Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

7,138 profile views
  1. same as pretty much every Bond film sadly - unless there is something else to prop it up you are looking at a dinosaur. And that is speaking as someone who loves Roger Moore's Bond.
  2. it is the best reboot trek film in my opinion but that isn't saying much
  3. yep it was #metoo 30 years too early! The other one I read was Frakes being so bothered (in retrospect) about Code of Honour (Yasha being enslaved by an "african tribe" with accents and everything) that he tried to prevent it being shown on reruns - it is almost completely inexcusable as an episode.
  4. hmmmmmmm yes Tarantino has form for this and I find it uncomfortable (see True Romance and Jackie Brown and Kill Bill as well for examples). The "torture porn" he seems to reserve for women is disturbing. Now as a piece of work it is challenging and disturbing but does it cross a line? In places I think he dances on it and his attitude to women in general (the foot thing) tends to make me lean on the side of creepy. But his films challenge on many levels - the treatment of Marcellus Wallace in Pulp Fiction for instance as well as other scenes in reservoir dogs are also very uncomfortable in general. I can't exonerate him and whilst I enjoy the films I can see the creepy elements that make me shudder.
  5. Now to be fair (HA!) to Nemesis - Remus itself was not an invention of that hack Logan. Remus was, I think, first mentioned in TNG as the sister planet of Romulus... Remans were however his invention! blech The best part is it never even needed hiom to invent Remans - he just had to have different Romulan factions which had already been established in TNG. MAybe even actually refer back to the issues that were rasied in TNG ... oh god no that sounds like work lets get John Logan to shit out an idea. ffs
  6. oh yes agreed ... you can still see how they are problematic (as I hope I said), articulate that and still recognise that the piece of work is still valid despite the failings. Some works are dead in the water without the regressive elements and they tend to fall by the way side - countless films have done this over the years, as has Little Britain (as a recent example). So yes very very different to the "you're trying to ruin my favourite movies" nonsense. You cannot "ruin" great movies by pointing out regressive elements as they are great despite those (and in some case bolstered by those in a modern context). The depiction of Fay Wray and "natives" in King Kong is deeply problematic but the film is a triumph of cinema regardless of that as if you strip that stuff away it is still a great film. Those elements that tarnish it can be recognised and accounted for whilst still appreciating the work.
  7. As for the topic - context and time is everything - always has been. Watching old films from the 40/50/60s in the 80s you used to think "ooh that's a bit dodgy" . Same now. It does not necessarily change the impact of the work just changes the way you enjoy it. If the piece of work is strong despite the dodginess that is when you have a classic - so Airplane! above falls easily into that category. Similarly back in the 80s watching films from 20s,30s,40s,50s,60s - if the attitudes were dodgy it didn't stop the film being a classic. If the film was shit and propped up by that regressive stuff then it was fair game - and same goes now. Oh and Bladerunner, in my top 5 films of all time, from the first time I saw it I thought Deckard was a mysoginist cunt because of that scene so that one doesn't age badly it just adds to my perception of the character.
  8. it probably burnt in the fire The fire in which we buuuuurrrrrnn (I love Malcolm McDowell)
  9. then watch all the TNG filsm - you HAVE to you knwo the way you HAD to watch Sub Rosa? yeah like that...
  10. Rocky Balboa, whilst not as good as the first film is also a superb film with a similar cut to its jib. Also not a film about boxing at all, it is about grief and loss. Not as well made as Rocky and flawed to high heaven but it is worthy and - kind of embarrased to admit it - makes me well up just remembering it. After that film was released I said there is two ways ot watch rocky - 1) watch 1,2,3,4 to watch a bombastic set of boxing movies OR 2) watch Rocky and Rocky Balboa and see two ends of a love story that have an inevitable end. Shit now I have to go and watch the 2nd version again
  11. To be honest if you watched all of TNG the 4 films arent a massive burden even if you hate them
  12. also the whole thing is also an allegory for Mccarthyism and the "fight" against Communism (the original that is). It is of its time and bit hokey but keep all that in mind and it is worthy of a watch.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.