The London Film Club - A Chat about Films

Well, it's taken 20+ years and 5 directors to get it done, and I hear it's been cut down by nearly an hour. Some say it couldn't be done, and some fans are sceptical.

But we won't know until we see it

 

Just came back from seeing Watchmen and I'm pleased to report that I didn't come home disappointed. At the same time though I'm not salvating at the mouth. but to sum it up this is the best we could have hoped for and while that might sound a bit negative, it is in fact a big compliment. There are some great moments, mostly from Rorschach (naturally) but I think the overall story telling was very well handled considering how tricky the task was. There were some things that could do with going, and while the slightly changed ending will rub some fans up the wall, I felt it was logical and pretty good.

Visually, the film was very impressive. It certainly captured the vibe of the comic, and I liked the use of classic songs as part of the soundtrack.

Watchmen has always been a different breed of comic, and this film is a different breed of comic-book adaption, much like The Dark Knight was but not as good.

I give it the thumbs up and a well deserved 4/5 stars. Well done to all involved..... but you do wonder what Paul Greengrass' efforts would have produced.

 

I've seen quite a few films of late, both at the cinema (work) and on DVD at home. So here's a quick round-up, starting with....

Twilight - Finally got round to seeing it on DVD this week and I blooming well loved it. Beautifully shot, well made, acted and written. I didn't think I'd like it quite as much as I did but it really struck a chord. A shame the decision to rush the sequel was made as I'd very much like Catherine Hardwicke to do the honours, but she rightfully turned it down. If I saw this last year I think it would have made my top 3!

The Boy in Striped Pyjamas - Excellent film. Horrific ending.

Race to Witch Mountain - Enjoyable family flick. Slightly cheap looking at times but it does its job.

Monsters Vs Aliens - The first three reels are good, the last two aren't so good.

The Boat that Rocks - Only saw the last half but that was good.

Also watched the Watchmen spin-off Tales of the Black Freighter and that was very dark and moody. Good stuff.

Looking ahead, Wolverine looks pants but I'm very much looking forward to Star Trek and Terminator: Salvation. Anyone seen the Bruno trailer? Very funny

 

I'm utterly shocked that you liked Twilight, Lord-Tice
I quite enjoyed the books, and the movie was decent - despite the shoddy special effects (seriously, the 'glittering' skin and windmill legs make me cringe - especially since ILM did the effects). But I enjoyed some parts of the movie far more than than book
But to hear you give it kudos...well....I just don't know what to say! I do think Hardwicke did a great job with what she was given. It'll be interesting to see if Weitz will succeed as well.

 

I didn't care much for Twilight, I didn't think most of the acting was that great and ordinary non-viscious dayliving vampires don't work for me.

I saw Monster vs Aliens 3D today. I found it to be very enjoyable, the immersive 3D adding to that. All of the characters had a part to play and were well voiced, the film's appeal works for both child and adult audiences.
No match for anything PIXAR have done, but a good Dreamworks effort.

 

I know, I know.... I even surprised myself by how much I enjoyed Twilight, Yrol
Maybe underneath I'm just a big girl when it comes to it, lol. But I liked it for numerous reasons, one being it was nice to have a different take on the whole Vampire lure (something you obviously disagree with Richie, good job you have the Underworld films to turn to then ).
I also really liked the looks of the location and wouldn't mind living there
In some ways the whole film reminded me a tad of Highlander too, and I'm a huge fan of that (well, the first film & TV series at any rate).

This clip from Transformers 2 fills me with little joy I'm afraid. Looks like (much) more of the same and that's exactly what I didn't want.

 

The Underworld movies sucked, so many holes and things I dislike.

Alas, I'm inclined to agree with you about the Transformers clip. The biggest problem with the first movie was too much time with pointless humans portrayed by poor or average actors. I hope this film will be almost entirely giant robots smashing each other, which is what the first one should've been.

 

Unfortunately, seeing the concept art and CGI rendereings of Skids, Mudflap, Jolt, Wheelie, Devastor, Soundwave and Ravage - I'm not hoping for much in this second outing. So disappointing....

I heartily agree with you both though - there better be more robot on robot action. Much, much MORE.

 

Well, if the trailers are anything to go by, Devestator will be HUGE!
And that usually equals lots of destruction.

 

We went to see The Fast and The Furious last week and quite enjoyed it. We both swear by Tokyo Drift as the best so far though. This last one was a bit cheesy at several points but the story was good, as were the actors for this sort of entertainment. And the cars of course... Well, I'm not a technical person but I certainly love watching them.

 

I thoroughly enjoyed X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

Is it a perfect comic book movie? No. Some of the CGI could use some serious overhauling, but the majority of the fighting and stunts were fantastic!!

Is Hugh Jackman the perfect Wolverine? YES.
Does Liev Scrieber live up to the hype? YES - he's a great Victor Creed! The fights between him and Jackman (albeit too short) are intense!

Does the story suffer from too many mutant cameos? Yes - I'm not a huge Deadpool fan, so I didn't really care what they did to him. But I really liked Gambit!

Overall, good popcorn fun!!

 

I didn't get to see Wolverine but I think that might have been for the best. People seem to either enjoy it or hate it.

I have, however, seen Star Trek and have to say that it's great. A real pleasure to watch and certainly the first 10 minutes is the finest bit of cinema seen this year for me. I think they've done a great job with this one and J.J.Abrams has made Star Trek cool (or maybe that should be commercial?)!! Film of the year thus far, can't wait for a follow-up.

I also saw Angels & Demons last night and found it to be a vast improvement on The Da Vinci Code. To be honest it would have been a bigger achievement to make a worse film then that though, but as a cinematic thriller, I found it enjoyable. I wasn't sure about Ewan McGregor as Camerlengo Patrick McKenna, but I think he won me over by the end of it. On paper, Angels & Demons was always going to make for a better film and this definitely proves that. I'm still slightly hard pressed to recommend it, but as thrillers go you could do worse. Despite the hefty running time it moves along pretty quickly too. Once it gets going it travels at about 150 mph and doesn't slow down until the end.

Coraline is also very good too. Very dark and beautifully animated. Next week I'm working at a cinema which has 3D installed, so I might see what that's like there.

And finally there's Fighting. It's alright, almost too innocent for its own good and has some dodgy acting in it, but if you like a good punch-up then you'll be fine

I have to correct you on something Chris. The Fast & the Furious was the title of the first film, the fourth one is officially called Fast & Furious. I think they ran out of ideas, lol.

 

The 3D Coraline shown where I work is not overly impressive, but then I'm comparing it to the IMAX 3D which is significantly better.
RealD looks like the background has been kept the same while the characters have been enlarged slightly and therefore stick out of the screen a little. There are few examples of true immergent 3D or things flying out of the screen that I saw, which IMAX 3D does for almost the entire movie.

Coraline is a very good movie, but Monsters vs Aliens was a far better 3D movie.

 

Darn, just when I really made an effort for the first time ever to use all those definite articles in the title.

 

Just watched Star Trek

Absolutely loved it. Simply brilliant

 

It is what the Prequel Trilogy should've been.

 

What rubbish! The only thing the franchises have in common is the word "star". It's like saying Coraldine is what the prequels should have been

 

They have a lot more in common seeing as both are sci-fi movies and set in space.

The movie focused on the characters and their struggles and how they were all brought together. The SW Prequels wanted to do this but ultimately failed and so relied on too much CGI to hide the flaws.
Star Trek had a shaky plot and a mediocre villain, but the chemistry of the characters and the great acting performances pulled it through.

It is a prime example of how to do a prequel movie (even if it technically isn't one), and IMO if the Prequel Trilogy had been done this way it would've been vastly improved and closer to the OT.

 

I'm glad it wasn't done this way. The prequels did suffer from some pretty bad acting and directing but ST seemed to me like bubbles of special effects tied loosely together on a commong string.

We went yesterday with 3 boys - ST fans - and all came out disappointed. The only thing they all liked were the chicks. One complained that the movie didn't really fit in the original story line of the series - I wouldn't know, I know nothing of ST apart from it being played in space and has spaceships in it -, the other about that water pipe, whatever it was, and all three of them about the "character development" of Kirk whereby he was constantly beaten up by almost everyone and it seemed to happen way too often. A bit annoying was Older Spock telling Kirk not to tell Younger Spock but then coming out and thinking it was funny. I did like Older Spock.

I thought it was watchable, although I don't think it was worth £8.20 but I went along with an open mind and only for the popcorn and coke.

I think the prequels gave me a lot more in entertainment and even though undevelopped, they had lot more many original characters in them. In ST I loved the two accentually challenged characters - that is the Russian and the Scott - they were laughing out loud funny and my 'botox guy' comment on Mr Spock went down without me being lynched there and then.

I think the Chinese guy appeared in one of the Dr House episodes.

 

This person completely missed the entire point of the film then

 

Exactly, it's an alternate timeline (which Spock actually explains in the movie). And I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the plot, along with the paper-thin villains it is not the strong point of the movie. But that can be overlooked by the quality action set pieces and the brilliance of the characters. It fits in now because the timeline has been altered.


Unfortunately in the PT, the characters couldn't cover the dodgy plot and poor continuity because they were as flimsy as it was.

 

I would be hard pressed to find better action pieces in cinema history than the Anakin vs Obi-Wan lightsabre fight. Alright, maybe some Mifune Toshiro but that's about it.

But I'm happy you guys liked ST. I think we'd just go along the lines of comparing all the good bits and bad bits in the movies then coming to the conclusion that both have plenty in them. For me, this movie wasn't great and has not pursuaded me to watch more ST. It lacked a certain drama and had no lightsabres in it.

Although I'll greatly agree with the weak-villain character in ST. Nothing puts in perspective a hero so much as it's antihero. With the storyline in ST if they developped the villain a bit more we'd all end up sympathising with him and that would be no good at all. At least Palpatine could be loved because he was so evil. If you guys get what I mean. He self-servingly hated the Jedi. This ST villain had a cause for vengance.

 

I think it's unfair to compare the two. The new Star Trek can't be called a prequel - because the time travel ultimately changes the entire future of the characters - by creating an alternate timeline, they're no longer tied to the past 40 years of Trek. Whereas the SW prequels told a story that fell in line with what happens in the future, keeping the original trilogy intact.

ST was a fun, and entertaining movie. Really well done. However, I'd have to agree that the loose plot, the less than villanous villain and the dubious science were what made it less than stellar (a blackhole is NOT a wormhole).

Has anyone been able to spot the R2 in it? Apparently ILM slipped in R2 as an Easter Egg - I think I've spotted him, but with all the quick cutting and lense flare, it's difficult to be sure. I did see the Tribble on Scotty's desk though...

Funnily enough, regarding Star Trek, JJ Abrams said the he 'Star Wars' it up to make it more appealing and fun

 

It even has Kirk banging his head in homage to the Stormtrooper in ANH.
I don't worry so much about the dodgy science in the film, no-one said it had to be realistic it only had to make you suspend disbelief which it did for the most part.

For the next movie they need a Khan-type villain, the two best Trek movies prior to this (Wrath of Khan & First Contact) were partly made by having great villains in them.

 

Aw, what a load of complete balls. If anything, it was a nod to Scotty in Star Trek V. To say that it's a copy of ANH is really really scraping the bottom of a very deep barrel.