Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

"Now Showing"

Surely I can't be the first person to write a Ghostbusters review?

It's a difficult one to talk about, because people are so precious about stuff. The forget that in reality, the original is often quite dull and the second film is awful. However, there's so much love because it's such a great film for kids. It has a lot of character and charm and a great mix of family comedy and scares.

It's also difficult because Ghostbusters introduced me to Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray and Harold Ramis and everything that they ever did afterwards. How can a life filled with the joys they brought from the original film ever work now?

Fortunately, I can distinguish between fondness and that happy old memory place and reality and keep them distinct.

I enjoyed the film. I was never at any time really into it (apart from the balloon bit), but I didn't find it a drag. It was entertaining, fun enough and felt like a proper old film. It didn't seem as cookie cutter produced as a lot of Hollywood blockbusters. So definite plus points.

I think the thing that stopped me from really enjoying it though was that it lacked "charm". The CGI was "good CGI", which means it's CGI and it's brash, shiny and obvious. It always felt unreal (well, durr) and kept dragging me out of the moment.

I guess comparing it with the original, the first one never really shied away from the fact it was a faux horror. There was always an undercurrent of solid fear/terror behind the light story and jokes. The Zuul/fridge moment with Weaver haunted me for years.

This one sides more with The Real Ghostbusters, which I think is to it's detriment.

Other than that though, it isn't awful and well worth going to see - with an open mind ;)
 
Re: "Now Showing"

furie said:
Surely I can't be the first person to write a Ghostbusters review?

It's a difficult one to talk about, because people are so precious about stuff. The forget that in reality, the original is often quite dull and the second film is awful. However, there's so much love because it's such a great film for kids. It has a lot of character and charm and a great mix of family comedy and scares.

It's also difficult because Ghostbusters introduced me to Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray and Harold Ramis and everything that they ever did afterwards. How can a life filled with the joys they brought from the original film ever work now?

Fortunately, I can distinguish between fondness and that happy old memory place and reality and keep them distinct.

I enjoyed the film. I was never at any time really into it (apart from the balloon bit), but I didn't find it a drag. It was entertaining, fun enough and felt like a proper old film. It didn't seem as cookie cutter produced as a lot of Hollywood blockbusters. So definite plus points.

I think the thing that stopped me from really enjoying it though was that it lacked "charm". The CGI was "good CGI", which means it's CGI and it's brash, shiny and obvious. It always felt unreal (well, durr) and kept dragging me out of the moment.

I guess comparing it with the original, the first one never really shied away from the fact it was a faux horror. There was always an undercurrent of solid fear/terror behind the light story and jokes. The Zuul/fridge moment with Weaver haunted me for years.

This one sides more with The Real Ghostbusters, which I think is to it's detriment.

Other than that though, it isn't awful and well worth going to see - with an open mind ;)
Click to expand...
Paul Fieg should never make a movie again. That said im firmly in the not going to see it even if you pay me crowd.

He's **** and the cast is ****.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
I saw a few films at the weekend.

Ghostbusters (2016)

It was ok. I quite liked the first scene and the way it was played out. It's a bit of a mix after that. It's watchable but I found some characters a bit too stupid, like, how are we meant to believe Wiig's character is capable of doing well in a good profession when she's so dumb the rest of the time? The visuals were ok and the plot worked ok. I also didn't find it that funny.

I should point out that I'm not that keen on Paul Feig's previous films but I loved Spy.


Central Intelligence

The Rock continues to have an excellent on screen presence. I usually don't like Kevin Hart but I thought he was good in this. I found it fairly funny and a very watchable film.


The secret life of Pets

I enjoyed this film, it wasn't as great as I hoped it would be. Still a nice watchable family film though. Look forward to seeing how Universal are turning this into a dark ride now.
 
Re: "Now Showing"

peep said:
I saw a few films at the weekend.

Ghostbusters (2016)

It was ok. I quite liked the first scene and the way it was played out. It's a bit of a mix after that. It's watchable but I found some characters a bit too stupid, like, how are we meant to believe Wiig's character is capable of doing well in a good profession when she's so dumb the rest of the time? The visuals were ok and the plot worked ok. I also didn't find it that funny.

I should point out that I'm not that keen on Paul Feig's previous films but I loved Spy.


Central Intelligence

The Rock continues to have an excellent on screen presence. I usually don't like Kevin Hart but I thought he was good in this. I found it fairly funny and a very watchable film.


The secret life of Pets

I enjoyed this film, it wasn't as great as I hoped it would be. Still a nice watchable family film though. Look forward to seeing how Universal are turning this into a dark ride now.
Click to expand...
Saw the latter two, and my opinions are the same. Except in Pets, Kevin Hart bugged the **** out of me and it felt very generic.

Paul Fieg is a piece of **** and only way I would suffer through that bull **** he claims to call ghostbusters is if I got paid minimum 10k.

**** that guy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
Do you not like Paul Fieg Tom? I'm getting an slight feeling that maybe you're not keen...

Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk
 
peep said:
It's watchable but I found some characters a bit too stupid, like, how are we meant to believe Wiig's character is capable of doing well in a good profession when she's so dumb the rest of the time?
Click to expand...

Sue? That literally describes Sue. And she's real.

Ghostbusters was amazing and hilarious and smashed it yay.
 
Re: "Now Showing"

furie said:
Do you not like Paul Fieg Tom? I'm getting an slight feeling that maybe you're not keen...

Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
It goes back to interviews I heard him do on some podcasts years back. His smugness and disregard for history is bad. Plus Melissa McCarthy isn't funny at all, or Kristen Wiig, or Kate McKinnon. The three most annoying people in film, all in one movie.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
Star Trek: Beyond

I thought the trailers for this looked rather pants but I really enjoyed it. Some great visuals and designs. It was funny in places and was just an enjoyable film.
 
Finding Dory in 3D.

I really enjoyed this film. It treads a lot of the same plot points and scenes from Finding Nemo but introduces a lot of great new characters and baby Dory is adorable. I found it very funny at times and the post-credits scene is very amusing. Oh and, seeing as it's a CG film, the 3D is fantastic.
 
Re: "Now Showing"

Ben said:
peep said:
It's watchable but I found some characters a bit too stupid, like, how are we meant to believe Wiig's character is capable of doing well in a good profession when she's so dumb the rest of the time?
Click to expand...

Sue? That literally describes Sue. And she's real.

Ghostbusters was amazing and hilarious and smashed it yay.
Click to expand...
Just seen this, haha. Guess I'll take it as a compliment ;p (I hold it all in at work and then all the extra scattiness just bursts out in my spare time I guess)

Maybe I connected with the film then lol. Don't know, but I liked it. Was expecting to hate it but it was every bit the cheesy romp it should have been and equalled the original IMO. A few cringy moments - the race card humour never really works this side of the pond. But there were several laugh out loud moments. Plus it was worth it for Kate McKinnon <3 <3 <3
 
Suicide Squad. Don't believe all the negativity. Sure, it's not ground breaking, but it's a hell of a fun ride, a fast paced action filled film. It's basically like the final battle of any modern superhero film, but if it was the entire movie.
 
Re: "Now Showing"

TommyAlex said:
It's basically like the final battle of any modern superhero film, but if it was the entire movie.
Click to expand...

You say that like it's a good thing.
 
Re: "Now Showing"

**** superhero movies in general.

The best film of the year by far was Hunt For The Wilderpeople. Everyone should see it if they can. Really funny, sweet, and exciting.

Too bad the director is doing Thor 3 next. Awful decision.

Sent from my XT1030 using Tapatalk
 
^I really want to see Hunt for the Wilderpeople, not released here in the UK till September which sucks. Love the director though and I'm sure he's going to do awesome things with Thor 3. Fun fact: He also co-wrote the story for Moana, this year's Disney animated film.


Suicide Squad

I'd heard really bad things about this and like Batman vs Superman curiosity got the better of me. I actually thought the trailers were well made, shame the film wasn't provided with the same love. It's sort of watchable but I think the problems really outweigh any positives. I think the way they failed to set up most of the characters was a really BIG problem, some say this isn't a problem if you're a fan of Suicide Squad. Ummmm, this is a big blockbuster film, it should be catering for everyone, not a little niche group of fans. I found the editing of the film really jarring, could barely understand Killer Croc and the soundtrack was just a jukebox on random. Jared Leto's joker was ok, I liked bits of this version but yet again I don't think his character was really fleshed out properly (oh and don't expect much in terms of screen time). Both female characters are used as pure eye candy in a really unnecessary way, I liked bits of Harley Quinn but she doesn't really do a whole lot. Enchantress has a stupid dance, I hope it turns into a silly gif after the home release.

The more I think about this film the more I hate it tbh.
 
Re: "Now Showing"

Suicide Squad

First, Warner needs to stop meddling in the superhero films after test screenings. It was very clear where the reshoots were, and it was weaker in those spots. They tried to make it a villain Guardians of the Galaxy, but failed.

The first act was pretty solid. Then it went downhill. The lack of character development was a big problem, and they could have probably made Killer Croc, Captain Boomerang, and Katana much more minor characters, and it would have worked better.

I disagree with peep though, and I find Leto to do a very good, creepy, Joker, and Margot was amazing. She was creepy, sexy, funny, and an overall bad ass. Enchantress didn't really work for me either, but they were definitely more than eye candy.

Will Smith played Will Smith. Viola Davis was pretty good. But it dragged in parts, and was ridiculous in others. All that said, it kept me mostly entertained for the 2.5 hours, and I'd watch it again...at home.

I really hope they have a directors cut with the original story before WB cocked it up.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
Okay, let's wade in here :)

Finding Dory
Despite Marlin, I'm a fan of Finding Nemo. It's the only one of the "major" Pixar releases I've never seen on the big screen and always regretted that.

So I was kind of excited about Finding Dory. I was hoping for something maybe like Toy Story 2 where the universe is expanded and you see more. It kind of was, but it just repeated the same things that made the original.

It's confused me a lot though. The first 20 minutes is very much "we're doing the same again, but we won't bore you with actually doing it, we'll just montage a fast forward through that as a kind of nod to the first film and to say "we could have just remade the first film, but we didn't".

Then they went and pretty much repeated the first film again. Seagulls? This time it's Seals. Mix Gill and the Pelican and you have the Octopus. There was nothing in the film that ever felt entirely original.

The confusion comes about because I still really enjoyed it. I guess I must have a defective personality gene we'll call "TheForceAwakensism" where you can watch the same story belted out but really enjoy it anyway because there's something in the film/world/universe that just appeals. It explains why I can watch so many superhero films even though they're all the same :)

So I hated the fact it was essentially just a "catchphrase comedy" type of rehash, but at the same time, found it charming, engaging and hilarious. I have no desire to watch it again (Nemo I've watched a lot and falls in with Monsters Inc. as a kids film you can watch on repeat with a toddler without it driving you utterly bat **** crazy), but probably would if it was on TV and I had nothing better to do.

3/5?

Then this morning was Suicide Squad

I'm with Tom here, it's so unevenly edited and cut that it never finds its own style or theme. There are lots of ideas bubbling around, but nothing seems to make it through.

It starts promising with the music-videoesque flashbacks. There's the neon highlight that seems to be an advertising lure, but... The style of each flashback is pretty much the same. There's no whoosh or glamour to fit the music. The trailer did a much better job than the actual film of tying music with action. I'm willing to bet that the music was added after the trailers got such a hot reception.

It was just so almost there in terms of "a thing" it was painful. Then they kind of wandered... And forgot about some characters... And flashed back later to try and fill in plot gaps or character gaps or some **** - only they never repeated the music video type thing again until the last few minutes.

So you have this almost great introduction and some bollocks plot stuff that even Killer Croc with his head in a toilet full of crap could see the holes in. Then the film starts and it's... Well, it's lots of stuff you've already enjoyed in the trailer, or seen in the trailer with added bobbins. Compared to the musical opening, the film becomes very quiet and subdued. It wanders aimlessly for a bit trying to work out how if the audience is aware of the fact there's a mission to save somebody which for some reason is more important than the world devouring device (once again) deployed by evil.

It's just a bit crappy. Then, all of sudden it becomes a Will Smith buddy movie with a dramatic score and lots of slow-mo. Raise to finale and cut (ish). Oh, I missed Peep's dancing Witch thing, which was hilarious :lol:

Interspersed there was the occasional good bit of a one liner or action scene or something. Nothing to really elevate the film.

The finale was standard super hero movie trash. Some characters you don't really care about fighting other characters you also don't really care about in a gradually larger and larger scale of destruction until something obvious happens.

And then Amanda Waller with perfect hair finishes it off. Awful.

I thought Leto was fine as The Joker from what we saw. It was never really in any kind of context though. It's like he had a big load of story to back up the performance, but then only showed himself as a completely mad psychotic. Okay, The Joker IS psychotic, but not actually insane - he's clever and devious and manipulating which we never saw, only the madness. It also never (even with the additional flashbacks) really explained his and Harley's relationship properly. They really needed their own movie first.

Sound was awful at the cinema. Like Pete, it was rare I caught what Killer Croc said. Quite often though, the lines spoken by lead characters where often too quickly made and with too much background noise (or overlaid music) that you couldn't hear what was going on. I doubt it would hav emade the plot make any more sense or redeem any of the characters.

So, all in all, it was a mess. For every moment it stood out, there were two moments that brought it down or were so boldly mediocre it hurt. It never found a rhythm, a style or a theme to stick to and to work to. It was also quite entertaining in a "leave your brain at the door" kind of way - more so than complete trash like Transformers.

I was expecting a pretty bad film with some good moments and maybe some fun to be had. It matched my expectations :) 2/5
 
Suicide Squad

Ok first thing I'm going to say is that Margot Robbie is hot. Like really **** hot. She is amazing as Harley Quinn in this and is absolutely sexy as ****.

Anyways, I thought this movie was great! The soundtrack I absolutely loved, and the action was great! The plot surprised me completely, as the trailers didn't reveal any major plot points, which I am glad about that. Jared Leto was good as Joker, but we all know that no one will ever top Heath Ledger. Deadshot was easily my favorite character in the movie. He brought the most "humanity" to the table, and Will Smith did great as him. Also, Amanda Waller is a dick.

Solid movie, better than BvS.

8

Sausage Party
Holy. ****. This movie was **** hilarious. The last 5-10 minutes in this movie I have probably never laughed that hard in my whole life. If you have seen it, you know exactly what I am talking about. It was very very over the top and bizarre, and was hilarious. Start to finish, this movie was hilarious and picks at so many stereotypes, it's great. I would recommend it, BUT DO NOT TAKE YOUR KIDS TO SEE THIS. DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.

8
 
The Lobster

Well this was a weird film. I kinda love it, purely for how random it is. It's quite funny in places and the cast is amazing. There are times where it gets a bit too slow and nothing happens but I think it's worth checking out.

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
 
Sausage Party

I went in thinking this might actually be an R-rated comedy I could enjoy because while it could be packed with dirty jokes at the end of the day it is just cartoon talking food. Ummm...

MY+EYES.gif


By far the most extreme thing I've ever seen in my life. This movie is hilarious, don't get me wrong, I like offensive violent humor, but some of the sex stuff scarred me for life. I agree with the guy I spoke with at the theater, it should have been NC-17.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top