mjmooney Posted December 20, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted December 20, 2012 Wonder what the Midnight's Children film will be like... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Anyone seen 'life of pi' yet ? - great book Hopefully seeing it tomorrow. It's meant to be a good example of 3D so I might break my no 3D rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 jsut watched Dead Mans Shoes for 1st time. thought was very good and Considine was chillingly intense in it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted December 20, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted December 20, 2012 Wonder what the Midnight's Children film will be like... Apparently pretty woeful, Rushdie too involved had lead to it becoming a mess that's overly long overly stuffed and really dull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 a mess that's overly long overly stuffed and really dull. Sounds like The Hobbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troglodyte Posted December 20, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted December 20, 2012 Apologies if this has already been posted, but someone linked to this on my Facebook account earlier and I thought I'd share it here: "What if..." Movies reimagined for another time and place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Dredd 3d 8/10 I enjoyed it way more than i thought i would Some great shots and some scenes which i think are unique which is rare in this day an age its mostly recycled shit from other movies Great one liners and plenty of gore Karl Urban was destined for that role as well his jaw is better than stallone's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Watched 'The Grey'. It was grand, although the wolves are genetically enhanced ubermutts with a rather keen taste for revenge, but it is fiction so I can live with it. A read through the IMDB boards makes for interesting reading as people are determined to apply their own belief system to the story, and look for clues that reaffirm their views. This happens with anything remotely philosophical I suppose, or Batman, for that matter (that nasty right wing manifesto!). Anyway it is entertaining and unrelentingly bleak (an odd mixture no doubt, like chocolate and chili). Neeson makes the film, really, and in the end you do buy into his character. I'd recommend it... although if, like me, you are convinced you will be involved in a plane crash anytime you step on board one, I'd step aside for a few minutes when that scene is going on. I hit mute and looked away. I cannae watch such scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Christian Bale: Overrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Yup. If you like Wes Anderson films you'll like it. Loved Rushmore, hated Royal Tannenbaum's, haven't seen the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Designer1 Posted December 21, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted December 21, 2012 Loved Rushmore, hated Royal Tannenbaum's, haven't seen the others. If you hated The Royal Tenenbaums I'm pretty certain you won't like Moonrise Kingdom. And as a massive W.Anderson fan I say shame on you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 The Royal Tenenbaums is an utterly fantastic film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Life of Pi was alright. Avoid it if you don't like that type of whimsical fable. The lack of originality in mainstream cinema is beyond a joke. The last two films I've seen, LoP and The Hobbit, are books I've read. There's little sense of suspense or danger when you know the plot. I realise it's my own fault for paying to see these films but it still pisses me off. I'll also be paying to watch Cloud Atlas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 watching christmas carol, the american version with kelsey grammer, its beyond dire, needs more kermit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Agree with CED on The Grey. A surprisingly good film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packoman Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Christian Bale: Overrated. I disagree. Thought he was brilliant in American Psycho, The Machinist, The Prestige and The Fighter, to name a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 So, the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey... in controversial HFR and 3d. I'll get the 48fps thing out of the way first. Your mileage may vary. That has to underpin anything said about it, ultimately you've got to see for yourself. Personally... I'm not a fan. The thing that immediately struck me is that it made a lot of things look... well, either weird, or cheap. Actors on screen look tangibly like actors, costumes look noticeably costume-y... and so on. The effect is quite odd - it's been compared to looking through a window rather than at a screen and that... doesn't quite match up with my experience. It's almost, but not quite, like watching someone on stage. There's a veracity of movement in everything but it's always slightly wrong somehow. It's particularly noticeable with the actors movement, it looks almost bizarrely exaggerated. It's an intensely odd thing to watch and I never quite settled with it. It also makes small, and also fast moving, CGI entities look awful. There is a scene where the One Ring shows up, it flies out of Gollums... loin cloth (it doesn't look like it has pockets so er)... and tumbles in the air. It looked like something out of Knightmare, as do the plates chucked around when the Dwarves arrive at Bag End. Another example, the film opens with a bit of backstory explaining why the Dwarves want to get back to the Lonely Mountain, Erebor. This theoretically is a big, CGI show starter and scene setter, and it should be so too. Something Bad happens. And the Bad Event looks awful, when it should look absolutely incredible. The Bad Thing, again, looks like Knightmare should consider suing Peter Jackson. The movement, weight, presence of the Bad Thing is simply not there. Besides the CGI, the effect really does look like you're watching a particularly interesting edition of This Morning. It's very stark. But it also makes some things look incredible. Shots of scenery (real scenery, mind) are breathtaking. 3d is also helped out by the frame rate. It still suffers from the usual problems - things moving quickly break the effect, things moving to the very forefront of the scene also tend to cause issues, for instance - but it does make the effect smoother, more consistent. And large, slow CGI creations are made even more impressive by the frame rate - the trio of trolls, Gollum, and Another Character are up there as some of the best CG around the great clarity offered by the frame rate only enhances them. There is an unparalleled clarity to everything, to the extent that where you to pull a single frame of film from the reel (not that there is a reel) it would be jaw dropping. In motion, the fidelity of the look of actual characters (Bilbo and Gandalf notably, especially if they are moving slowly and there is a close up) is incredible but also looks kinda crap. It's an oxymoron but if you go see it and don't buy into Jackson's idea, you'll see what I mean. It also, and this will drive someone in favour of the tech mad, doesn't look cinematic. We've become accustomed to way films look, we like the... sheen, the lustre, brought about by the low frame rate, it has a luxurious and dramatic quality somehow. The Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey, in 48fps, simply doesn't have that and I think it really takes something away from the film. I recently rewatched the Extended Editions of LOTR to prep for this film and while this film never quite hits the grandure of the spectacle in say, ROTK, it's also missing the presence those scenes have and I really think it's down to frame rate. Ultimately, I never settled with it. I never escaped the feeling of 'This looks odd', 'that CGI looks crap there but Weta are some of the best... so why?!'. But you really need to see it yourself. Anyway, the film itself. It's important to go in knowing that it is, and always was intended to be, a bit of a compromise between the slightly grim seriousness of LOTR and the lighthearted, childs bedtime story that is the Hobbit novel. So you do get a film where limbs and heads are hacked off and theres genuine peril (as well as the stilted self serious mythology), coupled to knowing gags and slapstick. This never bothered me but I can see some people not getting on with it. The film is baggy, you can pick up the feeling that it's been padded out. Strangely, despite that, I never felt it dragged. It does take it's time getting going (we get 2 prologues, and one could easily have been chopped to be frank, shortened if not binned entirely. Radagast's scenes seem to exist solely to set up the Necromancer plot (and provide some comic relief) and given that that isn't vital to the plot of the Hobbit you feel like it's time wasted that could go to the plot you're actually there for (I say that as someone who really wants to see the Necromancer's plot on screen). There are also some action scenes chucked in that don't really do anything for the film and exist only to stop the audience nodding off in a film where not a whole lot happens spectacle wise if you follow the novel word for word. That scene in the mountains is a particularly poor example - spectacle for the sake of it and rather daft. Which is saying something in a film about 13 midgets and an old man walking off to get some gold. It's basically this films 'Dinosaur Valley from King Kong', and pulls you out of the film for how stupid it is. Another plot about Thorin's past seems to have been thrown in to give the film an antagonist. Performances are decent, McKellen is his usual reliable self, Freeman doesn't set the earth on fire as Bilbo but the role suits him, and the few dwarves that get any real screentime do well - sadly having so many characters that are so alike means a number get maybe a line or 2 and little to do with it. Despite his character feeling a little tacked on, I quite like Sylvester McCoy's Radagast as well, he's quite an endearing if a completely over the top character.The other cameos feel a little phoned in. Richard Armitages Thorin never really convinced me either, which is a shame. He should really be this films Aragorn (not quite the same, he's less of a central presence than Aragorn and more aloof), but he never comes close, he's a surprisingly distant character and quite unlikable somehow, when in the novel he's a character I love. Theres some good action to be had in the film, and while I dislike some of Jackson's additions I'm not going to say the action is bad, it's decent fun. And there is spectacle, there are some great moments and some great scenes. It ends a little abruptly, as you might expect. It's a decent watch and you'll enjoy it, especially if you love the LOTR. If you don't, don't go anywhere near it. And if you love the work of Tolkein to the point of being pained at anything not specifically adapted from the text and nothing added - save yourself the heartache. There are numerous little changes, some of them with no basis in the text(s) at all, and many of them will enrage purists. But otherwise, a decent, flawed watch. No masterpiece, not better than any of Jackson's previous Tolkein forays. You get the feeling, especially if you know the novel, that the coming films will be better from a pure entertainment standpoint. The worst could be behind us, so to speak. I normally look out for your reviews Chindie as we appear to have a similar taste with regards to books and films and of course a liking for Tolkien I'll start by saying the 48fps was weird. Great for battles/action scenes i.e. the grippy moments. Otherwiseit just makes the makeup/CGI a bit weird and not quite to the standard we know and love. Have to disagree about Freeman, I think he's a fantastic Bilbo. Bilbo isn't a "set the film on fire" character, he's the habitual, home-loving Englishman Tolkien wanted the audience to identify with. He's a very subtle actor but if you watch his performances in Sherlock and this, he's a man playing characters out of their comfort zone surrounded by odd happenings and eccentric characters. Gets some good lines in. Very few of the dwarves (or dwarfs) stand out but theres so many of them, non-readers of the Hobbit won't be able to identify so well. Bofur, Balin and the twins (I know they aren't twins) are the only ones the audience ever really gets "time" with. And disagree on Thorin, to me he always came across as a dislikeable good character in the book, much akin to Boromir, and like Boromir redeems himself. Thorin is a vengeful, greedy, proud and stubborn dwarf who often lets common sense be overridden by his selfish pride. I think this side of him is shown quite well. He is definitely a good character though. Some bits of the film, like the pale orc, for canon's sake should not have been put in, but bits like Dol Goldur definitely glad they were in. Should be two films not three, I went in with lowish expectations and liked it. I'm looking forward to seeing Smaug properly.` Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginko Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Finally went to watch the Hobbit but made the mistake of going to see it in 3D, utterly pointless. The film itself was fantastic, but as a massive LOTR fan it was pretty obvious I was going to love it. I couldn't see what some people have been harping on about how it looks too real and not cinematic enough. I thought it looked excellent, especially some of the scenary, it was absolutely gorgeous. I think the fact that it was in 3D didn't help though, I'll judge when I see it in 2D. 3D films are absolutely pointless, I wish they'd stop making them or just make a select few. Christopher Nolan understands me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlitobrigante Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Saw the hobbit at broad streets imax and i was blown away. I was a fan of the trilogy but never managed to get all the way through the book and im no way a tokien worshipper, but it i thought in 3d with the higher frame frate made it look incredible. Sits alongside Avatar as the most impressive film ive seen visualy on the big screen. Imax is worth-it, and certain films seem to have cracked making use of 3d cool and not annoying. As for the film itself, i loved it. I was worried it was going to be too 'light', more children based like the book version of the hobbit is, but the prequel scenese and the various fight scenes were brilliant. I was flinching from thorn spears the 3d was so cool. I didnt have a problem with the 48fps and didnt feel like i needed even a second to adjust, maybe because i play alot of high spec fps games on a gaming pc that shows games going all the way up from 30 to over 100 fps my eyes are already used to adjusting?? who knows. i was always of the opinion that 3d was a pointless gimmick, But after seeing Dredd 3d (very very film, brutual in 3d on imax, very good) and now the Hobbit, im sold. On the bigh screen at least, i still dont think its worthwhile for even the big flatscreen tv's. The new superman trailes looks good. And the showed a 5 min prequel of the new star trek film again in on imax and in 3d which looked incredible. overall, fantastic movie, if anything i thought it was better than the fellowship of the ring. I prefer this trilogys hobbit already, and they somehow seem to have the pacing incredible fast despite only covering the first third of a very small book. Cant wait to see the next one, and i suggest as many as poss expierience it at the imax, i just know it wont be the same at home (though ill no doubt buy the blu ray trilogy when its out) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Could someone tell me what we thought of Prometheus, or direct me to a page in this thread? Eight out of ten from me. An extra point for the, um, surgery scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts