"Now Showing"

[Nitefly]

My thoughts on Dune:

Spoiler

World building and the first half of the film were excellent, top notch.

From the moment Paul and her mum were on their own, for the latter part of the film, it suffered (perhaps in part by presenting itself as part 1). There was clearly a lot of story to go. Paul wasn’t going anywhere and with most of the main characters either dead or safe, there wasn’t really much threat nor anything new to learn in the world. So it did then feel padded.

I can sum the latter parts of the film up in a sentence: Paul and his mum escape the baddies and team up with the desert guys.

^ I don’t think that works so well when you’ve already subjected your audiences to quite a lot of film.

 

[FarleyFlavors]

really glad I paid out to watch it at the BFI IMAX.

made a trip out to the (real) IMAX to see that there Dune

Yeah...no.

Don't waste your money on the BFI IMAX. They've got old, dim, low-resolution 2K projectors and basic 6-channel IMAX sound. A few years ago they also screwed up the repainting of the silver screen which resulted in obvious vertical banding during bright scenes.

The major exception is when they dust off their 70mm film projectors, which is now sadly rare. Last year they were the only cinema in Europe to screen Tenet in "proper" IMAX. Truly jaw-dropping it was.

For the same kind of money you can get a leather recliner in one of the two Odeon Dolby Cinemas in Leicster Square, with dual 4K laser projectors and kick-ass Atmos sound.

At at a push there's also the Cineworld IMAX which at least has the new IMAX laser projectors and 12.1 sound but at the expense of poor sightlines - if the film isn't in 'scope ratio, you won't be able to see the lower quarter of the picture!

There's also a number of other 4K Atmos cinemas dotted around (Picturehouse Central screen 1, Vue West End screen 7, Cineworld Superscreen).

Any of these'll offer an all-round better experience than the BFI.

 

[davidm]

Manchester Printworks for me ; sat on the last-but-one row at the back and yes the IMAX framed shots do get cut off a bit at the bottom (not a 1/4 though )

Watching Dune I was very aware of the film switching back and forth between IMAX and scope - was a bit odd in places.

 

[Gavin]

Halloween Kills

Hilariously awful. Terrible dialogue, terrible acting, terrible everything really. It's a good laugh though, for all the wrong reasons.

 

[FarleyFlavors]

Manchester Printworks for me ; sat on the last-but-one row at the back and yes the IMAX framed shots do get cut off a bit at the bottom (not a 1/4 though )

Apologies @davidm - I thought you were talking about the BFI. Sometimes I forget there's life outside the South-East

Watching Dune I was very aware of the film switching back and forth between IMAX and scope - was a bit odd in places.

I'm a tad jealous actually! The Manchester Printworks is the only cinema in the UK where you can see the full IMAX sequences in Dune.

(And the reason you can see most of the screen there is because it's proper old-school IMAX with a decent rake).

 

[solarfall]

Got another horror movie to discuss!

The Fog (1980) - This was a really great time, I honestly can't recommend it enough. While it's probably not in that upper echelon along with The Thing, They Live, or Big Trouble in Little China, this is one of those John Carpenter movies that just does everything you expect and want from him. It's an absolutely delightful ghost story that can interpreted literally or figuratively, plus some great performances (minus the child actor being kind of unconcerned during that climax, but sheesh, lighten up. 1980 was a long time ago), and an absolutely incredible score. It manages to be disturbing in a way that few horror movies today do, despite showing minimal bloodshed.

Apparently it got remade in the mid-2000's, and I've heard that one is absolute bollocks.

 

[furie]

The Fog (1980) - This was a really great time, I honestly can't recommend it enough. While it's probably not in that upper echelon along with The Thing, They Live, or Big Trouble in Little China, this is one of those John Carpenter movies that just does everything you expect and want from him. It's an absolutely delightful ghost story that can interpreted literally or figuratively, plus some great performances (minus the child actor being kind of unconcerned during that climax, but sheesh, lighten up. 1980 was a long time ago), and an absolutely incredible score. It manages to be disturbing in a way that few horror movies today do, despite showing minimal bloodshed.

I like it, but I always found it to be one of JC's weaker films for some reason. The Omen and Poltergeist do "supernatural scares" better for me, personally. It's still good though.

I got to see Poltergeist at the local cinema last week - it was excellent on the big screen. It's aged pretty well, with the exception of one particular messy effects screen. Great to finally see it on the big screen.

I also watched The Omen (OG) with Maxi-Minor_Fure last night. I still suffer from a form of PTSD watching it, as I first saw it when I was 8 or 9 or something. The dogs and music still make my heart race today. MMF also enjoyed it - so it must be good still.

We also did a family_Furie viewing of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Obviously, we were all delighted - but I still think the ending sucks.

Managed to fit in the remake of The Fog too - absolute bollocks.

And finally No Time To Die, which I realise I never reviewed. Obviously there's the stupid locations that have them zipping all over Norway and Scotland in minutes - anyone with an advanced level of Norwegian geography would be all over that gaff. Other than that, the biggest problem was that the film held very few surprises. Oh, this bridge, that's on the trailer, he'll do this. On a plane, this is this bit of the trailer, etc. The film was essentially just some bull**** story made up to connect the bits of the trailer together.

For the "climax" of all the DC Bond films so far, it was very poor, with a weak baddie and weak scheme that just never worked. It was complete bobbins. However, the action sequences were great (the two I'd not already seen in the trailers, anyway) and the sound (we have an excellent new Dolby Atmos screen in Stafford) was incredible.

Quite happy to put it in the "better than Quantum of Solace" pile, but there's a lot of Bond films in that pile I'd happily never watch again

 

[Pokemaniac]

For the "climax" of all the DC Bond films so far, it was very poor, with a weak baddie and weak scheme that just never worked.

Spoiler: Spoilers

In hindsight, this is the biggest issue I have with the story/villain too. He might have had a plan, but it was never disclosed to the viewer, so the stakes were unknown. Okay, he has a whole island base with a store of killer nanobots, but he lacks a way to distribute them. Sure, boats are coming to pick up some samples, but the Royal Navy is in the area, and they are famously good at sinking boats. After Bond and Nomi shoot up the villain's lair, his plan is effectively ruined too. Bond shouldn't have gone back to re-open those blast doors. He's not in a hurry at that point. The missile strike would have landed, messing up most of the lair, probably killing the main villain in the process too. At any rate, there's not enough manpower left on the island to resist a more thorough sweep later, while Bond and his family go have ice cream or something.

 

[James F]

Dune

It's great to see films like these in the cinema, auteur driven epics. I know of course that this is a remake or retelling of David Lynch's film, but this film was certainly Denis Villeneuve's. I can only agree what has already been said about the beautiful and jaw dropping cinematography and production design. After reading your reviews I was expecting a really snail paced film (like 2001 slow), but the film didn't drag for me at all. I was a bit disappointed when it ended because I wanted to carry on with the journey, which can only be a good thing. All in all a great start to what I hope will be the latest great Hollywood trilogy. I would of liked one more big set piece though as the action somewhat petered out during the final act. I'd give it a light 8/10

 

[furie]

I know of course that this is a remake or retelling of David Lynch's film,

Erm... Not really. It's a [pretty accurate] version of possibly one of the most famous science fiction books ever written

 

[James F]

Erm... Not really. It's a [pretty accurate] version of possibly one of the most famous science fiction books ever written

I haven't seen the David Lynch film so I am unsure how similar that film is to this one. What I meant was that it isn't the first time the book has been adapted for the screen. I guess I was too quick to call it a remake without acknowledging the book.

Sent from my SM-A217F using Tapatalk

 

[davidm]

Just watched Dune (1984)

I'd seen this before (like 30+ years ago in a Cinema) and had it on DVD but don't think I'd ever watched the DVD, was quite a surprise that the advertised "widescreen DVD" was a widescreen crop into a 4:3 frame - had to fiddle with the projector to get an image out of it that actually fitted my screen...

...anyway, despite all that faff, there was a heck of a lot of similarities between this version and the modern one (well, 2/3 of this version covers the same ground as the "Part One" version) - the last 1/3 of the 1984 version is all a bit of a rushed mess though.

Production design often pretty good on this, but definitely showing its age compared to some of the other big sci-fi films of that era.

Also, in other news ;

https://twitter.com/x/status/1453058884516466691

So thats nice.

 

[FarleyFlavors]

the advertised "widescreen DVD" was a widescreen crop into a 4:3 frame

You think that's bad? The only copy I have on DVD is a pan-and-scan 4:3 version of the extended TV edit (which Lynch hated enough to have his name removed from the credits).

It was always a bizarre decision to hire someone like Lynch for a big budget sci-fi epic. You get the impression the requirement to produce a commercially successful Hollywood film was at odds with his instinct to go for the weird and surreal. There's flashes of his style throughout (the Navigator doesn't look entirely dissimilar to the mutant baby in Eraserhead, for instance) but there's not enough of it.

 

[James F]

Dune with Denis Villeneuve and Christopher Nolan (Ep. 323)

Stream Dune with Denis Villeneuve and Christopher Nolan (Ep. 323) by The Director's Cut on desktop and mobile. Play over 320 million tracks for free on SoundCloud.

m.soundcloud.com

I have come across this interesting discussion with Denis Villeneuve and Christopher Nolan about the development of Dune (2021)

Villeneuve stated that for the most part he avoided the Lynch film for inspiration and was mostly focused on the book, so I feel very daft about calling it a remake of the 1984 film. One thing that I found really interesting was that he said he was trying to avoid comparisons to Star Wars, as someone who obviously hasn't read the book, I felt that there were aspects of the film that unavoidably felt Star Wars, but tonally the those films are completely different.

I am glad that part two has been greenlit, I am very eager to see this story continue.

Sent from my SM-A217F using Tapatalk

 

[furie]

...anyway, despite all that faff, there was a heck of a lot of similarities between this version and the modern one (well, 2/3 of this version covers the same ground as the "Part One" version) - the last 1/3 of the 1984 version is all a bit of a rushed mess though.

I watched it about three months ago (probably about 3 months after I read the book). It is indeed very rushed at the end. It's odd though, because both films capture something of the essence of the books. The Lynch version captures the almost surreal images the book invokes, plus the plotting, scheming and characters. The new one evokes the sense of scale and creates the atmosphere.

Put together, they would be about spot on

Production design often pretty good on this, but definitely showing its age compared to some of the other big sci-fi films of that era.

I think it does show its age, but it's still quite outstanding for the scope of the film. Where it fails, I think it's just because Lynch tried to do too much and the technology/budgets just weren't there at the time. I think it's outstanding that so much was done, with such a relatively untested director (certainly not one you'd see at the helm of a huge budget sci-fi film). It's akin to the way Peter Jackson got LotR done.

It was always a bizarre decision to hire someone like Lynch for a big budget sci-fi epic. You get the impression the requirement to produce a commercially successful Hollywood film was at odds with his instinct to go for the weird and surreal. There's flashes of his style throughout (the Navigator doesn't look entirely dissimilar to the mutant baby in Eraserhead, for instance) but there's not enough of it.

H.R. Giger did huge amounts of artwork for the production that was left out. It was too odd even for Lynch to use in the adaptation - but I think his visions work well, and I like the style, even though it's a bit "Tron" in places

One thing that I found really interesting was that said he was trying to avoid comparisons to Star Wars, as someone who obviously hasn't read the book, I felt that there were aspects of the film that unavoidably felt Star Wars, but tonally the those films are completely different.

This is a bit like any fantasy film trying to avoid being like The Lord of the Rings. Only kind of inverse. Where LotR set the standards for fantasy, Dune set a lot of the standards for Sci-Fi. Lucas definitely used Dune as one of the inspirations for Star Wars. So the whole thing circles back. Star Wars is Dune-like, so any Dune film will therefore be Star Wars-like.

Anyway, I went to see Venom: Let there be Carnage last night. What a load of brainless bobbins. Good fun, but so lite you could diet on it. 7/10.

Off to see the OG Harry Potter on Friday, looking forward to seeing how bad it looks these days on the big screen

 

[FarleyFlavors]

One thing that I found really interesting was that said he was trying to avoid comparisons to Star Wars, as someone who obviously hasn't read the book, I felt that there were aspects of the film that unavoidably felt Star Wars

Absolutely - in fact, I'd be very surprised if Lucas hadn't read Dune before he came up with Star Wars. The galactic empire, the Force, the desert planet - all clearly influenced by Dune.

To be honest the book isn't much cop. I struggled through the first one and gave up half way through the second. All that Sixties-style new-age mysticism really isn't my cup of tea.

 

[davidm]

I do recall reading the book (again, eons ago) but could not have liked it much as I don't have any of the others.

 

[FarleyFlavors]

H.R. Giger did huge amounts of artwork for the production that was left out. It was too odd even for Lynch to use in the adaptation

I think that was for the abandoned 1970s version? At least, they showed some of his production artwork in the documentary Jodorowsky's Dune (which is well worth catching, by the way). It seems highly unlikely any filmmaker would have seriously considered using Giger's work after the release of Alien. Too distinctive.

but I think his visions work well, and I like the style, even though it's a bit "Tron" in places

Tron?! You've lost me there...

 

[furie]

I think that was for the abandoned 1970s version? At least, they showed some of his production artwork in the documentary Jodorowsky's Dune (which is well worth catching, by the way). It seems highly unlikely any filmmaker would have seriously considered using Giger's work after the release of Alien. Too distinctive.

Ahhh, you're right. It's been 20+ years since I read about this in a Giger biography and got it wrong - it wasn't Lynch's Dune he worked on.

Tron?! You've lost me there...

It's the animation hand drawn over the top of frames. The shield fight scene really It's not the same, but there was a lot of this kind of hand drawn "overlay" kind of thing going on in the 80's.

 

[furie]

Double post, but it's important

Went to see Last Night in Soho last night.

I had some reservations, as the trailers seemed to try to make it look "too intriguing", and I thought (like Baby Driver) that maybe Edgar Wright was promising more than he could deliver.

I'm glad to say that I was wrong. Where Baby Driver starts exceptionally strong and whimpers out, LNIS starts very understated and ramps up the psychological thriller to the conclusion.

The two "modern" leads are simpering, wet and annoying - which compliments the dark and sexy 60's leads. I think there's some missing padding on the main character's story, and there are some bits that let it down a little - but where it's good, it more than makes up for it.

So, it's going to get a rare 5/5 from me. Everyone should go and see this film - even if you hate it, just so that films like this continue to be made. It's not a trashy CGI turd like Venom. Or a common turd slasher like Halloween. It's trying to do something different and mostly pulls it off. Don't be part of the future "I wish I'd seen that at the cinema" gang

Spoiler

I didn't want to put in spoiler tags, as just their presence suggests something to be spoiled. However, most of the plot twists are obvious, I spotted them all in advance, and I suspect I was supposed to. The twist is that this is actually a supernatural horror film, not a time travelling murder mystery/psychological horror. That for me made the film. It's one of the best horrors of this ilk I've seen in many years.

I suppose there's an issue if you just want a thriller, but for anyone who loves a good horror, this is fab