The Last Film watched (CONTAINS A LOT OF SPOILERS)

First topic message reminder :

superflyweight wrote:

Scott is Back wrote:"Thor - Ragnarok"

Tino memorial rating : 7.5874 - Not seen any of the previous Thor's, but this one looked all new and shiny, so thought i would give it a whirl.

GSoE: 8.6

HH Scale of Accurate Titling: 8/10 – Thor Ragnarok - Well the main man is ol' Thor, God of Thunder & all that jazz....so thats a good start. Ragnarok as a word features quite heavily, still no overly sure what it was, but it was mentioned a lot.

Michaels scale of tits OR war: Tits - one topless scene where God of Pecs shows off his rippling torso, and the Hulk gets his dimply arse-cheeks out. Not sure if i would class it as a war, but some fisty-cuffs ensued, and there was a winner, so i suppose it could be a war.... who knows, certainly not me!

Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 5/10 - The wife was sent to sainsburys for some steak, and returned with the film, so it didnt cost me anything, but the Scott household took a hit of £9.99.

TattieSconesRRN-Q: "Piss off Ghost" - Said in a South African/Australian Accent, i couldnt tell which (is this racist?)

If Barry Norman had done his reviews like this he wouldn't be dead now.  

Was he murdered due to his substandard movie reviewing technique?

I have a long defunct lifeguarding qualification if that helps?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

rIck_dAgless wrote:

mountain man wrote:

rIck_dAgless wrote:Yes it is, though if you need full clarification on forum rules, I would probably ask a mod, I'm not qualified.

Why do I need clarification on forum rules? Could you explain that please.

No, I'm not qualified.

I think Julius is qualified. He's got a GCSE and a first aid certificate, which is more than any of us have got.

I don't have a first aid certificate but I do have a stolen blue badge for my car.

Ableist.

The Beekeeper

Tino memorial rating : 7/10

GSoE: 7.945934i5/10 - Typical Statham fare, which to be honest, when I am in the mood for it I bloody love. Mindless and nonsensical with a good deal of stereotypical bell ends getting their comeuppance with extreme violence and a really bad American accent. I was genuinely surprised how often bees were actually mentioned.

HH scale of accurate titling: 9/10 – It is definitely about a Beekeeper but most of the time not in the traditional sense

Michaels Scale of t*ts OR war: 7/10 – No t*ts and no 'war' in the traditional sense, but a sh*t load of violence and some it quite brutal so it gets a decent score for that. (unedited from Tino's review that I copied to get the section titles)

Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 10/10 was on Sky and the missus pays for that

TSRRN-Q: - "I'm a beekeeper, I look after the hive"

Tilda Swinton Manner of Death: she isn't in it. If she had been, I would imagine that she would've had her face smashed into a table and the set on fire

LiW Is it a Film?: Yes.

Does it contain a massive c*nt?: Loads, and they predictably get f**ked up in a satisfying way.

Wonderful stuff, RICk. Particularly like the t*ts OR war section.

The Outfit

Tino memorial rating : 8/10 Extra Tino marks because it includes excessive tailoring

GSoE: 6.5/10 - Mark Rylance acts his immaculately tailored socks off as an English cutter (not tailor) in 50's Chicago, opposite a small cast including Simon Russel Beale as a fat mob boss. Fun but gets a bit silly in the last act to be honest.

HH scale of accurate titling: 10/10 – It is about 'the outfit' and the main character makes outfits

Michaels Scale of t*ts OR war: 7/10 – No t*ts. Plenty war even if most of it is out of shot.

Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 7/10 Netflix

TSRRN-Q: - "I'm not a tailor I am a cutter"

Tilda Swinton Manner of Death: n/a

LiW Is it a Film?: Technically, but it feels much more like a play

Does it contain a massive c*nt?: I guess most of the characters are one way or another

I preferred my review of this from a couple of weeks ago tbf.

rIck_dAgless wrote:I preferred my review of this from a couple of weeks ago tbf.

Yeah that relies on the later reviewer bothering to check back or remember. Glad to see we agree on some of the points. The fact that a former boss of mine looked and sounded just like the main character in this film also distracted me. He isn't a cutter though.

Joking aside, you had the better review, I think that is called evolution.

Good film though, and yep seems like we had similar views.

lostinwales wrote:

rIck_dAgless wrote:I preferred my review of this from a couple of weeks ago tbf.

Yeah that relies on the later reviewer bothering to check back or remember. Glad to see we agree on some of the points. The fact that a former boss of mine looked and sounded just like the main character in this film also distracted me. He isn't  a cutter though.

Spare us the cutter.

The Northman

Tino memorial rating : 8/10 It's a good film if not a great one. Different.

GSoE: 8/10 - If you think the main Character's name sounds a bit like 'Hamlet' you'd be right. Anyway kid with dead father and some mother issues goes down South where he goes through some kind of Sardaukar ritual and runs around in wolf skins killing people. He then meets Bjork who tells him to go back to Skyrim to meet the family.

All the dialogue is delivered in the same flat tone used by Uhtred in 'The Last Kingdom'.  It is a very trippy kind of film.

HH scale of accurate titling: 10/10 – He's a man and he's from the North. (Not just any North either It's further North than Runcorn and only slightly less violent.)

Michaels Scale of t*ts OR war: 8/10 – No t*ts but a fair amount of skin. No shortage whatsoever of war.

Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 7/10 Prime. With adverts, the f*kers

TSRRN-Q: - " I will avenge you, Father! I will save you, Mother! I will kill you, Fjölnir!"

Tilda Swinton Manner of Death: No TS although she probably would have made a good Valkyrie

LiW Is it a Film?: Oh yes definitely

Does it contain a massive c*nt?: Yes. Interesting question of who is the worst.

My review of the Northman from 2022:

"Whatever you do, do NOT watch The Northman.

Utter pants. Long, boring, faux mystical pap. I struggled through to obvious conclusion and that is 2hours plus I'll never get back. Avoid at all costs."

So, yeah some here no doubt will love it.

mountain man wrote:My review of the Northman from 2022:

"Whatever you do, do NOT watch The Northman.

Utter pants. Long, boring, faux mystical pap. I struggled through to obvious conclusion and that is 2hours plus I'll never get back. Avoid at all costs."

So, yeah some here no doubt will love it.

Does Tilda Swinton die in this film?

mountain man wrote:My review of the Northman from 2022:

"Whatever you do, do NOT watch The Northman.

Utter pants. Long, boring, faux mystical pap. I struggled through to obvious conclusion and that is 2hours plus I'll never get back. Avoid at all costs."

So, yeah some here no doubt will love it.

Any c*nts in it? (preferably massive ones)

mountain man wrote:My review of the Northman from 2022:

"Whatever you do, do NOT watch The Northman.

Utter pants. Long, boring, faux mystical pap. I struggled through to obvious conclusion and that is 2hours plus I'll never get back. Avoid at all costs."

So, yeah some here no doubt will love it.

Any t*ts or war in it?

mountain man wrote:My review of the Northman from 2022:

"Whatever you do, do NOT watch The Northman.

Utter pants. Long, boring, faux mystical pap. I struggled through to obvious conclusion and that is 2hours plus I'll never get back. Avoid at all costs."

So, yeah some here no doubt will love it.

Is it a film?

It is and a very bad one. In my opinion.

Others may vary.

mountain man wrote:My review of the Northman from 2022:

"Whatever you do, do NOT watch The Northman.

Utter pants. Long, boring, faux mystical pap. I struggled through to obvious conclusion and that is 2hours plus I'll never get back. Avoid at all costs."

So, yeah some here no doubt will love it.

I don't think it's a film I need to see again but think it is good such films are made, and it did have some very impressive moments,  especially the berserkers storming the town in one continuous shot.
It also didn't have superheros, cops and robbers, and dumb humour. It wasn't a star vehicle and the love interest was handled really well. As for knowing what was going to happen, well yes fate was a pretty strong theme right from the start.

Its ok to like or not like films for whatever reason you like. I mean Tilda Swinton doesn't even get killed in this one,  but watching or avoiding is ultimately up to the individu

Just saw Dune 2. Going to have to think carefully about the review. TLDR in all honesty it isn't that good. It feels very rushed despite the 2 3/4 hr length and it's all very one toned,

But the set pieces are just so spectacular. It might be 40 years since I read the book, and certain things stick in your head. To actually see them on the screen so many years later felt special.

lostinwales wrote:Just saw Dune 2. Going to have to think carefully about the review. TLDR in all honesty it isn't that good. It feels very rushed despite the 2 3/4 hr length and it's all very one toned,

But the set pieces are just so spectacular. It might be 40 years since I read the book, and certain things stick in your head. To actually see them on the screen so many years later felt special.

I thought the same about LOTR, visually spectacular but enjoyed each subsequent viewing less and now find them unwatchably cringeworthy.

Galted wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Just saw Dune 2. Going to have to think carefully about the review. TLDR in all honesty it isn't that good. It feels very rushed despite the 2 3/4 hr length and it's all very one toned,

But the set pieces are just so spectacular. It might be 40 years since I read the book, and certain things stick in your head. To actually see them on the screen so many years later felt special.

I thought the same about LOTR, visually spectacular but enjoyed each subsequent viewing less and now find them unwatchably cringeworthy.

I was fine until they released the abomination trilogy.  Not been able to watch them since.

A dwarf without a beard is like Judge Dread taking his helmet off

Here goes

Dune2

AIIEEYAAAAHAAAA

Tino memorial rating : 7/10 The set pieces are remarkable. Honestly - one of the first scenes has these guys in the desert in black armour fly up a cliff for 'reasons'. It is just beautiful. The problem is that if you haven't read the books and try and watch it on a small screen you'll just think WTF is going on and why are those guys hiding in the sand AGAIN and switch over to something else

GSoE: 6/10 - Boy whose family are killed by a bunch of bald guys takes drugs and becomes the messiah. We've all been there. Also big worms, spaceships and lots of stabby stabby. Never been there but sounds a bit llke Runcorn tbh

HH scale of accurate titling: 9/10 –  There are at least 2 dunes, It's also a sequal to a film cunningly named Dune.

Michaels Scale of t*ts OR war: 8/10 – No t*ts, Lots and lots of stabby stabby, guns, worms, lasers, rocket launchers etc

Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 3/10 Cinema, with sons, and the b*stards didn't let me buy the vouchers that would have saved 15 quid. On the bright side we were running late so didn't have to buy the slushy.

TSRRN-Q: - " Lisan al-Gaib, show us the way!"

Tilda Swinton Manner of Death: N/a

LiW Is it a Film?: Yes. A TV series might be the only hope of actually explaining what is going on, but on TV you'd lose the spectacle.

Does it contain a massive c*nt?: Yes. Several

AIIEEYAAAAHAAAA

Only another 2 or 3 years and there will be another one.

Lindsay Ellis, a YouTuber, did an interesting breakdown of how the Hobbit trilogy s**t the bed so epically. The first part just breaks down what's w**k about the films. The second part goes into how they f***ed it. John Callen, who played Oin, features in it and has an interesting perspective as a veteran actor who watched a car crash unfold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElPJr_tKkO4&ab_channel=LindsayEllis

The third part goes into the battle between Actors Equity and Warner, the eventual negative after effects that the trilogy caused down the line due to changes in labour laws. A sad state of affairs.

The sheer difference in those two productions is remarkable. The behind the scenes from LOTR, regardless what you may think of the films, show an incredibly happy cast and crew. The core cast were famously close of course, but the stories from the wider crew are also terrific. Costume designers posing proudly with racks of armour weeks out from filming. Viggo Mortensen outbidding an exec for the horse an Rohirrim extra rode, so he could give it to that extra. There was just so much preproduction and prep for LOTR. Then the Hobbit was a rushed disaster of overworked, exhausted looking crew and Ian McKellen famously having a breakdown on set from working alone surrounded by greenscreen.

I still adore the original LOTR trilogy though. They came out at a formative time, were a huge part of me coming to love cinema. As much as anything I find it incredible that a high fantasy adaption of that scale was greenlit at that time. The practical effects involved are stunning and stack up so well 2 decades on.

I managed to watch the first two Hobbit films, only just, I switched off the third. All of them are simply awful. The magic that made the original LOTR trilogy just wasn't there. And the Ring of Power, when all things are considered, is quite possibly the biggest 'dumpster fire' ever to hit screens.

mikey_dragon wrote:I managed to watch the first two Hobbit films, only just, I switched off the third. All of them are simply awful. The magic that made the original LOTR trilogy just wasn't there. And the Ring of Power, when all things are considered, is quite possibly the biggest 'dumpster fire' ever to hit screens.

I think I managed to last to the end of the third Hobbit film but don't remember much of any of them apart from the annoying dwarf song in the first. Might have made sense making a trilogy out of it from a financial viewpoint but from an artistic one it was a ridiculous decision, The Hobbit is a children's book ideal for a one-off movie and possibly a spin-off TV series for anyone who wants to get their snout in the trough, whereas the LOTR story is epic could probably have stretched to 4 or 5 films with a decent director.

king_carlos wrote:
I still adore the original LOTR trilogy though. They came out at a formative time, were a huge part of me coming to love cinema. As much as anything I find it incredible that a high fantasy adaption of that scale was greenlit at that time. The practical effects involved are stunning and stack up so well 2 decades on.

I know what you mean about a formative time regarding cinema, for a number of years I thought the original Superman was as good as a film could be.
Going back to LOTR, I watched each of them twice at the cinema and for some years after would enjoy a drunken viewing of them at Christmas but Peter Jackson is, in my opinion, a f*cking useless director with no understanding of the material he used (see him and Spielberg’s butchering of Tintin for further evidence of that).
There were some great scenes: the Battle of Helm’s Deep, Legolas taking out the olifant outside Minish Tirith, the wraith in the first movie (though that scene was probably nicked from the animated LOTR) and the mouth of Sauron spring to mind.
If I’d not seen them as often as I have I’d probably remember them as great films but there was just too much rubbish in them for the battles and the settings to carry the films:
the dwarf tossing joke
the camp orcs (they may as well have hired Graham Norton and Allen Carr to play them), although the Uruk-Hai were fairly well done I never got the impression of the evil, bloodthirsty army the fellowship were facing
the dreadful Legolas lines (I thought for a long while that Orlando Bloom was an horrendous actor but I can’t imagine anyone who could’ve carried off his lines convincingly, they should’ve been spoken in Elvish with subtitles)
any shot of a smouldering, gurning Aragorn
the overuse of slow-motion
the invasive background music
Boromir’s comedy death by a thousand arrows gloriously captured in ultra-ultra-slow-motion
“some of those trees were my friends”
Legolas surfing down the steps on a shield
I’m sure I’d remember a lot more if I watched it again. It is surprising that the whole project was given the go-ahead as a trilogy when the the first two films weren't self-contained productions and offered no resolution to the plot, I just wish that the likes of Guillermo del Toro or Alfonso Cuaron had directed them.

lostinwales wrote:

GSoE: 6/10 - Boy whose family are killed by a bunch of bald guys takes drugs and becomes the messiah. We've all been there. Also big worms, spaceships and lots of stabby stabby. Never been there but sounds a bit llke Runcorn tbh

Mate, the Freman wouldn't last 5 f*cking minutes in Murdishaw or Windmill Hill.

It would seem like Frodsham compared to Runcorn.

Galted wrote:

king_carlos wrote:
I still adore the original LOTR trilogy though. They came out at a formative time, were a huge part of me coming to love cinema. As much as anything I find it incredible that a high fantasy adaption of that scale was greenlit at that time. The practical effects involved are stunning and stack up so well 2 decades on.

I know what you mean about a formative time regarding cinema, for a number of years I thought the original Superman was as good as a film could be.
Going back to LOTR, I watched each of them twice at the cinema and for some years after would enjoy a drunken viewing of them at Christmas but Peter Jackson is, in my opinion, a f*cking useless director with no understanding of the material he used (see him and Spielberg’s butchering of Tintin for further evidence of that).
There were some great scenes: the Battle of Helm’s Deep, Legolas taking out the olifant outside Minish Tirith, the wraith in the first movie (though that scene was probably nicked from the animated LOTR) and the mouth of Sauron spring to mind.
If I’d not seen them as often as I have I’d probably remember them as great films but there was just too much rubbish in them for the battles and the settings to carry the films:
the dwarf tossing joke
the camp orcs (they may as well have hired Graham Norton and Allen Carr to play them), although the Uruk-Hai were fairly well done I never got the impression of the evil, bloodthirsty army the fellowship were facing
the dreadful Legolas lines (I thought for a long while that Orlando Bloom was an horrendous actor but I can’t imagine anyone who could’ve carried off his lines convincingly, they should’ve been spoken in Elvish with subtitles)
any shot of a smouldering, gurning Aragorn
the overuse of slow-motion
the invasive background music
Boromir’s comedy death by a thousand arrows gloriously captured in ultra-ultra-slow-motion
“some of those trees were my friends”
Legolas surfing down the steps on a shield
I’m sure I’d remember a lot more if I watched it again. It is surprising that the whole project was given the go-ahead as a trilogy when the the first two films weren't self-contained productions and offered no resolution to the plot, I just wish that the likes of Guillermo del Toro or Alfonso Cuaron had directed them.

I can't honestly say a lot of the stuff there has ever really grated with me. Particularly the camp orcs, which I'd never noticed for a second, or the score, which is one of my favourite in cinema by Howard Shore.

I definitely felt like I saw some of the Legolas action scenes in a new light after the absurdity of the Hobbit. As the LOTR trilogy goes on he sort of transforms from an archer to an anime character. Interestingly, I find the Oliphant scene a bit out of place like the shield surfing in that regard!

"Many of these trees were my friends", is direct from the book IIRC and felt in keeping with what I imagined Treebeard to be. Similar with Aragorn's portrayal. I thought Viggo Mortensen smashed it. I also liked Boromir's death being more 'on screen', IIRC the book arrives later in that scene, and I thought the portrayal of Boromir overall was brilliant and added nuance. Sean Bean nailed it.

As an avid Tolkein reader, The Hobbit is the first non-children's book I read with my dad and remains one of my two favourite books, I always thought the material was dealt with excellently. Many changes were made but pretty much all improved the story for the screen. Expediting the early stages of the FOTR so that Frodo wasn't hanging about for nearly 20-years waiting on Gandalf. Removing Glorfindel to introduce Arwen earlier. Removing Tom Bombadil entirely - I find the character fascinating but it would make zero sense on screen. Chopping up the Frodo and Sam arc so that more of it happened in ROTK. Shifting the reveal of Anduril to ROTK and having Elrond deliver it on screen.

I wish they'd kept the Grey Company in, but the films were already insanely long and that's probably a personal one as I was obsessed with the idea of the rangers as a kid. Cutting Saruman's death from ROTK also didn't make much sense to me. That's about it though.

Clearly a case of each to their own!

I didn't watch the Tintin adaption but Spielberg's BFG felt like a case of what you speak of there to me. When I heard that Roald Dahl was being adapted by Spielberg with Disney backing and Mark Rylance starring, I thought it could be something really special. It was rubbish. There was just non of the magic that ET had, it felt like a chore.

It's funny how a directors adaption of source material can vary so wildly. I just re-watched Band of Brothers recently and it's an utter masterpiece. I still stacks up today. As gritty and respectful a portrayal of those parts of WW2 as you can hope for.

I guess if someone works for long enough, you're going to have some duds.

I didn’t notice most of that in the LOTR Galted, but I did see it in the Hobbit films - campy in parts, silly action scenes, bad writing and poor acting. Jackson made cinema history but he couldn’t even get close with the prequels, and I remember his King Kong being a bit OTT too - so I wonder how much was Jackson and how much was the overpowering studios and crappy writers. I  appreciate how someone sees that in the LOTR though, sometimes the Legolas action was OTT and at times he come across as a bit dim - he was always a favourite character of mine though.

Can anyone rate the Roadhouse remake? I haven’t got around to seeing it yet.

mikey_dragon wrote:Can anyone rate the Roadhouse remake? I haven’t got around to seeing it yet.

Connor McGregor being in it makes one part of the standardised 606 review system pretty simple. It might complicate whether it's a movie though.

mikey_dragon wrote:Can anyone rate the Roadhouse remake? I haven’t got around to seeing it yet.

I watched the original recently and am planning a review but I need to organise my thoughts as there is an awful lot to unpick (mainly about the construction of the barn that Dalton is living in).

Godzilla X Kong

Tino memorial rating : 10/10 I am a bit biased here, but great film, you want to see a Lizard suplex an ape, it got you, you want to see another ape getting knocked out by a bigger ape, swinging a baby ape, it got you. Daft film that does not take itself seriously which I am totally down for.

GSoE: 9/10 - Ape and lizard have to join together to fight a more evil ape and his lizard

HH scale of accurate titling: 5/10 – I am not mathematically proficient enough to work out if that equation is accurate but it does have both Kong and Godzilla in it

Michaels Scale of t*ts OR war: 6/10 – No t*ts, lots of animals fighting and loads of green blood.

Rowley Scale of Northern Thriftiness: 10/10 Cinema, the missus paid for everything as it was my birthday

TSRRN-Q: - " Graaaaaawwllllll"

Tilda Swinton Manner of Death: Not in it but if she was it would be crushed to death by a famous landmark

LiW Is it a Film?: Yes.

Does it contain a massive c*nt?: The main bad ape is a right C*nt

Doesn't get much better than that, rICKo.

So comprehensive that I don't need to bother watching it.

And no-one has ever called an ape a c*nt. Breaking new ground.

Cheers man, attempting to keep up with you and LiW is pretty impossible so I need to try new stuff.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Doesn't get much better than that, rICKo.

So comprehensive that I don't need to bother watching it.

And no-one has ever called an ape a c*nt. Breaking new ground.

That's not entirely true. When my brother and I are having a drive in the Kruger Park, if we pass a troop of baboons I'll stick my head out the window and shout 'f*ck you' or 'c*nt' at the lonely sentry sitting on the periphery. If I was required to explain this I'd say it's to keep him on his guard in case a leopard's sneaking about, but the truth is that I think baboon's are c*nts.

Galted wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Doesn't get much better than that, rICKo.

So comprehensive that I don't need to bother watching it.

And no-one has ever called an ape a c*nt. Breaking new ground.

That's not entirely true. When my brother and I are having a drive in the Kruger Park, if we pass a troop of baboons I'll stick my head out the window and shout 'f*ck you' or 'c*nt' at the lonely sentry sitting on the periphery. If I was required to explain this I'd say it's to keep him on his guard in case a leopard's sneaking about, but the truth is that I think baboon's are c*nts.

Just done the research and baboons are actually monkeys so Tino may well be correct.

Galted wrote:

Galted wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Doesn't get much better than that, rICKo.

So comprehensive that I don't need to bother watching it.

And no-one has ever called an ape a c*nt. Breaking new ground.

That's not entirely true. When my brother and I are having a drive in the Kruger Park, if we pass a troop of baboons I'll stick my head out the window and shout 'f*ck you' or 'c*nt' at the lonely sentry sitting on the periphery. If I was required to explain this I'd say it's to keep him on his guard in case a leopard's sneaking about, but the truth is that I think baboon's are c*nts.

Just done the research and baboons are actually monkeys so Tino may well be correct.

FACT.

You c*nt.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Galted wrote:

Galted wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Doesn't get much better than that, rICKo.

So comprehensive that I don't need to bother watching it.

And no-one has ever called an ape a c*nt. Breaking new ground.

That's not entirely true. When my brother and I are having a drive in the Kruger Park, if we pass a troop of baboons I'll stick my head out the window and shout 'f*ck you' or 'c*nt' at the lonely sentry sitting on the periphery. If I was required to explain this I'd say it's to keep him on his guard in case a leopard's sneaking about, but the truth is that I think baboon's are c*nts.

Just done the research and baboons are actually monkeys so Tino may well be correct.

FACT.

You c*nt.

I'd say the unnecessary apostrophe in 'baboons' is more worthy of being called a c*nt.

superflyweight wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Can anyone rate the Roadhouse remake? I haven’t got around to seeing it yet.

I watched the original recently and am planning a review but I need to organise my thoughts as there is an awful lot to unpick (mainly about the construction of the barn that Dalton is living in).  

The original with Swayze is iconic, they don’t make em like that any more.

It took me 3 attempts to finish the new one. It’s a stupid film. At the beginning you think it might have potential, but just under an hour in it becomes very dumb, typical of American TV but all over their film industry now. The ‘special effects’, wow I’ve seen better from films made 30 years ago lol. Also, hope to never see Conor McGregor in a movie ever again, he’s so annoying. His Turkey teeth look bloody ridiculous as well.