ShiftyPowers
Make America Great Again
I think he wanted too much money. Hope you enjoyed your torture glorification movie.
-
This is a reminder of 3 IMPORTANT RULES:
1- External self-promotion websites or apps are NOT allowed here, like Discord/Twitter/Patreon/etc.
2- Do NOT post in other languages. English-only.
3- Crack/Warez/Piracy talk is NOT allowed.
Breaking any of the above rules will result in your messages being deleted and you will be banned upon repetition.
Please, stop by this thread SoccerGaming Forum Rules And Guidelines and make sure you read and understand our policies.
Thank you!
Last movie you watched
- Thread starter Hakeem
- Start date
Filipower;3385332 said:silver linnngs was goood man, cooper is the man and de niro of course and whatta youknow its'a super date movie man got her going just like that!and were the fuck is Sir_Didier_Drogba caralho?
It was about time we got a new SG drunk.
Keegan
Yardie
Here Comes The Boom - Kevin James. Somewhat cliched and quite predictable but entertaining nonetheless. The Viva America! at the end was a tad bit much, in my humble opinion.
Silver Linings Playbook - Good movie - quite enjoyed it. Jennifer Lawrence offering up the snatch was quite poignant yet somewhat arousing. Two thumbs up and the Oscar nominations were not surprising. Kept thinking Bradley Cooper was a **** having already seen The Vow which shows how good an actor he actually is.
Silver Linings Playbook - Good movie - quite enjoyed it. Jennifer Lawrence offering up the snatch was quite poignant yet somewhat arousing. Two thumbs up and the Oscar nominations were not surprising. Kept thinking Bradley Cooper was a **** having already seen The Vow which shows how good an actor he actually is.
Django Unchained - finally got around to seeing it. The fact that it was almost three hours put me off, but that turned out to be redundant, because it didn't feel like if at all. Awesome movie.
Jamie Foxx does a great job, but like Inglorious, Christoph Waltz stole the show. He makes me wanna grow an epic beard.
It was really odd seeing Samuel L Carlos*son as an Uncle Tom, though.
Jamie Foxx does a great job, but like Inglorious, Christoph Waltz stole the show. He makes me wanna grow an epic beard.
It was really odd seeing Samuel L Carlos*son as an Uncle Tom, though.
identity starring ray liotta and john cusack, good movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0309698/?ref_=sr_3
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0309698/?ref_=sr_3
regularcat;3390984 said:
I've got a guilty love for thrillers, is it that good, or does it follow the typical cliches that ruin loads of them?
I watched Cabin in the Woods (more horror than thriller), which I understand is also partly a parody, but was mostly disappointed.
ShiftyPowers;3379416 said:
I haven't seen the film yet, but my son has and really liked it. Saw the stage production in London last year with Matt Lucas from Little Britain playing the innkeeper, EXCELLENT!!
The word on the film is that Russell Crowe was the weakest characterisation (but only for his singing, which was better than Pearce Brosnan in Mamma Mia!)
Stevie B;3391896 said:
I actually think Russell really suited the role. He isn't the most loved of people, and I think that has led a little to dine unwarranted bagging. Though his singing was probably the weakest, it does suit the part to a point, and the fact that all of these guys were singing live is amazing. Russell's singing probably was weak point, but it was good enough that by the midpoint of the movie, you're watching it as a movie, and just about forget that they're singing the script.
I thought Hugh Carlos*man was really good, and I thought the movie as a whole was really good. Much much better than Lincoln (and most reviews I've seen of both seem to agree).
But everyone knows to win the big awards in Hollywood, playing the part of an American historical figure (or other historical figure in some cases)and being at least part Jewish, gets you halfway to the award though.
DDL is an absolute shoe-in for the Oscar I'm afraid.
4ndr3i;3363987 said:
Finally got around to seeing it last night. The padding is in the fact that Carlos*son is adding in other stories of Tolkien's that fall in the timeline of the Hobbit and turn it from a young children's story to a more encompassing saga of Nordic proportions. (need a Viking Smilie here!)
Growing up with the Sagas I found them often a wee bit hard to follow - due to all the different stories needing to come together. Then again I recently found a copy of the Njalssaga with a family tree in the back which helped me work out where exactly Gunnr and his enchanted halberd actualy fitted into the blood feuds.
Sir Didier Drogba
Head Official
So I spent Saturday in the cinema and saw Lincoln and Django Unchained back to back and those bastards are long.
Neither were quite as good as I had hoped, whilst both being pretty entertaining and definitely worth my money.
Day Lewis was as good as everyone has been saying, a tremendous performance, BUT I do not agree with some of the key premises of the film - the presentation of Lincoln as a lifelong abolitionist (he was not), the inconsistency of his wife's character, the influence of Blair on the republican party (he did not found it, the way the film suggests), and I thought the final vote was overblown, and the human cost of the war not emphasized enough (perhaps so as not to generate antipathy for Lincoln prolonging it). Still, I enjoyed the portraits of great characters of that age and I liked the depth of congressional procedure it went into and I did learn something.
Django was also highly entertaining but to be frank I had hoped for more, I felt it was consistently good but never really stepped up a gear the way we are used to from Tarantino - perhaps because the ending was too similar to Inglorious Basterds, and also because it employed some of the deliberate "B movie feel" techniques of Death Proof whilst not being a deliberate B movie pastiche. Performance were good but again I felt Waltz wasnt quite as good as he was in Inglorious, and that it took a long long time for Foxx' character to dominate the screen the way the title character of a film like this ought to. Also, whilst I agree Tarantino has a right to present the truth of slavery and thus there extreme violence and cruelty of his presentation of the treatment of blacks was acceptable, even in a film which was elsewhere comic, he does have an obligation to make these presentation accurate and there are question marks over the accuracy of some of it, for example I have never heard that there was any evidence of organised "Gladatorial" mandingo fights - the horrors of slavery were real enough not to have to make things up and to do so somehow cheapens it.
It I were a reviewer I would give both these films 3/5!
Neither were quite as good as I had hoped, whilst both being pretty entertaining and definitely worth my money.
Day Lewis was as good as everyone has been saying, a tremendous performance, BUT I do not agree with some of the key premises of the film - the presentation of Lincoln as a lifelong abolitionist (he was not), the inconsistency of his wife's character, the influence of Blair on the republican party (he did not found it, the way the film suggests), and I thought the final vote was overblown, and the human cost of the war not emphasized enough (perhaps so as not to generate antipathy for Lincoln prolonging it). Still, I enjoyed the portraits of great characters of that age and I liked the depth of congressional procedure it went into and I did learn something.
Django was also highly entertaining but to be frank I had hoped for more, I felt it was consistently good but never really stepped up a gear the way we are used to from Tarantino - perhaps because the ending was too similar to Inglorious Basterds, and also because it employed some of the deliberate "B movie feel" techniques of Death Proof whilst not being a deliberate B movie pastiche. Performance were good but again I felt Waltz wasnt quite as good as he was in Inglorious, and that it took a long long time for Foxx' character to dominate the screen the way the title character of a film like this ought to. Also, whilst I agree Tarantino has a right to present the truth of slavery and thus there extreme violence and cruelty of his presentation of the treatment of blacks was acceptable, even in a film which was elsewhere comic, he does have an obligation to make these presentation accurate and there are question marks over the accuracy of some of it, for example I have never heard that there was any evidence of organised "Gladatorial" mandingo fights - the horrors of slavery were real enough not to have to make things up and to do so somehow cheapens it.
It I were a reviewer I would give both these films 3/5!
Sir Didier Drogba
Head Official
I though The Hobbit was poor. It may have been better in terms of effects than LOTR but the plot didnt have the grandeur, and also it just went from event to event without explaining any of it (for example the way the eagles just arrived to save them and disappeared with no explanation of their relationship with Gandalf which is provided in the book), and also I didnt think the attempts to interweave it so heavily with the LOTR films was necessary. Really this should have been made before LOTR or not at all.Stevie B;3391905 said:
Sir Didier Drogba
Head Official
Nope, dont know if I want to, I have read the book a couple of times and really like it so I'm not sure I want to see it compressed to 3 hours with a bunch of songs in.
Sir Didier Drogba
Head Official
Nope. And considering upwards of 20m Brits have seen it that's not a bad achievement.
Sir Didier Drogba
Head Official
Ha well I havent seen those either. I did always think if there was one musical I would go to see it would be Les Mis, but I'm just not a musical kind of guy.
I did once see Mamma Mia on a school trip. That was a low point in my masculinity.
I did once see Mamma Mia on a school trip. That was a low point in my masculinity.