Jump to content

The Film Thread


DeadlyDirk

Recommended Posts

Watched Moneyball last night and the remake of Straw Dogs on Saturday

Moneyball was very good - but I fear Randy has also watched and trying to recreate it at Villa Park... Unfortunately instead of Billy Beane, though he's employed the ginger Mr Bean..

Straw Dogs was ok-ish. Some decent bits but the tension was never really there and I thought the main male character, the husband was a bit of a cock so had no real empathy for him. Not bad ending though and James Woods was on good form as the alcoholic ex-Coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bloody cinema here in Lincoln is rubbish. It's really expensive, and wasn't showing Marley last week (came out on the 20th) - a film I've been looking forward to for a while. It turns out that they are showing it from this weekend, but I'm pretty sure that I'm going to be too busy. Dicks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to see Battleship. As a fan of the board game I was really pleased with the way they transferred elements of the game into the movie, it made for quite an exciting and tense affair. I was glad that the action was interrupted by the witty and oft hilarious comedy skits though, they really added an extra dimension to the film. A lot of the talk about the film may be to do with Rihanna in her first feature film appearance - I thought she did a fantastic job along side stellar performances from the likes of Skarsgard and Neeson, and didnt look out of place in the slightest. The plot twisted and turned and kept you guessing all the way, and the soundtrack deserves a mention too. I liked the way that many well known songs were used to subtle effect in ways you may not expect. Overall I would say it is the best alien invasion movie I have ever seen.

Just kidding, I hated it. It was just quicker to be sarcastic than actually list all the things wrong with the film.

Phew glad of the second post was thinking WFT its a load of crap, War of the Worlds on water and twice as bad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes of the first Hobbit film got shown to a few press people the other day. Unfinished footage, it was mainly, seemingly, intended to get people to have a look at some of the new tech behind the films.

The films are being shot at 48fps, as opposed to the 24fps we're used to in most films, which massively alters the way the film looks and moves. Jackson himself said it's like having a window where the screen is as opposed to just your usual screen.

Unfortunately, apparently, it looks shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reactions to it have been universally negative. Apparently the 48fps has the effect of looking like live TV broadcasts, cheap, with movement looking odd. /Film describes it as 'look[ing] uncompromisably real - so much that it looked fake'. It appears to make the 'seams', if you will, of film making more obvious - the makeup becomes more clear, the costumes look obviously like costumes, the CGI jars with the real footage. They describe as feeling like you would watching some behind the scenes footage.

It isn't 'cinematic'.

It's interesting that everyone who saw the footage seems to have come away negative, purely on the cinematography of it, the look of the thing rather that what they were watching.. It's also worth noting that the crew is on record saying that 48fps filming had given them new problems with things like costumes and makeup - it, in combination with the resolution they're shooting in, shows up flaws, you have less leeway with everything. So wigs have to be real hair because the fake stuff doesn't move properly which is obvious at 48fps, the makeup looks faker than usual and so on.

The hope is that, because it was early non-finished footage, the post production work the film will undergo will make it cinematic again. All of the LOTR films, for example, had the colour palette fiddled with after the fact. Hopefully they can add in the cinematic look we love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes sense to me. You do expect a film to be 'filmy'. Similar to why Instagram is popular for photography. We have a perception of what we want something to look like. 'Improving' it doesn't always work. Though it might catch on and become the new norm. It'll be interesting to see anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was quite a risk Jackson took really. It might have been better if it was saved for a lesser film franchise. Then again, saying that, a lesser film franchise probably wouldn't have the budget to experiment with this sort of technology.

I've seen the trailer for the first Hobbit film though and it didn't look un-cinematic or too real to me though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will cinemas have to convert a screen to be able to show 48fps (like they had to do with 3D)?

or will they be able to show it in existing screens?

Is the Hobbit going to be released as 48fps only? or in both 48fps and standard?

will there be 4 versions showing?

2D standard fps

3D standard fps

2D 48fps

3D 48fps

:!:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â