Last movie watched...

[Colin YNWA]

Revised another classic I've not seen in years and this time the grim glory that is 'Cross of Iron'. James Coburn has the ability to lend any film a degree of cool, but the way he does so in a film like this is so stunningly effective. Its a quite astonishing cast, David Warner a personal fav and I do love the ending James Mason gives his (David Warner's) character. I'm not sure its depiction of the chaos and dehumanising nature of war has ever been so effective, either before or since. Especially as the harden cast make it all so human.

Genuinely a classic.

[Tiplodocus]

Take out the slo-mo explosions and earth being flung into the air and Cross Of Iron actually has a thirty minute run time. But Yeah, it's great.

[Hawkmumbler]

Slow Mo usually pisses me off but not so in Cross of Iron, it actualy makes everything that bit more visceral, nasty. One if the most brutal war movies ever.

[Michael Knight]

Colin YNWA I only watched it for first time a few months ago and wasn't disappointed. Great movie!

[zombemybabynow]

ANTIMATTER. Pretty obvious but still pretty good

[Jim_Campbell]

Dunkirk

Brilliantly constructed, beautifully shot. Moments of unnerving, alien stillness contrasted with near-unbearable tension. Dialogue is minimal, but the actors are all excellent and the result is surprisingly affecting. Also, at a lean 106 minutes, it doesn't outstay its welcome. Thoroughly recommended. See it in IMAX if you can -- its very, very good.

[TordelBack]

Dunkirk

Brilliantly constructed, beautifully shot. Moments of unnerving, alien stillness contrasted with near-unbearable tension. Dialogue is minimal, but the actors are all excellent and the result is surprisingly affecting. Also, at a lean 106 minutes, it doesn't outstay its welcome. Thoroughly recommended. See it in IMAX if you can -- its very, very good.

My 11 year old is dying to see this - I know we all grew up on war movies, but I'm a bit worried that the modern big screen version might be too intense for one more used to SF/fantasy genre action. Thoughts?

[Jim_Campbell]

My 11 year old is dying to see this - I know we all grew up on war movies, but I'm a bit worried that the modern big screen version might be too intense for one more used to SF/fantasy genre action. Thoughts?

The violence is very restrained, certainly by modern standards. There's barely a drop of blood, and if you're worried about a Private Ryan level of carnage, it's not even in the same league.

[TordelBack]

The violence is very restrained, certainly by modern standards. There's barely a drop of blood, and if you're worried about a Private Ryan level of carnage, it's not even in the same league.

Cheers, Jim. That was exactly my concern - I found SPR hard going, and a French girl I saw it with was shaking and in floods of tears*, so I didn't really want a repeat of that! I shall see if either my Dad or my Father in Law (or both) will accompany us.


*Quiet, you.

[Jim_Campbell]

Cheers, Jim. That was exactly my concern - I found SPR hard going

The intent is most definitely not visceral. I was reminded more of... Kubrick, Malick and Lean. There's a cleverness in the construction of disparate, converging timelines that some people have found distancing, even distracting, but I can only say that that wasn't my experience.

[Mattofthespurs]

Agree about Dunkirk. It's superb.
And considering the is not one frame of CGI in this makes it even more amazing.
The timeline is cleverly done.
Brilliant.

[Eric Plumrose]

Dunkirk

Brilliantly constructed, beautifully shot. Moments of unnerving, alien stillness contrasted with near-unbearable tension. Dialogue is minimal, but the actors are all excellent and the result is surprisingly affecting. Also, at a lean 106 minutes, it doesn't outstay its welcome. Thoroughly recommended. See it in IMAX if you can -- its very, very good.

Knowing how upset I get simply thinking about my maternal grandfather's experience in Dunkirk I'm genuinely torn about seeing this. I suspect I will but I don't think I've ever balked the way I have with any other film the way I'm hesitant with Nolan's latest.

[Mattofthespurs]

Dunkirk

Brilliantly constructed, beautifully shot. Moments of unnerving, alien stillness contrasted with near-unbearable tension. Dialogue is minimal, but the actors are all excellent and the result is surprisingly affecting. Also, at a lean 106 minutes, it doesn't outstay its welcome. Thoroughly recommended. See it in IMAX if you can -- its very, very good.

Knowing how upset I get simply thinking about my maternal grandfather's experience in Dunkirk I'm genuinely torn about seeing this. I suspect I will but I don't think I've ever balked the way I have with any other film the way I'm hesitant with Nolan's latest.

If people, like you, have a personal interest in Dunkirk then I can see it being a very tough watch.
Having experienced the film (you don't watch it) I'm so glad I went to Dunkirk 15 years ago and walked along the beaches and took in the museum.
Really enhanced the experience for me especially because it was all really filmed there.

[JamesC]

Alien: Resurrection

I hadn't seen this since it first came out and I declared it one of the worst films I'd ever seen.

I've seen lots more films since then and it's not as bad as I'd remembered. It's still chock full of problems though, not least that the whole thing looks like it was shot as a straight to video rip-off. It looks incredibly cheap and tacky and the design is terrible - unforgivable for an Alien movie.
Ripley-morph isn't given any time to develop as a character. Weaver gives a reliable performance but the character is just 'monosyllabic badass' in a film which has about ten other monosyllabic badasses as Alien fodder. Ripley seems unnecessary even though the plot is all about what the company are doing with her DNA.
Winona Ryder is absolutely terrible - an annoying, petulant brat throughout.
The hybrid monster at the end is a fucking embarrassment. It looks like a monster off the cover of some dodgy 80s computer game that's basically Aliens without the licence. I don't know - considering the previous film already established that the Aliens take on characteristics (so presumably DNA?) of their hosts I think they just went too far with the human characteristics.
I think this could have been a half decent comic book mini-series (and with a primo artist letting loose on the hybrid designs it could have been quite special) but the story wasn't strong enough for the big screen treatment.

[Eric Plumrose]

Alien: Resurrection

My least favourite movie in the fourth-parting of the triloget due (in hindsight) to Josh Whedon's involvement.

Didn't SFX compare the hybrid to Casper the Friendly Ghost?