The LTLF Film Thread (sponsored by FBS!)

Phooey

Jack Armstrong
That’s not a sequel, part one was the prequel.

Film perfection!
It also picks up from the end of the first film so covers both prequel and sequel ground.

If you want to tell Coppola that it should have been Godfather Part 0 & 2 then be my guest...
 

Winnits

Viv Anderson
Haha, you miss my point really. I meant the first was a prequel only in that it’s vastly improved upon by II. And it was a fucking good film to start with.

I won’t mention III though :lol:
 

FBS

Stuart Pearce
Haha, you miss my point really. I meant the first was a prequel only in that it’s vastly improved upon by II. And it was a fucking good film to start with.

I won’t mention III though
I'm a fan of Part III. I'll happily stick up for it.

Sent from my SM-G996B using Tapatalk
 

FBS

Stuart Pearce
It’s okay in isolation, it just falls a long way short of its predecessors
Coppola always saw it as a prologue rather than a Part III. That's why he went back and edited it a few years ago then called it what he wanted to call it.

Sent from my SM-G996B using Tapatalk
 

Phooey

Jack Armstrong
Haha, you miss my point really. I meant the first was a prequel only in that it’s vastly improved upon by II. And it was a fucking good film to start with.

I won’t mention III though :lol:

I see!

Nuance doesn't really work on the internet, unfortunately.
 

Strummer

Orel Mangala Fan Club
Top Gun: Maverick:

Absolutely, utterly, fantastic.

As FBS said, see it on the largest screen you can, and with the best sound (I just watched it in Dolby Atmos).

So many hat-tips to the original, and it’ll have you in parts with a lump in the throat, and out your seat cheering.

Superb.
 

T.B.T.

Forum Princess
Top Gun: Maverick:

Absolutely, utterly, fantastic.

As FBS said, see it on the largest screen you can, and with the best sound (I just watched it in Dolby Atmos).

So many hat-tips to the original, and it’ll have you in parts with a lump in the throat, and out your seat cheering.

Superb.

Going to see it tomorrow.

Beyond excited.
 

PynchonForest

Grenville Morris
I watched A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night again last night. Excellent vampire flic channeled thru a female Persian director. Highly recommended.
 

T.B.T.

Forum Princess
Top Gun: Maverick:

Absolutely, utterly, fantastic.

As FBS said, see it on the largest screen you can, and with the best sound (I just watched it in Dolby Atmos).

So many hat-tips to the original, and it’ll have you in parts with a lump in the throat, and out your seat cheering.

Superb.

Well, I have to say this is my favouritist film for a long long time.

Loved it from the first to the last minute. All the action. All the cheesy bits. All the everything.

I know it’s not everyone’s cup of tea but I loved the first Top Gun and I had high expectations for Maverick which didn’t disappoint.

This’ll be one on my playlist for years to come. :)
 

Strummer

Orel Mangala Fan Club
Well, I have to say this is my favouritist film for a long long time.

Loved it from the first to the last minute. All the action. All the cheesy bits. All the everything.

I know it’s not everyone’s cup of tea but I loved the first Top Gun and I had high expectations for Maverick which didn’t disappoint.

This’ll be one on my playlist for years to come. :)

Me too.

One of those films that you wanted to immediately turn around and go and watch again. I loved it, cheese and all.
 

Rich

Rice IV
Well, I have to say this is my favouritist film for a long long time.

Loved it from the first to the last minute. All the action. All the cheesy bits. All the everything.

I know it’s not everyone’s cup of tea but I loved the first Top Gun and I had high expectations for Maverick which didn’t disappoint.

This’ll be one on my playlist for years to come. :)

Who didn’t love the first Top Gun? That’s crazy.

Agree on the new one, equally as awesome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Phooey

Jack Armstrong
Me three. Watched it early Sunday afternoon as the day wasn't emotional enough already.

I had watched the original the night before as well so every was as fresh as could be. I've been telling everyone around me how good it is since. That, and to watch it on the biggest screen you can for the aerial footage.
 

FBS

Stuart Pearce
Bergman Island

A couple retreat to the island that inspired Ingmar Bergman to write screenplays for their upcoming films. There the lines between reality and fiction start to blur.
I’ve seen several of Ingmar Bergman’s films through the years. He really was a pioneer when it came to movie making and cinema in general. He is revered throughout the film world, so a film about his influence doesn’t surprise me. While this film is about two film writers trying to get inspiration from Bergman’s spirit and his own locations, the film is also a meditation on what block and unblocks writers. Tony doesn’t seem to have too much issue with getting his screenplay written. Whereas his partner Chris is really struggling and it seems like the ghost of Bergman is looming too large on her, so she takes off to find her own inspiration. There is some interesting moments here, but the film is far too busy doing little nods or jokes or titbits about Bergman. So if you’ve never seen any Ingmar Bergman films, or like me you’ve seen a few but aren’t an aficionado, then you will feel like a outsider when Bergman is discussed. Which I wasn’t a fan of because it felt like this film is for Bergman fanboys only when it did that. It wasn’t open to everyone.
However, the film does this really strange flip where Chris starts to begin to tell her story idea to Tony and at that moment the film flips to Chris’s actual story being played out in film. So it’s a film-within-a-film. This story, the story of two lovers attending a wedding, I found really interesting and was very much won over by the two central characters. They are both lightweight characters yet that’s the perfect way they should be in this very delicate story of love & lust. It's the part of the film I really enjoyed.
Then the film does another strange flip in its finale that, as stated in the synopsis, it blurs the lines between fiction and reality. This I found too arthouse and experimental. It feels like the work of someone who wants to show how Bergman-like they can be. But it comes across as misguided I thought.
What is the saying?? No man is an island? Well, it seems that Bergman has become and island and if I have to stay there then I’ll probably just go for the weekend as anything longer and I’d be super bored. And that’s my point about this film, it’s really quite drab when it’s pontificating and revering Bergman. When it is letting the story-within-a-story play out its actually quite nice.
 

FBS

Stuart Pearce
Elizabeth: A Portrait In Parts

This is a new documentary all about Queen Elizabeth II, the longest-lived, longest reigning British monarch and longest serving female head of state in history. But how do you make a new and fresh documentary about the Queen when there are a billion other ones out there?
Well, this is, as the title suggests, a documentary in parts. It’s split into small bite size chunks but not of a standard time frame of her life. Instead it is about certain things or words that revolve around her and her life. So there is a whole chapter, and bear in mind these chapters last no more than ten minutes, about being called Ma’am. There is a chapter on her love of horse racing. There is a chapter about her Silver Jubilee. There are other chapters like this. But then the doc doesn’t just focus on that one subject within the chapter. It intersperses it with footage from that time in Britain. There is a great chapter about the late 70s/early80s when the miners were on strike and the National Front were at the forefront of just about everything. It alternates between that footage and then footage of The Queen dealing with her own problems. Now, here is the question: Is the documentary showing that when civil unrest happens that the Queen tries to calm everyone down with her appearances and speeches. Or is it saying that The Queen is so out of touch with the working class? I think that’s the great thing about this documentary that it can be interpreted a number of ways.
I also like that director Roger Michell, who is sadly no longer with us, has created a sort of buzzy, almost MTV style documentary about someone so classic and old time-y. But then maybe I should say “old time-y” as footage in this documentary shows she hasn’t lost her spark for a good joke or a decent bit of sarcasm. There is a bit where she is walking in the gardens with Sir David Attenborough and they see a Sundial in completely the wrong place to get the sunlight. She has a good laugh about that. However, my favourite bit is when The Queen is watching the horse racing and her bets come in. She is given her winnings and asks how much she won. The reply is “£16 Ma’am”. To which she looks at the camera, smiles and pockets the money. I howled with laughter at that as it felt like a scene from The Office or some comedy mockumentary.
The documentary also includes some new and old interviews with famous British people such as Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Lenny Henry, Robbie Williams and more. They all have a story to tell. But these stories aren’t the straightlaced ones you expect. They are humorous, on the side of The Queen, especially the Robbie Williams one. But the doc isn’t filled with them. They are scattered throughout.
Now, if you are thinking this is just a love-in for The Queen then you’d be wrong as the documentary looks at the less-than-positive times as well. The marriages of her sons and subsequent breakdowns of said marriages. The fire at Windsor Castle, the radio silence when Diana died. I found it fascinating that this side of storytelling was included, and yet I liked that it was included because it showed that The Queen isn’t infallible, contrary to what some may think.
As I said, a most unusual documentary in its styling. Yet, one that I was more interested in than a million other plain, boring documentaries about the same subject. This documentary puts a lot into its short, for the subject matter anyway, runtime of only 89 minutes.
 

FBS

Stuart Pearce
Dashcam

Annie Hardy, a musician and vlogger with a large online following, leaves L.A. for London and the hospitality of a former band mate during the pandemic. Little does she realise that picking up a stranger will see her fighting for survival against a supernatural force.
Written and directed by Rob Savage, the man who gave us the smash hit horror film Host (which was shot via Zoom during the pandemic). Now, Savage has made a film that takes the always-online streaming idea and put it into the wider world. So it’s sort of like a modern-day Blair Witch Project. But nowhere near as good or influential as that film from the 1990s. In fact, Dashcam is utter rubbish.
All shot through the lens of Annie’s phone as she streams live to the world. The first thing to note is how annoying this character is. On every level she comes across as aggressive, needlessly aggressive too. She spits outs offensive dialogue at anyone and everyone. Once or twice, at the start, it can be funny. But throughout the whole film it is nails-down-a-chalkboard bad and really without merit. It feels like just because we can swear then we will swear pointlessness. Also, Annie over-the-top aggressiveness spews into her rapping which is just hideous. It’s painful to listen to and once again full of swear words for no reason. Honestly, this is one of the worst lead characters I have ever seen in a film. I was praying she would be bumped off at every single turn.
The other problem with Dashcam is that you literally can’t see anything. It’s all shot via the phone in someone’s hand or on their hat and so it becomes a series of blurred shots when people are running away. Many criticised The Blair Witch Project for this. But that film looks like it was shot on static cameras compared to this unviewable film. Seriously, when it all kicks off it is virtually unwatchable because you cannot see anything. You’re watching colours and shadows bounce around the screen. There is no scary moments or shocking jump scares. There is just some sort of shapes on-screen that you’re trying to work out what or where Annie is and if something is coming out of the shadows. But you can’t see a thing.
At only 77 minutes long, Dashcam feels twice as long. A terrible central character, some of the worst camerawork I’ve ever seen and also nothing scary at all. This film is utter nonsense. Worst film I’ve seen this year.
 

FBS

Stuart Pearce
Swan Song

A former flamboyant hairdresser tales a long walk across a small town to style a dead woman’s hair.
Udo Kier, who plays the lead role in this film, is such a fascinating actor. He is mainly known for his appearances in horror films. However, he has popped up such a wide variety of films through his years. He is now closing in on over 300 acting roles. Which is phenomenal. I will guess that his performance in Swan Song is nowhere near anything he has done. I have to guess as I haven’t seen his entire filmography, but I suspect he has never played a gay hairdresser with dementia before. And to be fair, have we even seen one on-screen before now? I don’t think we have. So kudos to Kier and writer/director Todd Stephens for making a film that really stands out. And yet at the same time it feels all very real and normal. Granted a man with dementia being hired to do a dead woman’s hair isn’t that normal. But in this film it all feels very normal, and then surreal at times.
It is a slow film. It’s not racing away with the story either. It very much is Pat Pitsenbarger’s slow day, yet I was completely caught up in it. Even from the start when he is trying to escape the nursing home, there is a sense of warmth to Pat. He still very much knows where he is most of the time. But there are things he doesn’t know, which mainly revolve around hair products being discontinued. So while Pat is wander across the town he is also trying to track down his favourite hair products. He is also trying to avoid his arch nemesis in the hairdressing world, Dee Dee Dale. It’s a film filled with kooky characters and slightly off-centre storytelling. I was really engrossed throughout and that is mainly due to Kier being so over-the-top flamboyant that it just made me smile.
This is a slow moving drama. In fact, on some level it reminded me of David Lynch’s The Straight Story in terms of its storytelling and its central character. This is a movie to just kind of enjoy in the moment. It’s a rather delightful little film. Plus, you get to see Udo Kier dance on-stage with a chandelier on his head. It’s worth seeing the film just for that scene.
 

FBS

Stuart Pearce
Jurassic World: Dominion

Four years after the destruction of Isla Nublar, dinosaurs now live and hunt amongst humans. But this fragile existence is about to come under threat.
Dominion is the final part of the Jurassic World trilogy and for me the end can’t come soon enough because the previous two films were not good. The second one especially because it stopped being a dinosaur movie and became a monster movie thanks to the genetically engineered dinosaurs and also a human. Well, this third part is basically the same but with less dinosaurs involved in the main plot. For at least two thirds of this film the actual dinosaurs, the reason why Jurassic Park is so amazing to this day, are completely forgotten about. They are in the film but the plot doesn’t need them and they feel like a secondary set of characters in their own movie. Case in point, there is a car chase sequence through the streets of Malta. The dinosaurs are chasing the cars but if you took the dinosaurs out then that chase sequence still happens because it is about who the bad guys are trying to capture. So as such the film because a sort of Jason Bourne movie just with some added dinosaurs thrown in. But its’s not as exciting as that sounds because the dinosaurs are ultimately surplus to requirements until the finale when they are shoehorned in to make sure we remember it’s a film about dinosaurs after all. You remember in the first Jurassic Park film when Dr Ian Malcolm says “You are going to have Dinosaurs on your dinosaur tour right?” Well, that line can be tweaked for this film and it can now be “You are going to have dinosaurs involved in the actual plot yes?”
Speaking of Dr Ian Malcolm. Nice to have him and the rest of the cast back. It’s not nice when they are just re-treading the same series of plot points that happened way back in the original film. There are so many nods, in-jokes, references etc back to the original that it starts to resemble a fan-film rather than an actual big studio blockbuster. Why have the original cast come back and get them to do the same thing as previous? It’s just a waste. The same can be said of the new cast. They are part of this big Jason Bourne type action road trip where they have to track down their daughter. But it’s all way over the top and when they get involved in car crashes or plane crashes they never suffer a single cut or bruise or broken arm. They have sort of become superheroes, and not in a way that works for what the actual film is.
We really aren’t here for human interest stories. We are here for the dinosaurs. Give us the dinosaurs, not Chris Pratt speeding on a motorbike as he jumps into a moving aeroplane or some soppy story about how their daughter is actually a science miracle. That’s not what this franchise is about. The dinosaurs have been done a dirty here. I genuinely think this is the worst film of the new trilogy.
 

Cortez the Killer

Impressive member
Dashcam

Annie Hardy, a musician and vlogger with a large online following, leaves L.A. for London and the hospitality of a former band mate during the pandemic. Little does she realise that picking up a stranger will see her fighting for survival against a supernatural force.
Written and directed by Rob Savage, the man who gave us the smash hit horror film Host (which was shot via Zoom during the pandemic). Now, Savage has made a film that takes the always-online streaming idea and put it into the wider world. So it’s sort of like a modern-day Blair Witch Project. But nowhere near as good or influential as that film from the 1990s. In fact, Dashcam is utter rubbish.
All shot through the lens of Annie’s phone as she streams live to the world. The first thing to note is how annoying this character is. On every level she comes across as aggressive, needlessly aggressive too. She spits outs offensive dialogue at anyone and everyone. Once or twice, at the start, it can be funny. But throughout the whole film it is nails-down-a-chalkboard bad and really without merit. It feels like just because we can swear then we will swear pointlessness. Also, Annie over-the-top aggressiveness spews into her rapping which is just hideous. It’s painful to listen to and once again full of swear words for no reason. Honestly, this is one of the worst lead characters I have ever seen in a film. I was praying she would be bumped off at every single turn.
The other problem with Dashcam is that you literally can’t see anything. It’s all shot via the phone in someone’s hand or on their hat and so it becomes a series of blurred shots when people are running away. Many criticised The Blair Witch Project for this. But that film looks like it was shot on static cameras compared to this unviewable film. Seriously, when it all kicks off it is virtually unwatchable because you cannot see anything. You’re watching colours and shadows bounce around the screen. There is no scary moments or shocking jump scares. There is just some sort of shapes on-screen that you’re trying to work out what or where Annie is and if something is coming out of the shadows. But you can’t see a thing.
At only 77 minutes long, Dashcam feels twice as long. A terrible central character, some of the worst camerawork I’ve ever seen and also nothing scary at all. This film is utter nonsense. Worst film I’ve seen this year.
Despite my better judgements I watched it the other day. I can't recall ever seeing a central character I more despised. What a terrible film.

Sent from my SM-G780G using Tapatalk
 
Top Bottom