What Films Have You Seen Recently?

[keirarts]

Originally Posted by gag

Saw creed II last night really enjoyed it , we tried to go pic nearly every week at one point but we haven't been for ages , There was nothing else on that we fancied neither of us like Will Ferrell so Holmes and Watson was out the Q? Apparently it that bad lots of people have been saying they walked out and wanted their money back , and before it got general released it got panned that much they tried to palm it off to Netflix and they refused it .

Creed 2 was ace. As I said above, Dolph Lundgrens best performance. Takes a two-dimensional villain from a prior Rocky film and adds loads of Depth and genuine pathos.

[Paul Zombie]

Lady Stay dead.

A creepy bearded gardener has an obsession with a famous singer, even going to bed with a sex doll in her image. and gets a job as her gardener so he can spy on her. which eventually ends up raping her in her home and drowning her in the fish tank. afterwards her sister jenny turns up and ends up fighting for her life.

I have to say that i quite enjoyed this aussie psycho thriller. Yes it is a little cheesy, but it is never boring and has a mean spirit that is sadly lacking in today's films.
And Chard Hayward gives a pretty good performance too as Gordan the insane gardener who loses the plot Maniac style, even shooting the neighbour's dog.

well worth a watch, nice locations, and with a interesting cat and mouse finale. 71 out of 100.

[trebor8273]

Went to see a couple of films today at the cinema.


as already been mentioned by far the best Spiderman film by a longway also the animation is absolutely stunning and the film is pretty dark in places and it's not full of angst like the other films also lots a little nods and Easter eggs and a great one making fun of that awful dance from 3, also we had a wonderful cameo from the late great Stan Lee. 10/10



While not up there with the first it's a highly enjoyable family movie with what is probably a better story than the first, a few of the songs are duds and none of the match the likes of spoon full of sugar , feed the birds and let's go fly a kite. But some great dance routines and one with the lamp lighters that must of the took a lot of work. The animation keeps in the style of the original, Emily Blunt while no Julie Andrews does a excellent job. The actor playing Jack the lamp lighter seemed a poor actor and singer to me. But checking on IMDB he is supposed of won awards for acting and singing. A nice and uplifting film . 8/10

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by trebor8273

Went to see a couple of films today at the cinema.

Both sound good, Treb.

I watched another animation the other evening - Suicide Squad: Hell to Pay - that was also very good and recommended if you enjoy the animated films, but it isn't a child friendly affair.

How come this Spiderman film has had a cinema release?

[keirarts]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

Both sound good, Treb.

I watched another animation the other evening - Suicide Squad: Hell to Pay - that was also very good and recommended if you enjoy the animated films, but it isn't a child friendly affair.

How come this Spiderman film has had a cinema release?

The spidey film is from a lot of the people involved in the Lego movie. Had quite a bit of money chucked at it. It shows as well. It's actually quite breathtaking on the big screen.

[keirarts]

Humongous

A group of kids get shipwrecked on a remote Canadian Island. They soon discover they are not alone. A deformed man beast haunts the island and begins killing off the teens one by one. Directed by Paul Lynch the director of Prom night this one does nothing new but does it well. Its got lots of atmosphere to it and actually manages to deliver suspense. I've enjoyed this since picking up the Avco Embassy pre-cert many years back. The new blu-ray looks solid and has the choice of R-rated and unrated.

Rollercoaster

An entertaining thriller that has one foot in the disaster flick when a psycho begins derailing Rollercoaster's and demanding money from the Amusement park owners. A safety inspector begins hunting him down and a cat and mouse game between the pair ensues. Solid thriller with some genuinely great disaster scenes and some great performances including Timothy Bottoms as the villain, George Segal as the safety inspector and Richard Widmark as an FBI agent. Worth checking out.

[iank]

Yeah, I enjoyed Rollercoaster when I saw it a couple of years back.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Mary Poppins Returns

Set 25 years after the events in Mary Poppins (1964), this is centred around the same house in Robert Stevenson's family favourite and follows the two younger members of the Banks family. Michael, a recently widowed man with three young children, lives close to his sister Jane and both take after their parents, with Jane a social activist and Michael working as a clerk at Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. To cover expenses in the year since his wife died, Michael took a loan out and it is now time to pay up or forfeit the house. Coupled with his grief, this is having an impact on his temper and relationship with his children so maybe a little magical help is required…

The film more or less follows the same formula as the 1964 film, with a family in some disarray and the titular nanny making a surprise appearance which has a transformative effect on everyone around her. There are visits to strange places in London, partly through getting to know someone from the working class, in this case a lamplighter and former apprentice of Bert, and being transported to weird and wonderful words, one of which is animated.

As befitting a film directed by Rob Marshall (Chicago, Nine), the musical numbers are really well integrated into the narrative and look and sound fantastic. In a similar way to Dick van Dyke, Lin-Manuel Miranda (as Jack the lamplighter) really impresses with his vocal delivery and dancing, but the real surprise for me was Emily Blunt holding her own in a role which Julie Andrews (an accomplished and decorated West End and Broadway musical performer at the time) made iconic and won an Academy Award.

What I find very difficult is drawing any comparison between the two Mary Poppins films. The first is nearly 55 years old, I've seen it many times, listened to the songs in isolation as they were on the record we had when I was younger, so it's no surprise the musical numbers and songs in this film are not (yet) as memorable. Whether it will take five decades to really be able to tell whether it is something special or not remains to be seen, but I enjoyed it very much and would happily watch it at the cinema again.

[trebor8273]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

Mary Poppins Returns

Set 25 years after the events in Mary Poppins (1964), this is centred around the same house in Robert Stevenson's family favourite and follows the two younger members of the Banks family. Michael, a recently widowed man with three young children, lives close to his sister Jane and both take after their parents, with Jane a social activist and Michael working as a clerk at Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. To cover expenses in the year since his wife died, Michael took a loan out and it is now time to pay up or forfeit the house. Coupled with his grief, this is having an impact on his temper and relationship with his children so maybe a little magical help is required…

The film more or less follows the same formula as the 1964 film, with a family in some disarray and the titular nanny making a surprise appearance which has a transformative effect on everyone around her. There are visits to strange places in London, partly through getting to know someone from the working class, in this case a lamplighter and former apprentice of Bert, and being transported to weird and wonderful words, one of which is animated.

As befitting a film directed by Rob Marshall (Chicago, Nine), the musical numbers are really well integrated into the narrative and look and sound fantastic. In a similar way to Dick van Dyke, Lin-Manuel Miranda (as Jack the lamplighter) really impresses with his vocal delivery and dancing, but the real surprise for me was Emily Blunt holding her own in a role which Julie Andrews (an accomplished and decorated West End and Broadway musical performer at the time) made iconic and won an Academy Award.

What I find very difficult is drawing any comparison between the two Mary Poppins films. The first is nearly 55 years old, I've seen it many times, listened to the songs in isolation as they were on the record we had when I was younger, so it's no surprise the musical numbers and songs in this film are not (yet) as memorable. Whether it will take five decades to really be able to tell whether it is something special or not remains to be seen, but I enjoyed it very much and would happily watch it at the cinema again.

Think I will see it again at some point , it must just be me as I didn't rate Lin-Manuel Mirand as a good actor or singer, but did great dance scenes

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by trebor8273

Think I will see it again at some point , it must just be me as I didn't rate Lin-Manuel Mirand as a good actor or singer, but did great dance scenes

It's quite funny to see him in a film like this – something which is really his forte – when, discounting his voice appearance in BoJack Horseman, I don't think I've seen him in anything since his two episode stint as Alvie in House when I re-watched the series a couple of years ago!