Author Topic: The RAWK Film Thread  (Read 3449093 times)

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: 23,737
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49680 on: April 24, 2019, 12:56:14 am »
It's weird, isn't it? The thing about Z-films, as you say, is that they're scary as shit. Romero's were bloody daft to look at by modern standards, but even back then, just that bit of blue/grey paint and a bit of blood put the utter shits up me.

Have the revealed where the outbreak came from in Walking Dead yet? As I say, one of the things that I didn't like about it was, as you say, they weren't really scary. But my nephew, who was aged eight when it came out, he wasn't even scared of it when he first watched it and maybe there's an element of desensitization there.

I think that one of the main factors in all this is that TWD is a series (of course, ha!) and from the off, you knew who was going to live and who was going to die. There weren't many surprises and I'm sure there's been a few, but that'll be a mechanism of the serial aspect (and fan/audience reaction) as opposed to the story.

With George Romero - Okay, the same could be said... But you were never really 100% sure.

But the mechanics of the zombies have defo changed, as you say; the scary element of zombies were that they were great in their numbers and they were relentless in their pursuit. You could probably run away, but around the corner, you knew there'd be another horde and when you finally rested, you'd be utterly fucked. They were slow, stalking and uncaring - could be your wife, your child... anyone.

When Dawn of the Dead hit, and even 28 Days Later (which, is a zombie film, regardless of what they say - I've recently changed my thinking on this), it was high octane and they were chasing you all over the show. The virus spread quicker, so the incubation period was shorter, meaning, all you'd need to do really was hide out. Romero's on the other hand, slow, steady, stalkery, they just wouldn't stop - it is that slow death that we all fear, not the fast violent slaughter that hipster zombies bring.

Have you seen this one mate? Give it a go - as I say, there's a debate there about what type of film this really is, but as AA said, there's a few plot gaps here and there.

But upon a second viewing:

And don't read this if you haven't seen it. If you ain't got Netflix (not sure if it is on there), give us a shout.


Na, the origin of the virus in TWD hasn't been explained, and nor should it. It would just be the usual virus created in a lab somewhere bullshit. It's far more interesting, and scary, when the origin is mythical as it is in Romero's world. The monologue about "no more room in Hell" from Dawn, and this one from Day:

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/oFt74mAX4Ig" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/oFt74mAX4Ig</a>

It all lends to the atmosphere. The accompanying background ambience of the wind howling throwing the cave they are in (which is a old storage mine that's still there called Wampum Underground in Pennsylvania) and the distant moan of a zombie. It's just a creepy scene that oozes atmosphere and a feeling of dread. I think that's the key to any horror. Location and sound. Cinematography too. They had the perfect lighting in that place given everything had to be lit from overhead lamps, which cast off stark contrasting shadows, so it was perfect.

Some of the earliest episodes of TWD touched on some of these elements and got them right, but have since been abandoned in favour of wacky cartoon hijinx and schlock action scenes. So much so, it can no longer be regarded as horror, if it even was to begin with, but it had the promise of it once.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2019, 12:57:55 am by Macphisto80 »

Offline Redcap

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,053
  • You wrote a bad song Petey!
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49681 on: April 24, 2019, 12:57:09 am »
Yeah man, thought it was ace... Some of the shots were magnifico and the music was sublime.

Very tense indeed, I liked it, but I wanted to know what was following them. I thought it should have offered something in the way of an explanation. When you invest that much time and, as you say, dread in a film, I just think a little in the way of a resolution is the least they could do.

I ate chow mein to it. :)

Have you seen Under the Silver Lake, mate? It's David Robert Mitchell's next film. It seems to have been lukewarmly received, but it seems to have an interesting premise, and noir is always fun, even when it's not top notch. So I'm trying to find some people with sound views on films who can give me a bit more confidence to see it ;)

Offline Skidder.

  • Minster. Aka The Censored Baron XII. I remember watching that as a skid!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,408
  • Kloppite
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49682 on: April 24, 2019, 04:41:38 am »
Na, the origin of the virus in TWD hasn't been explained, and nor should it. It would just be the usual virus created in a lab somewhere bullshit. It's far more interesting, and scary, when the origin is mythical as it is in Romero's world. The monologue about "no more room in Hell" from Dawn, and this one from Day:

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/oFt74mAX4Ig" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/oFt74mAX4Ig</a>

It all lends to the atmosphere. The accompanying background ambience of the wind howling throwing the cave they are in (which is a old storage mine that's still there called Wampum Underground in Pennsylvania) and the distant moan of a zombie. It's just a creepy scene that oozes atmosphere and a feeling of dread. I think that's the key to any horror. Location and sound. Cinematography too. They had the perfect lighting in that place given everything had to be lit from overhead lamps, which cast off stark contrasting shadows, so it was perfect.

Some of the earliest episodes of TWD touched on some of these elements and got them right, but have since been abandoned in favour of wacky cartoon hijinx and schlock action scenes. So much so, it can no longer be regarded as horror, if it even was to begin with, but it had the promise of it once.

I dunno man, I'll have to give it another go - I would have thought they would have had to by now, but I guess there's kudos to be had for getting the audience pull that they do without resorting to backstory. I quite like the pathogenic background element of zombie films and yes, Romero did this same thing (and even more to a degree) so I can't argue against your valid point... but each to their own and it is down to personal tastes I guess... and I always usually find this element interesting.

But aye, I proper get you like.

It is kinda two-fold, isn't it? It could be said that in the serialisation of a zombie epidemic, tracing the cause would be a bad thing? Without this element, I mean... you could pretty much take the story in any way you want without having to set out any rules or conventions - so it could be bad for the overall production in terms of 'tying the tiger down' (from a studio perspective).

I go back to 28 Days Later for this example - first thing DB was to set-out the rules. It came from human-simian experiments and this is the argument most lean on when they say it isn't really a zombie film. I get that, and wouldn't argue against it, the beauty of the genre is that you get what you make of it. A member of the clergy could see it as judgement day, a scientist could see it as natural selection (or some twisted form of it), an everyday Joe could see it as a government plot... etc... etc..

But, 28 Days Later set out its rules and one of the reasons I am in the 'it's a z-film' is a simple as this: if it is 'cannibalistic' in nature, if it rots, if it groans, if it can carry and infect, then to me, regardless of the artistry applied, it's a z-film. You know... in my book, there's no such thing as originality, it's just how you cook it and present it (hate using cookery analogies, but they fit so well in films and drama).

So 28 Days Later... it has rules and as a viewer you know that in the day, the characters are mostly safe. You know that infected folk will turn very quick... you know that it has nothing to do with the supernatural and you also know that the infected will starve and die (albeit, by the end of the film), so there's hope. There's also an element of finding a cure, as mostly anything made my man can be reverse-engineered. So it puts a timer on the clock, and this can have a great effect on the overall themes and character drives. One of the enjoyable aspects of z-films is 'What would I do?', hence the furore over social media when TWD first came out - "What would you do in a zombie apocalypse"... For our imaginations to run wild (ha!), you have to have some rules and that is apparent throughout the creative process I think?

TWD has shit all over many of the much-needed conventions and rules of the genre - it has re-written a few to good measure, but to me, it's a bit of a mess and akin to what GOT has done to Tolkien's lore. There's nothing wrong with that, and I realise that by stating this, I'm in fact going against my own personal and professional rules (that being, wanting to be 'original' should never get in the way of creative/artistic inspiration)... ha! I know, we're contradictory lifeforms and I accept that. :)

But while it may seem I'm going into one again, I think that this was and is my problem with TWD. I really dislike how some programmes set blurry rules in order to elongate the story/plot... it happened in Lost and countless other programmes. But we (as in British TV) re-wrote the rules on this with one of the most important TV serials of our time 'The Bible to me', in The Prisoner... so I'm not particularly adverse to this practice (to spin one more time). 

Some folk will just enjoy TWD for the story of the week and the overriding arcs, but this is kind of what I was saying earlier - I don't really like that in my z-films and while Romero didn't exclusively outline the origins of how his zombies came to come... I kind of like to think that perhaps, just perhaps, The Crazies is somehow linked to this world (maybe just in my head, ha!). In my head, at least, the one-eyed scientist in Dawn of the Dead is in The Crazies at the start of the Trixie virus and sort of set the flame to the Dawn of the Dead outbreak; and whilst I'm sure it's been discussed and disproved and someone could probably find a quote on it, I don't mind ignorantly allowing them to thematically crossover in this instance, because it could fit. But I haven't seen The Crazies for years and can't remember the links I'd made, I am probably wrong on so many levels.

I know that Romero's zombies effectively 'rise from the dead' and that everyone alive is inherently infected - regardless of whether they're bitten or not - but he cleverly re-wrote the rules with each installment and as we see in the timeline of his zombies... They go from marauding puppets of death (in Night), to at least sentient (to a degree in Dawn), able to learn and remember with training (in Day), and later, able to freely assemble and organise themselves (in Land). Less said about the rest of the series, the better I guess.

In addition, I'm not sure if this has been debated, and I'm not even sure of the veracity - but I've always thought that the zombie plague to be caused by a mixture of super-bacteria and a virus (both advertently or inadvertently human-made). I know folk say the lore of zombies come from just... viral outbreaks, and I'm probably just being an ill-informed zealot, but with humans becoming more and more 'used' to antibiotics, these so-called super-bacterias (MRSA and the likes), I think the lore of zombification is prescient. Some certain bacteria (especially 'old world' bacteria, can act 'zombie-like', lay dormant, pretend or seem to die, only to be resurrected; bacteria do not need a living host to survive and unlike a virus, can live a long time in water; again, I don't know if this is true, but I always thought that viruses find it harder to survive in our water (what with water treatment, industrialisation, medication and varying temperatures and environments).

So, in my z-film world (if you like), the actual 'cause' is some kind of bacteria which sets the foundations (re-animation of cells perhaps), mechanizes to break down the immune system and possibly CNS, feeds on brain matter, letting in other such opportunistic infections. Piggybacking on this would be some form of microbe or virus which then starts to eat away at muscles and the flesh (along with the bacteria) in a sort of 'race against time', or a Darwinist competition if you will. Now if that virus had characteristics like Rabies for example, not only would this turn the undead into ravenous psycho's, but along with the bacteria, would incite the infected to attempt to reproduce the dying cells by the simplest and brutal form, vis-a-vis, ingesting flesh and cells of healthy folk (like in mother nature).

So in turn, the bacteria is kind of 'first', the virus attempts or kills you, and then the bacteria re-animates you with the two working in tandem to survive, which would kind of need you to survive, albeit, at your weakest and most primal. (JJ Abrahms logic right there guys)

So in turn, I've always seen zombie's as a Petrie dish of various organisms, all working in combination AND competition to survive - this maybe goes against the lore, I know, but some animals and wildlife exhibit this very behaviour - look at Wales and Sharks - if they didn't have certain lifeforms helping them, they wouldn't survive.

This is the way I always lean on this - it is a mixture of various factors as opposed to one individual virus. Again, this is Hollywood thinking, I know, and I don't even know if viruses and bacteria could live together, but I'm sure there's someone out there who could hypothesise better than I.

But as they say, don't let facts get in the way of a good story and I guess viruses and bacteria could learn to live together in relative harmony - hence creating both infectious and contagious hosts. Which again, could possibly go against the rules set-out by Romero. Vis-a-vis, if one little bastard don't get you, t'other will... which in turn, will help their distant cousins... (I know, I'm in danger confusing myself here, but in my world Virus and Bacteria are cousins)

The reason I mention this is that, in the real world, with Zika (which scares the shit out of me and if you haven't seen the effects of Zika, check it out on Youtube), Dengue (pretty common, but still lethal and on the rise in the US), Marburg (a kind of European Ebola of sorts), super MRSA (as well as the new MRSA) and lastly the most fearsome of all, AIDS... they are all pretty lethal in their own right, and with the Contagion school-of-thought in mind, some of these could piggyback with other infections to create 'new' hybrid infections.

Not original, I know, I think I've watched or read something somewhere that hypothesises that if Marburg and Influenza somehow had a baby, it could be the end of humankind - but don't quote me on that. :)

So to me, it is scarier when you do apply some twisted Frankenstein-like kind of mindset to z-films and I wouldn't be surprised if TWD did, in fact, go down that route as films like Outbreak and Contagion are scary as shit. We're more scared of things that we can't see than what we can (although not exclusively) and as evidence by Jaws, yes, the sight and sounds of a zombie would put the shits up me, but at its core, I'd fear being infected, as that would drive your deepest and primal survival instincts.

Romero's Dawn (and Night to some degree) kind of hooks onto this in the tower block scene (and I think WWZ does too in one scene); a woman sees her husband, his colour is off, she knows something is up, yet she runs into his arms not knowing she could be infected... or even eaten I guess. But if you re-did that scene wherein the rules of infection are set and widely-known, she'd have run out of the window to get away from 'Clarence' (is that is name?).

We're attuned to fear the sick! It is when we learn about modern medicine and compassion, and 'what kind of sickness it actually is' where and when our fears are allayed. It is my understanding that some primates don't care for their communal sick, they just kill them or ostracise them - a section natives and indigenous folk (especially in certain parts of Asia/Oceana) still ostracise the sick with some even reported to burn people who exhibit 'blood signs from the eyes, ears and/or mouth', no questions asked... I don't have specific evidence to support this, but I have read this somewhere at some point in my life. 

So while I apologise for the convoluted reply, I disagree... I think that having the rules set-out and showcased, can be scarier. And if, like in Dawn, everyone is inherently infected with the 'bacteria' (that re-animates), and they knew that if they got the 'virus' part of zombification, or even just died (and possibly infected by being part-eaten in death), then you'd have a more chilling and thrilling experience, as well as horrifying. (that makes sense in my head, but I know I haven't 'fleshed' that out)

And I think that this is why I'm personally perplexed with what I've seen in TWD so far - it is horrifying, you know... some of the brutality and gore... but it does it chill or thrill me? No... it did thrill me at first for a bit, but then there's only so many ways you can kill a zombie or twist a family/friend relationship in this apocalypse.

Does it chill me? again, not any more... There are only so many ways a zombie(s) can kill and chew on a human. So I wanted another level and I wanted it fast. I didn't want to be simplistically horrified, chilled, thrilled and romanticised in cycles, over and over again by the humans v zombie scenarios. I literally wanted to be treated to something a little bit more... and not be drip-fed drama in response to viewership figures, merry-go-round characters, video game tie-ins, spin-offs and public opinion... oh and then there's a social engineering on part of the production companies social media lackeys.

Give me a good fucking rounded story with all elements on all fronts in a 'believable' and adult manner. Kids love TWD and I can't help but feel that the producers are trying to build a dynasty-like world with TWD. The CGI makes it seem cartoon-like at times and me as a viewer was desensitised by the second series and felt like I was watching a 'goop opera' of sorts. Again, I don't have anything to back it up, but if I were George Romero, I'd be well miffed at TWD - he is the godfather of z-films, no bones about it, if you were in his position, you'd be miffed!

Also, before we all die, I guarantee there'll be a mainstream TWD cartoon with cute characters and moralistic tales of the human condition - I'll put my braaaaaaaiiiiinnnnssss on it.

Spoiler

This is on a bit personal level, and I'm it is gonna seem petty, but...

You wouldn't expect anything else from one of the producers in particular (I'm not sure if this producer is still on it or not) - but this producer is a cretinous zombie and a lot of the cut-throat shit that they pulled will come out one day. Literally, put families on the bread-line because of their attitude toward 'the help'. A dinosaur of the industry, I have a personal disdain for this person on the level of Thatcher and Raegen. One day, mark my words, that person's antics in the '80s will come back and bite them on the arse (no pun intended). A demonic viper who infects those around, I shudder when I see this person's name on the screen - a hack! a phoney and a downright lying twat of a human.

Lauded as one of the pioneers of in Hollywood, their antics around the time of Alien Nation (when their phoney-relationship with was laughably breaking down) is the stuff of horror itself. I'm not sure if there's anything on the internet about it, but this person is obsessed with the Gunners, is a massive proponent of Thatcherite-Raegenite policies, and allegedly has dislike of anything Irish. I've only had second-hand information on this, and they may have changed their ways - but this person had an eight-man team of English/Irish folk sacked on the spot because they refused to do a 16 (or 18) hour day on set without seeking union approval. No warnings, no union, no second chances, this person got rid of them like they were zombies or Aliens. The same apparently happened on two other 'shows' (films of here), and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more hatred for this person, than liked.

Maybe this is one of the reasons I do not like the programme, I dunno, but while you can't measure a person today by yesterday's standards (or a programme for that matter), this person is a torrid fake who wields power like a little child. Also, as I've said, a massive armchair fan of soccer since the early '80s, it really wouldn't surprise me if this person is a massive supporter of Trump and Brexit.

I've put this in spoilers because not only do I have anything to back this up, but I wouldn't give it a 'windy turd' on a rainy day... blood runs thick and I can't help but feel that the very projects that this person takes on, reflect this persons view of the world. It disgusts me to even think about it!!!
[close]
« Last Edit: April 24, 2019, 06:51:59 am by Skidder. »
Continually on 11,420.

Offline Skidder.

  • Minster. Aka The Censored Baron XII. I remember watching that as a skid!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,408
  • Kloppite
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49683 on: April 24, 2019, 05:19:50 am »
Have you seen Under the Silver Lake, mate? It's David Robert Mitchell's next film. It seems to have been lukewarmly received, but it seems to have an interesting premise, and noir is always fun, even when it's not top notch. So I'm trying to find some people with sound views on films who can give me a bit more confidence to see it ;)

Haha, never take my opinion mate, my opinions change with my boxies. Which is what I think we should all be.

But...

Spoiler
[rant]
I always follow a simple rule.

Watch the trailer, see the 'general' reactions... (but don't listen to mainstream critics if it is a blockbuster) Watch the first 10 minutes. If it doesn't grip you, chances are, it won't grip you over the runtime (there are rules to the exception of course). I also hate to say it, but getting on Reddit/movies is also quite good - Reddit's a shithole, you either love it or hate it - yet I am in the middle and think that with regard to entertainment, it can be a good source of gauging whether something is for you or not. Get past the jimminy's (fan boys and trolls), and there are some very good social-level critics on there who you can trust to follow.

But if you do, in the event, watch it over the runtime and it falls short and wastes your time... either sing about it and warn friends (etc) off of it. Or if you're still on the fence, or if it is a film that really grips you, watch it at least one another time and then give it another reflection in a different mindset. Entertainment -> Production ->Criticism.

I personally think that our time is as important as our BO admission fee... if not more important. I've had four refunds in my time using various shithousery in the cinemas - I've chatted briefly about this, but will expand on it as it is April.

One I got a refund off... it was some horror film that I can't even remember the name of - it was god awful and did not look as it did in the trailer.

One other person once told me that they claimed a refund from Vanilla Sky because they didn't like it - but cited the fact that there was a scene in the trailer that wasn't in the film. I can't remember the scene exactly and don't even know if it is true - but it would make sense, would it not?

In addition, when you hear of folk 'walking out', more often than not, they'll be going to get a refund - but that bit ain't reported for obvious reasons. I think the trick here is to do it within the first act and not let your disdain simmer.

Darkness Falls, that was it... I got a refund for both me and my girlfriend at the time because there were kids talking in the cinema. Another was... I can't remember, it'll come to me, but I complained that the speaker was crackling and disturbing my audio pleasure (learned this one from this same said person - they ain't gonna rewind and they ain't gonna stop the film and ask the audience, and hearing is subjective)... I got a refund on Gone Girl because the video cut out midway and I may have 'missed my train'... And also got another refund because I said that the house light was flickering and gave me a headache for the rest of the film. I also got a refund for Silent Hill because I argued that I couldn't see in 3D, which I genuinely can't, but gave it a go (wait that's five). I think I have probably done it with a couple more, but can't remember off-hand.

I've briefly mentioned this once or twice in here, but not given context, around this time of year, I always like to speak about him or his... ways...  ::) I was told by someone I love and hold/held to a very high regard who was involved in the industry that there was a hidden 'rule' within the 70s/80s American cinema-going public. I think I've mentioned this before, but if your family are/were someway involved within the industry, that if you didn't like a film, you could claim a refund by citing their name, weird, right? In extension to this, if there was a problem of some sort or you had a gripe about the cinema itself (or the people in the cinema) you could also complain and get a refund. And again, in the example above with Vanilla Sky, if there are any differences between the trailer and the film (it is probably different nowadays) you could also claim a refund.

All probably unwritten rules of Hollywood, but I've always had this in the back of my mind when going to the cinema. It may be common knowledge, I don't know, I think someone else on here once agreed with me and said they do the same.

As I say, I think I've mentioned this before on here, I can't be too sure... I've spewed my brains in this thread, probably more than the LFC forums. Haha! I think I remember someone else who did the same on here for a recent film, I can't remember if it was one of the Rob's or not.

Films are like anything else, they're a product and you buy them - don't like it? Complain about something... more often than not, you'll get a refund or you'll get a ticket for another film.

If you're a liberal/moderate pirate (like me since mid-2000s), you're fucked and should just stick to the 10-minute rule above.

But no mate, I haven't seen it - I think I saw it on one of 'my sites' but I think I decided to give it a miss as I kind of dislike Andrew Garfield. I'm a bum like that and most films I've seen him in, I've rarely enjoyed. Boy A was decent, and I guess he was Okay in Spiderman (I was dragged to see that by an ex); but I gave that film a go where he plays the pacifist in Vietnam and pretty much disliked his acting - I mean, he was Okay, but he does carry a sense of entitlement behind his eyes when you see his interviews.

Plus there are stories of him being a complete and utter fucking diva of an actor who can't take direction or criticism. He was sacked from Spiderman (allegedly) for being a diva and refusing to do some of the work he was paid to do, but then later stated he left or some shit because they asked him to pluck his eyebrows. You're a fucking actor man, many would give their left arm to be in your position, do the fucking job you paid to do you fleck!

I know how skin-deep that is, but as I've gotten older, I've become more belligerent toward what I watch. One of the things I hold up before anything else is who stars - this isn't something I'm proud or ashamed of, it is just something that has kind of rubbed off on me.

But then, I'm the kind of bloke to watches films with subtitles on to catch every word, speeds up the third-act/fifth-act to 1.33x if it is boring me, and as I've said above, hold directors/producers/writers to account of their past actions... yet don't mind watching a Weinstein produced film... So my priorities are all over the shop.

Just to note - that's not saying I condone HW's lurid actions... but I'm probably the worst person to ask about whether you should invest your time and effort into a film TV series or whatnot.

But It Follows was a good'un and is it David Mitchell? (I only know this because I actually hate the other David Mitchell) - he doesn't look to be a one-trick pony and they say he's like the next Tim Burton or Wes Anderson or some shit I think I read on IMDB once. So it might be worth a go mate. Let us all know, I always enjoy reading your write-ups, views and reviews on films as I think we have similar tastes... some similar tastes.

And I think that is why most of us come on here time and time again - I've been on many film forums and whatnot over my time... but I always mostly trust the judgement of folk on here who I know share similar tastes to me. While I am a bit of a Foghorn Leghorn at times, there are no smartarses on here who try and argue with you for the sake of argument or appearances - I've always felt not only free to discuss on here, but I think our shared love for LFC gives us, mostly, similar base values.

Over the years, I've seen people dip in and out of this thread. There seems to be a splurge of new users on this form over the past five or so years and it is always a pleasure to see and hear new faces. If gauging the main forums is any kind of barometer, there may be some international folk who come on here and may feel a little intimidated either by youth (no offence to anyone who is a young adult, or even elder adult), dialect, EASL or just some of the terminology and personalities on this here forum (as in the whole form).

But I think that this thread in particular (I'd say music as well), is one of the threads that cuts through all of that - LFC section in general of course, that is a given, but even in there, with the greatest respect to the fellow-users, there are some posters who see fandom as a competition, I've been there, done that. In here, however, we're all just film buffs and it is a place we can cast aside the general schisms of football, even if only for 1h 30 odd minutes.  ;D

[/rant] 
[close]

On that note, thanks to whoever recommended Overlord. I noted it down when I saw someone had recommend it on here and am 100% glad I decided to give it a go. It is, as has been said, Wolfenstein and isn't really a z-film... but it is well-acted, well-produced and was worth more than the rating that it got. The French actress in it is captivating (what French actress ain't?) and while it should have just been called Wolfenstein, I really enjoyed it. The lead German baddy should be in a film with Michael Shannon and Kurt Russell's son is just as good as his auld fella. The CGI and scenery are great, and the intro scene is really exhilarating.

Solid 8/10 from me! And again, I'm sure others will disagree, but if you're a z-film fan, you should defo put this on the watchlist.

« Last Edit: April 24, 2019, 06:47:36 am by Skidder. »
Continually on 11,420.

Offline Redcap

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,053
  • You wrote a bad song Petey!
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49684 on: April 24, 2019, 07:15:50 am »
Haha, never take my opinion mate, my opinions change with my boxies. Which is what I think we should all be.

But...

Spoiler
[rant]
I always follow a simple rule.

Watch the trailer, see the 'general' reactions... (but don't listen to mainstream critics if it is a blockbuster) Watch the first 10 minutes. If it doesn't grip you, chances are, it won't grip you over the runtime (there are rules to the exception of course). I also hate to say it, but getting on Reddit/movies is also quite good - Reddit's a shithole, you either love it or hate it - yet I am in the middle and think that with regard to entertainment, it can be a good source of gauging whether something is for you or not. Get past the jimminy's (fan boys and trolls), and there are some very good social-level critics on there who you can trust to follow.

But if you do, in the event, watch it over the runtime and it falls short and wastes your time... either sing about it and warn friends (etc) off of it. Or if you're still on the fence, or if it is a film that really grips you, watch it at least one another time and then give it another reflection in a different mindset. Entertainment -> Production ->Criticism.

I personally think that our time is as important as our BO admission fee... if not more important. I've had four refunds in my time using various shithousery in the cinemas - I've chatted briefly about this, but will expand on it as it is April.

One I got a refund off... it was some horror film that I can't even remember the name of - it was god awful and did not look as it did in the trailer.

One other person once told me that they claimed a refund from Vanilla Sky because they didn't like it - but cited the fact that there was a scene in the trailer that wasn't in the film. I can't remember the scene exactly and don't even know if it is true - but it would make sense, would it not?

In addition, when you hear of folk 'walking out', more often than not, they'll be going to get a refund - but that bit ain't reported for obvious reasons. I think the trick here is to do it within the first act and not let your disdain simmer.

Darkness Falls, that was it... I got a refund for both me and my girlfriend at the time because there were kids talking in the cinema. Another was... I can't remember, it'll come to me, but I complained that the speaker was crackling and disturbing my audio pleasure (learned this one from this same said person - they ain't gonna rewind and they ain't gonna stop the film and ask the audience, and hearing is subjective)... I got a refund on Gone Girl because the video cut out midway and I may have 'missed my train'... And also got another refund because I said that the house light was flickering and gave me a headache for the rest of the film. I also got a refund for Silent Hill because I argued that I couldn't see in 3D, which I genuinely can't, but gave it a go (wait that's five). I think I have probably done it with a couple more, but can't remember off-hand.

I've briefly mentioned this once or twice in here, but not given context, around this time of year, I always like to speak about him or his... ways...  ::) I was told by someone I love and hold/held to a very high regard who was involved in the industry that there was a hidden 'rule' within the 70s/80s American cinema-going public. I think I've mentioned this before, but if your family are/were someway involved within the industry, that if you didn't like a film, you could claim a refund by citing their name, weird, right? In extension to this, if there was a problem of some sort or you had a gripe about the cinema itself (or the people in the cinema) you could also complain and get a refund. And again, in the example above with Vanilla Sky, if there are any differences between the trailer and the film (it is probably different nowadays) you could also claim a refund.

All probably unwritten rules of Hollywood, but I've always had this in the back of my mind when going to the cinema. It may be common knowledge, I don't know, I think someone else on here once agreed with me and said they do the same.

As I say, I think I've mentioned this before on here, I can't be too sure... I've spewed my brains in this thread, probably more than the LFC forums. Haha! I think I remember someone else who did the same on here for a recent film, I can't remember if it was one of the Rob's or not.

Films are like anything else, they're a product and you buy them - don't like it? Complain about something... more often than not, you'll get a refund or you'll get a ticket for another film.

If you're a liberal/moderate pirate (like me since mid-2000s), you're fucked and should just stick to the 10-minute rule above.

But no mate, I haven't seen it - I think I saw it on one of 'my sites' but I think I decided to give it a miss as I kind of dislike Andrew Garfield. I'm a bum like that and most films I've seen him in, I've rarely enjoyed. Boy A was decent, and I guess he was Okay in Spiderman (I was dragged to see that by an ex); but I gave that film a go where he plays the pacifist in Vietnam and pretty much disliked his acting - I mean, he was Okay, but he does carry a sense of entitlement behind his eyes when you see his interviews.

Plus there are stories of him being a complete and utter fucking diva of an actor who can't take direction or criticism. He was sacked from Spiderman (allegedly) for being a diva and refusing to do some of the work he was paid to do, but then later stated he left or some shit because they asked him to pluck his eyebrows. You're a fucking actor man, many would give their left arm to be in your position, do the fucking job you paid to do you fleck!

I know how skin-deep that is, but as I've gotten older, I've become more belligerent toward what I watch. One of the things I hold up before anything else is who stars - this isn't something I'm proud or ashamed of, it is just something that has kind of rubbed off on me.

But then, I'm the kind of bloke to watches films with subtitles on to catch every word, speeds up the third-act/fifth-act to 1.33x if it is boring me, and as I've said above, hold directors/producers/writers to account of their past actions... yet don't mind watching a Weinstein produced film... So my priorities are all over the shop.

Just to note - that's not saying I condone HW's lurid actions... but I'm probably the worst person to ask about whether you should invest your time and effort into a film TV series or whatnot.

But It Follows was a good'un and is it David Mitchell? (I only know this because I actually hate the other David Mitchell) - he doesn't look to be a one-trick pony and they say he's like the next Tim Burton or Wes Anderson or some shit I think I read on IMDB once. So it might be worth a go mate. Let us all know, I always enjoy reading your write-ups, views and reviews on films as I think we have similar tastes... some similar tastes.

And I think that is why most of us come on here time and time again - I've been on many film forums and whatnot over my time... but I always mostly trust the judgement of folk on here who I know share similar tastes to me. While I am a bit of a Foghorn Leghorn at times, there are no smartarses on here who try and argue with you for the sake of argument or appearances - I've always felt not only free to discuss on here, but I think our shared love for LFC gives us, mostly, similar base values.

Over the years, I've seen people dip in and out of this thread. There seems to be a splurge of new users on this form over the past five or so years and it is always a pleasure to see and hear new faces. If gauging the main forums is any kind of barometer, there may be some international folk who come on here and may feel a little intimidated either by youth (no offence to anyone who is a young adult, or even elder adult), dialect, EASL or just some of the terminology and personalities on this here forum (as in the whole form).

But I think that this thread in particular (I'd say music as well), is one of the threads that cuts through all of that - LFC section in general of course, that is a given, but even in there, with the greatest respect to the fellow-users, there are some posters who see fandom as a competition, I've been there, done that. In here, however, we're all just film buffs and it is a place we can cast aside the general schisms of football, even if only for 1h 30 odd minutes.  ;D

[/rant] 
[close]

On that note, thanks to whoever recommended Overlord. I noted it down when I saw someone had recommend it on here and am 100% glad I decided to give it a go. It is, as has been said, Wolfenstein and isn't really a z-film... but it is well-acted, well-produced and was worth more than the rating that it got. The French actress in it is captivating (what French actress ain't?) and while it should have just been called Wolfenstein, I really enjoyed it. The lead German baddy should be in a film with Michael Shannon and Kurt Russell's son is just as good as his auld fella. The CGI and scenery are great, and the intro scene is really exhilarating.

Solid 8/10 from me! And again, I'm sure others will disagree, but if you're a z-film fan, you should defo put this on the watchlist.



Pleasure to read your rants as always, mate.

I think I will see it. It Follows was good enough, and the trailer looks weird enough, that I'm keen to give it a whirl, regardless of the reviews or views about Andrew Garfield (I just realised I haven't actually seen him in anything since The Social Network. I always somewhat regretted not seeing Richard Kelly's Southland Tales, which seemed like a silly, overly ambitious follow up to Donnie Darko but ended up being a Heaven's Gate-esque fiasco. Now it's been 13 years since its release and I'm no longer motivated to see it, because too much time has passed. Problem is the wife isn't the most patient film companion and watching anything that's short of a mile a minute pacing with her leads her to playing with her phone and me to lose interest along with her (I'm still not sure how I would have felt about Roma and First Reformed last year had I seen them myself.

Also very much enjoyed Wolfenstein Overlord. Saw it on the plane and thought it was excellently executed with some nice creepy touches and the right amount of war violence/gore. Kurt Russell's kid is a dead ringer for his dad. You can see it from a mile away.

Offline SamAteTheRedAcid

  • Currently facing issues around potty training. All help appreciated.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 22,203
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49685 on: April 24, 2019, 07:22:54 am »
get thee to the library before the c*nts close it down

we are a bunch of twats commenting on a website.

Offline Buck Pete

  • GV66 LJF for short. King Kong Balls. Bathes in peat. Partial to a walnut whip. Gets wet for 24/7 but disappointed Chopper. On the mortgage blacklist. Too tight to really be called a
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 30,087
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49686 on: April 24, 2019, 09:50:56 am »
Is that where Liam Neeson rescues his kidnapped daughter?

Its about a man who drove back and two continuously over the Runcorn bridge for 1 week solid.

Offline Crosby Nick

  • He was super funny. Used to do these super hilarious puns
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 111,215
  • Poultry in Motion
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49687 on: April 24, 2019, 10:49:30 am »
Its about a man who drove back and two continuously over the Runcorn bridge for 1 week solid.

To protect an Amish family who witnessed a brutal murder on the north side of the bridge?

Or am I thinking of Widnes?

Offline Skidder.

  • Minster. Aka The Censored Baron XII. I remember watching that as a skid!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,408
  • Kloppite
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49688 on: April 24, 2019, 07:34:30 pm »
Pleasure to read your rants as always, mate.

I think I will see it. It Follows was good enough, and the trailer looks weird enough, that I'm keen to give it a whirl, regardless of the reviews or views about Andrew Garfield (I just realised I haven't actually seen him in anything since The Social Network. I always somewhat regretted not seeing Richard Kelly's Southland Tales, which seemed like a silly, overly ambitious follow up to Donnie Darko but ended up being a Heaven's Gate-esque fiasco. Now it's been 13 years since its release and I'm no longer motivated to see it, because too much time has passed. Problem is the wife isn't the most patient film companion and watching anything that's short of a mile a minute pacing with her leads her to playing with her phone and me to lose interest along with her (I'm still not sure how I would have felt about Roma and First Reformed last year had I seen them myself.

Also very much enjoyed Wolfenstein Overlord. Saw it on the plane and thought it was excellently executed with some nice creepy touches and the right amount of war violence/gore. Kurt Russell's kid is a dead ringer for his dad. You can see it from a mile away.

Aye, I liked Social Network myself and to be fair, AG was decent in that, but you know what I can't stand about him? It's his faux mannerisms and bottom lip.

I know that makes me about this >< shallow, but it is like he's scored his script left, right and centre with said mannerisms and it is totally off-putting. I get the sense in it, there's something to be liked about an incomplete geek who can't wrap his words around his emotions...

But I mean, Kirsten Twilight does a far better job and she doesn't even need to try. She just does it... I have a hard time trying to work out if her nervous tics are real or fake - which is a good thing... With Garfield, you can see it is meticulously plotted and I guess it is Okay for certain roles, but for others, it just looks idiotic and makes him look like a fuel!

WAGs are boss to watch films with, they're a great barometer and I don't care what anyone says - when it comes to the difference in the sexes, films are where it begins and ends for me. :D

Aye, Kurt Russell's son is the image of him, is he Goldie Hawn's song then? He's got some good genes there like and I really enjoyed his role in Wolfenstein Overlord.

I can't remember if it was you who mentioned it, but I gave Resolution (2012) a whirl...

Might give the follow-up a viewing tonight, but might not... I wasn't too impressed with Resolution and think I'd have to have a joint to enjoy it. Haha!
Continually on 11,420.

Offline RedSince86

  • I blame Chris de Burgh
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,352
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49689 on: April 24, 2019, 07:54:17 pm »
Aye, I liked Social Network myself and to be fair, AG was decent in that, but you know what I can't stand about him? It's his faux mannerisms and bottom lip.

I know that makes me about this >< shallow, but it is like he's scored his script left, right and centre with said mannerisms and it is totally off-putting. I get the sense in it, there's something to be liked about an incomplete geek who can't wrap his words around his emotions...

But I mean, Kirsten Twilight does a far better job and she doesn't even need to try. She just does it... I have a hard time trying to work out if her nervous tics are real or fake - which is a good thing... With Garfield, you can see it is meticulously plotted and I guess it is Okay for certain roles, but for others, it just looks idiotic and makes him look like a fuel!

WAGs are boss to watch films with, they're a great barometer and I don't care what anyone says - when it comes to the difference in the sexes, films are where it begins and ends for me. :D

Aye, Kurt Russell's son is the image of him, is he Goldie Hawn's song then? He's got some good genes there like and I really enjoyed his role in Wolfenstein Overlord.

I can't remember if it was you who mentioned it, but I gave Resolution (2012) a whirl...

Might give the follow-up a viewing tonight, but might not... I wasn't too impressed with Resolution and think I'd have to have a joint to enjoy it. Haha!
I watched Under The Silver Lake last night.

Me and my other half are on a mission to watch all a24 studio movies that we haven't seen.

AG is pretty good in it, it's a pretty quirky movie and a tad overlong but it's a good watch.

Ladybird is the next film on the list from the studio that we haven't seen.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2019, 07:56:20 pm by RedSince86 »
"Since its purchase by the sheikh of Abu Dhabi, Manchester City has managed to cheat its way into the top echelon of European football and create a global, immensely profitable football empire, ignoring rules along the way. The club's newfound glory is rooted in lies."

Offline [new username under construction]

  • Poster formerly know as shadowbane. Never lost his head whilst others panicked. Fucking kopite!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,284
  • Insert something awesome here!
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49690 on: April 25, 2019, 08:55:19 am »
A few Endgame CAM torrents around even now, doubt there is any way to avoid spoilers on the net over this so might be only option

Offline So… Howard Philips

  • Penile Toupé Extender. Notoriously work-shy, copper-bottomed pervert.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 23,146
  • All I want for Christmas is a half and half scarf
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49691 on: April 25, 2019, 09:01:55 am »
Its about a man who drove back and two continuously over the Runcorn bridge for 1 week solid.

How many fixed penalty notices did he get?

Offline Scottymuser

  • Has many leather bound books (about football), and his home smells of rich mahogany. Bow to his superior knowledge of central defenders.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,751
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49692 on: April 25, 2019, 11:41:23 am »
Do you judge films based off of trailers? Most trailers either make a film look amazing (Man of Steel) or completely shite, of which there are numerous examples which I won't bother citing, but the actual film ended up being fantastic.

In terms of just entertainment value, and something that isn't up its own arse (Nolan's Batman films bar the first one), I found Shazam to be a very pleasant surprise. It's funny you mention the original Superman, because Shazam has moments in it that reminded me of it. Camp to look at, just like Reeve's Superman was, but there were some fun superhero-ish moments that gave a glimpse of just how badly DC got Superman wrong in the modern day. I'm not talking about any past 80's or 90's efforts here. I'm talking about the films under the DC Films moniker, founded to take on Marvel Studios, or supposed to.

I have watched it now, and really, really enjoyed it (still not 100% sold on it being better than wonder woman, but I really enjoyed that one) - and yes, I do use trailers to judge whether to see a film I know little about (i.e. isn't a franchise I know a lot about, isn't a book adaptation, isn't directed by one of my favourite directors - all of which boxes Shazam tick) at the cinema, or to wait until reviews come in to decide (and in the former case, usually 1 trailer is enough for me to then ignore the rest of the reviews etc. and book tickets). 

And yes, I presumed you meant the modern "DCEU" films (thus my comment about WW). 

Offline Skidder.

  • Minster. Aka The Censored Baron XII. I remember watching that as a skid!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,408
  • Kloppite
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49693 on: April 25, 2019, 11:44:24 am »
I watched Under The Silver Lake last night.

Me and my other half are on a mission to watch all a24 studio movies that we haven't seen.

AG is pretty good in it, it's a pretty quirky movie and a tad overlong but it's a good watch.

Ladybird is the next film on the list from the studio that we haven't seen.

Aye, I'm a big fan of a24 myself, can't remember a film that I've seen of theirs that hasn't sorted me out man.

Under the Silver Lake is the follow-up to Resolution, right?

If it is, it seems to have split opinion amongst the IMDB shower - but half of these folk will be aspiring filmmakers themselves and that Shane fella who did Primer got absolutely torn apart on IMDB with his follow-up.

The jealousy within the indie market is, quite frankly, fucking small time. They fester on certain subreddits and it is like 100 Monkey Syndrome. I've seen certain Redditors compete on how crap of a review they give (a newfangled thing since IMDB forums went down).
Continually on 11,420.

Offline RedSince86

  • I blame Chris de Burgh
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,352
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49694 on: April 25, 2019, 01:14:09 pm »
Aye, I'm a big fan of a24 myself, can't remember a film that I've seen of theirs that hasn't sorted me out man.

Under the Silver Lake is the follow-up to Resolution, right?

If it is, it seems to have split opinion amongst the IMDB shower - but half of these folk will be aspiring filmmakers themselves and that Shane fella who did Primer got absolutely torn apart on IMDB with his follow-up.

The jealousy within the indie market is, quite frankly, fucking small time. They fester on certain subreddits and it is like 100 Monkey Syndrome. I've seen certain Redditors compete on how crap of a review they give (a newfangled thing since IMDB forums went down).
AFAIK Under the Silver Lake is a standalone film.

This is the list of films we're going to watch.

Ladybird.
Mojave.
The Sea Of Trees.
Woodshock.
The Blackcoat's Daughter.
Free Fire.
A Prayer Before Dawn.
The End Of Tour.
American Honey.
While We're Young.
20th Century Women.
Mid90's.
Swiss Army Man.

"Since its purchase by the sheikh of Abu Dhabi, Manchester City has managed to cheat its way into the top echelon of European football and create a global, immensely profitable football empire, ignoring rules along the way. The club's newfound glory is rooted in lies."

Offline Redcap

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,053
  • You wrote a bad song Petey!
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49695 on: April 26, 2019, 12:54:56 am »
AFAIK Under the Silver Lake is a standalone film.

This is the list of films we're going to watch.

Ladybird.
Mojave.
The Sea Of Trees.
Woodshock.
The Blackcoat's Daughter.
Free Fire.
A Prayer Before Dawn.
The End Of Tour.
American Honey.
While We're Young.
20th Century Women.
Mid90's.
Swiss Army Man.



I haven't seen all of the movies on that list, but all the ones I have seen have been decent to good without being mindblowing. If 'American indie' were a genre (and my wife insists it is), a24 appears to exemplify it.

The End of the Tour and 20th Century Women are probably my favourites out of those, and I've heard really good things about The Blackcoat's Daughter.

If it is, it seems to have split opinion amongst the IMDB shower - but half of these folk will be aspiring filmmakers themselves and that Shane fella who did Primer got absolutely torn apart on IMDB with his follow-up.

I haven't seen Primer, but I did think Upstream Colour was basically unwatchable. I think he made the mistake of accruing a bunch of cult scifi fanboys with his first movie, and then made something that was even more inscrutable/artistically ambitious the second time around without the scifi element, and put all of his fans offside.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2019, 12:59:56 am by Redcap »

Offline Skidder.

  • Minster. Aka The Censored Baron XII. I remember watching that as a skid!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,408
  • Kloppite
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49696 on: April 26, 2019, 01:54:06 am »
Have seen a few off that list, not all of them, might give some of them a go. Anapurna (?) also release some good films, but some shite also.

Aye, Upstream Colour, that is it. And yes, it is a big load of ideas presented in a pretentious way. Can see why folk wouldn't like it as it is far as hell from Primer.

But the shit it got on Reddit is unwarranted. I think he must have used Reddit at some point or something because some of the posters almost acted as if they knew him.
Continually on 11,420.

Offline jooneyisdagod

  • Doesn't like having pussy round the house
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,733
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49697 on: April 26, 2019, 11:55:00 am »
Okay, so I watched Endgame. Don't worry, no spoilers here. I'm not a fan of superhero movies. For some reason, even the mere concept doesn't interest me greatly. And while watching it in the theatre, I noticed a large portion of the audience were young adults who I would say were between their teens and early to mid-30s. This got me thinking. Has a generation of viewers just been brought up on superhero films to the extent that we see very little else from the big studios and has this, in turn, killed creativity in Hollywood? Maybe I'm overthinking this but it seems like very few films even have premises interesting enough for me to warrant watching them. Under the Silver Lake sounds interesting btw.
Quote from: Dion Fanning

The chants for Kenny Dalglish that were heard again on Wednesday do not necessarily mean that the fans see him as the saviour. This is not Newcastle, longing for the return of Kevin Keegan. Simply, Dalglish represents everything Hodgson is not and, in fairness, everything Hodgson could or would not hope to be.

Offline Zlen

  • Suspicious of systems. But getting lots.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,795
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49698 on: April 26, 2019, 02:17:58 pm »
Legendary Entertainment CEO confirmed that Dennis Villeneuve's upcoming 'Dune' will come out as two movies.
Seven you fucker, we want seven movies at least.

Offline Skidder.

  • Minster. Aka The Censored Baron XII. I remember watching that as a skid!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,408
  • Kloppite
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49699 on: April 26, 2019, 03:59:05 pm »
Okay, so I watched Endgame. Don't worry, no spoilers here. I'm not a fan of superhero movies. For some reason, even the mere concept doesn't interest me greatly. And while watching it in the theatre, I noticed a large portion of the audience were young adults who I would say was between their teens and early to mid-30s. This got me thinking. Has a generation of viewers just been brought up on superhero films to the extent that we see very little else from the big studios and has this, in turn, killed creativity in Hollywood? Maybe I'm overthinking this but it seems like very few films even have premises interesting enough for me to warrant watching them. Under the Silver Lake sounds interesting btw.

I don't they've killed creativity, but they have an already established fanbase, massive commercial potential, and are more often than not, guaranteed to find an audience. It'll filter out in time to come when the next thing comes along, which I think, will be video games. Video game adaptations are where the superhero genre was in the early '80s... Superman was the biggie of course, but even still, Superman wasn't as mainstream as they are now... They became big, yes, but not like now.

Once they nail down some formula for video games, you'll see video games canonising film franchises. It kind of happens now, but it isn't a big genre with guaranteed BO.

Legendary Entertainment CEO confirmed that Dennis Villeneuve's upcoming 'Dune' will come out as two movies.
Seven you fucker, we want seven movies at least.


I'd love it if they did the same film from the two different perspectives - House Atredies and then, House Harkonnen. That would be brilliant.

Unrelated - I never knew Sweeney Todd was fictitious. Gobsmacked!
Continually on 11,420.

Offline Something Worse

  • Master of prehistoric and fantasy creature-based onomatopoeia
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,891
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49700 on: April 26, 2019, 03:59:42 pm »
Okay, so I watched Endgame. Don't worry, no spoilers here. I'm not a fan of superhero movies. For some reason, even the mere concept doesn't interest me greatly. And while watching it in the theatre, I noticed a large portion of the audience were young adults who I would say were between their teens and early to mid-30s. This got me thinking. Has a generation of viewers just been brought up on superhero films to the extent that we see very little else from the big studios and has this, in turn, killed creativity in Hollywood? Maybe I'm overthinking this but it seems like very few films even have premises interesting enough for me to warrant watching them. Under the Silver Lake sounds interesting btw.

It's definitely choked out action movies to some extent, but I don't think in general there's less creativity.
Maybe the group, led by your leadership, will see these drafts as PR functions and brilliant use of humor

Hey Claus, fuck off.

Offline Titi Camara

  • Hey, wanna hear the new dubstep song I wrote? Wub, Wub, Wub! Wubba Lubba Dub Dub! I'm Pickle Rick with hirsute areolae!
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,211
  • Number 21 of the Crazy 88
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49701 on: April 26, 2019, 04:19:20 pm »
I haven't seen Primer, but I did think Upstream Colour was basically unwatchable. I think he made the mistake of accruing a bunch of cult scifi fanboys with his first movie, and then made something that was even more inscrutable/artistically ambitious the second time around without the scifi element, and put all of his fans offside.
One of my favourite films.

Offline Zlen

  • Suspicious of systems. But getting lots.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,795
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49702 on: April 26, 2019, 04:22:00 pm »

I'd love it if they did the same film from the two different perspectives - House Atredies and then, House Harkonnen. That would be brilliant.



That would be immense, but it would require some serious padding to fill the Harkonnen side of the story.

Offline Beav

  • Football is impatient. Loves Vader's Helmet.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,179
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49703 on: April 27, 2019, 03:45:33 pm »
Have you seen Under the Silver Lake, mate? It's David Robert Mitchell's next film. It seems to have been lukewarmly received, but it seems to have an interesting premise, and noir is always fun, even when it's not top notch. So I'm trying to find some people with sound views on films who can give me a bit more confidence to see it ;)

Under The Silver Lake is suuuuper weird and I loved it. Absolutely check it out.
Twitter:  http://twitter.com/__Beav

Ah. Another Manchester United fan crashes out from the woodwork like a bemused koala that has taken three hits of crystal meth.

Offline RedSince86

  • I blame Chris de Burgh
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,352
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49704 on: April 27, 2019, 06:32:56 pm »
Under The Silver Lake is suuuuper weird and I loved it. Absolutely check it out.
The scene with the piano player was weird AF. ;D

Good quirky movie i thought.
"Since its purchase by the sheikh of Abu Dhabi, Manchester City has managed to cheat its way into the top echelon of European football and create a global, immensely profitable football empire, ignoring rules along the way. The club's newfound glory is rooted in lies."

Offline WhereAngelsPlay

  • Rockwool Marketing Board Spokesman. Cracker Wanker. Fucking calmest man on RAWK, alright? ALRIGHT?! Definitely a bigger cunt than YOU!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 26,215
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49705 on: April 27, 2019, 10:55:53 pm »
Some stunners on that list Beav. Loads i need to see myself on there. Reminded me about 'Bone Tomahawk' too!!

The two Mel Brooks classics on your list are just immense and are hopefully high up on your actual viewing schedule (and I don't mean 'Spaceballs').

Also, I think you will LOVE 'Train to Busan". :)


CH4 tonight 1am
My cup, it runneth over, I'll never get my fill

Offline Mutton Geoff

  • 'The Invigilator'
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,663
  • Life is a journey, not a destination.
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49706 on: April 28, 2019, 08:12:07 pm »
Watched 'Red Joan' last week majority of critics hated it but i enjoyed it.
A world were Liars and Hypocrites are accepted and rewarded and honest people are derided!
Who voted in this lying corrupt bastard anyway

Offline Jake

  • Fuck VAR
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,120
  • Fuck VAR
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49707 on: April 28, 2019, 08:19:00 pm »
Just finished Sorry To Bother You.

Liked it a lot. Twist came out of left field for sure, but it was a great film.
I'm not vaccinated against covid and ... I don't wear masks.

Offline SamAteTheRedAcid

  • Currently facing issues around potty training. All help appreciated.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 22,203
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49708 on: April 28, 2019, 08:45:53 pm »
Just finished Sorry To Bother You.

Liked it a lot. Twist came out of left field for sure, but it was a great film.

I really liked it too. The cast were great.
get thee to the library before the c*nts close it down

we are a bunch of twats commenting on a website.

Offline WhereAngelsPlay

  • Rockwool Marketing Board Spokesman. Cracker Wanker. Fucking calmest man on RAWK, alright? ALRIGHT?! Definitely a bigger cunt than YOU!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 26,215
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49709 on: April 28, 2019, 08:50:36 pm »
I watched The Prodigy,left me really wanting them to make a few with the same actor.
My cup, it runneth over, I'll never get my fill

Offline Jake

  • Fuck VAR
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,120
  • Fuck VAR
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49710 on: April 28, 2019, 08:50:50 pm »
I really liked it too. The cast were great.

Gonna watch The Hate U Give now, heard good things about that too.

edit - damn that was a good film
« Last Edit: April 28, 2019, 11:21:57 pm by Jake »
I'm not vaccinated against covid and ... I don't wear masks.

Offline Redcap

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,053
  • You wrote a bad song Petey!
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49711 on: April 29, 2019, 04:31:22 am »
Okay, so I watched Endgame. Don't worry, no spoilers here. I'm not a fan of superhero movies. For some reason, even the mere concept doesn't interest me greatly. And while watching it in the theatre, I noticed a large portion of the audience were young adults who I would say were between their teens and early to mid-30s. This got me thinking. Has a generation of viewers just been brought up on superhero films to the extent that we see very little else from the big studios and has this, in turn, killed creativity in Hollywood? Maybe I'm overthinking this but it seems like very few films even have premises interesting enough for me to warrant watching them. Under the Silver Lake sounds interesting btw.

My thinking about this has evolved over the past few years.

To begin with, what Marvel has done incredibly well, is create a 'McDonald's' type franchise that delivers a reasonably, predictably decent product according to a certain template, every time. It's been so successful that it's definitely crowded out some movies from the market.  But Hollywood has always made a tonne of garbage in the 'action/adventure' genre. There are a million and one bad blockbusters that were made and forgotten about, which probably are not great examples of 'creativity'. If these are the movies that Marvel has crowded out, then I'm probably reasonable okay with that outcome.

On the other hand, there are also potentially a lot of good, interesting movies that might not get made. I honestly don't know whether there's room in Hollywood to make the next Blade Runner or Jurassic Park or Terminator or Alien. What it will most definitely do though, is make plenty of sequels for these existing franchises, which unlike the Marvel Cinematic Universe, are all of much more variable quality. And that, I'm a lot less happy with. There's some defensibility to a franchise that eats the industry, if that franchise delivers a consistent product. But if we're talking about an oligopolising of the industry by a number of franchises, where the outcome is that you get a lot less diversity of product, where the products are not of a consistently high quality, you've got problems.

I do think these franchises have a shelf life though. My sense is that some of them, like Jurassic Park, Terminator, Alien and even the DC universe are going to go away at some point in the next few years. I can't imagine that people will continue to buy crap year after year for ever and ever. Even now, the Alien franchise is already on hiatus, after the lukewarm response to Covenant and Terminator is IMO, in a death spiral, having to now bring back Arnie and Linda Hamilton - not a good sign.

That doesn't mean studios won't be tempted to cash in on other franchises, or indeed to revive franchises that have been away for a few years, but I think it does also leave room for new ideas to break through. People like old things, but they also like novelty, so I think originality will continue to be in demand.

At the same time, I think there are going to be new drivers for creativity. Franchises are sometimes described as an all consuming force within the industry, which I think just isn't the case. One very promising thing we've seen in recent years is people from diverse backgrounds having more of a voice than ever. Some of the freshest, most original movies in recent years have been by the likes of Jordan Peele, Boots Riley, Ryan Coogler and Steve McQueen. I think those directors will ensure that there continues to be plenty of new ideas from previously under-represented groups that will drive originality throughout the industry.

Offline Something Worse

  • Master of prehistoric and fantasy creature-based onomatopoeia
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,891
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49712 on: April 29, 2019, 05:08:47 am »
My thinking about this has evolved over the past few years.

To begin with, what Marvel has done incredibly well, is create a 'McDonald's' type franchise that delivers a reasonably, predictably decent product according to a certain template, every time. It's been so successful that it's definitely crowded out some movies from the market.  But Hollywood has always made a tonne of garbage in the 'action/adventure' genre. There are a million and one bad blockbusters that were made and forgotten about, which probably are not great examples of 'creativity'. If these are the movies that Marvel has crowded out, then I'm probably reasonable okay with that outcome.

On the other hand, there are also potentially a lot of good, interesting movies that might not get made. I honestly don't know whether there's room in Hollywood to make the next Blade Runner or Jurassic Park or Terminator or Alien. What it will most definitely do though, is make plenty of sequels for these existing franchises, which unlike the Marvel Cinematic Universe, are all of much more variable quality. And that, I'm a lot less happy with. There's some defensibility to a franchise that eats the industry, if that franchise delivers a consistent product. But if we're talking about an oligopolising of the industry by a number of franchises, where the outcome is that you get a lot less diversity of product, where the products are not of a consistently high quality, you've got problems.

I do think these franchises have a shelf life though. My sense is that some of them, like Jurassic Park, Terminator, Alien and even the DC universe are going to go away at some point in the next few years. I can't imagine that people will continue to buy crap year after year for ever and ever. Even now, the Alien franchise is already on hiatus, after the lukewarm response to Covenant and Terminator is IMO, in a death spiral, having to now bring back Arnie and Linda Hamilton - not a good sign.

That doesn't mean studios won't be tempted to cash in on other franchises, or indeed to revive franchises that have been away for a few years, but I think it does also leave room for new ideas to break through. People like old things, but they also like novelty, so I think originality will continue to be in demand.

At the same time, I think there are going to be new drivers for creativity. Franchises are sometimes described as an all consuming force within the industry, which I think just isn't the case. One very promising thing we've seen in recent years is people from diverse backgrounds having more of a voice than ever. Some of the freshest, most original movies in recent years have been by the likes of Jordan Peele, Boots Riley, Ryan Coogler and Steve McQueen. I think those directors will ensure that there continues to be plenty of new ideas from previously under-represented groups that will drive originality throughout the industry.

Can't wait for the youtubers to cross over and take it all for themselves!
Maybe the group, led by your leadership, will see these drafts as PR functions and brilliant use of humor

Hey Claus, fuck off.

Offline Sarge

  • Fine with being a Fucker. He's a lovable rouge
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 70,470
  • Boom!
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49713 on: April 29, 2019, 09:27:57 pm »
Myself and wifey are just about to watch 'On the Basis of Sex' shall report back.
Y.N.W.A.

Offline Crosby Nick

  • He was super funny. Used to do these super hilarious puns
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 111,215
  • Poultry in Motion
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49714 on: April 29, 2019, 11:19:36 pm »
John Singleton has died, aged only 51. He had suffered a stroke a couple of weeks ago. Didn’t realise he was so young when he directs Boyz n the Hood. RIP

Offline Sarge

  • Fine with being a Fucker. He's a lovable rouge
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 70,470
  • Boom!
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49715 on: April 29, 2019, 11:40:50 pm »
Myself and wifey are just about to watch 'On the Basis of Sex' shall report back.

Very good, Bader Ginsburg was some woman.
Y.N.W.A.

Offline Redcap

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,053
  • You wrote a bad song Petey!
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49716 on: April 30, 2019, 12:22:18 am »
Very good, Bader Ginsburg was some woman.

You should consider the doco, "RBG" - also excellent.

I wonder how many justices on the bench have as impressive a backstory as her. Probably not many.

Offline tubby

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 25,146
  • Destroyed Cowboy
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49717 on: April 30, 2019, 07:01:22 pm »
That Kermode series on iPlayer where he analyses the various movie genres and their tropes is really good stuff.
Sit down, shock is better taken with bent knees.

Offline Sarge

  • Fine with being a Fucker. He's a lovable rouge
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 70,470
  • Boom!
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49718 on: April 30, 2019, 10:20:28 pm »
You should consider the doco, "RBG" - also excellent.

I wonder how many justices on the bench have as impressive a backstory as her. Probably not many.

:thumbup Nice one I'll have a look.
Y.N.W.A.

Offline Andy @ Allerton!

  • Missing an asterisk - no, wait sorry, that's his rusty starfish..... RAWK Apple fanboy. Hedley Lamarr's bestest mate. Has done nothing incredible ever.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 73,343
  • Asterisks baby!
Re: The RAWK Film Thread
« Reply #49719 on: April 30, 2019, 11:30:05 pm »
Some of the films in this seem very ... er...  Niche?

I have seen some of them and they seem a bit up their own arse. Nothing against pretentious twats like - whatever makes the world go round.
Quote from: tubby on Today at 12:45:53 pm

They both went in high, that's factually correct, both tried to play the ball at height.  Doku with his foot, Mac Allister with his chest.