• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Films you've watched recently.

I totally and utterly disagree. Despite being set in WW1 it's not a war film as such. IMHO it is absolutely stunning on every level and I've never been in a cinema where the audience (and there were a lot or varying ages) where deathly silent when the film ended. It affected me on a level that films very rarely do.

I can't wait to see Parasite (it was a date night toss-up) but it'll have to go some to beat 1917.
must admit when I saw it at the cinema it was really noticeable that literally no one got up to go to the loo, people didn’t talk, people didn’t even fidget/ change poisons in their seat.
For the very final scene I thought to myself “ this makes no sense, what’s going to happen in the last 40 mins”. I had been totally absorbed and thought I had only been sitting down for 90 mins.

Would like to see it again, but I get why people have different views.
I love war films and it’s not in my top 5.
But if I was marking it from an artistic viewpoint I would have a different view.
 
must admit when I saw it at the cinema it was really noticeable that literally no one got up to go to the loo, people didn’t talk, people didn’t even fidget/ change poisons in their seat.
For the very final scene I thought to myself “ this makes no sense, what’s going to happen in the last 40 mins”. I had been totally absorbed and thought I had only been sitting down for 90 mins.

Would like to see it again, but I get why people have different views.
I love war films and it’s not in my top 5.
But if I was marking it from an artistic viewpoint I would have a different view.

You see, I'm not really a war film fan. I've been recommended to watch Paths of Glory which I shall but I really can't gush anymore about 1917- I found it moving on so many levels.
 
You see, I'm not really a war film fan. I've been recommended to watch Paths of Glory which I shall but I really can't gush anymore about 1917- I found it moving on so many levels.

If you haven’t watch “Gallipoli”, the end scenes are far more moving than their equivalents in 1917 imo. There are very few “war scenes” in n Gallipoli compared to a standard war film, and very moving music ( coincidentally also used in butterflies ( wendy Craig bbc late 70,s/80,s)
 
must admit when I saw it at the cinema it was really noticeable that literally no one got up to go to the loo, people didn’t talk, people didn’t even fidget/ change poisons in their seat.
For the very final scene I thought to myself “ this makes no sense, what’s going to happen in the last 40 mins”. I had been totally absorbed and thought I had only been sitting down for 90 mins.

Would like to see it again, but I get why people have different views.
I love war films and it’s not in my top 5.
But if I was marking it from an artistic viewpoint I would have a different view.

When I saw it I really wish the rotund woman next to me with the crisps had changed and taken her poison. V noisy lady.
 
You see, I'm not really a war film fan. I've been recommended to watch Paths of Glory which I shall but I really can't gush anymore about 1917- I found it moving on so many levels.
Paths of Glory is a masterpiece. No false heroics, no stirring music, grainy black and white photography giving it a documentary feel and a fitting memorial to Kirk Douglas, who was instrumental in getting the film made when none of the big studios wanted to touch it.
 
1917 was massively overrated.

Parasite on the other hand wasn’t. Absolutely amazing

I have to agree on 1917, the way it was talked up I was expecting much more.

Haven’t seen Parasite, might have to give that one a go. Don’t even know what it’s about.
 
You see, I'm not really a war film fan. I've been recommended to watch Paths of Glory which I shall but I really can't gush anymore about 1917- I found it moving on so many levels.

I went to see a Kubrick exhibition here before Xmas and was impressed by the huge number of kids watching a silent (sound turned down) version of the film.Great film that it is, don't think I'd want to see it in those conditions.
 
I have to agree on 1917, the way it was talked up I was expecting much more.

Haven’t seen Parasite, might have to give that one a go. Don’t even know what it’s about.

It's an anti-capitalist satire,which probably explains why Trump didn't like it it, (though he hasn't seen it either, apparently. :Winking:
 
Prisoners with Hugh Jackman.

I recorded it a few weeks ago and watched it last night.

Best film I have Watched in a long time including stuff at cinema.

Massively recommend it, it’s a very very clever thriller.
 
Saw most of A Beautiful Day in the neighbourhood before giving it the heave ho. It's incredibly dull, Hanks is just plain creepy. How it's good such good reviews is beyond me.
 
Saw most of A Beautiful Day in the neighbourhood before giving it the heave ho. It's incredibly dull, Hanks is just plain creepy. How it's good such good reviews is beyond me.
Not all films suit everyone's taste. I really enjoyed it.
 
Saw most of A Beautiful Day in the neighbourhood before giving it the heave ho. It's incredibly dull, Hanks is just plain creepy. How it's good such good reviews is beyond me.

I watched that fairly recently. I had no idea who Fred Rogers was, nor anything about the film. I had not seen the trailer or any reviews. I was genuinely expecting a big twist that he had done something wrong a long the same lines as Jimmy Saville.

Turns out I was wrong! The fact that there wasn't a twist was a twist for me after all!
 
Back
Top