Film and TV chat in general

What's mana ?

 

Cazale was great in The Conversation, what a film. Another Hackman film from that period I love is 'Night Moves', it's in my top 10 70s Hollywood movies.

 

From the director of 'Dirty Harry', Don Siegel, an earlier film from 1956, the original 'Bodysnatchers', is a perennial favourite of mine, to me the No.1 50s sci fi film, special effects not needed in such a well made noirish sci fi. "There'll be no more tears", haha.

 

Not seen that film for ages. Must try to locate it.

 

You can pick up a used DVD on the Bay for less than £3 at the moment, or a new Blu-ray on Amazon for £7.99.

Great film.

 

I watched Transformers last night, the first one from 2007, and in a word, it was brilliant. The visuals were stunning and the sound effects were excellent as well. And although the film has a runtime of two hours and twenty minutes or so, it held my attention from start to finish with ease thanks to its great blend of action, tension, comedy and use of slow motion and things like that. It just had an engaging pace about it that allowed you to suspend your belief in the real world and believe instead in Shia LaBeouf and the Autobots.

Interestingly, the CGI shows no sign of being fifteen years old so it must have been around that time, or maybe just a year or two earlier that CGI became really good, like believably good. By contrast, I happened to see a snippet of one of the early X-Men films recently, the first one from 2000 I think, and although the CGI looked good, it was clearly CGI and clearly CGI that looked rough around the edges. The CGI in Transformers however looked totally realistic with no flaws that I could see. Perhaps it has to do with the advent of HD, I don't know. Regardless, the CGI in Transformers is superb and noticeably better than the CGI in X-Men (2000).

 

Glad you enjoyed it. Mark Kermode (famously) didn't.

 

I'm almost embarrassed to say I really enjoyed Transformers. It sounds like a terrible idea - Cars that turn into robots, but it's very well done, and surprisingly believable.

 

At the risk of being shot down in flames for making the suggestion but it does have Megan Fox in it..........

Regards

Richard

 

I wasn't all that into Transformers when I was growing up. I mean, I remember the TV series but that's about as far as my connection with the franchise goes, so it just goes to show how good a CGI-heavy blockbuster can be when you've got all the right ingredients - including, as noted above, some very attractive cast - and they're put together in just the right way.

I've seen a few 'blockbusters' over the last year or so and some were especially poor by comparison: Wonder Woman 1984 and The Amazing Spiderman 1 and 2 being arguably the worst.

 

Currently watching Santa Clarita Diet on Netflix which is hugely entertaining.

Also started Pistol on Disney Plus which I’m enjoying too. No idea if hardcore Sex Pistol fans would love or hate it!

 

Watched 'Red Road' with the wife last week. Gruelling but utterly realistic and gripping. I've suggested 'Nil by Mouth' for this week's film night as she's never seen it.

 

IMHO, and not one that many others appear to share, but Don Siegel's lost classic, and possibly his finest film, is 'Charley Varrick' with Walter Matthau on top form in the lead.

 

Absolutely gripped by george clarks flip it fast programme . 6 people get 100k to buy properties and make a profit

Very hard work to do in todays market but sone very determined individuals on there

 

Sherwood on BBC1 is an absolutely stunning piece of work. Incredible cast.

 

Love that film but haven't seen it for ages. A neglected classic,

 

And promoting the view that houses are something for speculators to make profit on, rather than homes for people who need them. "Very hard work"?

 

maybe , but they take those horrible old wrecks and turn them into something nice for people to enjoy .

 

Yep. I'm watching both because it is very good, but also because it is set very close to where I was raised,in places I know and within mining communities which I and my family were a part of.

For the benefit of those who do not know, or recall the events surrounding the 1984 Miner's Strike..it was not a simple case of 'Scabs v Strikers'. Also, the simplistic characterisation of Nottingham miners as all belonging to the 'breakaway' UDM, and the rest all being firm supporters of the NUM, is also innaccurate.

Although I detest Thatcher and her methods the true picture was rather more complex. The strike and the opposing groups of workers resulted from a failure by Scargill to seek a truly national strike ballot, seemingly because he knew he would not secure support for a strike. So, he instead relied on 'pithead' ballots, with a back up plan of 'picketing out', those pits where the vote did not lead to strike action. This of course put many miners in the position of having to reconcile their democratic instincts, with their loyalty to their fellow miners.
If,say, you vote to strike, but the pithead ballot you participated in decides on continued working.. what do you do?

I can understand that the reality of a complex situation is reduced for dramatic purposes to a simple 'scab v worker' meme, but those interested might want to have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners'_strike_(1984–85)#Breakaway_union

 

Excellent post.

My family on mothers side were involved with mining (Mexborough) & this is very much how it was portrayed. I find it very sad that communities were permanently split along such lines with many families falling out. Possibly anecdotal tales of father & sons not speaking afterwards are really heartbreaking.

A very corrosive time & Scargill certainly far from perfect.