Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - radiator

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 666
Film & TV / Re: Last movie watched...
« on: 20 March, 2019, 09:55:29 pm »
It never occured to me that it wasn't.

But I also never understood why some people thing that it's ambiguous whether Anderson passed or failed at the end of the movie (she obviously did, right?).

General / Re: Munce is here
« on: 19 March, 2019, 03:49:24 pm »
I've tried the Impossible Burger and the Beyond Meat burger (and sausage).

They are tasty, but I'm amazed that anyone would actually mistake them for real meat.

Film & TV / Re: Current TV Boxset Addiction
« on: 18 March, 2019, 10:53:14 pm »
Oh, another absolutely amazing bit is the end of season 3 episode 4 where Dany takes command of the Unsullied. Could not ask for that to have been executed better.

Emilia Clarke isn't the best actress in the world, but I don't think she's as bad as people make out - she's great in that scene. I kinda wish the show had portrayed her more similarly to how she is in the books where she feigns naivety and uses her enemies preconceptions of her gender to her advantage a lot more - show Dany often comes across as very one note.

Film & TV / Re: Current TV Boxset Addiction
« on: 18 March, 2019, 10:02:14 pm »
Currently rewatching the entirety of Game of Thrones.

What's really apparent rewatching all these years later is that season 1 is lightning in a bottle - a pretty much perfect adaptation of the novel where (certain budget limitations aside) they just nail every scene of every episode - and that the show as a whole never really delivered on the promise of those opening 10 episodes. I think most people acknowledge that the shows quality has declined somewhat in recent years, but imo even by season 2, episode 1 it's already starting to get somewhat patchy in terms of plotting, dialogue and performances.

There are certain sequences that are truly exceptional - I just rewatched the Hound v Beric Dondarrion trial by combat which is absolutely incredible, and the Jaime/Brienne bathhouse scene is as good as anything the show has ever done - but certain scenes and plotlines really drag on a rewatch - namely most of the Robb Stark stuff, Danaerys' entire season 2 plotline and pretty much every scene involving Shae, who is just really not a good actor, and she really bogs down almost everything to do with Tyrion until the end of season 4.

There's also a certain irreverence and immaturity to the show from season 2 onward. It's like every single scene has to have something repulsive either happening or being discussed and to really wallow in it. And the show has always had that rep, but if you actually go back, season 1 really isn't like that. There's some gross stuff, yes, but it's far more restrained and frankly takes itself a bit more seriously than what came later.

On a more positive note, I'm even more impressed with the visual design and especially the costuming than I was originally - it's truly phenomenal. Right from the very start, it's clear that they have put so much thought into having instantly recognisable looks and suits of armour for each of the main factions, and they just nail it, from the modest blue uniforms of the Ironborn to the derpy leather caps of the weasly Freys.

Film & TV / Re: Current TV Boxset Addiction
« on: 18 March, 2019, 07:58:26 pm »
The scene in the episode preceding that with Fleetwood Mac's 'The Chain' is amazing. I think I rewatched it about three times.

Film & TV / Re: Current TV Boxset Addiction
« on: 18 March, 2019, 07:53:00 pm »
That South African necklace...

It just clicked what you were referring to. I'd actually forgotten about that! Wowzers.

Film & TV / Re: Current TV Boxset Addiction
« on: 18 March, 2019, 07:01:34 pm »
Oh, and the 'home dentistry' scene. Jeez... Incredible use of editing and audio in that one.

Film & TV / Re: Current TV Boxset Addiction
« on: 18 March, 2019, 06:57:23 pm »
Oof, that was a brutal one. It isn't an extremely graphic show for the most part, but somehow includes some of the gnarliest, most stomach-turning sequences I've ever seen in a TV show.

I'll also mention 'the suitcase' as a particularly unwatchable bit, and another sequence I think from season 6 I'll just refer to as 'the fire axe'....  :o

Off Topic / Re: The Political Thread
« on: 15 March, 2019, 07:34:24 pm »
Those bloody globalists, eh?

Film & TV / Re: Last movie watched...
« on: 15 March, 2019, 07:07:37 pm »
In the case of Quill, a lot of the heavy lifting had already been done by Dan Abnett and Andy Lanning in the comic. They really made him into the wise-cracking, slightly hapless smartass that the film takes and runs with. I take your point though - you could of course take a fairly bland  comic character and make her interesting, but I suspect (and again, haven't seen it yet, so could be wrong) they were more focused on 'she has to be a tough, powerful capable woman', possibly to the exclusion of all else?

I kind of got that impression, yeah.

There's a slight suggestion of an arc in how she's been kept down at various times (generally by male authority figures) and has to overcome this in order to achieve her full potential, but again, it's so brief as to be barely there and so the moment of triumph/payoff at the end really falls flat. She basically goes from being super powerful to being mega powerful. Perhaps they were afraid to really lean in to it and risk angering the manbabies?

Film & TV / Re: Last movie watched...
« on: 15 March, 2019, 06:32:39 pm »
I get that, but I also understand that the film version of Peter Quill is quite different from the comic book version? Like, they took a fairly mundane character and figured out a way to humanise him and make him relatable?

(also - typo - should say 'absolutely nothing' in the above post)

Film & TV / Re: Last movie watched...
« on: 15 March, 2019, 06:05:47 pm »
I know absolutely about Captain Marvel from the comics, but there's a lot of potential for interesting avenues to go as presented in the film - the idea of on alien stranded on Earth (kind of an inverse of Star Lord from the GotG movies), themes about identity and memory - false or otherwise. But the movie touches on these things very briefly, then does absolutely nothing with them.

But I'm talking more about Danver's actual personality - and the fact that she doesn't really have one. I'd be really hard pressed to describe her as a character than in anything but the most vague terms - 'strong', 'powerful' 'weapon'... That's really all I could say about her.

Film & TV / Re: Last movie watched...
« on: 15 March, 2019, 05:19:48 pm »
Captain Marvel.

It was ok, run of the mill Marvel fare, really.

Some unexpected plot twists (it was nice that Mendlesohn got to play against type for a change) and some cool visuals aside it was mostly forgettable with some slightly cringey moments and awkward attempts at humour thrown in. Its a bit nitpicky I know, but I was quite distracted throughout by how easily most of the human characters seemed to gloss over the experience of meeting aliens for the first time, which you’d think would be kind of a bigger deal…?

I thought Danvers made for a very bland protagonist if I’m honest - a literal blank slate of a character with few quirks or much in the way of a discernable personality. What little we do get of a backstory is compressed into about 10 seconds of flashback, so the big ‘stand up’ moment at the end, though nicely filmed, rang totally hollow for me, as I don’t think we’d been on anything close to an emotional journey with her, and she was pretty much identical at the end of the film to how she was when it began.

I don’t expect deep characterisation from these things, but the more memorable MCU characters for me tend to be so in part because of their flaws and idiosyncrasies, or have some kind of internal conflict that needs to be resolved. I can see the logic of gong with the structure they did, but perhaps a straight chronological telling would have worked better in terms of letting us get to know the characters better and give us more than a very shallow surface read?

I’m in agreement with Keef about the cat stuff being quite lame and predictable. Ditto the 90s nostalgia, which seemed like very low hanging fruit. There seemed to be quite a bit of ‘here’s a reference to something from the 90s in place of an actual joke’ going on. Quite telling that the thing that got by far the biggest reaction from the audience I saw it with was the Blockbusters logo.

Film & TV / Re: Leaving Neverland
« on: 13 March, 2019, 11:30:41 pm »
Well put.

It's extremely easy to hear, second hand, that both of the accusers had previously testified in Jackson's defence and simply write them off. I almost did myself. But that is why it is so important to watch the doc itself. You will go away from it understanding perfectly why they did it.

Watching old clips of Jackson carrying on now, I see them in a whole new light and it seems completely insane what was allowed to go on. I mean, jesus.

It's all so clear now, his whole deal, the whole persona he projected. It's so transparent, and it's staggering to reckon with. Even the Simpsons episode he guest stars in - where his avatar pointedly ingratiates himself into the Simpson family and is promptly left alone unsupervised with the children - it was all part of the act and the deception.

Film & TV / Re: Leaving Neverland
« on: 13 March, 2019, 10:19:53 pm »
It's partly the history of the accusers that has me doubtful. I.e I read about the father of one of the kids apparently trying to get Jackson to fund his TV endeavours... or else. And being a bit of a weird bloke, it seems like Whacko Jacko would be an easy target for blackmail. Of course, being strange doesn't mean he wasn't guilty...

That being said, I haven't seen this documentary, and probably never will*. I have read it is rather one sided, just following the two men who have had a questionable history, and not covering the other side.  Of course that doesn't mean the allegations aren't true.

I'm not convinced either way, but the comments here make me wonder.

I had my doubts concerning Saville too, initially thinking alleged victims were just trying to cash in on an eccentric but well meaning man who was no longer around to defend himself. Then another person came forward . Then another. And another... and I was confronted with the strong likelihood that it was all true.

What the doc makes abundantly clear is that this wasn't a simple situation. There is a lot of murkiness and questionable behaviour by all involved. Some of the past actions of the accusers - at least initially - seem strange, hard to understand, maybe even damning. But none of it means the allegations themselves aren't true.

I totally understand you not wanting to watch the doc yourself, but trust me (as someone who has seen the full 4 hour HBO version) when I say that I don't think any rational, reasonably intelligent person could watch it all and not have the scales well and truly fall from their eyes. You'd essentially have to adopt a conspiracy theorist mindset to disbelieve what you are seeing right in front of you.

I honestly haven't stopped thinking about it all week.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 666