What general film/series have you just seen.. marks out of 5

[saltysam]

I think Brad has a hard on for Ridley Scott,a director whose work has consistently gone downhill in recent years.as for Robin Hood,it's been done to death so many times i'd be amazed if this one offers anything new.

[romerojpg]

I have a hard on for Ridley but only when he makes his Great films
Robin Hood aint great for me, maybe others may well love it, but all this film does for me is make me think what on gods earth he will do with Alien 5 next year if he has forgotton how to light scenes in films like in Robin Hood, well we will be in trouble for a film like Alien 5 still I am sure he will say it is his new gritty style, well its fugly!

[saltysam]

Alien is one of my favourite all-time movies and i can't see him getting anywhere near those heights with the new ones.

[bradavon]

I think Brad has a hard on for Ridley Scott,a director whose work has consistently gone downhill in recent years.

With the exception of Hannibal and GI Jane, I've loved every Scott film I've seen. So if that means I've got a hard-on for Ridley Scott so be it. In no order: Robin Hood, American Gangster, Kingdom of Heaven, Black Hawk Down, Gladiator, Thelma & Louise, Blade Runner, Alien are all either very good to excellent. I've not seen Body of Lies, A Good Year or Matchstick Men.

as for Robin Hood,it's been done to death so many times i'd be amazed if this one offers anything new.

I suggest you watch it and be proven wrong then. Obviously it's "still" Robin Hood, just like it's still set in the 12th century and still has no guns but different it definitely is.

if he has forgotton how to light scenes in films like in Robin Hood

Did you have your eyes closed again? I had no problem seeing any scene.

with no gore.

It's 12A. What do you expect? Admittedly I thought it was odd to release it as 12A. A 15 would've been better but like Casino Royale and Dark Knight, it pushes the 12A level at times.

The action scenes felt like they had a few hundred actors at most and really it was all seen it all before

Agreed it didn't look like there was thousands of people in the big fight scene but likewise I can sometimes prefer that to thousands of CGI people. Besides whose to say this wasn't accurate. Not all fights in history have involved thousands of people. In other words, it didn't bother me at all.

As to "seen it all before". You can say the same about most modern martial arts films. There's always going to be be an element of "seen it all before" when it comes to period action epics.

Totally flawed Kingdom of Heaven seems like a great film compared to Robin Hood. Never mind compared to Gladiator or Braveheart masterclass.

Agreed Gladiator and Braveheart are better but then those have a lot more action. A lot of Robin Hood's running time was drama. I disagree the Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut is flawed though.

Robin Hood is a solid 7 out of 10 affair for me and yes I'll be buying the blu-ray.

[IronMonkey]

Triangle - 4/5

Really enjoyed this.

[Markgway]

The BBFC reckon that Robin Hood is a low-level '12'. In other words just a bit too strong for a 'PG. So nowhere near a '15'. But that's not a problem. Every other Robin Hood as been PG-13 or less so it's not like they've taken Alien and sanitised the concept. It's wise that they've dropped the strong language found in Prince of Thieves. The Errol Flynn version has almost no violence and everyone likes it (though it's a bit camp admittedly).

[gasteropod]

The BBFC reckon that Robin Hood is a low-level '12'. In other words just a bit too strong for a 'PG. So nowhere near a '15'.

Shows how crazy the BBFC are nowadays then since an arrow goes through a guy's throat and someone gets an axe in the head.

[romerojpg]

if he has forgotton how to light scenes in films like in Robin Hood

Did you have your eyes closed again? I had no problem seeing any scene.

Thats becuase you have no idea what you are talking about You think Kingdom of Heaven is not flawed, that say it all

Also the day for night scenes really got on my tits no end. Shoot at night for fucks sake! ugly day for night ruins films.

Still over $200 million you could not see any CGI thats for sure (so I guess that was well done, buyt pointless as nothing looked impressive anyway), but damn £200 million for a film that just felt average budget and looked like it was made down the road from me, no scale at all. Insane it cost $200 million, at least Kingdom of Heaven looked stagering, Hood doesnt at all.

It has little chance of getting that budget back in America thats for sure.

[bradavon]

Shows how crazy the BBFC are nowadays then since an arrow goes through a guy's throat and someone gets an axe in the head.

Agreed. I'd have to think about letting a a 12 year old see it. A 12A also means many under 12s are likely to see it too. Which isn't the BBFC's fault as such but the reality of the 12A.

You think Kingdom of Heaven is not flawed, that say it all

Most films have some kind of flaw but flawed it is not.

Also the day for night scenes really got on my tits no end. Shoot at night for fucks sake! ugly day for night ruins films.

Do you actually watch films at the cinema or spend the entire time critiquing them?

It has little chance of getting that budget back in America thats for sure.

It's number 2 at the box office.

[saltysam]

It's number 2 at the box office.

According to this article it cost $230 million before marketing and is already considered a box-office failure in the usa

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Robin-Ho ... 2197.shtml

for balance,this BBC article reckons it only cost $155 million to make

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 118831.stm

[Markgway]

A 12A also means many under 12s are likely to see it too. Which isn't the BBFC's fault as such but the reality of the 12A.

It's their fault for creating the certificate. Something they never should have done.

Since 2002 you've had a situation whereby '12' films have become stronger (think T3, Dark Night, Casino Royale, etc) and even younger audiences (routinely 8 years olds) have had legal access.

[romerojpg]

Hey if you think Kingdom of Heaven has no flaws, well never comment on a film again I say, you crazy fool

Also the day for night scenes really got on my tits no end. Shoot at night for fucks sake! ugly day for night ruins films.

Do you actually watch films at the cinema or spend the entire time critiquing them?

When all the night scenes look like full on CGI becuase of the day for night shooting and digital tweeking work, obviously I am going to be a bit pissed as it is there in front of my eyes. Just becuase you are blind and cannot see it, does not mean everyone else with eyes should keep quiet.

and hey so what if any film gets to number 2, it can go to number 1 and still loose massive amounts of cash. A Position in charts means nothing, at all.

Still all this talk about Robin Hood, well the films not worth any more talk at all. Better to talk about the best films of the year, not average instantly forgetable stuff like Robin

[bradavon]

It's their fault for creating the certificate. Something they never should have done. Since 2002 you've had a situation whereby '12' films have become stronger (think T3, Dark Night, Casino Royale, etc) and even younger audiences (routinely 8 years olds) have had legal access.

Agreed to an extent. The BBFC have always said, a 12A means the film isn't suitable for under 12s. The problem is, few parents, really bother to pay attention to what ratings are saying and assume if it's 12A, it's now safe. That's bad parenting but the reality.

I don't think the rating is at fault but their decision to not go with a bottom legal age, which was on the cards at some point. You'd at least, then be giving parents more information.

I wonder if the 12A is specifically to blame or the loosening of the BBFC in general. I suspect these films would've been given a 12 still. Which would at least mean only 12s or above could see these films. Loads of parents complained, their under 12 got to see Dark Knight. It clearly states before the film (you cannot miss it!), it's not suitable for under 12s.

Dark Knight, Casino Royale, Robin Hood so closely push the boundaries of what's suitable for a 12 year old. Dark Knight especially, should've definitely been a 15. I'd never let anyone under 14 see it.

Where it gets complicated in my opinion is, the USA has had a PG-13 for years and it's not caused any major problem. France routinely gives films we give 15 or 18, a PG or 12 rating and they're not all in jail/a mad house. I disagree with the very lax French censors but it's food for thought.

What's wrong with T3 btw? That seemed like a perfectly fine 12A. I cannot remember anything unsuitable anyway.

Still all this talk about Robin Hood, well the films not worth any more talk at all. Better to talk about the best films of the year, not average instantly forgetable stuff like Robin

In your opinion, what are they?

I'd put Green Zone in there, easily.

[Markgway]

The BBFC have always said, a 12A means the film isn't suitable for under 12s.

Then why bother having the 12A certificate?

The only ones who can benefit from it are under-12s (i.e. those who aren't supposed to be watching).

The '12' was fine as was. But the BBFC it seems were desperate to echo the PG-13.

I wonder if the 12A is specifically to blame or the loosening of the BBFC in general.

It's a symptom rather than a cause. The BBFC decided to overhaul the entire classification process in favour of a more liberal approach - a good idea in principle but they took it too far with regards to lenient classifications at the '12' and '15' levels.

I suspect these films would've been given a 12 still.

Yes, the age bracket would've been the same. However if those films had been submitted in the previous decade it would've been a different story.

Dark Knight, Casino Royale, Robin Hood so closely push the boundaries of what's suitable for a 12 year old. Dark Knight especially, should've definitely been a 15. I'd never let anyone under 14 see it.

Can't comment on Robin Hood... but I agree about the other two. The sadistic edge to the violence and glamourisation of knives in The Dark Knight should've made it a '15'. And how Casino Royale's bollock torture made it into a 12A is another mystery...

Where it gets complicated in my opinion is, the USA has had a PG-13 for years and it's not caused any major problem. France routinely gives films we give 15 or 18, a PG or 12 rating and they're not all in jail/a mad house. I disagree with the very lax French censors but it's food for thought.

It's not really about whether watching violent films causes problems directly, but rather that adults have given approval to children to watch films with borderline strong violence. When I was a kid I had to manipulate my way into seeing films (on video!) that now I could watch legally in the cinema - where the impact is tenfold. Is that a good thing? How can you let kids see a film in which The Joker extols the virtues of knives and then tell kids 'no, that's bad'. Who's going to impress them more? Many of the action films that are PG-13 now would've been R-rated previously. There's been a softening of restrictions on both sides of the pond.

What's wrong with T3 btw? That seemed like a perfectly fine 12A. I cannot remember anything unsuitable anyway.

There are three or four uses of strong language and a scene in which The Terminatrix punches her hand through a cop's chest. The film was Rated-R in the US. Speaking of language... I saw Run, Fatboy, Run the other week and was really surprised at how much swearing there was in a 12 (and bear in mind in cinemas kids much younger would be seeing this...) Four uses of 'fuck or fucking' (including once in a sexual context), two uses of the word 'cock' (as an insult) and several pricks. The PG-13 version removed both 'cocks' and three of the 'fucks'. Now, I would say violence is a more serious issue for sure, but again, how can you allow kids to see (or hear) films with that kind of langauge and then tell them off when they repeat it back? It's illogical.

[saltysam]

Jaws was an "A" certificate back in 1975! that was just as violent as the 12A movies of today.

[romerojpg]

In your opinion, what are they?

I'd put Green Zone in there, easily.

Hard to say at the moment as I have nasty PC problems, so cannot check my review list and look thru all the stuff I hve seen

But hey I liked Green Zone, maybe not the best of the year, but it did a fine job and did exactly what it set out to do very well

Not seen a 5 Star masterpiece this year yet thats for sure, but plenty of nice ones.

[Markgway]

Jaws was an "A" certificate back in 1975! that was just as violent as the 12A movies of today.

Spielberg has often been treated softly by the BBFC. James Ferman must've been a fan.

Jaws would be a '12' now, easily, as would all three of the Indiana Jones movies, instead of the 'PG's they currently are (although they had to cut Temple of Doom).

I'd imagine the same would go for the Jurrasic Park movies.

The BBFC just recently upgraded 1941 to a '12'.

[bradavon]

Ironically the Jaws DVD is a 12 but because of the extras, not the film. It must be rare for the BBFC to upgrade films. I've always thought it nuts Batman got a 15 on video (12 in the cinema). I'd definitely no more than a 12.

[Markgway]

Yes, BATMAN is a clear '12'. The problem is that Warners havem't submitted the film since the intro of the video '12' cert in 1994. If they did I'm sure it would be downgraded.

The BBFC upgrade video certs more than they used to. Not long ago Overboard was bumped up to a '12'. Even though the uncut 'PG' DVD was sitting on shelves. I've seen them side by side in store. lol

[bradavon]

Surely technically speaking, PG has to be sold to an adult and not kids? I doubt it works that way in reality though.

Then why bother having the 12A certificate?

I imagine, to give more parents control. As happens on the mainland and in America.

The only ones who can benefit from it are under-12s (i.e. those who aren't supposed to be watching).

The idea behind the 12A is maybe they're suitable to watch it.

Who's going to impress them more? Many of the action films that are PG-13 now would've been R-rated previously. There's been a softening of restrictions on both sides of the pond.

I largely agree (and your points about knives in Dark Knight are spot on) but times do change. There was a time, we'd be giving PG rated films the equivalent of 18 but we no longer consider that necessary.

There are three or four uses of strong language and a scene in which The Terminatrix punches her hand through a cop's chest. The film was Rated-R in the US.

The rating system in America is even more fucked up. Going from PG-13 straight to the top rating is just nuts. It results in films like American Pie being given the same rating as Scarface.

[Markgway]

Surely technically speaking, PG has to be sold to an adult and not kids? I doubt it works that way in reality though.

No. 'PG' can be sold to anyone. There are no formal or legal restrictions. It's merely an advisory certificate.

I imagine, to give more parents control. As happens on the mainland and in America.

How many times can a parent (even a good one) stand "I wanna see Batman...I wanna see Batman... I wanna see Batman..." in a hi-pitched whine before they give in?

The idea behind the 12A is maybe they're suitable to watch it.

It's either a '12' or it isn't. If we're starting to talk maybes then why not introduce the 15A and the 18A. Same logic.

I largely agree (and your points about knives in Dark Knight are spot on) but times do change. There was a time, we'd be giving PG rated films the equivalent of 18 but we no longer consider that necessary.

Of course times change. There was an Abbott & Costello film given an 'X' back in 1953. Seriously. But I think common sense tells us when a change has gone too far and I believe now it has. The '12' was generally fine back in the 1990s - and then they pushed it. So you have a film like Casino Royale that would have easily been a '15' being shown to kids as young as 6 and 7 on a parent's whim (and I remember being told about quite a few parents who took under 8s to see these youth appeal blockbusters).

The rating system in America is even more fucked up. Going from PG-13 straight to the top rating is just nuts. It results in films like American Pie being given the same rating as Scarface.

The top rating is NC-17 - it's just never used.

American Pie was originally an NC-17 before cuts.
Scarface was originally an X (the precursor to the NC-17) before cuts were requested.
But amusingly no one could actually tell the difference between versions after the R had been granted so DePalma did a switch and put out the X-version as an R. Thus the film has never been cut in the USA - though the MPAA demanded it.

[saltysam]

Escape From L.A. 2/5

Diappointing sequel is an inferior rehash of the first movie,featuring similar characters (Donald Pleasance-Cliff Robertson, Lee Van Cleef-Stacy Keach,Ernest Borgnine-Steve Buscemi) despite it's numerous flaws it's still entertaining enough thanks to Russell,the blu-ray just makes some of the awful effects work look even worse (how did the surf sequence make it out there )

Triangle 3/5

Pretty good thriller set mainly on an abandoned ship,though at times it does get confusing.Melissa George gives a fine performance in the lead,she's in virtually every scene.

Avatar 2/5

After being badgered by the wife i finally got hold of this and as i thought i was left underwhelmed. Good points-it looks and sounds fantastic,even in 2-D,the special effects are awesome. The bad-way overlong, (161 minutes!) cliched characters (Weaver's scientist,Stephen Lang's Colonel for example) and most damning of all a totally predictable plot,you just know 25 minutes in how it's going to pan out,no element of surprise at all. It is gorgeous looking but a definite case of style over substance.

[Markgway]

the blu-ray just makes some of the awful effects work look even worse (how did the surf sequence make it out there )

They reused it for Die Another Day, didn't they?

[grim_tales]

The Boat That Rocked: 3 Out of 5

I enjoyed it, pretty funny. It's clearly a feelgood movie and the music is good - though the DJs on Radio Rock, the pirate radio station must have had access to a TARDIS, since some of the records on the soundtrack (eg Jumpin Jack Flash by The Stones) came out in the years AFTER the film is supposed to be set - 1966

[Markgway]

Many of the songs in the film (which I haven't seen) were released after the the date the film is set. It's just really lazy.