Why you watched it illegally? :D :D :D

Possibly he was watching it on his Pioneer X1 in car DVD player while doing 90 mph the wrong way up a one way street with an under age prostitute smoking weed while using his mobile phone in his uninsured untaxed V8 Punto....or maybe he downloaded it :)

Don't know if this one has come up in this thread already, but I got round to watching Eden Lake last night.

What a mistake. Although there were some decent performances (notably Kelly Reilly), it has to be the most horrible film I have ever watched and I regret having bothered.

Hannibal Rising never did above the low end of mediocre - what dire, uninspired crap that was - even the "special" effects weren't.

Now planning a Predator/Predator 2 binge

Hannibal Rising never did above the low end of mediocre - what dire, uninspired crap that was - even the "special" effects weren't.

Now planning a Predator/Predator 2 binge

Are you a closet masochist?

OI! less of the closet!

Are you telling me you want MORE of the closet?

So I finally got to see "The Last Airbender". I've been both reluctant and interested in seeing it. Reluctant because I've heard so many bad things said about it and interested because I really liked the cartoon show which it is based on.

Now that I've seen it I can make my own judgement. And here it is.

This movie is a piece of crap!

First of all it only covers a small part of the series, so there's not really a good ending. Apparently they wanted to make more but because this movie was so bad (it didn't even make enough money to cover the costs) the others were cancelled. So we only get a part of a big story. Where's the fun in that?

And even though this is only a small part and one would assume that they could really develope the story nicely, all we get is a story that feel rushed and sometimes not very coherent. They jump through it and it's hard to really get interested.

One of the vital things for this movie to work was, apart from a well planned story, the effects. But they failed.

The effects look really bad and apparently it's even worse in 3D.

Water doesn't make things wet, fire don't burn etc.

And at one point a girl is holding a ball of water (for those who don't know anything about the story, let's call it magic). The ball keeps losing water, but never gets smaller. Amazing really.

Worst of all however was the acting. I had heard it was bad, but had not expected it to be this abysmal.

I'm not sure if I should blame the actors or M. Night Shyamalan who directed this sorry excuse for a movie.

After all, the movie have a few actors who has been either okay or good before, like Dev Patel who did a fine job in Slumdog Millionaire. He was good in that one, but in this he was really bad.

The main character is played by a kid who has never acted before. I've read somewhere that he started taking acting lessons just before making this movie. He got the part because of his martial arts skills, not for his acting skills. Not a good sign.

I hope this movie haven't dragged the cartoon down with it.

And for how long will M Night Shyamalan get to continue making movies? He started off well with Sixth Sense, but after that it's been a very long journey down hill.

People are starving in some countries and people like Shyamalan and Boll can splash out millions on awful movies. Dear me.

Moos, FFS, how old are you? What appears to be a serious critique of a kiddy film spin-off from a kiddy cartoon? And you worry that "it only covers a small part of the series"

How can you tie a fluffy piece of nonsense into the plight of the starving?

I am 26 years of age and I see no reason why I can't criticize the film.

Possibly he was watching it on his Pioneer X1 in car DVD player while doing 90 mph the wrong way up a one way street with an under age prostitute smoking weed while using his mobile phone in his uninsured untaxed V8 Punto....or maybe he downloaded it :)

That's exactly what happened. To the tee.

In all seriousness, someone in the flat upstairs had it on their memory stick, so a few of us watched it together, it's such a good watch, I can't believe you hated it, moi, I really can't. What did you find so dreadful about it?

And at one point a girl is holding a ball of water (for those who don't know anything about the story, let's call it magic). The ball keeps losing water, but never gets smaller. Amazing really.

---------------------------

And for how long will M Night Shyamalan get to continue making movies? He started off well with Sixth Sense, but after that it's been a very long journey down hill.

I've not seen the film, but I want to make two points based on these two quotes bits.

1) If you say it's "magic", doesn't it make sense that as the girl has this ball of water, didn't it ever occur to you that while she lost water, she used the magic at her disposal to give the ball more water?

2) I agree with that for the most part, but I feel the road down hill started after he made Signs, cause that's a superb film, not as good as Sixth Sense, but good nonetheless.

I've not seen the film, but I want to make two points based on these two quotes bits.

1) If you say it's "magic", doesn't it make sense that as the girl has this ball of water, didn't it ever occur to you that while she lost water, she used the magic at her disposal to give the ball more water?

2) I agree with that for the most part, but I feel the road down hill started after he made Signs, cause that's a superb film, not as good as Sixth Sense, but good nonetheless.

1. Well, she doesn't actually conjure water. She's a "water bender", which means she can control water - the water that exists, not creating more water. So she's not able to give the ball more water, unless she brings more existing water to the ball. But that is not the case.

2. True, Signs was good. I actually kinda liked that one. But that must have been the last good one Shyamalan did. Coincidentaly, wasn't that the last good one Mel Gibson was in as well?

. Coincidentaly, wasn't that the last good one Mel Gibson was in as well?

Mel Gibson was once in a good movie????

Actually, yes, I've just remembered he was in Hamlet with Glenn Close. But I don't think he was very good, though he did manage to speak English English.

Edited October 7, 201015 yr by moi

Mel Gibson was once in a good movie????

Actually, yes, I've just remembered he was in Hamlet with Glenn Close. But I don't think he was very good, though he did manage to speak English English.

I can only presume that when you watched it you took your copy of Hamlet, ripped out 78% of the pages and accepted that the film covered the 22% that was randomly left behind. As a film I would say it was an insult to the original text as it was actually focused on worshipping Loz Olivier rather than Shakespeare's story.

Only strong point was Ian Holm's 'Polonius'

I can only presume that when you watched it you took your copy of Hamlet, ripped out 78% of the pages and accepted that the film covered the 22% that was randomly left behind. As a film I would say it was an insult to the original text as it was actually focused on worshipping Loz Olivier rather than Shakespeare's story.

Only strong point was Ian Holm's 'Polonius'

In fact I saw it on television and fell asleep before the half way mark. All I really remember is that a voice coach had clearly taught him a more convincing English accent than the Scottish one he didn't succeed with in Braveheart.

I really really don't like Loz Olivier, who to me is the previous generation of Kenneth Branagh. "I am an actOr"

OK - how did you get l a u r e n c e not to change?

Edited October 7, 201015 yr by moi

Touch of Evil is on the telly tonight. I think I'll watch that.

As today was the last day of British Film week at Dinard, I had a totally decadent day and went to three films.

The first was The Black Death, where Sean Bean took the role of Ulric, a sort of Witchfinder General, towards the end of the 14^th century when the Black Death was ravaging the countryside. The scenes of townspeople putting out their dead to be carried to lime pits were particularly well (and gruesomely) portrayed. In the heart of the forest is a village where for reasons nobody knows has this far been spared the pestilence. Of course, the superstition of the day says there must be necromancers and devil’s work involved so Ulric and his band of religious thugs are sent, with a young monk as a guide, to find the necromancer and torture the truth out of him. There is a pervasive atmosphere of darkness throughout and some horrific scenes which had me closing my eyes, but at the same time, given the superstitions of the age there is a plausibility about the violence. I won’t give away what happens when the reach the village, as it would be a shame to spoil it for you. The weakest part of the film for me was Sean Bean, who seems to have only one accent, which immediately calls Richard Sharpe to mind, and has me looking for Harper. Hagman et al. I think James Cosmo would have done the role much better.

Interestingly, the director Chris Smith was there and told us that the film was shot totally chronologically. I have to say I would not have known, I’m not sure how an audience would know that. Maybe Maksimov would be able to tell.

Film 2 was an Irish film called Eclipse with Ciaran Hind acting the part of a widower with two young children. He starts seeing ghosts and meets a woman who writes about ghosts, and it was fairly boring apart from a couple of places where he had nightmares. So I don’t recommend that.

Film 3 was stupendous, wonderful, surreal, black comedy. A 1997 Peter Mullen film called Orphans, set in Glasgow, the film opens with three brothers and a handicapped sister in a wheelchair sitting round their mother’s coffin. The girl wants to kiss her mother goodbye so two of the brothers have to lift her up and suspend her over the coffin to give their mother a kiss. The two older brothers are played brilliantly by Gary Lewis and Douglas Henshall.

The scene shifts to a pub where drunken Weegies are singing sentimental songs. Thomas (Gary Lewis) gets up and starts to sing a song dedicated to his mother, but breaks down half way through. A drunk called Duncan starts sniggering whereupon Michael (Douglas Henshall_ goes berserk and attacks him. In the course of the fight Michael gets a knife in his side.

As the night goes on, wilder and more hilarious “adventures” befall them all. One involves the youngest brother and his cousin poking a shotgun through a bathroom window into the bum of a man who is having a w**k… the man whirls round in surprise and ejaculates all over the cousin’s face.

Of the three films I saw this one was by far the best!!! But I fear foreigners (even fluent ones) will require subtitles to help them with the Weegie (Glaswegian) accents.

Interestingly, the director Chris Smith was there and told us that the film was shot totally chronologically. I have to say I would not have known, I’m not sure how an audience would know that. Maybe Maksimov would be able to tell.

I wouldn't know if you could tell that it was shot in chronological order, especially as I haven't seen the movie, but usually I don't even think about it. As we're talking about a movie Sean Bean in it, I remember seeing the Lord of the Rings movies and I thought that they'd probably shot the scenes where the hobbits say their goodbyes to Frodo at the end of the last movie as one of the last shots of the principal photography to make it easier for the actors to get the emotion that the scene requires. They were at the end of a long shoot(several years), so it would have been sort of last goodbyes between the characters but also the actors as well, but apparently(or so I've heard) the scene wasn't among the last scenes of the principal photography.

Usually it's more cost effective to shoot all the scenes that take place in the same location and/or set, so there's no need to set up lighting, props etc. again at a later date and the only reason that I could think of why you would want to shoot in chronological order is if you want the actors live through the story and make it easier for them to act the final scenes of the movie because they've "lived it" in the right order. If you shoot several scenes on the same location and/or set and the scenes take place at different times in the movie, the risk of creating all sorts continuity errors increases heavily when you shoot in chronological order. You might have days, weeks or even months between the scenes, so you're bound to make some mistakes in placing props etc.

---

I did watch Touch of Evil last night and it's well worth watching, if not for anything else but at least for the famous tracking shot at the start of the movie where the camera takes us across the border and introduces to us some of the main characters and sets up the incident that is at the heart of the movie. And all of this with one continuous shot.

Yes, Chris Smith (the director) explained that part of the reason for the chronological shoot was not to allow the actors to bond so that their emotions in the final scene were more poignant. I remember thinking "But they're ACTORS!! They're supposed to know how to act that!" But it was Sean Bean, so ...

Apart from that, I forgot to mention that in the village in the forest scene, there were reminiscences of The Wicker Man, which I find a truly horrific film.

...there were reminiscences of The Wicker Man, which I find a truly horrific film.

Horrific in a good way, I assume...

Apart from that, I forgot to mention that in the village in the forest scene,there were reminiscences of The Wicker Man, which I find a truly horrific film.

Horrific in a good way, I assume...

I think your assumption depends which version moi was referring to, the classic original or the abysmal remake, which is surely one of the worst movies of all time.

I think your assumption depends which version moi was referring to, the classic original or the abysmal remake, which is surely one of the worst movies of all time.

I've only seen the one with Edward Woodward, which I found truly terrifying - the scene at the end where the happy clappy sect are dancing round the burning wicker tower while Edward Woodward and all the animals are screaming in fear. I think it is one of the most frightening films I have ever seen. The Exorcist and all that stuff is just laughable in comparison.

Oh I see , you thought I meant "horrific" in a slangy sort of way. No, I meant that it truly horrified me.

Edited October 11, 201015 yr by moi

I've only seen the one with Edward Woodward, which I found truly terrifying - the scene at the end where the happy clappy sect are dancing round the burning wicker tower while Edward Woodward and all the animals are screaming in fear. I think it is one of the most frightening films I have ever seen. The Exorcist and all that stuff is just laughable in comparison.

Oh I see , you thought I meant "horrific" in a slangy sort of way. No, I meant that it truly horrified me.

I had the feeling that was the case but thought it was worth clarifying. If you've never seen the Wicker Man remake (the 2l006 version with Nicholas Cage), take my advice - don't!

I've only seen the one with Edward Woodward, which I found truly terrifying - the scene at the end where the happy clappy sect are dancing round the burning wicker tower while Edward Woodward and all the animals are screaming in fear. I think it is one of the most frightening films I have ever seen. The Exorcist and all that stuff is just laughable in comparison.

Oh I see , you thought I meant "horrific" in a slangy sort of way. No, I meant that it truly horrified me.

And yet, strangely, when I think of that film all that comes to mind is Britt Ekland's breasts.

And yet, strangely, when I think of that film all that comes to mind is Britt Ekland's breasts.

They didn't do much for me!