Movies & TV The Hangar Film Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

un_eggs said:
I'll start by saying it was watchable. There were elements to it that were enjoyable. The back-story was the best part of it.

Otherwise it was Hollywood template, generic, hero-saves-girl storyline that had as a point of difference an uncompromising angle on dicks and arse jokes and in-your-face blood splatter. I know it doesn't pretend to be anything more than that and I don't have anything against the well-timed dick joke and a good amount of splatter. But the movie seemed to rely on these facets alone.

I couldn't relate to a single character. I was hoping that the jaded, cynical lead character might be done with a bit more imagination. He was a complete 'dick'. Getting his character right was probably the key element to making it an interesting movie. He reminded me of Jim Carrey's The Mask character but without the charisma or comedic talent. If they had managed to create, with some intelligent script writing, a character we could empathise with or have a beer with, then it might've worked better.

The repeated wank jokes were cringe-worthy. So were the early one-liners before the back-story. And the ending was exactly as a template Hollywood movie is expected to end.

I guess if you went into it not expecting anything more than an uncomplicated, puerile, action, love-story then you got what you want. I thought it could be better.
Click to expand...
Pretty much agree with this. I didn't mind the concept... just the present-day plot and editing could've been done a bit better. I liked the backstory and the breaking the fourth wall, the jokes were decent enough. Obviously it's satire, and there is humour in that, basically just taking the piss out of the entire genre... but it wasn't rolling in the aisles laughter for two hours straight (I saw it at the cinemas... it didn't exactly have the audience in an uproar).

So it's watchable, and definitely worth watching once to see what the hype is about - but if I went again with the same films on offer I'd probably give something else a go.
 
Fly said:
Pretty much agree with this. I didn't mind the concept... just the present-day plot and editing could've been done a bit better. I liked the backstory and the breaking the fourth wall, the jokes were decent enough. Obviously it's satire, and there is humour in that, basically just taking the piss out of the entire genre... but it wasn't rolling in the aisles laughter for two hours straight (I saw it at the cinemas... it didn't exactly have the audience in an uproar).
Click to expand...
Was it meant to be?
So it's watchable, and definitely worth watching once to see what the hype is about - but if I went again with the same films on offer I'd probably give something else a go.
Click to expand...
So would I because I've already seen it. :straining:
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Some unseen force stopped me from seeing Deadpool despite all the glowing reviews. It was some real Bunuel s**t.

Probably the prospect of having to go to Peterborough to see it. Mind you, I've traipsed out there to see:

Triple Nine
X-Men: Apocalypse
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Shithole
A Hologram for the King
Hail, Caesar!

In the words of Chris Andrews, and oh what a fool I have been.
 
 
HirdyLannister said:
Deadpool, it wasn't great but it was bad. Just a standard action movie and I didn't find myself laughing much at all. It fits in the alright category, Guardians of the Galaxy is better made and has more funny moments for me.
Click to expand...
Was going to to touch base to see what you thought. Haven't seen Guardians. You recommend it, do you?
 
un_eggs said:
Was going to to touch base to see what you thought. Haven't seen Guardians. You recommend it, do you?
Click to expand...
It's a hard one with Deadpool, so many people built it up around me maybe it was destined to be average through my eyes.

I personally think Guardians is well written and casted, the soundtrack it has while it's a "space" film is pretty cool too.
 
Mercuri Rising said:
28 Days Later goes alright. Avoid 28 Weeks Later though.
Click to expand...
OK, so I've had a couple of days off crook and have taken the opportunity to watch these 2 movies. Thought they were both great. 28 Days was more of a thought-provoking film while 28 weeks was an intense, gripping, action/thriller. In fact, it is one the better films I've seen in this category. I was pleasantly surprised considering you told me to avoid it. I had to watch it after enjoying the first and knowing that a 28 Months Later is to be made. Glad I did.

I thought the modern version of Dawn of the Dead was average at best. Didn't do a lot for me. Went for fast-pace over plot way too far.

Also saw World War Z. While Pitt is a fine actor, I think he spoilt this one for me a bit. It was a cracking effects movie with some tension and a dark outlook but Pitt, the all-American hero, was the only one capable of saving us... No team, or support-heroes, just Pitt. It's like they promised him the role on the basis that the movie would be more about him than the zombies or the world's response to apocalypse.

Next on my list... not sure... maybe the original Dawn...
 
HirdyLannister said:
Deadpool, it wasn't great but it wasn't bad. Just a standard action movie and I didn't find myself laughing much at all. It fits in the alright category, Guardians of the Galaxy is better made and has more funny moments for me.
Click to expand...

Really? Not like any action movie I have seen. The reason I like it is that it is a return to cinema as pure entertainment. There has been a trend recently of films that are too cerebral and take themeselves too seriously. Nolan has a lot to answer for with the Batman films. The originals were much better entertainment. Not saying there is no place for such films, just that nice to have a few films that buck this trend.

The great thing about movies is that everyone enjoys something different.
 
un_eggs said:
OK, so I've had a couple of days off crook and have taken the opportunity to watch these 2 movies. Thought they were both great. 28 Days was more of a thought-provoking film while 28 weeks was an intense, gripping, action/thriller. In fact, it is one the better films I've seen in this category. I was pleasantly surprised considering you told me to avoid it. I had to watch it after enjoying the first and knowing that a 28 Months Later is to be made. Glad I did.
Click to expand...
Glad you disagree! :)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Wahooti Fandango said:
Nolan has a lot to answer for with the Batman films. The originals were much better entertainment.
Click to expand...

Absolutely absurd. Nolan's films are full of wink wink nudge nudge cheese, and he manages to tell a coherent story which Burton only managed in his Tim Burton film that happens to occasionally feature Batman.

Nolan's set pieces are supreme fun, as are his villains. As is the plot itself in the case of TDK.
 
Lord Nicholson said:
Absolutely absurd. Nolan's films are full of wink wink nudge nudge cheese, and he manages to tell a coherent story which Burton only managed in his Tim Burton film that happens to occasionally feature Batman.

Nolan's set pieces are supreme fun, as are his villains. As is the plot itself in the case of TDK.
Click to expand...


Disagree but respect your opinion.
 
Lord Nicholson said:
Absolutely absurd. Nolan's films are full of wink wink nudge nudge cheese, and he manages to tell a coherent story which Burton only managed in his Tim Burton film that happens to occasionally feature Batman.

Nolan's set pieces are supreme fun, as are his villains. As is the plot itself in the case of TDK.
Click to expand...
I disagree also and also respect your opinion if not somewhat less than him.
 
All I'm saying is if Nolan has to answer for what he's "done" to Batman and Superhero movies then John Ford has to answer for what he did to Westerns, Kurosawa has to answer for what he did to Samurai movies, and Kubrick has to answer for what he did for Science Fiction films.

The funny thing is the accusation of being po-faced and super serious and no fun is an accusation that you could easily have leveled at Burton's films considering where the character had come from on screen. Still could actually - those films are more ruthlessly unpleasant than Nolan's films. I think they did important heavy lifting, and I still love Returns (the original is a complete hash; the Emperor has no clothes in retrospect), but Nolan gave it verisimilitude, a focus back on actual characters, and did George Lucas-level world building. And, erm, a point. I could argue that there's a thematic point to Returns (it's more of a sequel to Edward Scissorhands than Batman) but that would be it.

Also having the Joker replace Joe Chill is a fairly catastrophic miscalculation and completely changes what Batman is about by giving him a specific bent of vengeance in the third act. Indefensible. Also indefensible: giving Robert Wuhl employment.
 
Jesus I was kidding..
 
this is serious business
 
Lord Nicholson said:
All I'm saying is if Nolan has to answer for what he's "done" to Batman and Superhero movies then John Ford has to answer for what he did to Westerns, Kurosawa has to answer for what he did to Samurai movies, and Kubrick has to answer for what he did for Science Fiction films.

The funny thing is the accusation of being po-faced and super serious and no fun is an accusation that you could easily have leveled at Burton's films considering where the character had come from on screen. Still could actually - those films are more ruthlessly unpleasant than Nolan's films. I think they did important heavy lifting, and I still love Returns (the original is a complete hash; the Emperor has no clothes in retrospect), but Nolan gave it verisimilitude, a focus back on actual characters, and did George Lucas-level world building. And, erm, a point. I could argue that there's a thematic point to Returns (it's more of a sequel to Edward Scissorhands than Batman) but that would be it.

Also having the Joker replace Joe Chill is a fairly catastrophic miscalculation and completely changes what Batman is about by giving him a specific bent of vengeance in the third act. Indefensible. Also indefensible: giving Robert Wuhl employment.
Click to expand...

Touche!
 
un_eggs said:
I'll start by saying it was watchable. There were elements to it that were enjoyable. The back-story was the best part of it.

Otherwise it was Hollywood template, generic, hero-saves-girl storyline that had as a point of difference an uncompromising angle on dicks and arse jokes and in-your-face blood splatter. I know it doesn't pretend to be anything more than that and I don't have anything against the well-timed dick joke and a good amount of splatter. But the movie seemed to rely on these facets alone.

I couldn't relate to a single character. I was hoping that the jaded, cynical lead character might be done with a bit more imagination. He was a complete 'dick'. Getting his character right was probably the key element to making it an interesting movie. He reminded me of Jim Carrey's The Mask character but without the charisma or comedic talent. If they had managed to create, with some intelligent script writing, a character we could empathise with or have a beer with, then it might've worked better.

The repeated wank jokes were cringe-worthy. So were the early one-liners before the back-story. And the ending was exactly as a template Hollywood movie is expected to end.

I guess if you went into it not expecting anything more than an uncomplicated, puerile, action, love-story then you got what you want. I thought it could be better.
Click to expand...
I definitely didn't hate Deadpool, but I don't seem to love it as much as most people, either.

I was entertained enough (I gave it a 4/10, which to me is a solid film that I don't need to see again), but you're right in saying that the story was pretty generic, and the jokes (in my view) weren't anything I hadn't seen before (albeit not in superhero movies).
 
Last edited:
Kong said:
I definitely didn't hate Deadpool, but I I don't seem to love it as much as most people, either.

I was entertained enough (I gave it a 4/10, which to me is a solid film that I don't need to see again), but you're right in saying that the story was pretty generic, and the jokes (in my view) weren't anything I hadn't seen before (albeit not in superhero movies).
Click to expand...

What films for you are 10/10?
 
Wahooti Fandango said:
What films for you are 10/10?
Click to expand...
I started rating films in 2012 (I have a spreadsheet with all sorts of formulas and graphs, too; I'm a cool guy). In that time the highest rating I've given a film is 8.5.

I should mention that I rate films purely on how much I enjoy them, as opposed to how well made I think they are.

I've seen some movies that I know are really well made but I gave them poor ratings because I didn't enjoy them, and likewise in reverse.
 
Kong said:
I started rating films in 2012 (I have a spreadsheet with all sorts of formulas and graphs, too; I'm a cool guy). In that time the highest rating I've given a film is 8.5.

I should mention that I rate films purely on how much I enjoy them, as opposed to how well made I think they are.

I've seen some movies that I know are really well made but I gave them poor ratings because I didn't enjoy them, and likewise in reverse.
Click to expand...
So what's your highest three?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top