NOW WATCHING

Watching Maiden England '88.

Much better than I expected. At least in the recording aspect... As for the performance, it's hard to fault the band as a whole. They sound spectacularly good. Compared to the present, they may get through the songs seemingly more effortlessly here, especially in Nicko's case, but I'd take present day's Bruce over his 1988 self any day of the week. It hurts watching someone possessing an incredible singing ability not being able to rein it in and give a consistently good performance. Maybe the writing is to fault by being too demanding - few Maiden compositions has been played safe, to the point of where you can't be sure if it's true genius or just an inability to judge limits (I'm always leaning towards the latter in the light of the Blaze Bayley era). Sometimes I think it's giving it the edge and energy that's set Maiden apart - it certainly can't be accused for being dull, but I just wish it could have been balanced better.

Interesting to see the band back in the day, but I'd rather watch En Vivo! for the best quality of the recording and performance.
 
Much better than I expected. At least in the recording aspect... As for the performance, it's hard to fault the band as a whole. They sound spectacularly good. Compared to the present, they may get through the songs seemingly more effortlessly here, especially in Nicko's case, but I'd take present day's Bruce over his 1988 self any day of the week. It hurts watching someone possessing an incredible singing ability not being able to rein it in and give a consistently good performance. Maybe the writing is to fault by being too demanding - few Maiden compositions has been played safe, to the point of where you can't be sure if it's true genius or just an inability to judge limits (I'm always leaning towards the latter in the light of the Blaze Bayley era). Sometimes I think it's giving it the edge and energy that's set Maiden apart - it certainly can't be accused for being dull, but I just wish it could have been balanced better.

I know the band was on fire back in the day, but Bruce sounds far better now than he did on those old live albums. His performance on some of Maiden England is quite scattered and truly a mess. He did kill it on Hammersmith, though.
 
Sony has officially announced that The Interview will be available online starting today, Christmas Eve on Google Play, YouTube Movies, Microsoft’s Xbox Video, and www.seetheinterview.com. The film will be available at 1 p.m. eastern for $5.99 rental or $14.99 purchase.

:nana:

I'm gonna wait for the $0.00 version though, since I can't buy stuff from any of these services ::)
 
Watched The Ghost Writer (2010).

Excellent thriller starring Ewan McGregor as the film's titular ghost writer who's brought in to finish the memoirs of a former British prime-minister after his predecessor has died in an accident. Few films manage to create tension and atmosphere like this one, and the conclusion is nothing short of brilliant.
 
Sony has officially announced that The Interview will be available online starting today, Christmas Eve on Google Play, YouTube Movies, Microsoft’s Xbox Video, and www.seetheinterview.com. The film will be available at 1 p.m. eastern for $5.99 rental or $14.99 purchase.

:nana:

I'm gonna wait for the $0.00 version though, since I can't buy stuff from any of these services ::)
Good idea. I rented it for 5.99 on youtube., and it sucked. It wasn't even that funny.
 
Horns... cool movie. Some great visuals and Daniel Radcliffe's best role by far. His American accent is quite good imo.

Carrie (remake)... meh. Needs more blood.
 
Watching Band of Brothers on TV. Part 7 and 8 tonight.

For some reason, every time it's been shown I have started to watch it in the middle, so I've seen Part 5-10 probably 6 or 7 times whereas I can't remember ever watching the first parts... Nothing different this time, sadly.
 
The Interview - way overhyped, but exactly what I expected from Rogen/Goldberg. Fun comedy with some hilarious moments.

Got hooked on that Katy Perry song :oops:
 
New year's day in Sweden means I'll be watching Ivanhoe, the TV-movie from 1982 starring Anthony Andrews and Sam Neill, among others. It's a national tradition to watch this film on TV while battling hangover, together with ordering pizza. (If it's not on TV on January 1st, an uprising of hungover Swede's is imminent.) It's hard to say why this tradition started, but it's embedded in our DNA by now.
 
The Interview - way overhyped, but exactly what I expected from Rogen/Goldberg. Fun comedy with some hilarious moments.

Got hooked on that Katy Perry song :oops:
Saw it two days ago. I thought it was pretty funny. Terribly over the top, excessively silly, but still fun, as long as you don't expect too much from it.
 
Foyle's War (S05E01) "Plan of Attack" (2008)

Foyle's War differ from other crime dramas by its historical WWII-setting, and it is an excellent series well worth watching. This particular episode is by far the best I've seen during the show's now 13 year tenure, and I was glad to find it on TV tonight.

16 Blocks (2006)

Bruce Willis stars as an alcoholic cop who is assigned to escorting an important witness to court. Very underrated film.
 
Last edited:
Braveheart (1995)

Is "Braveheart" the most misunderstood attributed title in cinema history? Probably. The attribute "Braveheart" has always, both historically and in the film, referred to Robert the Bruce. He is the central character of the story, not William Wallace (Mel Gibson). Robert the Bruce is the one who has an ongoing inner struggle, and he is the one who changes in the end. Wallace dies, Robert makes his decision to fight for freedom and wins. The end.

I think it is fantastic film in its own right, but for me the most interesting thing about it is this fact. I like how the narrative is built around it, and how well it works out when we see Robert the Bruce raise his sword to fight at the end. You have bleed with Wallace. Now bleed with me.
 
It is a pretty good movie. The history in it is atrocious and wrong.

Agreed, but I don't watch films for history lessons. I'm fine with speculation, slight changes or just flat out fictionalization of real events. As an example, U-571 (2000) may come off as a film that wrongly give Americans the credit for things did by other Allied forces, but how hard is it to actually look that up afterwards if you're interested? What does it take from the enjoyment of the film? In my opinion, nothing at all. I want to watch a good film, 'based on real events' or not. That statement is highly questionable, either way.

Watched The Expandables 3. After the first 40 minutes I wanted to call it one of the worst films I've ever watched. I couldn't believe how bad it was - so bad it was fun to watch just for that. Then Mel Gibson was allowed to do some actual acting as the film's villain, and it got a bit better. There were some actual tension introduced, and the extended action sequence at the climax was a good as any over-the-top film could wish for. When I notice the editing is bad, it's bad - and there was lots of the those moments, the special effects was atrocious at times and the acting was mostly laughable. All I wished for was to watch these old action heroes deliver some one-liners and blow something up. I got the action scenes, but the first 40 minutes were completely wasted and the focus was very strange for a film that relies on an ensemble of legendary action-stars as its main appeal. How hard could it be? If you want Stallone and Schwarzenegger owning the place, watch Escape Plan (2013) instead. I still enjoyed watching this in the end, but it could have been so much better - the cast was completely wasted.

Also been watching the Mission Impossible-films this week. I enjoy all of them, but MI3 is on my top 5 list of action films. It's a simple and focused ride, devoid of any unnecessary sub-plots, and it just does everything right.
 
Back
Top