What film have you just watched?

Mrs Lowry and Son

This is not a film for anyone who likes lots of noise, bang sticks, transforming creatures or anything based on a Marvel comic.
Don't talk bollox, I enjoyed it. It is possible to enjoy more than one genre of film
 

Kirkz

LE
Well, at least they didn't have to teach him how to paint as they did for the Turner film.
Didn't realise he'd played Kathleen Turner, was he any good?
 
Anyone seen D-Day 2019 yet?
Just lasted a whole 10 minutes before realising a WTF moment. I could not wait around to see if it was more factually correct that it was dramatically convincing. I really could not be arrsed.
Please, do yourself a favour, avoid.

Biff....watching crap so you don't have to.

On looking at imdb thet have Chuck Liddell playing General Omar Bradley. :?

That's all I need to know about it.
 

old_fat_and_hairy

LE
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor

Awol

LE
'Eye in the Sky'..... Helen Mirran as a ruthless British Colonel in charge of a Reaper mission, Alan Rickman as a ruthless British General as her commander, and various terribly compassionate others who do all they can to foil the dastardly British military who appear just desperate to kill little children.

On the surface this is a great film... brilliantly acted, with a very taut script and great filming. What ruined it...


SPOILER ALERT.




.... was that the plot was so predictble. On seeing the subject matter, I assumed that there would be the occasional 'child in the crosshairs' dilemma, but also assumed that there would also be lots of technicals being vaporised in the desert type of scenes, scenes where there was no ethical mud-wrestling and where Hellfires were happily making the world a better place. But no, the producers decided to make a potentially brilliant film look like it had been written by a bunch of Guardian writers

I'm not saying that drone operators don't sometimes face hideous choices, but by focusing on such a two dimensional dilemma such as should we fire and probably kill the kid, the producers, whether by accident or design, are ignoring the work of drones that is both effective and ethical.

But never mind all that, a bigger question on is how can a movie company spend countless millions creating CGI drones, massive explosions and film expensive action in the Middle East, Hawaii and London and yet still show Helen Mirran driving home at the end with what is clearly a helicopter landing pad on her head?
 
Last edited:
'Eye in the Sky'..... Helen Mirran as a ruthless British Colonel in charge of a Reaper mission, Alan Rickman as a ruthless British General as her commander, and various terribly compassionate others who do all they can to foil the dastardly British military who appear just desperate to kill little children.

On the surface this is a great film... brilliantly acted, with a very taut script and great filming. What ruined it...


SPOILER ALERT.




.... was that the plot was so predictble. On seeing the subject matter, I assumed that there would be the occasional 'child in the crosshairs' dilemma, but also assumed that there would also be lots of technicals being vaporised in the desert type of scenes, scenes where there was no ethical mud-wrestling and where Hellfires were happily making the world a better place. But no, the producers decided to make a potentially brilliant film look like it had been written by a bunch of Guardian writers

I'm not saying that drone operators don't sometimes face hideous choices, but by focusing on such a two dimensional dilemma such as should we fire and probably kill the kid, the producers, whether by accident or design, are ignoring the work of drones that is both effective and ethical.

But never mind all that, a bigger qustiion is how can a movie company spend countless millions creating CGI drones, massive explosions and film expensive action in the Middle East, Hawaii and London and yet still show Helen Mirran driving home at the end with what is clearly a helicopter landing pad on her head?
Your spoiler alert is 3 and half years (and about 10 posts) too late, chap:

Went to see "Eye in the Sky". one of those dichotomy films where the main protagonists are damned if they do, or damned if they don't. Basically, a reaper mission to observe a group of suspected jihadis in a small village, near Nairobi, turns into a kill mission when a few of the most wanted targets are identified at one location, whilst preparing for a major bomb attack against the local population. Not a problem you might think, but the dichotomy comes when an innocent young girl try's to sell bread outside the target location. This starts a series of events that could jeopardise the mission, as no one wants to take responsibility for the potential outcome if the target is zapped...Enjoyed the film, as the acting was superb and the story well thought out. But the moral aspect left me feeling ambivelent toward the outcome, probably because the cinema charged me £7.50 for a bag of pick"n"mix!? Seriously though, good film and well worth a watch, but probably better waiting for the dvd release?
 
'Eye in the Sky'..... Helen Mirran as a ruthless British Colonel in charge of a Reaper mission, Alan Rickman as a ruthless British General as her commander, and various terribly compassionate others who do all they can to foil the dastardly British military who appear just desperate to kill little children.

On the surface this is a great film... brilliantly acted, with a very taut script and great filming. What ruined it...


SPOILER ALERT.




.... was that the plot was so predictble. On seeing the subject matter, I assumed that there would be the occasional 'child in the crosshairs' dilemma, but also assumed that there would also be lots of technicals being vaporised in the desert type of scenes, scenes where there was no ethical mud-wrestling and where Hellfires were happily making the world a better place. But no, the producers decided to make a potentially brilliant film look like it had been written by a bunch of Guardian writers

I'm not saying that drone operators don't sometimes face hideous choices, but by focusing on such a two dimensional dilemma such as should we fire and probably kill the kid, the producers, whether by accident or design, are ignoring the work of drones that is both effective and ethical.

But never mind all that, a bigger qustiion is how can a movie company spend countless millions creating CGI drones, massive explosions and film expensive action in the Middle East, Hawaii and London and yet still show Helen Mirran driving home at the end with what is clearly a helicopter landing pad on her head?
The director played the yank major…..
 
Disappointingly Mirren didn't get her tits out
 

TamH70

MIA
White House Do... Actually no way would I watch that low-rent piece of shit. A Black President of the United States who isn't either Samuel L. Jackson or Morgan Freeman? Kindly bugger off, good sir.

I watched Olympus Has Fallen. Butler is a lot better than I'd have previously given him credit for. Eckhart is good too. And Morgan Freeman turns up, and given America's line of succession, gets to play President again, even though on an acting basis.
 
Butler is in Hunter Killer which is a switch off brain movie with lots of carnage and weapon porn. Entertaining but with a plot that Tom Clancy would have given his head a wobble and said ‘f**k that!’ as he hoofed it into the nearest bin.
 
Jumanji: The Next Level

It was worth it just for Karen Gillan. Other than that it was fairly predictable, with a few funny bits and some interesting plot lines and some dull ones. I enjoyed it, but it won't be favoured by the intellectuals amongst us, though they probably wouldn't lower themselves to view it anyway.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top