Thor is brilliant

Thor is mighty good fun, I agree. Despite his mighty Asgardian companion buddies being ever-so-slight time-wasters, I found no fault whatsoever.

"I require a horse!"

Heh, yes - although I liked the "fat" ginger one, as he was brilliant in Rome.


Oh, true, true. Made a really nice change in that respect.


EDIT - HANG ON - directed by Kenneth Brannagh!>!?!?>!

Watched my first HDDVD this evening (Batman Begins) and didn't really see much of a difference picture-wise (possibly down to my crap eyesight). Assuming Blurays and HDVDs are of similar quality, I think I'll stick to buying DVDs.

Have you got an HDTV?

I have to confess, I didn't notice the difference watching HD stuff on my bro's HD TV. He even plugged stuff in properly.

Yup... just not HD quality eyes.

I forgot the main reason for posting in this thread actually. I rather like these 'origin' superhero films where you see how they become whatever character. However, once they are actually doing all their superhero stuff, I rather lose interest. This goes for Batman Begins, but also Iron Man and Ghost Rider.

What other good films are there for explaining superhero origins? I've still not seen Spider-Man so I might try that.

Wolverine?

X-Men First Class is rather good.

Oh, yeah, that too. I've got 30 minutes or so left to watch, though.

James Mcelvoy and the Magneto guy are both very good.

My local Cash Converters seems to have a lot of X-Men type films, so I'll have a nose at the weekend. In hindsight, I wish I'd picked up Indy & the Crystal Skull in there today as it was only 99p.

Hulk, Thor (?) and, um... Kick Ass?

Hmm.. which Hulk? I've got the 2003 version but I'd heard it was a bit dull so I've not watched it yet.

You don't want to make him Ang Lee. You wouldn't like him when he's Ang Lee.

Superman: The Movie is the finest comic book movie ever. Watch that.

Kissyfur: your definitive source for news from two years ago.

You seem to have caught girl. Do you hear in mono too?

Another symptom is putting both speakers form your mini-hi-fi right next to each other on the shelf. Or one on the top of the shelves and the other on the windowsill, or some other crazy shit.

Girls be crazy.

On some tv's the difference is not that apparent.

My father in law was cooing over his new (very expensive) TV setup the other day. He put on a blu-ray to show off how amazingly crisp the picture was.

I had a look round the back at one point - all the inputs to the TV were scart.....

On anything smaller than a 32" screen I'd say don't bother, as the difference isn't all that great. Watching SD resolutions on anything larger makes my eyes bleed.

Just watched Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. Pretty good, but I don't think the repeated shift in the timeline of the film particularly added much. It would have been fine just straight the way through.

I have a 26" LED telly and I can def see the difference. It's great.

I do like how things sublime from 'don't bother' to 'eyes bleed' when you cross that magic 32" mark.

Ok, let me rephrase it: 32" or smaller, it's nice to have HD output but I can cope without. Anything larger than that is a MUST have for me these days.

I have a 26" in the bedroom (paging Zardoz) and a DVD player - I have no real urge to put a BD player in there, but can't do without it for my 50" in the living room.

The 32" in my back room only gets used for games, and the 360 is HD anyway.

It totally depends on how far away you sit, too.

Oh yeah. I would never assume that someone is sat two feet away from a 26" TV though.

Prometheus imaages released, including DavPaz!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/0 ... _ref=false

Oi! I'm not black!

Worth seeing for Theron in a neoprene jumpsuit.

Racist.

"Up" was gid, made me greet a bit.

You want a talking breast? Or are we at cross-vernacular?

A dug, IIRC he was called Doug too

Heh.

so last week
Ive seen (just about) the trailer (!)

So, The Thing prequel is crap and pointless. I wasn't really expecting anything great, but it's just... well, pointless. If it wasn't related to the Carpenter version and, therefore, sapping some of the former's glory, it would just be a piss poor alien thriller without any substance whatsoever. There was barely any plot, noteworthy dialogue or general meat to any of it. The special effects are meh and just thrown at the screen without any of the impact or style of the 82 version and the ending was a lazy, pathetic and half-arsed way of linking it to the beginning of the 82 film. As I originally anticipated, it is far more of a poor man's remake than a proper sequel as it basically just rehashes the 82 film, only in a really really boring way.

Rubbish.

you are spot on. The only bit I liked was how it segued with the original with the ending. But wtf happened to the girl?!

you are spot on. The only bit I liked was how it segued with the original with the ending. But wtf happened to the girl?!

Ooooohkay. Against all expectation, Paul is possibly one of the best films I've seen in a long, long while.

Relatedly, I quite enjoyed Transformers 3.

Watched Machete last night, and really quite enjoyed it, glorious, over the top, nonsense!

But a fun watch, reminds me of more of an 80s film, than one made last year!

Malc

I watched Hellboy, for the first time. I like El Espinazo del Diablo and El Laberinto del Fauno, so it was only shyness of Hollywoodism that took me so long to check it out. Figured Del Toro is good enough that it sholdn't make a difference. I liked it! Not sure I entirely understood the reason behind Rasputin and nazis still knocking about, but here we are. It's a film where a small child has emerged from hell, to be brought up by John Hurt. The film was a tad long, but weirdly not overlong. It had justification for everything. And Jeffrey Tambor. Liked it, in a Batman: TAS superhero gothic kinda way.

I liked it so much that, when it finished, I stuck on Hellboy II. It was miles better. It was evident that, following his success, Del Toro was allowed to leave his mark more on the sequel. The creatures were less Gigeresque and Lovecraftian than the first film, being more of a horror fantasy. Some of it was beautiful. The scene with the elemental was Princess Mononoke come to life, both in terms of aesthetic (verdance in death) and theme (sometimes monsters aren't monstrous, and the damage they wreak is not malicious). Again, not sure why those goblins or whatever were immortal, or why they looked like a modern Scandinavian metal band. But the imagination on display was excellent. Elevitate (Gnomes here?) said the sequel was too Del Toro, but after some consideration I don't agree with that. It wasn't that much like El Espinazo del Diablo or the mediocre Cronos... more that it just shared aesthetic sensibility with El Laberinto del Fauno, which makes perfect sense to me. I want to watch them again, now!

Also want his new film!

Cronos, mediocre? Sorry, what?

A lot of the creature design was by Chet Zar, Tool collaborator and all-round excellentmon.

http://www.chetzar.com/

Finally saw 'In Bruges' tonight. Very funny, and really beautifully shot.

Not quite, that's one of the many names CUS has used across the internet.

Oh, heh. Apologies to anyone I've offended. I knew it was someone controversial.

This looks awesome:

It's ok, funny in parts but a wee bit up its own arse maybe.

OTOH Killer Elite is fucking terrible. Plot summary: sulky boring hitmen get sent to kill sulky boring SAS men, much sulking ensues. Thor was alright though.

I'd go so far as to say "yes it does".