[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I just struggle with the concept of the second hunger games . Like there's the hunger games themselves, sort of makes sense. I mean not REALLY but you can suspend disbelief and get on board with the concept. And then part three (in terms of books) it makes sense that it moves on to the overall uprising, outside of the games. But for the second one it's like "Yes you're supposed to only do one hunger games and then you get to be famous and safe forever but... NO! We also have the EVEN HUNGRIER games muahahaha". I mean story wise they could literally have skipped from the first Hunger Games to the rebellion in the third and it would be exactly the same .

Well it made some sort of sense because A - it was the 75th Hunger Games and they do something a bit different for every 25 year marker and B it was because they knew an uprising was brewing that they wanted katniss and the trouble makers back in there to make an example of them/kill them and stop the rebellion from starting

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well it made some sort of sense because A - it was the 75th Hunger Games and they do something a bit different for every 25 year marker and B it was because they knew an uprising was brewing that they wanted katniss and the trouble makers back in there to make an example of them/kill them and stop the rebellion from starting

Well yeah, the second part of that is true, they (the fictional bad guys and ALSO the author of the story) wanted the heroes back in a Hunger Games environment for the second book... but it would take a lot of convincing for me to believe that the "Quarter-Quell" was part of the writer's original concept of the Games, and not a pretty convenient Deus Ex Machina invented later in order to over-ride the whole "if you're picked and win then you're safe" rule... especially as that rule was made quite clear in the initial description of how it all worked. They would have had to at least mention the Quarter Quell in the first book if it was an established part of the lore... especially if that was meant to be "year 24". They would all have been talking about it, surely . And that's sort of what I'm talking about I guess: new aspects of the "story world" suddenly cropping up later in the story, where you can't go back and say "oooh yeah, this was hinted at earlier!". That's what makes it feel "cardboard-cutout-like". The world shifting to fit the story, rather than the world simply existing for stories to take place in.

In fact the MOST awesome ones are when you think something has been done like that at first, and then you go back and re-read / re-watch earlier stuff and realise that hints were being dropped the whole time . That's good writing. With the opposite being the ultimate offense: setting something up as a "rule" and then just totally ignoring it later when it suits . The best example I can think of of that is the newest Terminator (thankfully, it's being over-written!)... where it was made VERY clear that in Terminator time travel rules, you can ONLY travel BACKWARDS in time, doing so creates a whole new timeline and the previous one ceases to exist, and that's how they avoided time travel paradox. Forward time travel just wasn't a thing. And then all of a sudden, they make a PG-13 sequel where Sarah Targeryen and Bro Kyle Reese hop in a time machine in the 80's and end up in something like 2014. NO. ... ... ... .. ...



Terminator Genisys: 1/10 - pretty much blasphemy.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well yeah, the second part of that is true, they (the fictional bad guys and ALSO the author of the story) wanted the heroes back in a Hunger Games environment for the second book... but it would take a lot of convincing for me to believe that the "Quarter-Quell" was part of the writer's original concept of the Games, and not a pretty convenient Deus Ex Machina invented later in order to over-ride the whole "if you're picked and win then you're safe" rule... especially as that rule was made quite clear in the initial description of how it all worked. They would have had to at least mention the Quarter Quell in the first book if it was an established part of the lore... especially if that was meant to be "year 24". They would all have been talking about it, surely . And that's sort of what I'm talking about I guess: new aspects of the "story world" suddenly cropping up later in the story, where you can't go back and say "oooh yeah, this was hinted at earlier!". That's what makes it feel "cardboard-cutout-like". The world shifting to fit the story, rather than the world simply existing for stories to take place in.

In fact the MOST awesome ones are when you think something has been done like that at first, and then you go back and re-read / re-watch earlier stuff and realise that hints were being dropped the whole time . That's good writing. With the opposite being the ultimate offense: setting something up as a "rule" and then just totally ignoring it later when it suits . The best example I can think of of that is the newest Terminator (thankfully, it's being over-written!)... where it was made VERY clear that in Terminator time travel rules, you can ONLY travel BACKWARDS in time, doing so creates a whole new timeline and the previous one ceases to exist, and that's how they avoided time travel paradox. Forward time travel just wasn't a thing. And then all of a sudden, they make a PG-13 sequel where Sarah Targeryen and Bro Kyle Reese hop in a time machine in the 80's and end up in something like 2014. NO. ... ... ... .. ...



Terminator Genisys: 1/10 - pretty much blasphemy.

Yeah look I do agree with you but I just think that THGs did it the best out of those 3 trilogies which are all similar in alot of ways, that's why I'm comparing them.

Oh since you like all that time travel stuff, have you watched 12 Monkeys the TV series? That's so good at linking such a complicated series of events and definitely one to re watch when it's over with new eyes

[Toy Soldier]

"Gifted" starring Captain America, some little smart girl, and Mona-Lisa from Parks 'n' Rec

He's her uncle, she's a 7 year old genius, her mum killed herself and left her with him as a baby, he's been home schooling her then she goes off to school, they realise she's a genius, Uncle America's stern British mother enters the picture and wants to "take" her now that she knows she's a genius (turns out the dead sister was also a genius and ended up killing herself because strict British mum didn't let her have a normal life). So basically Captain Uncle wants the little girl to achieve her potential but also get to have a normal childhood (whilst also banging her teacher), while Granny wants to kill her cat and make her do maths all day (and thinks that Uncle has a crappy lifestyle, as he used to be a Philosophy professor but now is a boat mechanic). Custody battle ensues.

...It was actually a decent enough watch, tear-jerky at times... only 90 mins long so doesn't drag out or anything... an enjoyable hour and a half. It seems pretty low budget though? Almost like those films you used to get on Channel 5 daytime TV . I can only guess it was a pet project for Chris Evans since the entire budget for the film is probably less than what he got paid for Civil War . That said all of the acting is decent, or at least, Uncle Chris is good in a different role, the little girl is also very good... the teacher is passable. The British mum is a bit of a silly stereotype tbh. There aren't really any other characters.

I'll give it 6.9/10. Nice way to spend an evening, nothing ground-breaking, but short and sweet (they kept "courtroom scenes" to a bare minimum, when similar movies have a tendency to drag things out far too long).

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"Gifted" starring Captain America, some little smart girl, and Mona-Lisa from Parks 'n' Rec

He's her uncle, she's a 7 year old genius, her mum killed herself and left her with him as a baby, he's been home schooling her then she goes off to school, they realise she's a genius, Uncle America's stern British mother enters the picture and wants to "take" her now that she knows she's a genius (turns out the dead sister was also a genius and ended up killing herself because strict British mum didn't let her have a normal life). So basically Captain Uncle wants the little girl to achieve her potential but also get to have a normal childhood (whilst also banging her teacher), while Granny wants to kill her cat and make her do maths all day (and thinks that Uncle has a crappy lifestyle, as he used to be a Philosophy professor but now is a boat mechanic). Custody battle ensues.

...It was actually a decent enough watch, tear-jerky at times... only 90 mins long so doesn't drag out or anything... an enjoyable hour and a half. It seems pretty low budget though? Almost like those films you used to get on Channel 5 daytime TV . I can only guess it was a pet project for Chris Evans since the entire budget for the film is probably less than what he got paid for Civil War . That said all of the acting is decent, or at least, Uncle Chris is good in a different role, the little girl is also very good... the teacher is passable. The British mum is a bit of a silly stereotype tbh. There aren't really any other characters.

I'll give it 6.9/10. Nice way to spend an evening, nothing ground-breaking, but short and sweet (they kept "courtroom scenes" to a bare minimum, when similar movies have a tendency to drag things out far too long).

..the first paragraph synopsis..(..sorry, I’m too dumb to bold with this iPad..)..yeah ok, you’ve sold me, I’ll watch it...you missed your vocation in life of doing movie reviews, TS...

[Toy Soldier]

Captain Uncle wants the little girl to achieve her potential but also get to have a normal childhood (whilst also banging her teacher)

Having read it back, I feel like I need to clarify that it's Chris Evans, not the smart little girl, who is trying to bang the school teacher.

Originally Posted by Ammi

..the first paragraph synopsis..(..sorry, I’m too dumb to bold with this iPad..)..yeah ok, you’ve sold me, I’ll watch it...you missed your vocation in life of doing movie reviews, TS...

Awh thanks Ammi, I'll be sure to review other films similarly in this thread, at least.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Having read it back, I feel like I need to clarify that it's Chris Evans, not the smart little girl, who is trying to bang the school teacher.



Awh thanks Ammi, I'll be sure to review other films similarly in this thread, at least.

..that was genuine btw, TS..you have actually got me intrigued in watching it with your take on it...I realise I might have sounded sarcastic, but I really wasn’t...there sounds as though there’s a lot thrown into the move to make it interesting..

[Niamh.]

I loved that film

[y.winter]

Hello, My Name is Doris - great "little" film. The actress in the lead role is brilliant and the story is overall very compelling. Nice film for a lazy weekend's afternoon.

[Nicky91]

George of the Jungle 1997

i quite like this movie

[ethanjames]

phantom thread; 10/10 genuinely and utterly stunning nothing could ever top this for me. ive already seen it twice and going again tomorrow. paul Thomas Anderson's best since punk drunk love

[Wizard.]

Darkest Hour 10/10 incredible! Makes you feel so British and proud

[montblanc]

the new Jumanji and it was cringe yet cute

[Niamh.]

3 Billboards - Loved it, my brother is an idiot- confirmed 9/10

[Wizard.]

Originally Posted by montblanc

the new Jumanji and it was cringe yet cute

I haven’t seen it yet but the mobile app game of it is great

[Ammi]

...Blade Runner, the original 1982...just re-visited ready to watch the 2017 Blade Runner...still just as absorbing as I recalled it to be and still an 8/10...

[Benzient-XXVII]

Sisters (2015)
9/10 > very funny in places but when the party started it went a tiny bit flat but Tina Fey & Amy Poehler are great together tho

Bridgette Jones: The Edge Of Reason (2004)
8/10 > Second viewing (I think) but it's not quite as good as the first one but it was better on the second viewing so I enjoyed it

[LukeB]

Bridesmaids - 9/10

[Ammi]

...Secret Life of Walter Mitty, again as it was on TV...and it was lovely.....9/10..

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

3 Billboards - Loved it, my brother is an idiot- confirmed 9/10

Great movie 10/10

[Shaun]

Call Me By Your Name



^says it all

Spoiler:

Objectively I'd probably just give this a 9/10 but right now it's a definite 10 and I'm going to bed and hugging a pillow.

[Toy Soldier]

"Mother". ****ing bizarre. I also managed to not quite get what was actually going on until very near the end, which made me feel retrospectively stupid. And then once I did get it... I thought it was over the top.

I can appreciate the attempt to make something a bit out there, but I found the actual execution of that vision a bit sloppy and heavy-handed. 5.8/10. Cinematically it's not as bad as some people make out, but I do get why a lot of people struggle with it.

I also kinda think J-Law was totally miscast tbh.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"Mother". ****ing bizarre. I also managed to not quite get what was actually going on until very near the end, which made me feel retrospectively stupid. And then once I did get it... I thought it was over the top.

I can appreciate the attempt to make something a bit out there, but I found the actual execution of that vision a bit sloppy and heavy-handed. 5.8/10. Cinematically it's not as bad as some people make out, but I do get why a lot of people struggle with it.

I also kinda think J-Law was totally miscast tbh.

You did better than I did, I didn't know wtf it was all about until I googled it afterwards, terrible film. I think J-Law was miscast because she's too good for a pile of s**t like that

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

You did better than I did, I didn't know wtf it was all about until I googled it afterwards, terrible film. I think J-Law was miscast because she's too good for a pile of s**t like that

Honest to god didn't get it until he said "I HAVE TO CREAAATE!!" and then I was like "Ohhh, he's God and she's Gaia, right."

The reason I felt stupid was that the ham-fisted Kain and Abel brothers suddenly became so obvious that I couldn't figure out why I hadn't realised before.

That said, on reflection I actually think that the entire biblical aspect itself is just a metaphor, and what it's essentially about it is "a man with a god complex", rather than an actual biblical parable. His first work was supposedly amazing and he thinks a lot of himself for it, he worships himself almost, he's more energised by his "massive fans" than he is by his relationship (they are what inspire him to write his "new testament"). The baby is a representation of Jesus, but then on the other hand, you can bring that back down to the human level: He wants to have this baby, but then he's more concerned with showing that baby off to the world than anything else. The baby in the film is killed, but specifically, they "break and consume", the metaphor being that his child does NOT literally die... but has a childhood so affected by his father's fame and being adored that he is left "a broken adult" consumed by a supposedly adoring public.

J-Law (his wife) gets "mauled and exposed" by the public which you could take as a media allegory? And all the while, the husband acts like he cares and loves her (and is upset for the child) but still believes it necessary and still essentially is selfish and self-adoring. The question is asked, "Why not just build a whole new house?" (have a different life) but the answer is that "this is his home". In the end she tears the whole thing down (leaves him, probably taking the child) but is left "burnt out" and bruised, and "leaves her heart behind". She tries to burn down "his house" on the way out, but the next day there's a new partner waking up in his bed, ready to rebuild his house for him, whilst he carries on as before.

All of the biblical imagery then is basically because HE sort of sees himself as God; and possibly, she does too. She loves his writing but he thinks of it as biblical in importance... she isn't enough for him and he thrives on the more shallow adoration of his fans.


In concept I actually do really like it, and visually it's exceptionally well done... it's just that, somehow, at the same time it kind of frustratingly misses the mark?

I also can't figure out what the yellow dust is all about. In literal terms it's obviously supposed to be anxiety medication, but I don't know what the metaphorical link is, if there is one, and it seems weird and out of place if there isn't.

[Niamh.]

Reading your thoughts on it were better than the actual movie

No idea about that yellow dust either though