Last movie watched...

[radiator]

Inside Out.

Hmmm. I'll go against the grain on this one and say for me its one of Pixar's weaker efforts. Unlike most of their films, which seem to have universal appeal, this one seems to have been made by and for overly sentimental parents. I couldn't really relate to it personally as a result - I was moved around a lot as a kid and just don't think it is as traumatic an experience as the film suggests.

I don't really think the film works on a conceptual level either. There's some interesting ideas in play, but imo you can't really have your main characters be anthropomorphised emotions, yet have those same characters themselves display a range of emotions. It doesn't quite work for me and the setup raises too many nagging questions. The end result is a bit like the old Beezer(?) comic strip The Numbskulls, but decidedly more of a muddle.

I also think it's - with the possible exception of the Cars series - Pixar's ugliest film. The 'inside' cast of characters are very bland and visually unappealing to me, and look like they belong in a film made by one of Pixar's inferior rivals.

Worth a watch but by no means a classic. Don't believe the hype.

[Devons Daddy]

inside out,
fair statements, it was more aimed at families as opposed to ALL, i enjoyed it immensely but your views are very balanced,
I hated cars also

[Devons Daddy]

Jurassic World,

just watched it this weekend,
amusing the parody of its own essence, the Jaws shark as the food for a bigger idea. new exciting big thing the public wants,
the chap wearing a Jurassic park t-shirt and so on,
also the staff member working the hamster ball ride, that reality of his response,

whilst smiling at itself it was also.
great entertainment.
which is what a movie should be.

[radiator]

Up and Toy Story 3 covered similar themes but i didn't find them nearly as cloying or insistent as Inside Out.

Anyway, in case I'm coming off as heartless we followed it up with The Iron Giant (first time watching) which lived up to its reputation as a classic. Beautiful film. Absolutely gorgeous character design and animation, and really moving too.

[JamesC]

The Woman in Black 2

Pretty good I thought. Perhaps a little over reliant on jump scares but the story was good and the central idea was interesting. It had some really strong performances, particularly from the two leads, neither of whom I recognised.
For a low budget follow up they could've done a lot worse.

[Keef Monkey]

It Follows.

Er, was that it? Heard so much positive hype about this film and i just didn't get it. Couldn't get a handle on the rules and didn't find it scary or tense at all. Such a crap non-ending too.

It Follows is the first film since childhood where I had intense nightmares just from a friend describing the concept to me. Given that, there was no way it could live up to those nightmares! Still found it very good though, and personally thought the ending was really effective, [spoiler]all the stuff in the swimming pool much less so, probably the weakest sequence in the film I thought. But yeah, the final shot and the notion that they'll never, ever be able to relax stuck with me. As a metaphor for the baggage you bring to any new relationship and the way your past can cast a shadow over them, I thought it worked well.[/spoiler] I'm possibly reading too much into that mind you.

[Tiplodocus]

Spectre which I enjoyed, but it wasn't as good as Skyfall and seemed to retread a lot of well trodden ground.

Yes, I enjoyed it - absolutely brilliant opening sequence and credits but then it all slowed down to a very leisurely pace.  There was one very traditional pump 'em and dump 'em Bond girl (with a slight twist) and one very good rounded character Bond girl.  The action sequences were variable - that car chase doesn't really come to life but there is a suitably vicious set to on a train.

I dunno... there didn't seem to be any shocks or suprises in it either in terms of script and plot (and what there were are notactually very Bondian as far as I can see) and there wasn't anything in terms of stunts or set pieces that stood out as new or different.

And why did they seem to be Easter Egging every other Bond film in existence?

[Goaty]

Saw some films last weekend;

Fright Night (Remake) - It was pointless remake was the original was perfect vampire film, but gotta to say, Colin Farrell is so good!

Horror Express - Very classic Hammer horror film, always enjoy it.

Stoker - It was very interesting film, very slow burning film.

[radiator]

It Follows.

Er, was that it? Heard so much positive hype about this film and i just didn't get it. Couldn't get a handle on the rules and didn't find it scary or tense at all. Such a crap non-ending too.

It Follows is the first film since childhood where I had intense nightmares just from a friend describing the concept to me. Given that, there was no way it could live up to those nightmares! Still found it very good though, and personally thought the ending was really effective, [spoiler]all the stuff in the swimming pool much less so, probably the weakest sequence in the film I thought. But yeah, the final shot and the notion that they'll never, ever be able to relax stuck with me. As a metaphor for the baggage you bring to any new relationship and the way your past can cast a shadow over them, I thought it worked well.[/spoiler] I'm possibly reading too much into that mind you.

The whole pool bit was so dumb. It's already been established that [spoiler]even a bullet to the head cannot kill the ghost/monster thing - so why would electrocution?[/spoiler] I had heard that this film had this really great conceit, but I found it all a bit flaky and inconsistent. Much like Inside Out - I found it raised too many nagging questions. Why were there no apparent repercussions about the guy who was killed? I know a certain amount of suspension of disbelief required with horror movies especially but I never really bought into the 'reality' of the situation.

The characters didn't really work for me as they are so loosely sketched, and I found some of the arty flourishes a bit on the wanky/pretentious side. I dunno, I'm not really a fan of horror films in general, was hoping for something a bit more. My girlfriend never wants to watch anything scary and can't deal with horror films at all (which makes it hilarious to watch them with her) but aside from one or two intense moments she was just bored for most of the running time, really. I can see why people like it - it's certainly very stylish, but personally I didn't find there to be much substance to back it up.

[Theblazeuk]

As someone whose wife watches movies as the second screen, I'd suggest maybe some movies only work if you're paying close enough attention to all the small details in the background.

Course maybe you were giving it the full gaze and it still didn't click. Just thinking I wouldn't have liked it at all if I hadn't been glued to the screen. Which is not the case for the vast majority of movies.

[Buttonman]

Spectre which I enjoyed, but it wasn't as good as Skyfall and seemed to retread a lot of well trodden ground.

Yes, I enjoyed it - absolutely brilliant opening sequence and credits but then it all slowed down to a very leisurely pace.  There was one very traditional pump 'em and dump 'em Bond girl (with a slight twist) and one very good rounded character Bond girl.  The action sequences were variable - that car chase doesn't really come to life but there is a suitably vicious set to on a train.

I dunno... there didn't seem to be any shocks or suprises in it either in terms of script and plot (and what there were are notactually very Bondian as far as I can see) and there wasn't anything in terms of stunts or set pieces that stood out as new or different.

And why did they seem to be Easter Egging every other Bond film in existence?

[spoiler]I know what you mean it was almost like Bond Bingo with the tux, martini, dressing down by the boss, mute henchman and train fight getting me the line prize, no worries.

I liked how he smashed up the whole train and then the woman, who had been knocked out twice in five minutes grabs him demanding a shag. Thought it would be funny to see the conductor surveying the damage and say 'What the f*uck happened here?!'[/spoiler]

[radiator]

It's probably as good a monster movie as I've seen (apart from the original King Kong) and definitely the most enjoyable JP film.

Each to their own, but I honestly don't know how anyone in their right mind could seriously argue that Jurassic World is on any conceivable level - performances, score, pacing, vfx, writing, directing - superior to Jurassic Park.

To me that's as blasphemous as saying Dredd '95 is a better film than Dredd '12.

[HdE]

Pals dropped by unexpectedly with Terminator Genisys and beer.

To my surprise, I didn't hate the film. I was even entertained. But it's got plenty wrong with it.

Certainly one of those movies that reinforces my belief that you should only be allowed to write for movies if you're actually GOOD at it. Three of the four central performances in this film are terrible. But with dreadful hack dialogue like this, I doubt even oscar winning delivery could have helped it any.

That said, I did enjoy some of the stuff it did with well established concepts from the series. [spoiler]The demise of Byung-hun Lee was particularly well handled, I thought.[/spoiler]

[JamesC]

It's probably as good a monster movie as I've seen (apart from the original King Kong) and definitely the most enjoyable JP film.

Each to their own, but I honestly don't know how anyone in their right mind could seriously argue that Jurassic World is on any conceivable level - performances, score, pacing, vfx, writing, directing - superior to Jurassic Park.

To me that's as blasphemous as saying Dredd '95 is a better film than Dredd '12.

I never liked the original Jurassic Park much, even when it came out. Just didn't do it for me.
The best bits are the T Rex attack and the animation thing where they describe how the dinosaurs are made. All the raptor stuff just bores me and the kids are really annoying.

[TordelBack]

They're very different films, but they both do their job. No doubt Spielberg brings a serious dollop of filmmaking to the first one, but there's also more annoying kid action, repetitive false jeopardy (falling jeeps and unlockable doors), dropped plotlines (the sick  Triceratops section, for example). JW is more straightforward action adventure on a larger scale, but definitely lacks the wel-structured setpieces, building tension and scares of the first one.  But they're both very enjoyable.