline Agent99

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,781
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55068 on: August 15, 2022, 04:06:34 pm »
Prey was ok but the main protagonist was a right arsehole. Predator 2 was miles better. I would put it on par with Predators which was fine.

Offline Ray K

  • Loves a shiny helmet. The new IndyKalia.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,901
  • Truthiness
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55069 on: August 15, 2022, 04:31:01 pm »
I saw the Northman last week.  It's certainly a film, I'll say that for it.

Bjork turns up as a mystical mad soothsayer and it's the most sensible part of the film. Alexander Skarsgaard is fucking ripped, I have to say.  He must have got all that Marvel magic juice.

It makes Eggers previous films The Lighthouse and The VVitch look like a sitcom (well that one did have Chris Finch in a lead role, after all. Bloody good sales rep).  Completely mad and utterly compelling.
"We have to change from doubters to believers"

Twitter: @rjkelly75

Offline gazzam1963

  • RAWK Cruiser. Andy@Allertons twin brother. Really misses a good fist pump.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,269
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55070 on: August 15, 2022, 05:10:58 pm »
Watched a British made film called pride last night on Netflix ,  a heartwarming and funny in parts true story about a group of gay and lesbians from london organising themselves to collect for the miners during the 84 strike and the tale of them getting a miners group to accept the money .

A Welsh striking village accept the cash and invite them to visit the working man’s club and stay , the prejudices come out but are soon slowly changed with a lovely ending .

Online Hedley Lamarr

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,526
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55071 on: August 15, 2022, 07:55:43 pm »
I saw the Northman last week.  It's certainly a film, I'll say that for it.

Bjork turns up as a mystical mad soothsayer and it's the most sensible part of the film. Alexander Skarsgaard is fucking ripped, I have to say.  He must have got all that Marvel magic juice.

It makes Eggers previous films The Lighthouse and The VVitch look like a sitcom (well that one did have Chris Finch in a lead role, after all. Bloody good sales rep).  Completely mad and utterly compelling.

I saw The Northman at small arts theatre in Bristol, probably about fifty people in attendance.  Two thirds in that fifty turned into about five, including me and the wife.

Personally, I loved it, one of my favourite films of the year, but I fully understand why others might hate it.  A strange film alright.

Offline Armand9

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,703
    • http://armand9.deviantart.com/
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55072 on: August 15, 2022, 10:49:14 pm »
I saw The Northman at small arts theatre in Bristol, probably about fifty people in attendance.  Two thirds in that fifty turned into about five, including me and the wife.

Personally, I loved it, one of my favourite films of the year, but I fully understand why others might hate it.  A strange film alright.

yeah, i think i said on here it certainly wasn't what i was expecting, it was a smaller flim in scope and more 'rural' (for want of a better word) than i had envisaged - i was thinking more The Vikings (1958) when i saw the promotion thumbnails

but for the setting they chose, i thought it was really interesting in its absolutely brutal portrayal, compelling stuff, i rated it highly

Prey was ok but the main protagonist was a right arsehole. Predator 2 was miles better. I would put it on par with Predators which was fine.

when i first saw Prey i put it on equal footing with P2 as second best in the franchise, the original being the best clearly and let's be frank, it's not gonna be bettered (similar to Alien, Terminator and The Thing [tho technically a remake but not really*], for some major reasons i wont go into here). having watched P2 again recently, i'd have Prey edging it out - there's still lots i love about P2 but the script and esp the dialogue, not the best and that's being kind. And it's not an 'of the times' type thing, Aliens was similar in timing/2nd in series/genre yet has a great script and dialogue. I'm not pissing on P2 tho, like i said, i liked it alot and totally understand those who would still rank it 2nd.

*a great short interview with Carpenter about the source material for those interested
https://www.youtube.com/v/q0FhSHqGg74

(i remember as a kid seeing the original 1951 B&W he references and it scared the fuck out of me, but Carpenter defo made the right choice.)

Incidentally, for those who love this genre there are some fanastic old B&W movies from the 50s that still hold up and well worth watching, the aforementioned The Thing from Another World (1951), Them! (1954), The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) a little outside the genre, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) the best version by a million miles, an absolute classic and maybe the best 'paranoia' movie ever, it is genuinely terrifying in that aspect - Kevin McCarthy in the lead role is fucking stellar, there's more but those would be my first picks)

« Last Edit: August 15, 2022, 11:57:52 pm by Armand9 »
Losing your only chance of silverware this season to your city rival. At home. With the most expensive squad ever assembled.

Have that, you arrogant wanker. CarraG238

Offline thejbs

  • well-focussed, deffo not at all bias......ed
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,586
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55073 on: August 16, 2022, 12:21:10 am »
Loved the Northman. Was a bit jarring when I recognised local places and actors/extras I know every so often.

Online Nitramdorf

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,321
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55074 on: August 16, 2022, 06:43:01 am »
Havent seen anyone mention Moonfall in here. I am usually quite partial to a disaster movie but this was a little too much. Only thing I can say about it is Halle Berry is in it. Its on prime if anyone has 2 hours to spare.

Offline Andy @ Allerton!

  • Missing an asterisk - no, wait sorry, that's his rusty starfish..... RAWK Apple fanboy. Hedley Lamarr's bestest mate
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 68,884
  • Asterisks baby!
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55075 on: August 16, 2022, 09:52:09 am »
Havent seen anyone mention Moonfall in here. I am usually quite partial to a disaster movie but this was a little too much. Only thing I can say about it is Halle Berry is in it. Its on prime if anyone has 2 hours to spare.

Saw it in the pictures.

Batshit crazy, but fun for a romp.
Poor.

Offline TipTopKop

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,911
  • Call Meeeeeee The Splund
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55076 on: August 16, 2022, 10:32:02 am »
Moonfall was a cut and paste Emmerich movie. Parallel story lines of people with their little lives, and all connecting at the end. The usual stranded due to <insert disaster> and they must reunite (rest of humanity be damned).

It's lightweight fun, but we've had so many superhero movies since those days of ID4 that whatever's going on just doesn't seem so impactful anymore.

Offline Armand9

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,703
    • http://armand9.deviantart.com/
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55077 on: August 16, 2022, 04:07:21 pm »
i got the vibe of if simon pegg did a space film

which for me isn't a good thing, tho i like hot fuzz
Losing your only chance of silverware this season to your city rival. At home. With the most expensive squad ever assembled.

Have that, you arrogant wanker. CarraG238

Offline TipTopKop

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,911
  • Call Meeeeeee The Splund
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55078 on: August 17, 2022, 12:30:20 am »
RIP Wolfgang Petersen of Das Boot, Air Force One and Perfect Storm, among so many other movies. Blessed with talent.

Offline Lawnmowerman

  • Got married to Pique in April. Shakira isn't happy.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,268
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #55079 on: August 17, 2022, 08:05:22 pm »
Not sure i've ever witnessed a film more undeserving of the hype than that Prey.

Spoiler
The predator was an arsehole. steals a bunny wabbit from a wolf? Couldn't even let that hunter have it's trophy. Not very honourable for a society that values the hunt and the hunter.
The Comanche were terribly disappointing. When i first heard about this film i thought lovely, let's see some badass comanche. They all looked like they were 16. Couldn't take them seriously at all.
If only this film could have been a stand alone movie, Would have much rather seen another Indian tribe as the antogonists which would have been the more likely scenario in that part of the world in 1719. but we can't have a stand alone movie so we got the 'fields of buffalo' skinning french. Thrown in to validate the movie in the predator world with 'the gun'. which means the disney plan all along is on riding the predator into the ground. eek
Don't get me started on the ending ffs.
[close]

Or maybe im just a moany old cynical c*nt who sees people liking something and i have to find flaws in it to piss meself off.
A bog standard movie, shut your brain off... 5/10