Rate the last film you watched out of 100 Page 4018

  • OnlyJoeKing 14 Jan 2020 13:01:32 1,017 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Into the Tall Grass

    Loved it. Doesn't get amazing reviews, I probably have shit taste. Thought it was a cracking film though. Another Steven King horror adaption on Netflix.

    The first moment of violence was great - takes a while to happen, but then was so hilariously abrupt and over the top that I was left in hysterics while my overly sensitive girlfriend was in shock... lol
  • Bichii 14 Jan 2020 14:09:01 2,222 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    The gentlemen.

    Excellent. Was funny, witty and it felt a bit like I was watching a British tarentino film.
    Great cast as well, Colin Farrell was excellent and Huge Grant was nice and creepy.

    8/10
  • craigy Staff 14 Jan 2020 15:42:23 9,464 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Went to see 1917 last night. Incredible. Hyper-real, upsetting, but also completely beautiful at times. Amazing shot blocking. Contains some practical camera moves that must have been so, so difficult to execute. I had some very sad war-based nightmares last night. Give it an Oscar.
  • Reacher 14 Jan 2020 15:56:49 2,930 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    @OnlyJoeKing I watched that and really liked it.
  • ukaskew37 14 Jan 2020 21:34:00 14 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 3 weeks ago
    craigy wrote:
    Went to see 1917 last night....Contains some practical camera moves that must have been so, so difficult to execute.
    There are a couple of behind the scenes clips on Twitter that are just mind blowing in scale and complexity. I'd read that they figured out how to transition cameras from crane to handheld (then to car!) but seeing it in action, wow. Just doing it is one thing, but add in 500 extras and multiple explosions and it defies belief.

    I still have no idea how they did the scene near the start when the camera tracks over the water in the crater. A few seconds earlier, with no cuts, you clearly see the whole body of water with no tracks on it.
  • Mola_Ram 14 Jan 2020 21:55:18 22,150 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It's not actually filmed in a single shot.

    Edited by Mola_Ram at 21:56:30 14-01-2020
  • anephric 14 Jan 2020 22:13:28 3,593 posts
    Seen 26 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Even in the days before digital, you could have a Steadicam operator step off a crane for that sort of shot, or hide transitions with flash frames or travelling mattes. You can do anything now, so I don't find the notion of "one-shot" films particularly enthralling.
  • mangojoe 14 Jan 2020 22:15:33 2,467 posts
    Seen 37 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    https://youtu.be/kMBnvz-dEXw
  • BinaryBob101 15 Jan 2020 01:06:45 27,368 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    @anephric Victoria is a true one-shot film done with class and a fair bit of tension. Like any gimmick movie, most of em aren't great.

    The recent first person shot movies have been terrible.
  • Your-Mother 15 Jan 2020 02:29:41 3,421 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Russian Ark is still fantastic if weíre talking about true one shots.
  • Mola_Ram 15 Jan 2020 02:41:17 22,150 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    You'd have to be pretty mental to actually film a whole war movie in one shot. I'd imagine the scope of possible things going wrong would be much greater, and more expensive (though I guess you could fix some errors in post-production or whatever).
  • Mola_Ram 15 Jan 2020 02:43:28 22,150 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Also, if we're talking actual single-shot movies, the "movie" part (it makes sense when you watch it) of One Cut of the Dead was done without tricks afaik. And then it just gets better.
  • brokenkey 15 Jan 2020 09:04:18 10,346 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    ukaskew37 wrote:
    craigy wrote:
    Went to see 1917 last night....Contains some practical camera moves that must have been so, so difficult to execute.
    There are a couple of behind the scenes clips on Twitter that are just mind blowing in scale and complexity. I'd read that they figured out how to transition cameras from crane to handheld (then to car!) but seeing it in action, wow. Just doing it is one thing, but add in 500 extras and multiple explosions and it defies belief.

    I still have no idea how they did the scene near the start when the camera tracks over the water in the crater. A few seconds earlier, with no cuts, you clearly see the whole body of water with no tracks on it.
    they get in a boat.
  • Dougs 15 Jan 2020 09:05:19 91,687 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    Stop spoiling the illusion!
  • nickthegun 15 Jan 2020 09:19:54 79,779 posts
    Seen 48 minutes ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    The Frenzy one is still amazing. One edit that's difficult to spot in a pre-CGI era takes some mad skills



    Its also my favourite Hitchcock movie

    Edited by nickthegun at 09:21:11 15-01-2020
  • Decks Best Forumite, 2016 15 Jan 2020 09:37:08 22,215 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    No one mentioned Tony Jaa in Warrior King yet? And you call yourself greasy fat nerds.



    And Oldboy too obviously.
  • smemma 15 Jan 2020 09:48:09 705 posts
    Seen 19 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Decks wrote:
    No one mentioned Tony Jaa in Warrior King yet? And you call yourself greasy fat nerds.



    And Oldboy too obviously.
    THIS, incredible scene. I love that you can see how exhausted Tony Jaa's getting towards the end
  • TechnoHippy 15 Jan 2020 11:17:04 15,838 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    smemma wrote:
    Decks wrote:
    No one mentioned Tony Jaa in Warrior King yet? And you call yourself greasy fat nerds.



    And Oldboy too obviously.
    THIS, incredible scene. I love that you can see how exhausted Tony Jaa's getting towards the end
    I love how measured the pace of the moves are, no rushing for him!

    For other one shot scenes Children of Men is a classic.
  • ukaskew37 15 Jan 2020 12:05:58 14 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 3 weeks ago
    Mola_Ram wrote:
    It's not actually filmed in a single shot.
    Iím aware itís not one take, but itís still hugely impressive for a film with so much going on to have been filmed mostly in 6-10 minute takes. Many of the cuts are obvious when you look for them, usually when the camera pans behind an object or enters a dark room etc, but certain scenes like the one I referred to over the water are impressive technical achievements and more importantly are beautifully done. There are little things which are obvious when you think about it but still fascinating, such as the camera operators wearing military uniform so when they hand over the camera to a camera car or whatever, they simply appear as extras in the film.

    I imagine on a practical level getting the light right was really tough given some sections of the film would span several days of filming and there is no practical way of controlling lighting in areas as big as many of the scenes take place.
  • drhickman1983 15 Jan 2020 12:48:49 6,281 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    1917

    Gripping. Yes, I know it's not technically one shot, and it would be impossible to do something of this scale in one go, but however it's achieved, this style make for an engrossing, tense spectacle.

    I personally find long shots very enthralling and you know what, I don't give a fuck how it's achieved. The end result is everything in films.

    It's cinematic poetry. The story and characterization is light, but it's about the tension, the atmosphere, the survival of the characters. It's at turns bleak and sombre, at others almost dreamlike. Some genuinely beautiful moments, so harrowing moments.

    In that regards it's perhaps comparable to Dunkirk; light on story and characterization but it's about the moments. But more fantastic and dreamlike.

    It's fucking good.

    as a cinematic experience 9/10

    It will definitely lose something if / when watched at home.

    Edited by drhickman1983 at 14:25:44 15-01-2020
  • Mola_Ram 15 Jan 2020 14:00:28 22,150 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    War movies aren't generally my kind of thing, but yeah it does sound like a bit of a technical achievement.
  • JYM60 15 Jan 2020 14:26:08 18,054 posts
    Seen 38 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Went to see 1917 last night, but it was sold out. :/

    So, Underwater instead. 5.5/10

    It was OK. Good angsty Eminem impression from Kristen Stewart, but with Zero charisma. Not sure who is giving her leading roles still. TJ Miller provides the constant one liners.
    There was very little story. Just boom, everything is mental, and the Stranger Things monsters are here. It's filmed in The Long Night O-Vision, so you can barely see anything.
    I think I probably preferred Alien Covenant honestly. And Life is miles better.
  • drhickman1983 15 Jan 2020 14:28:13 6,281 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    One issue with 1917, the subtitles at one point were unneeded and a tad distracting.
  • Derblington 15 Jan 2020 14:38:53 32,321 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    How much of 1917 is subtitled?
  • brokenkey 15 Jan 2020 14:53:19 10,346 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    not much.
  • drhickman1983 15 Jan 2020 15:02:49 6,281 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    One scene has partial subtitles but I don't think they are needed.
  • MrWonderstuff 15 Jan 2020 15:08:38 3,096 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Depends how good your French is. Riveting film...the single-shot approach really gives you a sense of distance and heightens tension. Half the time I kept thinking "oooh a 3rd person action game". The moment in the bunker with the rat made me jump.
  • Decks Best Forumite, 2016 16 Jan 2020 09:05:27 22,215 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    I don't think I can actually watch The Irishman. I got about 30 minutes in yesterday and I can't stop my brain screaming HIS FACE LOOKS WEIRD HIS FACE LOOKS WEIRD HIS FACE LOOKS WEIRD. It just kept reminding me of LA Noire. Also the 4K really doesn't do it any favours.
  • nickthegun 16 Jan 2020 09:10:39 79,779 posts
    Seen 48 minutes ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    I cant quite do de-aging yet, either. They de-age the old man but they didn't look like that 20/30/40 years ago.

    I watched Aquaman again the other day and they de-age Willem Defoe. He looks like old Defoe with botox in the flashbacks, rather than a Platoon era Defoe.

    We know what these people looked like when they were younger and they didn't look like that.
  • nickthegun 16 Jan 2020 09:12:02 79,779 posts
    Seen 48 minutes ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    Also what they sounded like. I watched Tron Legacy recently, too and while they do have original Flynns face to work with, he didn't sound like he was gargling rocks with a broken jaw in the early 80s.
Log in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.