Blade Runner 2049 lives up to the hype.

It might even be better than Blade Runner. Will need to watch it again to be sure. It's certainly nicer to look at, which is saying something in itself since the original is stunning, but this is just phenomenal. Need to watch it again to decide which is better on the whole.

At 9/25/17 09:42 PM, TheQuietGamer wrote: These early Gerald's Game reviews are making me excited.

2017 be the year of the King, apparently.

At 10/1/17 01:23 PM, Auz wrote: I finally got around to watching Star Wars: Rogue One.

The new Star Wars films seem to be all over the place as far as fan reception. Personally I loved Episode VII and thoroughly disliked Rogue One. Find it hard to be excited for Episode VIII given how troubled the production seems, and I'm dreading the Han Solo film.

At 10/2/17 11:07 AM, Dean wrote: Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie (2014) - First time watching this and I was so disappointed.

I've avoided watching this to avoid the disappointment but I'll get to it eventually, I think he just bit off way more than he could chew and overestimated how much making videos in his basement would translate to 'real' huge-scale filmmaking. From the sound of it he threw every big, cool idea he could think of into this like it would be his only chance until it becomes all spectacle, when that's not at all what AVGN is about.

Absolutely no one makes a good first feature, not even someone with James' experience at home movies. I think it's a shame the AVGN movie was also his first big movie, but I also hugely look forward to whatever feature length films he does next, assuming he's learned a lot from this one and that he'll pick something with a smaller scale.

At 10/5/17 12:39 PM, Dean wrote: Green Room (2015)

Did you get watching Blue Ruin? It's the same director and I'd recommend watching it first based on the fact that Green Room came right after and is probably the better film. Don't miss Blue Ruin either way tho.

Also they're not related or anything but he's talked of the possibility of making another film with a color in the title and joining these two as part an unconventional trilogy.

I've only just noticed how heavily your collection skews toward older films as well, particularly from the 80's. Neat that.

At 10/6/17 08:48 PM, Jackho wrote: I've avoided watching this to avoid the disappointment but I'll get to it eventually

Surprisingly I had no idea what the general reception for this movie was like. I'd just assumed that, given it was the AVGN movie, it would be worth a watch. I think it has to be the worst film I've watched since I started logging things on Letterboxd, so I gave it the lowest score I hadn't used yet. Admittedly my Letterboxd ratings are all over the place, so that doesn't really mean too much.

Which makes me curious to find out how other people decide on their ratings. My ratings are almost purely based on how much something entertained me in comparison to other things I'd recently watched, so they can be a but wonky. So say I watched something that I thought was fun but a bit mediocre, I'd probably give it 3 stars. Then if I watched something the next day and found it less entertaining than the last one, it'd get a 2.5.

Did you get watching Blue Ruin?

If you've previously told me about this one, I'm not remembering it. Sounds interesting though so I'll try and get it when I order a new batch of films.

I've only just noticed how heavily your collection skews toward older films as well, particularly from the 80's. Neat that.

It's not a conscious decision, but it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of the films I have are from late 70's - early 90's. I would loved to have been able to experience growing up in the 80's as a teenager. I know I tend to gravitate towards 80's music and apparently films too. Seemed like such an exciting decade in terms of the entertainment.

@Jackho - you got me curious, so here's a quick breakdown of the films I own by decade released.

At 10/7/17 02:52 AM, Dean wrote: @Jackho - you got me curious, so here's a quick breakdown of the films I own by decade released.

I have many 80's too, labyrinth, platoon, aliens, American psycho, apocalypse now, Conan, day of the dead, full metal jacket, Indiana Jones, legend, Rambo 2, red Sonja, scarface, spaceballs, empire strikes back, return of the Jedi.

At 10/7/17 02:00 PM, WaffleCrisp wrote: labyrinth

Labyrinth is great, up there as one of my all time favourites. If you like that, check out The Dark Crystal and The Neverending Story. I don't think either is as good, but both worth checking out if you haven't already seen them.

At 10/7/17 02:05 PM, Dean wrote:

At 10/7/17 02:00 PM, WaffleCrisp wrote: labyrinth

Labyrinth is great, up there as one of my all time favourites. If you like that, check out The Dark Crystal and The Neverending Story. I don't think either is as good, but both worth checking out if you haven't already seen them.

I have dark crystal too. Impressive puppetry. Best I've ever seen in fact.

At 10/7/17 02:30 AM, Dean wrote: I'd just assumed that, given it was the AVGN movie, it would be worth a watch. I think it has to be the worst film I've watched since I started logging things on Letterboxd

Damn that's some tough criticism.

Which makes me curious to find out how other people decide on their ratings. My ratings are almost purely based on how much something entertained me in comparison to other things I'd recently watched, so they can be a but wonky. So say I watched something that I thought was fun but a bit mediocre, I'd probably give it 3 stars. Then if I watched something the next day and found it less entertaining than the last one, it'd get a 2.5.

If I had to define my ratings they'd be something like

5 - Subjectively perfect, all time favourite, likely something I've watched a lot
4 - Great
3 - Good
2 - Meh
1 - Bad, shit, offensive

I'm likely to be a fan of anything 3.5 or above, but then not all 3.5's are equal. There's a good few films I've rated 3.5 that I really enjoyed. I don't bother putting a scale on my LB profile because ratings are always somewhat arbitrary and mine are mega inconsistent so it wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.

I find for most users 8/10 = good and anything below is just varying shades of bad, but when I watch far more good films than bad ones I think it's fair for 'good' to take up most of the scale.

If you've previously told me about this one, I'm not remembering it. Sounds interesting though so I'll try and get it when I order a new batch of films.

I dunno if I recommended it to you specifically but someone did post about it here ages back and you commented on how cool the poster was. I watched it about a month ago and talked pretty highly of it (my post is on the previous page).

I would loved to have been able to experience growing up in the 80's as a teenager. I know I tend to gravitate towards 80's music and apparently films too. Seemed like such an exciting decade in terms of the entertainment.

Yeah I get the feeling. There's just too much stuff now, something gets popular and then it's gone with something else in its wake almost immediately. Big films must have felt like a much more culturally important thing than they do now, movies like Star Wars stayed in theatres for ages and got watched over and over, people still try to use terms like "film of the summer" now but it means literally nothing and it's all forgotten instantly.

Where's today's Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park etc.? Not that films on that level don't get made, but they immediately get consumed in an ocean of contemporaries and nothing can dig its heels in as a cultural icon the way older films could.

On another point, I recently got into Joy Division and New Order, and while their stuff still holds up I wish I could hear it in the cultural context it was released. Like Blue Monday is a masterpiece of a track but it sounds totally 80s, where at the time of release it must have sounded absolutely cutting-edge on top of being awesome. I can only ever experience it as a retro track.

I think that's part of the reason I go for new stuff rather than old, it's different (and less exciting imo) experiencing a classic after the fact than at its release.

At 10/7/17 02:52 AM, Dean wrote: @Jackho - you got me curious, so here's a quick breakdown of the films I own by decade released.

I put some graphs together too based on my letterboxd stats. Hopefully they come out readable. Over 65% of what I've watched is post-2000 and my numbers totally drop off at the 80's, guess I need some more retro in my diet.

In my defense there's drastically more films made every year now than in any previous decade, I remember reading something like this current decade has produced more films than the entirety of films made before 1950. Google isn't being cooperateive in giving me something to back that up, but going by letterboxd's database again there's a gradual increase in films made each decade until you reach the 2000's and then the numbers just explode.

I might do another chart of that just based on letterboxd.

At 10/7/17 02:43 PM, Jackho wrote:

At 10/7/17 02:52 AM, Dean wrote: @Jackho - you got me curious, so here's a quick breakdown of the films I own by decade released.

Going by letterboxd's database again there's a gradual increase in films made each decade until you reach the 2000's and then the numbers just explode. I might do another chart of that just based on letterboxd.

And here it be. The 1900's bar also includes everything released earlier than that, and the 2010's bar also includes a lot of future films that have been announced and not yet released. So going by LB's database there's been 160,702 films released since the year 2000... and only 148,829 released before 2000.

There's no doubt fan made stuff, student films, drafts and cancelled films bloating the current decade but the former two I think are valid, as those couldn't have existed in previous decades like they do today and I assume would still be a fairly minor % overall.

At 10/7/17 02:30 AM, Dean wrote: Which makes me curious to find out how other people decide on their ratings. My ratings are almost purely based on how much something entertained me in comparison to other things I'd recently watched, so they can be a but wonky. So say I watched something that I thought was fun but a bit mediocre, I'd probably give it 3 stars. Then if I watched something the next day and found it less entertaining than the last one, it'd get a 2.5.

Same. Tend to just look at the last 4 ratings on my letterboxd front page and slot it in wherever it compares to them. Numerical ratings for media are dumb anyway.

Did you get watching Blue Ruin?

If you've previously told me about this one, I'm not remembering it. Sounds interesting though so I'll try and get it when I order a new batch of films.

Can second the recommendation. I actually think it's the better film of the two, although Green Room is very good as well.

At 10/7/17 02:43 PM, Jackho wrote: I put some graphs together too based on my letterboxd stats. Hopefully they come out readable. Over 65% of what I've watched is post-2000 and my numbers totally drop off at the 80's, guess I need some more retro in my diet.

I've went and pulled one together too. Heavily skewed to post-2010s, probably mostly from the 14 months I was out of work after finishing uni and was seeing 3 or 4 films a week at the cinema, but actually pretty consistent across the rest, at least back until the 70s.

I think we should rename this to the NG Statisticians Club. Graphs are cool.

Blade Runner 2049 is the first fiction film I've watched since April.

I'll probably go see it again this week.

Saw Blade Runner 2049 as well. @Oolaph @TheMaster

I'm not seeing the mega-hyped 10/10 that some critics did but it is very good and easily beats the original for me.

I rewatched Blade Runner: The Final Cut beforehand and my opinion remains the same, I don't dislike it at all but it's easily one of the most overrated films for me. The visuals are nice but it doesn't connect with me at all, the pacing is awful, the characters other than Roy are extremely bland and it's absolutely full of goofy or terribly executed moments (mostly in the action) that completely take me out of it. Deckard and Rachael's relationship is awful.

I love Harrsion Ford in general but I've always thought his performance here is very, very dodgy as well. Again I don't dislike it, it's decent but I'm definitely not a fan and don't see what everyone else sees in it. I've watched it at least four times now, each time hoping this might be the watch where it clicks, but I doubt that's ever going to happen. The memorable aesthetics and set design are the only remarkable part for me. Even the philosophical questions always seemed so pedestrian to me as to be completely uninteresting, and whether or not Deckard is a replicant is more like a semantic argument than anything.

=

2049 on the other hand is a masterpiece aesthetically, it's one of the best looking and best sounding (& I'm pretty hit or miss with Hans Zimmer) films I've ever seen, the characters were infinitely more interesting and even though it has a slow pace and a huge run-time it just flew by. The few action scenes were excellent and the main mystery is more than compelling enough. Everything about it just feels far more fleshed out, grandiose and epic in scale. One letterboxd review called it Pinocchio as directed by Tarkovsky and that's a pretty damn good description imo.

(mild spoilers from here)

Joi was another highlight, super endearing and I loved how they never (iirc) imply their relationship is shallow or artificial, it's real to K and that's all that matters, and it's far more powerful played with absolute sincerity than if they'd gone down the frankly boring route of questioning it.

It's not perfect though, it's very dry with a couple tonally dodgy moments and unintentional comedy that took me out of it (Gosling's random burst of emotion when investigating his dream despite being almost completely stoic for the rest of the film, the police chief's head getting smacked on a table, one random bit of Gosling getting his hand covered in bees... etc). Ford's acting is lightyears ahead of the previous film, but to the point where he barely feels like the same character.

There's some minor plot holes too, and unlike the original it doesn't really leave any major questions when it's over. This is an issue with I have with the other Villeneuve films I've seen (Arrival and Enemy), they're all technically great and should be right up my alley, but they're always so simple, clean cut and on-the-nose as well, they don't leave me with anything to think about when they're over. Some ambiguity could go a long way imo. He's put out solid films quicker than I'm able to watch them but they all have a certain 'something' missing.

That said I think this is his best film and it probably helps that the story and world was already partially in place for him to take over, and even if the story totally fell flat (it doesn't) it would be worth seeing for the sound and visuals. The fact that this movie is already being declared a box office flop is a travesty also, I'm heavily considering watching it again while it's in cinemas and that's something I never do.

Although I also think the slow pace might be more grating on a rewatch, some of these shots go on for a really long time and it's done moreso for our character's tension than for the sake of the audience. For one example, K enters his apartment and it drags out revealing what Joi is for so long, on a rewatch surely that will be slightly annoying when you already know

One last thing, while I acknowledge it would be impossible to pull off in this day and age I wish I didn't know Harrison Ford was going to be in this. Imagine going in having no idea this was a direct sequel and thinking it might just be a new story in the same world, and how cool it would be when Deckard shows up and his significance in the story is realized. It's a shame how heavily he was featured in the trailers and such anyway given how he had relatively little screen time and (imo) he was far less interesting than K. I felt so depressed for K's sake at the end, I feel he got shafted in the whole third act because the script thinks Deckard is way cooler and more important.

Anyway wew it's not perfect but it's a great movie and begs to be seen in a cinema. Anyone reading this should go see it if they haven't yet.

Watched, The Snowman. It's okay, nothing special.

At 10/15/17 03:45 AM, lumiorfo wrote: Watched, The Snowman. It's okay, nothing special.

i hadn't heard of this until seeing the trailer before Blood Rudder 1979. Was fun trying to guess what the title would be, the only one I can remember now is 'No Country For Cold Men' but I know we had better than that.

Anyway stop watching this goofy garb and see Blade Runner 2 heck, it needs to be a success if you want hollywood to actually make good movies ever.

At 10/15/17 11:16 AM, Jackho wrote:

At 10/15/17 03:45 AM, lumiorfo wrote: Watched, The Snowman. It's okay, nothing special.

i hadn't heard of this until seeing the trailer before Blood Rudder 1979. Was fun trying to guess what the title would be, the only one I can remember now is 'No Country For Cold Men' but I know we had better than that.

Anyway stop watching this goofy garb and see Blade Runner 2 heck, it needs to be a success if you want hollywood to actually make good movies ever.

I go cinema once a week, (If there's something on.) Michael Fassbender Didn't act as well as could. Unlike in Shame, Hunger or Alien: Covenant.

Now, to Blade Runner 2049. What do I say? It was okay, I just didn't enjoy it.. I thought it was long and somewhat boring. However, It's a beautifully done and well acted masterpiece. Just wasn't my cup of coffee.

At 10/16/17 04:22 AM, lumiorfo wrote: Now, to Blade Runner 2049. What do I say? It was okay, I just didn't enjoy it.. I thought it was long and somewhat boring.

I think ur long and somewhat boring tbh. Nah, it is a long and slow film for sure, especially compared to any modern blockbuster. The person I saw it with hated it because of the pace, but for me I could've stayed in that world for another hour. I've built up a tolerance for slow cinema at this point though.

At 10/18/17 05:36 PM, TheQuietGamer wrote: Homecoming is one of the best Spider-Man movies. It had the best villain in the MCU thus far.

Yeah I enjoyed this one too, Vulture was excellent and there's multiple genuinely good twists that caught me off guard. My opinion on the overall film got more mixed the more time I had to think about it, though. It still feels like a soulless, over produced MCU film, and I'll always take Raimi's trilogy with their heart and soul and infinite cheese over Homecoming any day.

I've mixed thoughts on the advanced suit as well, and how it essentially turned him into an "iron man lite."

I was worried that it might be too similar to the first Captain America movie because of the setting and origin story, but it blew that movie out of the water (not that it was all that great anyway, but still).

How dare you. The First Avenger is by far my favourite MCU film. I didn't like much at first either actually, but the simple setup and lack of any sequel baggage makes it the easiest to revisit, and it stands out so much from the rest for the setting. It's the only MCU film that's not only held up to several rewatches but actually gotten better over time, even Iron Man (my other favourite) got more lukewarm the more I watched it. Peggy Carter is also my waifu.

Went to see The Death of Stalin.

It's basically just a Soviet reskin of The Thick of It, and that's no bad thing. Really strong cast, consistently funny throughout, but not quite as strong as some of Armando Ianucci's other work.

The Daredevil show is better than all the MCU movies IMO. More hyped for Punisher next month than any movie these people could announce at this point.

Also went to see Brawl in Cell Block 99.

Good, but S. Craig Zahler desperately needs an editor. Both this and Bone Tomahawk, which I also enjoyed, are 20-30 minutes longer than they need to be. When you call your film Brawl in Cell Block 99 there's a certain amount of "When are they gonna get to the fireworks factory?" about it when you spend a load of time setting up the guy's pre-crime history and the job that lands him in jail.

Still, Vince Vaughn is great, and the action is brutal and brilliant. Worth a watch.

Watched Happy Death Day. It's actually pretty good. Defiantly worth a watch.

I watched La La Land.

I did not like it. Sure, Emma Stone is pretty good and the musical intermezzo's are occasionally entertaining, but it seems like such a textbook example of 'all style with little or no substance'. It takes more than an hour before the story finally takes off but never at any point does it become fresh or interesting aside from maybe one scene near the end. On the whole, it felt like a very fluffed and very corny romcom musical to me.

At 10/22/17 04:55 AM, lumiorfo wrote: Watched Happy Death Day. It's actually pretty good. Defiantly worth a watch.

Yeah, that was unexpectedly a decent dark comedy. I wanted to see It, but I couldn't be at the theater early enough for the last showing that day.

At 10/22/17 05:38 PM, Auz wrote: I watched La La Land. I did not like it.

It's just two hours of pure joyous energy and the ending is wonderful. It's also got six oscars and seven globes so I guess it doesn't need much defending. It didn't blow me away or anything but I went in expecting something nostalgic and feel-good and it mostly delivered. Corny is absolutely not the word I'd use.

'Style over substance' should rarely even count as a criticism when it comes to films, imo. It's a visual medium. Style is substance.

You might like Whiplash more if you haven't already seen it, Chazelle's previous film. It's got music as the center point again but it's shorter and way more intense, focusing on the main character's ruthless dedication to his craft. It's one of my absolute favourite films of the last few years actually.

At 10/22/17 10:56 PM, Jackho wrote:

At 10/22/17 05:38 PM, Auz wrote: I watched La La Land. I did not like it.

It's just two hours of pure joyous energy and the ending is wonderful. It's also got six oscars and seven globes so I guess it doesn't need much defending. It didn't blow me away or anything but I went in expecting something nostalgic and feel-good and it mostly delivered. Corny is absolutely not the word I'd use.

Maybe 'corny' is not the word I was looking for then. Meant to say: not bringing anything new to the table.

I wonder if this is one of those films where you have to be in a certain kind of mood to really enjoy it. Like your experience depends quite strongly on how you're feeling before you go in. Admittedly, I was pretty tired when I sat down and the film starts off with two highly energetic musical pieces which, instead of hyping me up, only made me groan.

'Style over substance' should rarely even count as a criticism when it comes to films, imo. It's a visual medium. Style is substance.

Well, I suppose it's not a bad thing per se. In this case, however, it really bothered me how shallow and mediocre the writing was.

You might like Whiplash more if you haven't already seen it, Chazelle's previous film. It's got music as the center point again but it's shorter and way more intense, focusing on the main character's ruthless dedication to his craft. It's one of my absolute favourite films of the last few years actually.

I watched Whiplash last year or so. I wasn't a big fan of that one either, but I did like it better than La La Land.

Thor: Ragnarok was good.

At 10/28/17 08:05 AM, Auz wrote: Maybe 'corny' is not the word I was looking for then. Meant to say: not bringing anything new to the table.

I mean, does it need to? When it's clearly meant to just echo the past in its entirety. It gets its charm from the indulgent nostalgia. I'd also say the end wasn't what I was expecting at all and left me fairly despondent in a good way.

Admittedly, I was pretty tired when I sat down and the film starts off with two highly energetic musical pieces which, instead of hyping me up, only made me groan.

Yeah, if that first song didn't get you on board you definitely weren't in the right headspace for it. I enjoyed it as a fairly mindless bit of feel-good.

Well, I suppose it's not a bad thing per se. In this case, however, it really bothered me how shallow and mediocre the writing was.

I wouldn't agree that the writing is shallow or mediocre at all, but it is odd that it got nominated for best screenplay. A lot of the lines were improvised and Chazelle didn't write the songs, so what is the oscar actually awarded for? I doubt most of the voters had actually read the script. Actually, looking over it now I disagree with most of the awards and noms La La Land got.

I saw Blade of the Immortal.

It's over 2 hours of people getting killed with swords. An exercise in total excess, literally hundreds of people are killed on screen, and it's great fun.

I've never read the manga, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a pretty close adaptation, as it feels very episodic, like something broken down into chapters. Bad guys are introduced, defeated, and then forgotten immediately, almost like bosses in a video game. The main plot thread feels like it stalls after the opening and doesn't get going again until about halfway through because of it, but the fights are interesting and the baddies varied enough that it doesn't matter.

No masterpiece, but a great laugh if you're in the mood for mindless action.

I went to a 40th anniversary screening of Sorcerer, and it was incredible.

I've been wanting to see this film for years but it never had a decent home video release in the UK so I held off. So glad to have finally seen it, because it's amazing. The bridge scene is a work of art. Absolutely stunning filmmaking.

Can't recommend it highly enough. See it on the big screen while you've got the chance.

Finally got round to watching Hush. It's amazing and well acted. Some of the Netflix films are gems.

Also, watched a fill called Highway. It features a Jared Leto & Jake Gyllenhaal from there younger days. It's not amazing, but I really enjoyed it.