Tag: cinema

Posted on

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

Took a short trip to the Cineworld cinema at Rochester to see Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse. What an awful title, it’s too long and clumsy but then, given how many times Sony have tried to fix the Spider-Man franchise this isn’t a surprise, they’ve tried to make it right this time.

The tide was about two thirds but I don’t know whether it was waxing or waning. I could look it up but I can’t be bothered. I will say that the sun was out and the view was lovely. Not too cold either coming in at about 10 Celsius.

So, I rated this film on the IMDB website, which is customary now. You can see a communication explaining the scoring system somewhere on this site, or you could click here. I then tweeted my result:

I really enjoyed this movie. I liked nearly all of it and I thought it was good. This result is probably a bit of a shock to regulars to this website. I haven’t rated a superhero film as good for a long time. I find them all incredibly poorly written and boring. Also they tend to be sexist and reinforce toxic behaviour. I know, I know, I read too much into all of it, but these films help normalise poor behaviour towards each other. They also rely on the idea that we, as humans, accept a higher power looking out for us, or a better social class trying to help us. That’s not the reality.

Anyway, I loved the style of this film. The animation was beautiful and original. It really aimed for a style of its own and won. I was mesmerised with the beauty of it all. Such a wonderful job.

It had a Spider-Pig.

The story was pretty good all over and I enjoyed it. There was some lovely many-worlds theories there and it all fitted together nicely. Yeah, I could find many flaws if I tried but I don’t want to. I want this film to be allowed to just be.

I don’t think this film will change my overall opinion of superhero movies because I am pretty convinced they suck. However, when films like those regularly make over five hundred million at the box office who am I to complain about the social problems of them.

Posted on

Alita: Battle Angel

I’ve been to see the film Alita: Battle Angel at Rochester Cineworld cinema. It was a clear day and one where I actually managed less than 2000 steps so that’s quite impressive. I’ll tell you what’s not impressive: this film. But first, before I moan about this film I need to cover the height of the river. It was high when I went into the cinema, high enough for me to assume the tide was high. The river was lower when I left so that fits with my assumption. I wonder if the amount of rain affects this part of the river which is mostly tidal.

I rated this film on the IMDB site and there is a guide to the rating system, see this communication.

I’d had some hope for this film given it was written by James Cameron but I did know it was directed by Robert Rodriguez, when I saw his name in the credits an awful lot of this made sense. Apparently this film is based on a Manga series and I guess it shows to a certain extent. I like Manga and I like Manga films. Akira is a film I have seen numerous times and there are Manga Blu-ray in my collection. I love what comics do to film. However, this film was shit.

Virtually every plot line of this film was cliche. I couldn’t really see anything new. I got bored about half way through and after that I just kept moving in my seat and wondering when the film would finish. It is not a good film.

I’ll tell you what irritated me most. And that’s apart from the superfast battle scenes [which I’ve moaned about constantly within these communications, just because computers mean we can doesn’t mean we should] and stupid games of rollerball, the terrible dead daughter plot line, the weird emotionally dead like father, the strange nurse, the stupid fucking love interest, the murderer father who isn’t, the references to characters I didn’t understand, Jennifer Connelly is still very attractive which didn’t annoy me but just wanted to hide that fact in text, the poor plot, shit cybernetics, high-tech but poor society, falling rubbish from the sky city, and the what is that jewel in her head???????

I’ll tell you what irritated me. The URM irritated me. The United Republic of Mars might have sounded cool in the test rooms but it’s a stupid acronym and should never be spoken of again. Each time a character said it, URM, it sounded just like a natural pause in their speech. Stupid.

What is it with people falling in love in these films, being betrayed and lied to and then they continue to do their best for these people. If you get betrayed or lied to move on. Tell that person to jog on. Get them out of your life they aren’t worth it. You’ll be happier in the end. These stupid films and their infatuations. She’s a teenage girl with her first crush and yet she’s prepared to die for the twat? Get real, dump the loser and get yourself a decent lad who’s not going to lie or cheat. I was happy when he died. It gave her the chance to get on with her plans.

Why does Alita have to “win” her way to the massive city? She’s an URM [?] battle warrior, she could just go and destroy it. Oh, how I hated this film. why does her heart pump liquid? She’s a cyborg, why would it do that? It seems quite inefficient to me. Why is her heart “heart” shaped? Why is it in her chest? Why is there a panel that opens easily to her heart when it’s her power source? Why isn’t it the most protected part of her body? I hated it.

Get online and watch Rollerball and The Running Man I can assure you those films will give you better ideas of the future than this pile of poo.

Posted on

Vice

It’s taken a couple of days to calm down after a trip to the cinema to see Vice. This film is from the same director who gave us The Big Short which again made me angry for a long time. Also, I watched The Big Short quite close to seeing “Spotlight”, that’s not a combination to be taken lightly.

I went to the cinema at Rochester on the west bank of the river Medway. In this area the Medway is still tidal and so possibly brackish although I would need to look that up. I’m slightly fascinated by the idea of where along the river does the salinity change to make it more sea water? It has to be between Sheerness and Allington lock but where? Also, I imagine it depends on what the tide is doing and how much rain we’ve had. There must be a mathematical model somewhere.

The tide was pretty high when I went to the cinema. I remember looking to make sure I could report it on these pages. Although it was dark I could see a shimmering reflection of lights across the valley in the lapping water close to the wharf.

I went to see Vice and as is customary I gave the film a score on the IMDB site. I use the iPhone app to score these films and then the application then tweets the result. It’s interesting how the language around computing had changed over the years. I would still call these things programs along with calling folders directories. I do come from the generation that understands most about computers and such. Younger generations, on the whole, don’t have to worry about the mechanics of these things as they tend to work straight out of the box. Who in the future will know the delights of messing around with config files? The nerds and geeks.

To understand the rating system used you should read this particular communication as it explains how a 1-10 system doesn’t work. Here’s the tweet:

Angry. that is what this film does to me. It makes me angry and raging inside at a political system that doesn’t care about people. It shows how people claim to be doing the right thing even though the evidence is clearly not there to prove that is what happens. I’m still angry and I watched this film about three days ago. It highlights the motivations of people in power and how much they are happy to screw over the little people.

This film is great. The acting is brilliant and the make-up is amazing. I really enjoyed it and the few moments of humour within. What I don’t like is the republicanism [USA type] that it shows. These right wing religious zealots have controlled the government for so many years trying to transform their own society into one that they think is the best. This is largely about making themselves richer and maintaining power to keep themselves rich. They don’t give a shit about the poor or the fact the people exist.

Things to be angry about and keep moaning about:

  • George W Bush STEALING the election in 2000.
  • Antonin Scalia being a religious zealot who did his best to remove rights from all people.
  • The complete fucking lack of evidence for the justification of the Iraq way.
  • How the UK bent over backwards to follow the USA into the Iraq war.
  • How military intervention in Gulf War I wasn’t enough and caused the next 50 years of stability.
  • The complete power vacuum in Iraq.
  • The EMAILS for fucks sake. [Republican emails from 2000s]
  • The religiosity of the leaders which means they already think they are supreme [Blair – catholic, George W – religious, Cheney – right wing religious]
  • Why the right-wing appeals to the poorest when that is who they mess up.

The Iraq war WAS illegal and no evidence existed for it. What a sham. I’m angry. I’m coming around to the idea of a revolution to remove the existing power hierarchies. I’m not completely stupid to understand that another thirty years or so after we smash the institutions we’d have to do it again but maybe that is how you make society as fair as possible.

Posted on

The Favourite

Yesterday I took a saunter over to Rochester so visit the cinema. I’d been looking at what’s on during the week and there wasn’t a huge amount that impressed me. But, I decided to go and see an historical drama. I don’t really like any form of period dramas. The idea that someone has scripted what *might* have happened and been said really bothers me. It moves those imaginations into the common collective about what really happened. It seems that these sorts of things are really popular with The Crown on Netflix and other things always being watched on classic television. I don’t mind fiction period drama as much, although I’m still not keen, because you can say what you want, it’s your story.

I noted that the tide was pretty low as I arrived at the cinema. Lots of the mud bank on the west of the river was showing and the boats seemed below average protuberance. As is usual I rated the film on IMDB, there’s a system so perhaps you should read this communication which explains that.

While watching I normally fixate on three or four things and try to remember them to write here. This isn’t perfect and I often forget what I was going to say. I guess I could take a note book into the theatre but I’m quite convinced that would be rude and somewhat professional, I don’t want to raise these reviews of movies to a level where object criticism could be placed at me. These reviews are mine they don’t represent any form of global ratings. If you know me then they probably make sense, if you don’t then your experiences of a movie could be vastly different to mine.

For the first thirty minutes or so of this film I didn’t even think about what to write here. That probably means the film was pretty good. If it was terrible I would have been pondering my context of this communication for a long time. I wasn’t really sure where this film was meant to be set or when Queen Anne reigned over us. A quick Wikipedia reading left me to understand that the action takes place at Kensington Palace and she was queen at the start of the 18th century. I am slightly worried that this communication will descend into a rant about society, hierarchy and the feudal system but I will do my best. You can read previous film reviews to see what I mean.

My short summary about this movie would be thus:

More lesbianism than I was expecting.

There should be other things to say about this film and so I shall put them here. I had three main points to say once I left the environs of the cinema. Firstly, not knowing anything about the movie on the way in I was slightly surprised at the level of lesbianism contained within.

Next, there were quite a few establishing shots where a fish eye lens was used, which in itself is fine but then they moved the camera and it felt like watching a VR film somehow and if the shot had gone on much longer I think I would have felt slightly sick.

The next thing that surprised me, but I guess shouldn’t have, was the fair usage of the word “cunt”. I am not bothered by usage of this word and it is interesting knowing the general reaction of the populace now compared to what was probably common usage three hundred years ago.

This film was probably more “arty” than it needed to be. There were plenty of lingering, holding shots that could be different and I guess the director wanted to make a statement. I’m not sure what the intention was but a statement was made. At times the soundtrack consisted of quiet repetitive sounds that slowly increased and stayed in the scene minutes more than would normally be expected. This was slightly irritating and a purely artistic choice, possibly one that I would not have made. It made it feel quite “my first art film”.

A quick read of Wikipedia about Queen Anne and you can see how much of this film is fiction. How much of it is speculation rather than being a well sourced historical film. I would rather have an as-close-as-possible film than this, but I guess it made a good story. Queen Anne is a fascinating subject and more complex than could be shown on film. I will state that Olivia Coleman was stunning and her facial acting in one scene was outstanding, you can read the emotions and thoughts of this queen perfectly, it was all so subtle.

This is the second film with Rachel Weisz in period costume that I have seen in the last year. I don’t think that’s enough for a trend but given I didn’t know she was in the film I think I’m excused.

A lot of the filming was done at Hatfield House, which I have never been to see, but my mate’s mum used to work there so I’m claiming a personal connection to that. It turns out that Abigail Masham is buried in a village near where I grew up, High Laver, and so I think I will visit the grave and see the church as it turns out that John Locke is buried there too.

Posted on

Bumblebee

The other day I went to see the Michael Bay film Bumblebee at Rochester Cinema. On the way to the cinema the tide was low, but was lower on the way out, possibly at a minimum, all the mud banks were showing. Out in the river there’s a crane on a barge! A proper crane with wheels and stuff, just sitting on a large barge. I do love the big stuff we make. So, I started looking for a satellite picture of the mud flats at the edge of the river and ended up getting excited about the historical photographs available in Google Earth. I probably owe them something for using these clips.

1940 Pre Motorway
1940 Pre Motorway

If you move slightly further east from this picture you can see the Shorts Brothers Flying Boats resting on the river Medway, that must’ve been such an amazing sight. Sunderlands taking off from the Medway before Shorts was relocated to Northern Ireland.

1940 Shorts Flying Boats
1940 Shorts Flying Boats

Next up are the 60s decade of sex and drugs and rock and roll. No motorway though.

1960 No Motorway Yet
1960 No Motorway Yet

The original Medway motorway bridge opened in 1963 and on closer inspection I think the construction work in the photograph is the building of the supports.

1990 M2 Bridge
1990 M2 Bridge

By 1990 you can see the bridge and then the area that will be reclaimed for the entertainment complex.

2003 New Bridges
2003 New Bridges

In this photograph the cinema and nightclub are there, along with the new Channel Tunnel Rail Link bridge for the high speed train network and another road bridge. I think the original is also being “beefed up”.

2006 Bridges Complete
2006 Bridges Complete

The bridges are complete and it looks like there is a trail bike track the other side of the railway.

2015 Medway Gate Houses
2015 Medway Gate Houses

This last picture has the new housing estate in the Medway Gate. I’m not sure what their sunlight is like as they live in the bottom of a pit.

Back to the process of writing this film review. I rated the film on IMDB, as usual, and there’s a communication buried in this site to explain the rating process. I tweeted this result, because it makes this site look prettier than me just writing the result.

Well, this film was the usual mess of a Michael Bay film. It starts somewhere and leads us in the knowledge of how Bumblebee and the others got to Earth along with some stuff about saving the world. It really wasn’t an interesting film and I got bored with the middle hour. Worth a watch if you want to complete your set of Transformers movies. But much like the very first movie the transformers were too “busy and quick”.

Would robots fight each other the same way that humans do? Would they try to hit each other about the head until they pass out? Would they have a voice module in the same place as a human? Would they have independently developed bullets and missiles that look like our Earth weapons?

I think not.

Posted on

Aquaman

I’ve got to stop doing this. I think to myself that I’ll go to the cinema and there’s not a lot on that I want to see so I go see the superhero film. Even though I know superhero films annoy me. Even though I know I don’t like them. Even though while I can appreciate the canon, I don’t care. Film versions annoy me. There was even a guy in the cinema wearing a jacket with patches all over it, each one was a superhero patch. Gosh I hate these films.

That score isn’t really a surprise is it? This film is about privilege, it’s about the firstborn child born to a queen out of wedlock who then claims the throne to be his own. If this was a true patriarchal society then the half-breed usurper wouldn’t have any grounds for complaint. This, once again, is a film to reinforce the idea of our position in society is one we are born to. I don’t want to rant again like one of my recent movies and so I shall pour a glass of red wine instead. Read my rantings here.

There were two female characters? Out of thousands.

One of the women imprisoned the father into a daily ritual of being at the dock at sunrise just in case she came back. What utter psychological abuse.

This is another film about how beating up people and asserting your physical strength over every other aspect of your personality will win. What a load of bullshit. It was annoying and stupid.

Posted on

Die Hard 30th Anniversary

Last night I went to the cinema in Rochester [not in Rochester] to see the latest action film release – Die Hard 30th Anniversary edition. This was an utter delight but there are conventions I need to follow here and although I broke them for the review of Skyscraper I shall not be doing that now.

It was dark driving along the promenade road but I could see the state of the tide reflecting lights from the houses and boats on the other side of the valley. The water was not covering the mud flats at the edges of the river and so that tide was definitely not in.

I also rated this film on IMDB and there’s a communication that deals with the rating system, you should probably read it and the follow up.

What is there to say about this film? It’s iconic and brilliant. It has so many moments that are captured in the collective psyche that there were many times the entire audience [the cinema was full] giggled or laughed or just huffed a sound of appreciation at the film. It’s worth watching and seeing over and over.

Yippee ki-yay

Posted on

First Man

Days ago I went to the cinema at Rochester to see the film First Man. It has taken me this long to process what I thought about it along with being away and in an area of limited data coverage. Before I explain what I thought about the film there are some formalities to cover.

I have no idea on the state of the tide that evening. I didn’t particularly look at that tidal area of river as it was dark and raining. I could look it up but that’s not the point. I also rated this film on IMDB and you should see this particular communication which explains the rating system, I’ll give you a hint though, I broke the system for this film.

I’ve a slight feeling that this is going to be a little controversial. But then again, it’s my view and I’m not a professional critic so I don’t make or break movies.

I’m not sure I liked this film.

I wanted to like this film. I wanted to love this film and be amazed at it and learn a bit about Neil Armstrong. I’m not sure I did and that pains me. I think it took me two days before I rated this film on IMDB as I wasn’t sure what score to give the film.

So, we know I am a nerd and I know a fair bit about the moon landings and space travel. I didn’t mind that I didn’t learn anything new about those aspects of the film. I also knew that Mr Armstrong was quite private and quiet but also a professional and extremely clever man. I’m not sure this film captured that.

Here’s what I did like. The emotional aspect of Armstrong attempting to deal with the death of his daughter. This film heavily places that at the centre of the story telling and I am fine with that but it’s almost fiction as the man himself never really opened up about it. I loved the final touch of his offering to the moon and would love that to be true.

What I didn’t like was all the shaking camera work. This film was like watching a tense emotional marriage drama with episodes of shaking camera and stress. I guess that’s what the astronauts’ lives are like but I just don’t like blurry screens.

I didn’t like the way the film side-stepped the knowledge and understanding and skill that is needed to be an astronaut. I like the technical stuff. I know that’s just me and so I get why this film has rave reviews.

So, in the end this film has a 5/10 from me. I didn’t hate it. I just didn’t like it enough.

Posted on

Johnny English Strikes Again

Well, today I took a trip to the Cineworld cinema in Harlow. Not the one in the Harvey Centre but the one on the edge of town. I can’t remember the last time I went to Harlow town centre but I’m pretty sure I thought it was shit. Harlow, you see, is a new town. It’s a classic example of 1960s urban planning with a concrete town centre to boot. It may have improved I guess but don’t know because I didn’t go there.

The cinema I patronised was close to the river Stort but that isn’t tidal. In fact there are no tidal reaches close by so I can’t give you a decent idea of where the tide was at. I can tell you it is pretty much a full moon out this evening. Also, a new one for me in the 40 odd years that I’ve lived and moved around this part of Essex I actually saw deer in the first field coming out of the village.

I should probably get on with the film and the review type stuff. I rated this film on IMDB and there’s a communication here detailing the scoring process. You can even search in the little box on the right to see more reviews and things or use the drop down menu directly below my header picture. I tweeted my IMDB score:

So, as you can see, 4/10 is a pretty pants score. There’s been a few others recently that scored that and there’s even a film where I went completely away from this trusted format. Why did this film get a 4? Mostly because it was shit.

I did like the idea that they were trying to train Johnny English into understanding that the world has moved on and that women can have jobs of power although they could have gone into this much more. The idea that women should be treated the same as men, although it probably doesn’t work so well in this movie franchise compared with Bond because Johnny English is generally a fool whereas Bond is full of misogynistic toxic behaviour that deserves to be corrected and then consigned to the rubbish heap of shit things.

No, this film was pretty shit. Other people in the cinema laughed plenty and I chuckled a couple of times but it wasn’t far enough on the dinosaur discovering a new world idea and it wasn’t enough Mr Bean.

Posted on

King Of Thieves

Last night I went to Rochester cinema [not in Rochester] to see King Of Thieves. It was dark so I don’t have any information about the state of the tide for this communication but I can tell you it was raining. I can also inform you that the JD was very pleasant while waiting to go into the theatre. I did see a really cool device developed by Guinness that took a poured glass of Guinness from a can and then made bubbles appear so it looked like a draught pint. This device is apparently called a Guinness Surger and I will let you Google that for yourself.

I rated this film on IMDB and you should sneak over to this communication to see how the system works.

Well, that seems quite a low rating for a crime caper! I just didn’t really like it. This movie starts off with likable characters trying to get one over on The Man. Although that is what they have always done, being professional thieves. But, you see, this means they are scum bags unwilling to work for the things they want. Stealing isn’t a thing to be celebrated, even though we love those movies. I would also rail against those who make money by taking advantage of people. I’ve a simple mantra in life, let’s be nice to one another.

In this film you have what looks like a bumbling group of old guys with a lovely camaraderie who slowly develop and show their greed and mistrust of each other because they have always lied. They start playing off against each other. They just aren’t nice people. You see, thieving:

IT’S NOT A NOBLE OCCUPATION.

It’s for assholes and scumbags driven by a sense of inequality. Whilst they are right to have that sense of inequality they should be trying to change things through the proper channels, not breaking the law. Arrrgh, I’m stuck now because the law works in favour of those with money and those who take advantage of everyone, especially while the Tories are in power.

Do you know what? Go and watch the Jonathon Pie thing on iPlayer. That’s good.

Privacy Policy Proudly powered by WordPress