What's new

"Now Showing"


Active Member
1917 then.

Not much plot to this and what little plot there is frequently doesn't make a lick of sense. It strains credulity to breaking point at times. The German soldiers are about as good as aiming their weapons as the average stormtrooper, for instance. It also presents a strangely sanitized version of trench warfare - which is odd for a purportedly anti-war film.

But I'm seriously glad I caught this at the cinema. As a piece of moviemaking, it's an incredible tour de force. The cinematography and camerawork are the obvious standouts but the production design (and set construction!) deserve special mention too. The SFX and the sound mix (I caught this in an Atmos auditorium) were faultless.

I suspect this isn't going to work nearly as well on a telly, much like 2001: A Space Odyssey becomes a snooze-fest on the small screen.

Can't argue with you at all. Thanks to @davidm I caught Birdman again the night before and 1917's edit points are muh more difficult to spot. I suspect there's quite a bit of digital manipulation going on though, unlike the former's carefully planned physical effects. (I got it wrong by the way - there's three instances of "pan up to the sky" cheats in Birdman). It's unbelievable that neither film was even nominated for an editing Oscar.

I don't think it is, but then again I do love Birdman to bits. And speaking of Oscars, I don't think it's as good a film as either The Irishman or Parasite, but it'll almost certainly beat both.
I read the first paragraph of this post and thought, 'Aye up, here we go, Farley's gonna give it a mauling', but thankfully you redeemed yourself with later comments. ;)
I largely agree to be fair - 1917 doesn't have much 'plot', and what there is is only there to serve the concept of the single take thing - and you do feel that sometimes. Geographically speaking it doesn't make much sense either, I mean, how far did they (he) actually travel? No man's land was, what? 100 yards? Few German trenches, bit of a wood, open field, couple of shelled-out buildings and boom - he's there. Wasn't it supposed to be an 8 or 9km trek that would take several hours? 🤔
But hey, it's not supposed to be Shakespeare and it's not supposed to be a documentary - 1917 is very much a technical exercise. In that respect, it reminded me a lot of Gravity (which is also a snooze fest on telly). People who complained about it not being scientifically (or in this case, historically) accurate are missing the point. I mean, you wouldn't go on Disney's 'Round the World in 80 Days', and then complain that it didn't actually last 80 days, would you?
What Mendes has done here is offer up a big-screen experience, and a bloody good one at that.
One that's better than Birdman. ;)
Last edited:
I largely agree to be fair - 1917 doesn't have much 'plot', and what there is is only there to serve the concept of the single take thing - and you do feel that sometimes.
That's the feeling I frequently got too - that they decided on the one-take thing first then hung a few vignettes on it to vaguely resemble a plot.

Which leads to some ridiculous moments, probably the most egregious being
French woman: "The baby needs milk".

Soldier: "Have this fresh milk I found in a bucket a couple of hours ago."
What Mendes has done here is offer up a big-screen experience, and a bloody good one at that.
One that's better than Birdman. ;)

A better big-screen experience than Birdman? No question.

It did have nearly six times the budget though.
it reminded me a lot of Gravity
Thanks for a more recent example than 2001. I am old.


Well-Known Member
Watched a few movies last night. First was Jigsaw which I wasn't going to watch because the whole Saw thing sort of died over a decade ago, but it actually was pretty good with a few good twists. There were some scenes that even made me feel like looking away even though I'm not a squeamish person. Kept me entertained at least. 7/10

Then I watched Wonder. I have never read the book and therefore had no expectations but I really enjoyed it. Nothing much really happens but I cried probably about 4 times. Loved the characters, and it was overall just a cute movie with a good but cliche message. 8/10


Well-Known Member
Might as well:.

Also, Imagineering Story: First 4 are brilliant. It looks at all sorts of failed projects and lovely old-school backstage shots. Really enjoyed those. The last 2 though? Blegh. They're just Bob Iger circlejerks that don't even come close to touching this decade's 'failures', and instead tries to show that adding a few rides to their unsuccessful parks made them good. There's still some great backstage info, but it really just did not work as well as the first 4. Also, the last bit of the last episode has Rise of the Resistance spoilers if you don't want to see those.
I just got around to watching the last two. While I agree a bit of it seemed braggy, I think they have a right to brag for sure. They did talk about a lot of the failures experienced by Cali Adventure in the 5th one which was kind of cool to see because I remember it getting so much flack but I never visited it until after it was redone. The last two aren't as interesting as the first four but it's cool to see ideas come to life and technology advance like it has. It also makes me cry when I see how much heart and soul the Imagineers put into the projects to the point where they get teary talking about it!


Captain Basic
It also makes me cry when I see how much heart and soul the Imagineers put into the projects to the point where they get teary talking about it!
I did really appreciate that aspect. I do have a ton of respect for the Imagineers and their work, it's really just the way it was presented that irked me with the last two. And there's still a ton they didn't cover that I wish they did(gimme my Illuminations globe god dammit). Overall, it was a very good set of documentaries that offered some unique perspectives on the world of Disney parks.


Well-Known Member
Saw a few films over the past week. First was Greed at a preview screening. The only thing I knew going in was the director and that it stars Steve Coogan. I enjoyed it, you can feel the hate for these mega wealthy people in charge of big business. There's quite a few very amusing things but some of the darker moments feel a little out of place, the tone shifts about quite a lot to really help drive home the point about low paid workers in foreign countries etc. It is good though and it is shining light on an important topic.

The Personal history of David Copperfield - I've never read the book by Dickens but I love Armando Iannucci and the cast looked great. I liked it, I think the variety of the characters helped the film along but it did drag at times.

Dolittle - I was expecting this to be terrible and ended up enjoying it. The creature vfx is great. Overall the film is a bit weird, certainly wasn't expecting some of the things in the third act, I enjoyed Michael Sheen chewing the scenery.

The Rhythm section - I knew very little about this film going in. I recommend avoiding this film. It is terrible. The pacing is really bad, it takes forever to get going but then when it is "going" it is somehow really dull. The car chase is ok, the way the camera keeps panning around is neat. Just a really bad film, I think half the audience walked out.

Just Mercy - This was fantastic, maybe a little long but the cast were incredible and the story is great, very emotional.

A beautiful day in the neighborhood - My only exposure prior to this film of Mr Rodgers was the occasional reference or meme on Reddit so this film was a weird experience. It's clearly very dedicated to re-creating his show and clearly doesn't shy away from the reporter being a douche. That was actually a problem for me, so much of the film is centered around the reporter but he's so unlikable that it's off-putting. On top of this the film has some absolutely wild dream sequences which gives the film a really disjointed feel. Overall for me it was ok but there was a lot to dislike for a film about a wholesome kids TV presenter (who comes off a bit creepy at times).

Netflix added Uncut Gems the other day which seems to have a lot of hype around it and "Adam Sandler deserves an Oscar for it". This film was not for me, I do not understand the hype. I hated the characters (which you're clearly meant to) but that just turns me off the film from the get go. The soundtrack made me want to mute the film, it was awful. Meh.


Well-Known Member
^ yeah I really didn't like Uncut Gems either - watched it because of the hype and thought WTF is this meant to be. Sandler was very good in it, but a film full of horrible characters making life more horrible for themselves was not great fun.


Staff member
Social Media Team
Uncut Gems was s**t. Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood felt like it lasted 5 hours despite being less than 2.

Sent from my Redmi Note 7 using Tapatalk
Parasite: Very well done movie. Well thought out editing and cinematography, final 15 minutes are amazing. The overall themes were too similar to the Joker, however I think both movies have some great qualities to them.
Final Grade: A+


Well-Known Member
Birds of Prey.. - I really enjoyed this, thought it was just fun and the action sequences had some great direction. Ewan McGregor was also really camping it up and it was awesome.

Sonic the hedgehog - I grew up with some of the original Sega games but never fully dived into the wider world of Sonic, this film has a whole backstory for the character and I have no idea if this has been referenced before in comics etc or if it was made up for the film but it was a slightly surprising start to the film. The vfx were actually really good and the cast were great at acting around a CG character, those extra months after that trailer backlash clearly helped this film a lot. The film is fun and I never felt bored, Jim Carey pulling out something similar to one of his 90s roles was a delight and I laughed quite a few times. There are 2 end credit sequences but nothing at the very end.

Parasite - Having not liked the director's previous film, Snowpiercer, I went in with very mild expectations despite all the awards being thrown at it. I liked it, the characters were all well written, it was amusing and I was completely hooked throughout. I went in knowing nothing about the film (outside of who made it) and I think this is the way to go. I've heard you catch more details the more you watch which I'm not convinced by but I'll probably watch again on home release.

Emma. - I've not seen an adaptaion of this Jane Austen novel before but do tend to enjoy her other adaptations that I've come across. I liked it, the cast were excellent, it was nicely directed and shot and the pivotel scene about a third in was amazing. If you like period dramas, especially from Austen, then I'd recommend.