Re: The Movie House - Part 4

by Glory Thu Jan 22, 2015 4:50 am

Nightcrawler - check Thumbs up

frigginnnnnnn epic!! Molenation

what a film!! Jake Gyllenhaal, take a :bow:

sir

Cant believe thats a directorial debut. Such finesse and control over every frame. Absolutely loved this one.

by RedOranje Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:10 pm

by McAgger Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:15 pm

Fury was amazing, I don't know what garbage Lumier is spouting.

by Valkyrja Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:45 pm

Is The Drop with Hardy worth watching ?

by RealGunner Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:50 pm

Simon Pegg co-writing Star Trek 3

Hope it's entertaining unlike the whole franchise before it

inb4 abuse

by Freeza Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:23 pm

Valkyrja wrote:Is The Drop with Hardy worth watching ?

It's a very slow burning movie with great performances. If you're into slow burn crime dramas, you should watch it.

by Freeza Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:23 pm

RealGunner wrote:Simon Pegg co-writing Star Trek 3

Hope it's entertaining unlike the whole franchise before it

inb4 abuse

I really liked it ffs you pos, stop hating Sad

Reported.

by El Gunner Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:37 pm

So far Star Trek has been good.

____
John Wick
Would have been a great action film if the third act was written and executed better. In comparison to everything up to that point it was rather awful.
My rating: 7/10

by Tomwin Lannister Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:38 pm

RealGunner wrote:Simon Pegg co-writing Star Trek 3

Hope it's entertaining unlike the whole franchise before it

inb4 abuse

Loooooooooooool

I'd say statements like that put you in danger but the ones you upset can't quite make it out of their parents basement to come and getcha

by Freeza Fri Jan 23, 2015 12:02 am

Tom, I'm not in the basement ffs... I have my own room Sad

by Tomwin Lannister Fri Jan 23, 2015 12:16 am

was thinking more of the 46 year olds who love the whole franchise but gtfo ur room and be mad at rg

by McLewis Fri Jan 23, 2015 10:22 am

I think Justin Lin directing the next Star Trek is a lot more worrying than Simon Pegg writing it.

by Freeza Fri Jan 23, 2015 11:33 am

I don't see how him writing is worrying at all, he's a legit writer.

by Glory Fri Jan 23, 2015 11:42 am

Don't call me James wrote:Fury was amazing, I don't know what garbage Lumier is spouting.

Exactly. YOU DONT KNOW. Thats why.

Just in case you guys care. (From an IMDb poster)

FURY SPOILER :

Then theres tonnes of posts like these on movie forums which render the film as outright ridiculous. And I have repeatedly said I liked the film and the making.
Yea but then Freeza and all you guys in GL know better. Right.
I am just wasting my time here I came to realize, putting up 'garbage' every time that others dont care about. Guess this place's not for me then. Bye

Thing is I tried to put that as politely as I could, even apologized to fans of the film beforehand. And then I see people like these coming and trashing your posts without even showing the decency to read whats in there.

by Glory Fri Jan 23, 2015 12:03 pm

Freeza wrote:
Lumiere_Blanche wrote:btw I watched Fury today. Are there fans here? I have seen positive comments about the film here so I reckon there must be. So Pardon me when I am saying I am thoroughly disappointed by the film. As a historical war film it was well, quite poor. It was more like a sci fi film with no realism whatsoever. These Hollywood movies that delve into subjects like these, these days they are trying to even rewrite history. Albeit as a mere CGI, action, film I enjoyed it.
my score 5/10.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2014/oct/24/fury-movie-tank-veteran-sherman-verdict-realistic

But I guess you know better dude.

Also first war movie I've seen to finally feature tracer bullets.

I loved it because it was entertaining, great acting from Shia and Bernthal. And the horror they portrayed in each character. Also love Ayer's dialogue a lot, he really knows how to make men interesting when interacting in a group dynamic.
Whoever said this was a historical drama anyways? Ayer is an action drama director, and one of the best ones out there imo. Training Day, Fury, End of Watch. Three great movies in the action genre from him, even though he only wrote the first.

Lemme ask, What exactly is there in that article ?
Its only said that the Sherman is so and so. What the film showed was much beyond that. It showed zero intelligence on the part of the Germans. And only the Americans could use their brain. Then even The article says the final scenes were over the top. Laughing

Havent you even read this, or just skimmed it, and only took the parts which prove your point?

but the final scene where the crew hold out against a battalion of Waffen SS troops was too far fetched. The Germans seemed to be used as canon fodder. In reality they would have been battle-hardened and fanatical troops who would have easily taken out an immobile Sherman tank using Panzerfausts (an anti-tank bazooka). They also seemed to have an inexhaustible supply of ammunition and fuel. A Sherman tank only does five miles to the gallon so I think they would have run out long before the final showdown.

And btw How can you separate historical events from a film where even the dates are shown and its repeatedly said about whats happening and where they were. It was clear as a day that the allied forces were closing in on Germany. The Germans were on the defensive. The year was 1945. The film even began with that prologue ffs.

Should it be 'said' that the film is a historical drama when history is shown?? Its irrelevant how good the director is. If you plan to show history, you have to stick by and not simply manipulate the events way you like ( unless of course you are Tarantino.... Now I hope you wont come up with the audacity to put Inglorious Basterds into this argument, for the simple reason that you cant.)
k then back to topic, yea if he have no plans for that, then he can easily make a sci fi film or an action film. Then he can show whatever he want.

by Freeza Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:15 pm

The fuel thing is BS... They don't have to show the tank being filled up.. Also historical accuracy doesn't take away from my enjoyment of the film. This was lever about history but to show the bond and violence that exists in war. Historical accuracy should only be followed in a biopic. This was entirely fiction based on a war.

by Glory Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:31 pm

Freeza wrote:The fuel thing is BS... They don't have to show the tank being filled up.. Also historical accuracy doesn't take away from my enjoyment of the film. This was lever about history but to show the bond and violence that exists in war. Historical accuracy should only be followed in a biopic. This was entirely fiction based on a war.

fiction ? really ? Then how come they start the film with something like this. The Movie House - Part 4 - Page 33 Fury

And who said about following history when here instead deliberately attempts were made to tamper with it. The dates and the corresponding events shown in the film are misleading, so much so that a historian will find it outright offensive.

by Glory Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:45 pm

Freeza wrote:The fuel thing is BS... They don't have to show the tank being filled up.. Also historical accuracy doesn't take away from my enjoyment of the film. This was lever about history but to show the bond and violence that exists in war. Historical accuracy should only be followed in a biopic. This was entirely fiction based on a war.

ok now since you brought that up. What is there in this which isnt there in any decent war movie. Bonding and violence ? Come on.
A bunch of cliched characters with your average Hollywood cheesy dialogues stressing on patriotism, and courage. with an attempt to make it look even more chic by mixing up religion and Bible quotes. I havent seen anything unique here.
If you are calling the bonding and for that matter, violence of this film special then what will you say when you come across a film like Saving Private Ryan or some Hollocaust films. I am not even going into foreign films.

The only thing good about this film was the acting of some of the actors, like Pitt, the CGI and making which I have repeatedly agreed are class.

by El Gunner Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Again, sorry LB, I agree with Freeze.

I only take historical events literally when a film is labelled as a biopic. Fury, although, it had that introduction which you pointed out, isn't at all a biopic. It was made for entertainment pleasure, and in that it succeeded.

But you're required to have your own opinion mate. We disagree here a lot. Don't worry.
And don't mind, McAgger, lol he's just a pos who seems to suffer from PTSD sometimes (actually reminds me of myself as well Laughing

)

by Glory Fri Jan 23, 2015 6:06 pm

well, I dont have anything more to add in that case. And I dont know how to accept a film that defies logic and stampedes on history however well if its made.
If their intention was just to entertain then why put up that false intro lines before the film. And if its fictitious, then why use the real names of places and associate dates with it.

In reality, in 1945 April, the Nazis were in shambles, on the brink of surrender. Their supplies ran out, they didnt have ammo. In fact on April 21, the war ended with the Soviets entering Berlin.

Spoiler:

Then in that intro its again falsely stated that Hitler's Total war/Totaler Krieg began only after the Allied forces entered the heart of Germany, instead in reality it began as early as 1943, when their prestigious Sixth Army (Wehrmacht) was defeated in Stalingrad, Russia. Hitler went mad and announced "Now, people rise up, and let the storm break loose!"

Its not even, subtle the flaws here are. They are in fact glaring. Only Hollywood will attempt something as blatant as this and still get away when people acknowledge them for their technical expertise, and simply neglect everything else. Of course they will succeed, what do yo expect, they are frigging Hollywood mate. Its an industry that made Avatar and Gravity. Technical finesse is the least thing you need to worry about when they make a movie.

You know what the funnier thing is, it was not America that the main part of the play was when it came to WWII. Unfortunately the Russians dont have the money to make a film like this. Just like in another propoganda film called Argo, where they came to the conclusion that America did it all. There instead it was Canada, which was made as a mere observer.

by Glory Fri Jan 23, 2015 6:27 pm

El Gunner wrote:Again, sorry LB, I agree with Freeze.

I only take historical events literally when a film is labelled as a biopic. Fury, although, it had that introduction which you pointed out, isn't at all a biopic. It was made for entertainment pleasure, and in that it succeeded.

But you're required to have your own opinion mate. We disagree here a lot. Don't worry.
And don't mind, McAgger, lol he's just a pos who seems to suffer from PTSD sometimes (actually reminds me of myself as well )

I think I can live with that, especially if the disagreeing ones are the likes of McAgger.

by Freeza Fri Jan 23, 2015 6:44 pm

The historical events are not as far off as you think, every single fiction period piece has its problems. But keep being a pretentious prick and dismiss our opinions and stop watching action films if that's much of a pain for you.

by Freeza Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:12 pm

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy
Also interesting how the battle was so unrealistic when it happened for a guy in WWII where he singled handedly held off Germans with a machine gun on a broken tank

by M99 Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:09 pm

Lumiere_Blanche wrote:
You know what the funnier thing is, it was not America that the main part of the play was when it came to WWII. Unfortunately the Russians dont have the money to make a film like this. Just like in another propoganda film called Argo, where they came to the conclusion that America did it all. There instead it was Canada, which was made as a mere observer.

This always happens in American movies and sadly Hollywood has shown no signs of change on it. The character Affleck played on Argo is Hispanic IRL, Saving Private Ryan only showed Americans storming Normandy when the British had equal if not more of an impact etc. They just have to show USA as the heroes.

by Freeza Fri Jan 23, 2015 9:09 pm

Same with Danish war movies. Not really propaganda as much as the groups who wants to watch the movies, wants some of their own to be featured. There was a hispanic guy in Fury though.
It was also happening on 1 day. So I don't see the big deal about it only featuring the American soldiers of the allies. (Was Jason Isaac'c character not British?)

by Glory Fri Jan 23, 2015 9:31 pm

Freeza wrote:The historical events are not as far off as you think, every single fiction period piece has its problems. But keep being a pretentious prick and dismiss our opinions and stop watching action films if that's much of a pain for you.

Havent you even read what I typed. Right, every period piece will have problems.
And If you are too dismissive of my opinions to the extent what you do is simply categorize them as one of those 'problems' then I dont have anything more to say to you, honestly.
These are NOT one among those problems, gosh! How saying one thing authoritatively happened in a particular year when it actually happened two years back is just a minor problem? Are you even aware what you are saying here. I cant believe you are allowing them to fool you and still be happy with and then on top of that throw stones at the one who is pointing that to you. In the 'other' films you pointed out, the difference is they havent shown an introduction like this in proper English. That way even if they tamper with it, we poor audience wont be able to know. Here its like they are warning us beforehand that Hey I am going to fool you and then pulling the trick.

And fyi, resorting to personal abuse wont solve anything, believe me. It will only make things worse. Lets try to communicate as civilized human beings. How hard you try you cant take me that route.

And you are calling me pretentious, when what I have only done is point out certain things as reasonably and honestly as I can. And then we find someone here talking like they know everything about films and the rest should only follow their lead. Rolling Eyes

Okay, I dont want to stretch this anymore further. I have said what I wanted to say. And I dont want to prove anything either. And as I long as I watch films I will put reviews of it as well, be it here be it somewhere else. If its too much of a problem to you to read, and that I am not agreeing with what YOU say or think about films like the rest of the lot here does, well, I simply dont care.

by Sponsored content