I imagine it's because the Fox name is still owned by Murdoch's mob for their "news" outlets, and Disney prefer to be non-political, or less political anyway.Although I possesed the background awareness that Twentieth Century Fox and Fox News were connected (despite the former being very much older than the latter), I never really associated them with each other and my divergent feelings towards the two brands sat comfortably alongside each other.
Am I irregular in this?
Anyway, Disney is binning the Fox name for films (though retaining some of the imagery):
Sigh. Lawrence Fox is really Mr Angry these days.1917: The trenches are narrow but crowded, some soldiers on one side waiting to go over the top, some crouched on the other side, eating, smoking, crying, in shock, petting a terrier. When you're moving fast through a trench system tempers are short when you bump into troopers, they are likely bereaved of friends, seeing their mates lose limbs. Blake (Dean Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) are on a mission to inform two isolated battalions of the Devonshires to call off an attack due the next morning, the Devons will be advancing into a trap. The stakes are higher for Blake, his brother is in one of the battalions. The messengers cross no mans land, bodies caught on the barbed wire, rats gnawing on corpses, dodging snipers, booby-traps once they reach the abandoned German trenches. Watching an aerial dogfight. This is truly a journey into the heart of darkness for Blake and Schofield.
Wonderfully filmed by Roger Deakins in subdued colours with shades of brown, tan, green and khaki predominating as the soldiers progress through the mud and fields. Also some great scenes underground and in shelled out buildings lit by flares. The script is spare but gripping as not just MacKay and Chapman put in great performances; there are also great supporting turns by Mark Strong, Colin Firth , Nabhaan Rizwan and Benedict Cumberbatch. Director/Writer Sam Mendes delivers a film which will remain in your memory long after the final credits roll. 9/10.
Aren't they both too old for this shit now?Lethal Weapon 5 looks likely.
Main cast and director returning.
Hell, why not?
Gay bikers? Were they on acid?The Pink Angels (1972). Amazing early 70s drive-in movie about a gang of cross-dressing gay bikers, riding around, scaring the straights, ignoring beautiful women, bitching at each other, and generally baffling everyone they come in contact with. Plus the usual biker movie desert highways, groovy music, and diners full of suspicious locals. Funny, odd, unique little movie with an insane ending.
View attachment 22981
View attachment 22982
View attachment 22983
One of my mates used to hang around with them, they added the e to gay in truth (despite what they said to an interviewer) because they weren't gay. He made me a copy of a VHS tape they'd done which, as far as I know, has never been released of them mucking about around Coventry including a close up of Mary Mary the drummer doing a huge shit.Gaye Bikers on Acid were named as a tribute to Marvin Gaye. They were briefly on Network 7 in the 1980s and the reporter asked them why a tribute to Marvin, and got the reply "Because he's dead."
Anyway, The Pink Angels is a remarkable film, not least for the ending where...
They all end up slaughtered and hanging from trees.
Makes you wonder whose side the filmmakers were on. Werewolves on Wheels is a pretty wacky film too.
I saw this a while ago as part of Cineworld's secret screening. Was very watchable, but I'd agree with the 20 minute (possibly longer) cut. Some striking scenes, but there was far too many sweeping vistas of fields and scenery and landscapes. If they cut 90% of those, it would have left a nice, tight little story. I would recommend, but I'd also fast forward through some scenery!Queen & Slim
Director Melina Matsoukas delivers an interesting thriller but it might have benefited from a 20 minute cut in it's 132 minute running time. 7/10.
Virtually every film made during the last 20 years could do with losing 20 minutes – this is one of my rules of modern cinema. Even films that I've really liked would usually have been better for some deft use of the editor's razor blade, or its digital equivalent...I saw this a while ago as part of Cineworld's secret screening. Was very watchable, but I'd agree with the 20 minute (possibly longer) cut. Some striking scenes, but there was far too many sweeping vistas of fields and scenery and landscapes. If they cut 90% of those, it would have left a nice, tight little story. I would recommend, but I'd also fast forward through some scenery!
Believe Hunck. See it on a big screen before it goes away into DVD. Just saw it. Brilliant, and horrifying and sad. Technically amazing, but the special effects don't overwhelm because the acting is stellar. Just see it, if you can deal with sober content combined with very realistic props.1917
Superb - go & see it. Worth seeing on a big screen - the cinematography is stunning.