Jump to content
rllmuk

Loik V credern

Members
  • Content Count

    6,132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

10,195 profile views
  1. Pes20 isn’t much different/improved so i’m still playing this. Still getting opponents online within seconds usually. Kind of take it for granted how good the games can be, how varied the teams you face. I had a 6-6 a few weeks ago which just felt normal. I would have killed for the kind of end to end thrilling games i have now back in 2013. Any casual observer might think how is it possible to derive more fun out of doing the same thing. But i try different teams, apply one formation to them and line ups. Find one where you get a lot of points for winning with the combination if good ball control and power that’s enough. I’ve won a lot with Cercle Brugge when i think the opponent is expecting an easy match. That was the only thing to explain how using the exact same formation with Liverpool resulted in creating no chances. It had to be the opponent sitting deeper. But now i have Liverpool sussed so i don’t know. Football is weird. I keep thinking it’s certain players in certain positions, the ones who are quick at turning, or those who make runs. Maybe the opponent just suffers from lag whenever i win. I need those triangles, fluidity. After trying so many formations on so many pro evo games and never reaching 700+ rating, i use 4-1-2-1-2. It’s a diamond, the forwards close but who can move wide. I have 2/3 players wide who can overlap for the cross. Just staying wide creates the centre space for the centre mid to move into. I could play one twos trying to either dink over or do a lay off forever. But games being 10 minutes too much of that they counter attack i lose. I keep just one full back on the left, keep the right back as centre back. There’s basically a hole in midfield which is fine, as my one centre mid surges forward. That space confuses opponents. I stall them while having someone chase back, press with one while following a runner. I concede when they get in behind. I have Man united sorted, Matic as right cb. Rashford is one of the best performers in the game, now put Fred advanced, Pogba cm. The Man City defence i can’t get right. I saved a last minute goal against me as a replay just to see which fuck didn’t get back. I blamed Kompany for darting it and missing. This is both boring but fascinating, i don’t understand why some players and teams are so awkward to get the best out of. Messi is sitting there and 1 out of 100 games he’s effective. I pick Barcelona i lose. The defence is shite and i can’t score. It only occured to me how neat it’d be for the game to have an analysis option, tv pundit breaking your matches down. It’s a lot of effort for a series which doesn’t try features anymore. If done badly it’d be naff and redundant. 10 minute games where you struggle aren’t enough to understand what’s going wrong. When your opponent is different, say they spread their players out but hog the ball so intricate play doesn’t work because you can’t retrieve quickly again, you don’t have much time to realise how to create chances. The best football game ever. I scored a goal the other against someone and i think they were miffed how it came off, Fabinho held the ball 25 yards, pass to Salah, back to goal, he does a slow backheel inbetween the 2 players for Fabinho’s driving run, just enough pace for the defender marking to miss it, Fabinho connects, powers ball past. Or any dink over as the defence moves forward leaving the runner clear to volley past the keeper. The satisfaction is immense.
  2. 2010 1. I Saw The Devil 2. The Yellow Sea 3. Black Swan 2011 1. Himizu 2. Take Shelter 3. Kill List 2012 1. Bones Brigade 2. The Master 3. Lesson Of The Evil 2013 1. Locke 2. Why Don’t You Play In Hell? 3. 12 Years A Slave 2014 1. What We Do In The Shadows 2. Whiplash 3. A Hard Day
  3. The Wire joke, i’ve always found it funny he’s the spitting image of Marlo Stanfield.
  4. Yeah i watched One Cut Of The Dead a few weeks ago. It being hand held i didn’t even notice it really. Another one shot film is Victoria. You watch it too aware of it, or i did. Early on it works, following the characters ride a bike through streets at night it increases immersion, then it become more noticeable, then if it introduces extreme situations it’s hard to do it without it feeling like a play. This happens, and then this happens. The director can’t do establishing shots, can’t let the film sink in. I found it more impressive than 1917 though, it doesn’t cheat with pitch black filling the screen, and genuinely escalates in an exciting way and the more it continues you wonder where it will go, eventually justifying its idea. 1917 has none of this, there isn’t any sequences where you’re surprised where they turn or surprised how it’s able to find new angles. I don’t think any of it looked hard to do. Taking multiple dumps on this film now, it just failed on every level. The score was predictable and generic as well. At one point it has an attempt at something pulsating, thrilling but it’s so predictable and tame as to barely be worth being there, and it just made me think of how Jonny Greenwood’s score for There Will Be Blood was.
  5. He’s only leaving so he can move his drug empire into new territories.
  6. Listening to more positive reviews made me think how much of it being WWI affects peoples experience with it, gives it more weight and meaning that is otherwise completely lacking in the characterisation. Imagine if you took the exact same film, but applied to a fictional future war. It wouldn’t be anywhere near as well received, which is obvious right i know. But i think there’s too much of a difference. The film heavily relies on history to compensate for its laziness. Saving Private Ryan’s opening would still be effective if the real D Day wasn’t so infamous. There are those who think every war film is inherently pro war by nature i guess of depicting it without exploring the root cause. I watched the recent Spielberg documentary a few weeks ago which i really liked, but when talking about Schindlers List it still seems like Spielberg is of the mindset evil is inevitable and also that America is a democracy therefore pretty sweet. I think that mindset is shared by too many. Also in a review they said, and i don’t know if it’s true, it doesn’t sound like it is, that the longest take in the film is only 3 and a half minutes. They also were confused by some of the online response saying it is like a rollercoaster ride, which i definitely felt. And like a videogame, that too as well. Where you just follow the protagonist and like in a videogame the world revolves around you. It’s convenient when you fall down some waterfalls but land exactly where you want to be, coincidentally at exactly the most poignant moment that is precisely what the film needs at this point to manipulate you into feeling something. It just undercuts itself by presenting events in real time but then being contrived how it plays out. The film was never gonna be the two lads setting of with their message and then getting lost then being blown up by a mine was it. Saving Private Ryan has convenient pieces of luck (they find Ryan), but can at least establish time occuring inbetween and just pace it out more. It’s not like; set off > some dangerous moments > walking across a field > oh there he is. It’s rare that a trailer can literally condense an entire film but with 1917 it does. There’s little else there. Basically the one shot does not favour films. I think it’s best used in certain sequences where you don’t expect it, Children of Men being the best example of maybe any film.
  7. This is a phenomenal trailer
  8. no i think it’s good. I hated Swiss Army Man and haven’t seen the one where he grows horns but this looks fun. By ‘how’ i mean these kind of films are rare. I actually have some sympathy for him. He can act, he’s very committed in Jungle but he can’t inhabit characters like Pattinson can - his voice, face and height won’t allow it. He can’t slip in elegantly, he stands out, but not in a way that works for star actors who have so much presence and charisma. It’s kind of the same for Kiera Knightley but she’s had good roles, serious dramatic ones. Nor would i think he’d become a character actor either. Pattinson has managed to do character roles you wouldn’t expect where he’s playing studious academic types but then can be a leading man based on his looks and frame. It kind of works for Radcliffe to do these films. The way he is in interviews, over excitable and enthusiastic, he carries over into his acting. He’s like our Elijah Wood, he too has gone the way of doing kind of quirky roles like in Sin City, Maniac and I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore.
  9. The Bruce Lee scene was like something from a sketch show when you have Kurt Russell and Zoe Bell turn up yelling at Brad Pitt, it’s so clunky. It felt like something that wasn’t funny enough to warrant being in the film really, as cool as it was to see a very good lookalike, the surprise which was ruined for most people anyway. Like with Tarantino throwing himself and his terrible Aussie accent into Django at the end, he probably thought.. whatever. The trailer makes it seem the film is packed to the brim with fun stuff. With every film i watch i think; is this the absolute best version of this film based on this story that could have been made? Once Upon A Time In Hollywood comes nowhere near that for me.
  10. The trailer for Alien Convenant that film4 (or channel4) were playing last week made it look amazing. Same with that Prometheus trailer. I don’t think there’s any other films that look so impressive when you catch glimpses that then fall apart so comprehensively when you see the whole thing like those two films. It’s testament to the car crash of a script they both relish in.
  11. I've not played the Resident Evil 2 remake. Or much of the original. I was going to ask which bit you mean but i think I know.
  12. I hate the name of this, i hate it more every time i re-read it, every time i say it aloud in my head, i hate. Like a grammar mistake in a top title it causes pain whenever i come into contact with it. Maybe they should have stuck to solaces, skyfalls and spectres if they couldn't return to the long names of old without being so clunky with it. I don't think the film can recover from the name. It makes Die Another Day seem majestic.
×
×
  • 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.