What program/film/documentary are you watching now?

[nicwb]

Baywatch. It was okay - but could have been better.

Don't tell me you were watching it for the storyline?

In similar vein I finally got around to watching "Fury" - well I guess that's something I won't have to do again. I can accept artistic licence for the sake of the movies' theme but I had a really difficult time discerning any particular theme.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: nicwb

Baywatch. It was okay - but could have been better.

Don't tell me you were watching it for the storyline?

warspite1

Yes, the trailer suggested it was going to be a very funny, tongue firmly in cheek version of a pretty tongue in cheek program. The idea was good and it certainly had its moments, but some of the situations were just puerile. Gross out movies can be funny - but some writers don't seem to understand the difference between funny and silly.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: nicwb

Baywatch. It was okay - but could have been better.

Don't tell me you were watching it for the storyline?

warspite1

Yes, the trailer suggested it was going to be a very funny, tongue firmly in cheek version of a pretty tongue in cheek program. The idea was good and it certainly had its moments, but some of the situations were just puerile. Gross out movies can be funny - but some writers don't seem to understand the difference between funny and silly.

Somewhere a marketing person is smiling.
There are Trailer companies in Hollywood. They make trailers for forthcoming films. That's all they do. My friend's daughter works for one.

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: nicwb
In similar vein I finally got around to watching "Fury" - well I guess that's something I won't have to do again. I can accept artistic licence for the sake of the movies' theme but I had a really difficult time discerning any particular theme.

I liked "Fury" a lot - and I accepted the "cut down" engagement distances because they helped the viewer to better understand the commanders' choices and the tactics employed.

Re: the theme, my take is that it is the same you can find in "Das Boot" (even if "Das Boot" is a far superior movie): camaraderie and the need to become an organic fightning unit, in the face of a death that can very well materialise just like that.

A lot of people didn't like "Fury" (many of them because they do know better, thanks to the fact that they do fanatically play Advanced Squad Leader and nothing else [:D]). To each his own, I guess.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Off to see Disney Pixar's Coco at the weekend - has positive reviews - so after the disappointment of The Good Dinosaur, hopefully this is a welcome return to form for the stable.

FWIW, this movie has been getting very good reviews from the Latino community here. Disney has been doing a good job lately treading a fine line between film making sensitive cultural subject (such as Moana and this) and 'whitewashing' or dumbing down cultural history.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Just begun re-watching The West Wing.

Wife unit Mark 1 mod 0 really got into this series for the first few years. I watched to humor her. The first couple years weren't too awful. It went downhill after about year 3 when they started treating Republicans as outrageous buffoons with no beneficial policies or rationale for their existence and all-things-Democrat-West-Wing as Supersmart quipsters that are always right.

[aaatoysandmore]

Been watching MASH and the hisory of the Korean war. [:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Off to see Disney Pixar's Coco at the weekend - has positive reviews - so after the disappointment of The Good Dinosaur, hopefully this is a welcome return to form for the stable.

FWIW, this movie has been getting very good reviews from the Latino community here. Disney has been doing a good job lately treading a fine line between film making sensitive cultural subject (such as Moana and this) and 'whitewashing' or dumbing down cultural history.

warspite1

A few things came up and we didn't get to go in the end. We may now wait for it to appear on DvD. However, we did go to see the Hip-Hop stage show Hamilton. We went as a belated present for my elder warspite and (interesting concept though it may be) but I really wasn't expecting much to be honest, but she was soooo keen to see it, so.....

However I have to say that this was a very, very enjoyable, highly imaginative, show. It was very slick, very polished and the acting, singing and dancing were all top rate. The story was fast paced and so moved along nicely and the words were largely nice and clear - even for an old codger like me. The lyrics were very cleverly put together too - faint traces of Eminem in a couple of parts. The actor playing Lafeyette/Thomas Jefferson was very watchable, but the show stealer without doubt was King George III. With a performance that bordered on - but never tipped over into - camp, he appeared I think four times in all and easily got the biggest laughs of the night. A nice little delve into history too - I'd never heard of this founding father before.....

Summary 3 hours very well spent [:)]

[Lord Baldy]

Only seem to watch stuff on tv via YouTube nowadays, cancelled Netflix as wasn't using it, last thing I saw on terrestrial tv was Euro 2016, keep an eye on the news and sports via apps on my phone, and my dvd collection is currently gathering dust.

YouTube is quite a treasure trove of old stuff, watched Blake's 7 recently, plenty of B movie black and white sci-fi available as well which I like, don't particularly like modern sci-fi.

I'm not that into high culture entertainment to be honest.

[:D]

[nicwb]

[I liked "Fury" a lot - and I accepted the "cut down" engagement distances because they helped the viewer to better understand the commanders' choices and the tactics employed.

Re: the theme, my take is that it is the same you can find in "Das Boot" (even if "Das Boot" is a far superior movie): camaraderie and the need to become an organic fightning unit, in the face of a death that can very well materialise just like that.

A lot of people didn't like "Fury" (many of them because they do know better, thanks to the fact that they do fanatically play Advanced Squad Leader and nothing else ). To each his own, I guess.
/quote]

RFalvo, I certainly agree that "Das Boot" was a better movie. And as I say I can accept a bit of artistic licence on reality to make a point.

I just found that "Fury" tended to bury whatever it had behind a ridiculously over the top ending. "Lone damaged US tank with psychologically damaged crew singlehandedly hold off battalion of die hard SS" - they did exactly the same ending in "Saving Private Ryan" (just without the tank). And in effect they ruined what could have been better movies by insisting on "superheroics".

I just finished Altered Carbon, on Netflix. The visuals are breathtaking (they basically robbed Blade Runner and its sequel, with a budget worth of a movie). The story, however, is a bit 'meh'. I felt that they could do much more with the starting material; instead, after around the fourth episode they started meandering. The show's plot has a resolution, but of the "Let's decide who did what" kind - not as the logical result of the events as presented.

The San Francisco "a la Blade Runner", however, is worth every frame - from the gutters to the impossibly tall skyscrapers.

Disappointed to hear the story is a bit "meh" - I really enjoyed the series of books the series is based on.

[RFalvo69]

RFalvo, I certainly agree that "Das Boot" was a better movie. And as I say I can accept a bit of artistic licence on reality to make a point.

I just found that "Fury" tended to bury whatever it had behind a ridiculously over the top ending. "Lone damaged US tank with psychologically damaged crew singlehandedly hold off battalion of die hard SS" - they did exactly the same ending in "Saving Private Ryan" (just without the tank). And in effect they ruined what could have been better movies by insisting on "superheroics".

According to Stephen Ambrose (as told in his book "Death Traps") in real life a lone soldier was able to pull the same stunt, repelling scores of Germans for a whole night. The name of the soldier, however, is not given in that book.

Disappointed to hear the story is a bit "meh" - I really enjoyed the series of books the series is based on.

The show only covers the first book. I haven't read it, so maybe is better. I also read that each book is self-contained and tells a different story, so I'm considering to buy the trilogy on Kindle.

Anyway, I wasn't bored at all by Netflix's adaptation: the world-building is beyond anything else out now. You never have the feeling that "OK, this is a set with a CGI background". Even the sheer number of places that the show "visits" is amazing. You really get the idea that you are in a living, breathing future - and, IMHO, the trip is worth the time (if you like cyberpunk). Also, the show reaches some fine highs. The problem is that I got the impression of the screenwriters meeting in a room and saying "Pals, we are at Episode 9... we MUST put together an ending!"

[UP844]

I have just bought "Fury" in DVD just to see a "live" Tiger, but in my opinion it is one of the worst war movies I ever saw.

Perhaps tracers looking like lightsabers or a tank spotting a camouflaged AT gun first and killing it with its first shot or the top view of the Tiger and the Sherman turning circles like they were in World of Tanks can only be noticed by die-hard ASL players (yes, I'm one). Perhaps.

But when Germans carrying lots of Panzerfausts (as they should this late in the war) forget them and start a banzai charge in the open against Brad Pitt (who will never be Lee Marvin [:D]) and his tank, my wife (who cannot tell a Tiger from a Panzer II) whispered "Why the Germans don't use their rocket launchers? They could easily run around the house and destroy the tank! Are they utter idiots?". [:D][:D][:D]

Not even in the old Hollywood movies from the '50s the German were so stupid.

What really made me angry (or better "furious") was the historical accuracy of vehicles and equipment was really good, wasted for such a bad movie!

[nicwb]

uote:


RFalvo, I certainly agree that "Das Boot" was a better movie. And as I say I can accept a bit of artistic licence on reality to make a point.

I just found that "Fury" tended to bury whatever it had behind a ridiculously over the top ending. "Lone damaged US tank with psychologically damaged crew singlehandedly hold off battalion of die hard SS" - they did exactly the same ending in "Saving Private Ryan" (just without the tank). And in effect they ruined what could have been better movies by insisting on "superheroics".


According to Stephen Ambrose (as told in his book "Death Traps") in real life a lone soldier was able to pull the same stunt, repelling scores of Germans for a whole night. The name of the soldier, however, is not given in that book.

I don't say it hasn't happened more to the effect that it was the exception rather than the rule. The only equivalent event I'm aware of was the action that got Audie Murphy his Congressional Medal of Honour. pretty much as I say exceptional.

But when Germans carrying lots of Panzerfausts (as they should this late in the war) forget them and start a banzai charge in the open against Brad Pitt (who will never be Lee Marvin ) and his tank, my wife (who cannot tell a Tiger from a Panzer II) whispered "Why the Germans don't use their rocket launchers? They could easily run around the house and destroy the tank! Are they utter idiots?".

Only in Hollywood movies [:D] ... plus the Germans were supposedly a trained SS battalion - I tried to put that down to just "artistic licence" [8|]

[Zecke]

The apprentize¡ of Toryyama working (sory for my INGLISH); fantastic serie Dragon; Fantastis...

[Zecke]

waps..

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: UP844

I have just bought "Fury" in DVD just to see a "live" Tiger, but in my opinion it is one of the worst war movies I ever saw.

Perhaps tracers looking like lightsabers or a tank spotting a camouflaged AT gun first and killing it with its first shot or the top view of the Tiger and the Sherman turning circles like they were in World of Tanks can only be noticed by die-hard ASL players (yes, I'm one). Perhaps.

But when Germans carrying lots of Panzerfausts (as they should this late in the war) forget them and start a banzai charge in the open against Brad Pitt (who will never be Lee Marvin [:D]) and his tank, my wife (who cannot tell a Tiger from a Panzer II) whispered "Why the Germans don't use their rocket launchers? They could easily run around the house and destroy the tank! Are they utter idiots?". [:D][:D][:D]

Not even in the old Hollywood movies from the '50s the German were so stupid.

What really made me angry (or better "furious") was the historical accuracy of vehicles and equipment was really good, wasted for such a bad movie!

No no nope. If you think Fury was bad, clearly-CLEARLY you have not seen: USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage. I couldn't even watch all of that one.

Re: Fury: I was 'meh' on it. Yeah, some of the special effects and tactical oversights bugged me, but they weren't movie-killing experiences. Kind of like Dunkirk I guess. Am I going to really get hung up about the seemingly infinite ammunition that Hardy's Spitfire had and how its flight trim out of fuel was totally unrealistic?

So with all the Experten ([8|]) that roll their eyes about this or that outcome of Fury, think about the big picture of the last scene:

Veteran tank crew of M4A3E8 Sherman lays ambush on a 'battalion' (probably just a reinforced company in reality) of troops in parade march on a sunken road. The Sherman lays astride the route of march and can fire all three MGs and the main gun into the troops as they march. The only possible egress for the troops in the road is a small farmhouse, which is easily fired.

German casualties are horrific. Eventually several waves of German troops overwhelm the tank's defenders and finish it off. Several German panzerfausts impact the tank, killing or injuring several crew. In the interim-before the Germans can meaningfully regroup-American reinforcements arrive to drive them back off of the crossroads.

That's about what I would have expected from a "10,000 foot" perspective.

[redcoat]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Just watched Darkest Hour. A very good film - albeit with some liberty taking with the facts as always.

The set was perfect, the script was very good and the cast was of the highest quality imaginable. If Gary Oldman doesn't win an Oscar then the whole thing is cobblers. The support cast were very much in his shadow but did their jobs admirably - Kristin Scott Thomas as his wife, Cinderella was his assistant and Stannis Baratheon played Halifax very well (best supporting actor nominee at least surely).

Excellent and recommended.

I see Gary Oldman got best actor at the Oscars for his Churchill in Darkest Hour. I haven’t seen the film yet, but I’ve seen a few trailers. I wonder if Oldman’s makeup artist got an Oscar too?

[Agathosdaimon]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: UP844

I have just bought "Fury" in DVD just to see a "live" Tiger, but in my opinion it is one of the worst war movies I ever saw.

Perhaps tracers looking like lightsabers or a tank spotting a camouflaged AT gun first and killing it with its first shot or the top view of the Tiger and the Sherman turning circles like they were in World of Tanks can only be noticed by die-hard ASL players (yes, I'm one). Perhaps.

But when Germans carrying lots of Panzerfausts (as they should this late in the war) forget them and start a banzai charge in the open against Brad Pitt (who will never be Lee Marvin [:D]) and his tank, my wife (who cannot tell a Tiger from a Panzer II) whispered "Why the Germans don't use their rocket launchers? They could easily run around the house and destroy the tank! Are they utter idiots?". [:D][:D][:D]

Not even in the old Hollywood movies from the '50s the German were so stupid.

What really made me angry (or better "furious") was the historical accuracy of vehicles and equipment was really good, wasted for such a bad movie!

No no nope. If you think Fury was bad, clearly-CLEARLY you have not seen: USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage. I couldn't even watch all of that one.

Re: Fury: I was 'meh' on it. Yeah, some of the special effects and tactical oversights bugged me, but they weren't movie-killing experiences. Kind of like Dunkirk I guess. Am I going to really get hung up about the seemingly infinite ammunition that Hardy's Spitfire had and how its flight trim out of fuel was totally unrealistic?

So with all the Experten ([8|]) that roll their eyes about this or that outcome of Fury, think about the big picture of the last scene:

Veteran tank crew of M4A3E8 Sherman lays ambush on a 'battalion' (probably just a reinforced company in reality) of troops in parade march on a sunken road. The Sherman lays astride the route of march and can fire all three MGs and the main gun into the troops as they march. The only possible egress for the troops in the road is a small farmhouse, which is easily fired.

German casualties are horrific. Eventually several waves of German troops overwhelm the tank's defenders and finish it off. Several German panzerfausts impact the tank, killing or injuring several crew. In the interim-before the Germans can meaningfully regroup-American reinforcements arrive to drive them back off of the crossroads.

That's about what I would have expected from a "10,000 foot" perspective.

the ending of Fury was just a bridge too far for my willing suspension of disbelief - if i recall the sherman was immobilised, and it was dark and there was smoke and fire all around it that would have made it hard to see germans clearly from certainly 50 plus meters, and impossible if they have some cover at all which there certainly was - it was as though it was just a computer game on a small map where teh germans were stopped by some invisible barrier or just taking a moderate berth even around the stuck tank to finish it off.

I dont mind unrealistic heroics in a war movie but i would have thought it would not have been that hard to contrive a scene where the tank crew had just a few more odds in their favor - like say how they set some traps in saving private ryan at the least.

did the germans have such a low sense of self-preservation that they would all just run at the front of the tank?




On anothe rnote, a series i am watching that i highly recommend is 'Babylon Berlin' on Netflix - a fantastic dark detective drama set in final years of the Weimar Republic - all the intrigues and the differing secretive political revolutionary factions against the cosmopolitan weimar culture, and all the while there is this subtle creep of anti-semitism and mentions of hitler, but no one is focussed on those at this time, rather it is all about stalinists, trotskyists, nationalists, conservatives, social democrats, pornography, sex, drugs, ww1 vets, clashes between police and communist groups and a blurring of ideological ambitions too. I think the actor playing Gereon Rath is top notch. i am interested now in reading the books its based on.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: redcoat

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Just watched Darkest Hour. A very good film - albeit with some liberty taking with the facts as always.

The set was perfect, the script was very good and the cast was of the highest quality imaginable. If Gary Oldman doesn't win an Oscar then the whole thing is cobblers. The support cast were very much in his shadow but did their jobs admirably - Kristin Scott Thomas as his wife, Cinderella was his assistant and Stannis Baratheon played Halifax very well (best supporting actor nominee at least surely).

Excellent and recommended.

I see Gary Oldman got best actor at the Oscars for his Churchill in Darkest Hour. I haven’t seen the film yet, but I’ve seen a few trailers. I wonder if Oldman’s makeup artist got an Oscar too?

warspite1

Of all the people to play Churchill, Oldman probably looks least like the man himself. However, let's be clear, while the make up artists did a very fine job, it was Oldman's performance that got him the Oscar. He was excellent and obviously put an awful lot into that performance [&o].

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Agathosdaimon

did the germans have such a low sense of self-preservation that they would all just run at the front of the tank?

Troops in parade march going towards a battle by definition don't have a sense of self-preservation. That unit, arrayed in that fashion, would have been taken out in toto by a well placed artillery barrage from a single battery of 105s.