• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

SMB Film Thread 2025

Status
Not open for further replies.
Uncut Gems (2019) 7/10
I've had this for years, made a couple of attempts to get into it, but wasn't in the mood. Can see why now. Perhaps the shoutiest most anxiety-inducing film ever. At least it's now ticked off the list.
You must be logged on to see media items

Hackers (1995) 6/10
Shame about the screenplay, because in many ways this film was ahead of its time, with a cyberpunk, gender-bending aesthetic, and special effects that stand up remarkably well thirty years on. But the story is a complete mess.
You must be logged on to see media items

Magnolia (1999) 9/10
Not watched it for 20 years. Love a good multi-stranded story, and this is one of the best.
You must be logged on to see media items
Recently watched uncut gems again and completely agree with your take, same with magnolia, it’s an all time great for me and my favourite by him, though punch drunk love runs it close.
 

I had my doubts about this, but now it seems such an obvious subject for satire: old bands making a comeback in their dotage.

You must be logged on to see media items
 
Mr Burton (2025) - 6.5/10 - Tells the story of Richard Burton's early life and how he developed into the actor we all knew via his mentor Philip Burton, from whom he took his surname. Toby Jones is excellent as Philip Burton and Harry Lawtey excels showing the change from shy Richard Jenkins to the brash Richard Burton.
 
Playback (1962)

Barry Foster (from Van Der Valk) is a copper who helps a woman break into her own house. He ends up obsessed with her and agrees to kill her husband.

Curious number, this one. Foster is very watchable, and there’s the ever-reliable Nigel Green (Hercules in Jason and the Argonauts) as a casino boss putting the squeeze on him. Elements of the film are noir-esque in terms of character development.

Yet, it falls down in so many areas. At the start there’s an implied distraction to a robbery which doesn’t seem mentioned again. The transition of Foster from standard beat Bobby with CID aspirations to murderer is far too rapid and unlikely. The denouement doesn’t make much sense because any defence lawyer would pick holes in various stories.

Entertaining, though. Absurd, yet entertaining. As usual with these EWM, you know precisely what you’re getting, and they’re uniformly decent for what they are.

5/10
 
Playback (1962)

Barry Foster (from Van Der Valk) is a copper who helps a woman break into her own house. He ends up obsessed with her and agrees to kill her husband.

Curious number, this one. Foster is very watchable, and there’s the ever-reliable Nigel Green (Hercules in Jason and the Argonauts) as a casino boss putting the squeeze on him. Elements of the film are noir-esque in terms of character development.

Yet, it falls down in so many areas. At the start there’s an implied distraction to a robbery which doesn’t seem mentioned again. The transition of Foster from standard beat Bobby with CID aspirations to murderer is far too rapid and unlikely. The denouement doesn’t make much sense because any defence lawyer would pick holes in various stories.

Entertaining, though. Absurd, yet entertaining. As usual with these EWM, you know precisely what you’re getting, and they’re uniformly decent for what they are.

5/10
I watched this last year and also gave it 5/10.
 
I watched this last year and also gave it 5/10.

Ha! It’s a strange one to assess, because in terms of how much I liked it, I’d give it a slightly higher mark. But the drawbacks plant it firmly in the ‘average’ bracket. Certainly one of the lesser Edgar Wallace films for me. There’s something about these cheap 50s and 60s B movies that makes them more than the sum of their parts.
 
Just been to Fantastic Four with my 5 year old lad.

He sat through the whole thing without issue unlike Captain America where he twisted a few times. So that alone was good for me.

Certainly is one of the better recent marvel movies too, probably the best of the Fantastic Four Movies too.
 
China O’Brien (1990)

Cynthia Rothrock hands in her badge and retreats to her hometown. She meets her childhood friend Richard Norton and a mysterious drifter (Keith Cooke). Her father, the sheriff, is battling a local villain and his gaggle of thugs.

How the hell do I rate this? Straight to video, late 80s-style pure cheese. By most filmmaking barometers, it’s naff shite. The acting is cliched (a mix of acceptable and dire), the story utterly predictable, and the direction serviceable at best in the drama moments. There’s hilarious slo-mo tragic shots and a total lack of an emotional handle to grasp, such is the crassness of the script.

On the flipside, it’s got a visceral quality that is hugely entertaining. In places, it’s for the wrong reasons, but there’s a lot to like. Rothrock is great, and Norton and Cooke provide decent support. The innate desire to see bad guys get their comeuppance, through the good guys buddying up, is definitely activated by this film. It’s also quite amusing how the heroes never feel in genuine danger - they own every fight from the get-go. At no point do the bad guys feel like they can take them in a fight. In terms of choreography, there’s some good work here. You can see Robert Clouse’s background - his direction is strongest when he’s doing the action stuff.

As a film this is about 4/10, but in terms of how much I enjoyed it, it’s about a 7/10. The type of film that’s a guilty pleasure.
 
China O’Brien (1990)

Cynthia Rothrock hands in her badge and retreats to her hometown. She meets her childhood friend Richard Norton and a mysterious drifter (Keith Cooke). Her father, the sheriff, is battling a local villain and his gaggle of thugs.

How the hell do I rate this? Straight to video, late 80s-style pure cheese. By most filmmaking barometers, it’s naff shite. The acting is cliched (a mix of acceptable and dire), the story utterly predictable, and the direction serviceable at best in the drama moments. There’s hilarious slo-mo tragic shots and a total lack of an emotional handle to grasp, such is the crassness of the script.

On the flipside, it’s got a visceral quality that is hugely entertaining. In places, it’s for the wrong reasons, but there’s a lot to like. Rothrock is great, and Norton and Cooke provide decent support. The innate desire to see bad guys get their comeuppance, through the good guys buddying up, is definitely activated by this film. It’s also quite amusing how the heroes never feel in genuine danger - they own every fight from the get-go. At no point do the bad guys feel like they can take them in a fight. In terms of choreography, there’s some good work here. You can see Robert Clouse’s background - his direction is strongest when he’s doing the action stuff.

As a film this is about 4/10, but in terms of how much I enjoyed it, it’s about a 7/10. The type of film that’s a guilty pleasure.
I always love the bits where "Cynthia" is clearly a little blowke in an awful wig.
 
Just been to Fantastic Four with my 5 year old lad.

He sat through the whole thing without issue unlike Captain America where he twisted a few times. So that alone was good for me.

Certainly is one of the better recent marvel movies too, probably the best of the Fantastic Four Movies too.
Was refreshing to have a relatively simple story without needing a load of homework doing beforehand.

IMO they’ve nailed the casting and the characters really are the star of the film.
 
Was refreshing to have a relatively simple story without needing a load of homework doing beforehand.

IMO they’ve nailed the casting and the characters really are the star of the film.
Yeah it is nice, if you just wanted a stand alone super hero movie, it works completely as that, aside from them using the universe number right at the start, it requires no other marvel movies to be understood.
 
Women in Love (1969) 7/10
DH Lawrence adaptation with typically OTT directorial flourishes from Ken Russell.
You must be logged on to see media items

Make Way For Tomorrow (1937) 10/10
The inspiration for Tokyo Story, 'the greatest movie ever'. This is more than a match for it. An old couple have their house repossessed and are farmed out to live with their children. Beautifully done.
You must be logged on to see media items

A Hard Day's Night (1964) 10/10
The film that helped invent a particularly anarchic brand of British filmmaking. The Sixties would have looked very different without it.
You must be logged on to see media items
 
Bully (2001)

Based off a true story. Two childhood best friends have a weird homoerotic relationship where one best friend is bullied and so is the wider friendship group. Until the friendship group plot to kill him.

A lot of unnecessary sex scenes but perfected the atmosphere of kids being stupid and f***ing up there lives.

7.5/10
 
Osiris
Absolutely shite.
China O’Brien (1990)

Cynthia Rothrock hands in her badge and retreats to her hometown. She meets her childhood friend Richard Norton and a mysterious drifter (Keith Cooke). Her father, the sheriff, is battling a local villain and his gaggle of thugs.

How the hell do I rate this? Straight to video, late 80s-style pure cheese. By most filmmaking barometers, it’s naff shite. The acting is cliched (a mix of acceptable and dire), the story utterly predictable, and the direction serviceable at best in the drama moments. There’s hilarious slo-mo tragic shots and a total lack of an emotional handle to grasp, such is the crassness of the script.

On the flipside, it’s got a visceral quality that is hugely entertaining. In places, it’s for the wrong reasons, but there’s a lot to like. Rothrock is great, and Norton and Cooke provide decent support. The innate desire to see bad guys get their comeuppance, through the good guys buddying up, is definitely activated by this film. It’s also quite amusing how the heroes never feel in genuine danger - they own every fight from the get-go. At no point do the bad guys feel like they can take them in a fight. In terms of choreography, there’s some good work here. You can see Robert Clouse’s background - his direction is strongest when he’s doing the action stuff.

As a film this is about 4/10, but in terms of how much I enjoyed it, it’s about a 7/10. The type of film that’s a guilty pleasure.
The 2nd has the best villain in history imo. He’s just a shit bloke with a beard 🤣
 
Last edited:
The Fantastic Four (1994) - Before going to see the latest version I thought I would catch up on the earlier versions. I'd intended on starting with revisiting the 2005 film but I recently discovered a digitally restored version of the infamous never released 1994 Roger Corman's The Fantastic Four was on YouTube, so I thought I would give it a watch. I have to be honest (without seeing the new one) this is probably the closest adaptation of the comic material. Unfortunately you can clearly see they were limited with the near non-existent budget restrictions placed on them, Even though they tried their best, the acting is quite woeful (which is understandable since the cast weren't allowed to rehearse any scenes before shooting them!).

However, what I find absolutely shocking is that the cast had no idea the studio had no intention of releasing the movie and only made it so they wouldn’t lose the rights.

You must be logged on to see media items
 
Osiris
Absolutely shite.

The 2nd has the best villain in history imo. He’s just a shit bloke with a beard 🤣


I’ve got that lined up next!

In the meantime…

Angels With Dirty Faces (1938)

James Cagney and his mate lead a life of petty crime in a slum. Cagney goes down but keeps Pat O’Brien’s name out of it. Cagney falls deeper into a life of crime, getting involved in shadiness with a corrupt lawyer (Humphrey Bogart), while O’Brien turns to the church, and tries to spread good works in the community, including keeping the local scallies on the straight and narrow. Cagney later demands the hundred grand that he got sent down for, while taking an interest in the street kids who he sees echoes of himself in.

Remarkable and absorbing social crime drama, which has a very powerful ending. It contains a streak of ambiguity that I really enjoy. Was Cagney a good person? A bad person? A naive person? A cocktail of all three? It’s a film that raises questions about various things: nature vs nurture; the poverty trap; the ethics of using ill gotten gains to fund something life changingly positive for the community; the hero worship of gangsters; and true courage.

Cagney’s performance is a powerful one. Again, he dominates every scene, including those with Bogart, who nevertheless puts in fine work. As the film descends into its chaotic climax, after Cagney is double crossed, there’s a sense of doom that doesn’t let up, and credit to the film for seeing it through. His character is one of great strength in many aspects, and he knows what the right thing to do is, he’s just too deep in the cave of crime and corruption to break free. In some respects it’s a study of hopelessness, and how, in order to get off the path to destruction, you have to make the jump early. Which explains the ending to a degree.

Top class cinematography throughout, which solid camerawork, it’s also a technical winner. Those streets are bustling with life and squalor, and really get a sense of the start in life that these people had.

9/10
 
I’ve got that lined up next!

In the meantime…

Angels With Dirty Faces (1938)

James Cagney and his mate lead a life of petty crime in a slum. Cagney goes down but keeps Pat O’Brien’s name out of it. Cagney falls deeper into a life of crime, getting involved in shadiness with a corrupt lawyer (Humphrey Bogart), while O’Brien turns to the church, and tries to spread good works in the community, including keeping the local scallies on the straight and narrow. Cagney later demands the hundred grand that he got sent down for, while taking an interest in the street kids who he sees echoes of himself in.

Remarkable and absorbing social crime drama, which has a very powerful ending. It contains a streak of ambiguity that I really enjoy. Was Cagney a good person? A bad person? A naive person? A cocktail of all three? It’s a film that raises questions about various things: nature vs nurture; the poverty trap; the ethics of using ill gotten gains to fund something life changingly positive for the community; the hero worship of gangsters; and true courage.

Cagney’s performance is a powerful one. Again, he dominates every scene, including those with Bogart, who nevertheless puts in fine work. As the film descends into its chaotic climax, after Cagney is double crossed, there’s a sense of doom that doesn’t let up, and credit to the film for seeing it through. His character is one of great strength in many aspects, and he knows what the right thing to do is, he’s just too deep in the cave of crime and corruption to break free. In some respects it’s a study of hopelessness, and how, in order to get off the path to destruction, you have to make the jump early. Which explains the ending to a degree.

Top class cinematography throughout, which solid camerawork, it’s also a technical winner. Those streets are bustling with life and squalor, and really get a sense of the start in life that these people had.

9/10
If you’re watching her films on Prime, I actually really enjoyed Undefeatable. It’s a serial killer flick but it feels like two entirely different films splice together in the middle 🤣 great fun and mad
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top