movies

Put the world to rights here (off-topic discussion)
User avatar
peypea
Denim Demon
Posts: 7811
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:41 pm
Contact:

Re: movies

Postby peypea » Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:42 pm

So, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Not quite what I expected, it's quite different from that part of the book, but it was really good, and I really enjoyed it. The 48 frames was surreal and brilliant, and the 3D was used really really well, not tackily, but it actually looked SO REAL. Actually it looked hyper real. Going to try see it again today :D
Image
Turbo wrote:One day I'll get around to tasting Pussy.

User avatar
skull-wart
Hell Bent for Leather
Posts: 2736
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:22 pm
Location: Accessing the Acropolis

Re: movies

Postby skull-wart » Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:10 pm

is everything still dim?
Image
Andrewhall28 wrote:Yep, unlike King, Labrie can actually sing

User avatar
Darkweasel
Denim Demon
Posts: 14551
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 10:08 pm
Location: Shakespeare Cuntry
Contact:

Re: movies

Postby Darkweasel » Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:27 pm

SILENT NIGHT

I'm usually the first to complain about "yet another f**king remake" so when I heard the remake machine had been plugged in and booted up for an updated take on '80s killer Santa film, Silent Night, Deadly Night, I have to admit I was less than enthused.
Sometimes I can be very wrong.
As much as I love the camp, kitsch daftness of the original, this new take is superior in every way. In fact, it's barely even a remake, which helps no end. It's Christmas Eve, there's a killer Santa on the loose, and the title includes the words Silent Night. And that's it.
The only reference to the original series (that I could spot) was the "what is this, Garbage Day?" line, which was a homage SN,DN2 which features the infamous Garbage Day scene, one of the worst moments in movie history.

It's got flame-throwers, it's got wood chippers, it's got boobies, and it's got Malcolm McDowell. it's reasonably well acted, nice and gory, and funny when necessary, but most bizarrely, it also features a cast of characters named after Leeds United players/managers from the seventies. There's a Revie, Cooper, Giles, Madeley, Jones, Jordan, and McKenzie as well as a Bremner St. and Reaney's Diner. Very odd.

Ho ho ho.
7/10
Image

User avatar
Aaaarrrrgggghhhh
I am the Law!
Posts: 4291
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 10:17 am

Re: movies

Postby Aaaarrrrgggghhhh » Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:48 am

The Hobbit

Beyond anything I could have hoped for. Utterly brilliant. 11/10 (maybe even 12/10).

User avatar
Johnny Tightlips
Denim Demon
Posts: 4466
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:42 am
Location: Neath Abbey, Wales
Contact:

Re: movies

Postby Johnny Tightlips » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:52 am

Aaaarrrrgggghhhh wrote:The Hobbit

Beyond anything I could have hoped for. Utterly brilliant. 11/10 (maybe even 12/10).


+1

Thought it was bloody fantastic. Very different vibe to LOTR adaptations, but then I think people forget that The Hobbit is a children's book.

User avatar
Luke_X
Denim Demon
Posts: 4069
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:49 pm

Re: movies

Postby Luke_X » Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:01 pm

Johnny Tightlips wrote:
Aaaarrrrgggghhhh wrote:The Hobbit

Beyond anything I could have hoped for. Utterly brilliant. 11/10 (maybe even 12/10).


+1

Thought it was bloody fantastic. Very different vibe to LOTR adaptations, but then I think people forget that The Hobbit is a children's book.


I'm taking my parents to watch it and they only want to see it in 2d and I've seen people complain about tge CGI in that version. Is it better in 3d?

User avatar
Aaaarrrrgggghhhh
I am the Law!
Posts: 4291
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 10:17 am

Re: movies

Postby Aaaarrrrgggghhhh » Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:13 pm

Just seen it again, even better the second time because I could pick up all the extra bits I missed at first. 3D & CGI are superb, constant & filmed well, but not distracting.

I think the 48fps may be a little to much for first viewing, but will find out next week.

However you can watch it though, it is well worth the chance

angel_of_death
Hell Bent for Leather
Posts: 2887
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 5:32 pm
Location: Birmingham, West Midlands
Contact:

Re: movies

Postby angel_of_death » Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:28 am

Saw the Hobbit in 3D IMAX, and I agree with everything said above. Surpassed my expectations and was just awesome. Will be seeing it again soon. It was also probably the best looking film I've ever seen too, and the 3D was immersive rather than intrusive.
Image

User avatar
MetalBeast
Denim Demon
Posts: 8928
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: movies

Postby MetalBeast » Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:27 pm

Saw The Life of Pi and Seven Psychopaths on Monday.

The Life of Pi was pretty good, although it was a bit arty and didn't exactly blow me away.

Seven Psychopaths is a glorious mess of a movie. Really muddled storyline but very, very entertaining and great performances from Christopher Walken and Woody Harrelson. One of my favourite movies of the year.

Going to see The Hobbit on Nottingham's new IMAX screen on Monday.
All right, so I MADE a mistake! ONE MISTAKE!
Can't a man start over?! Do I have to keep on PAYING?! HUH?!
Maybe I should make another mistake! ...maybe TWO more!

User avatar
Jobdone
Denim Demon
Posts: 15679
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:37 am
Location: Tiny Village, Wales

Re: movies

Postby Jobdone » Mon Dec 17, 2012 12:38 am

The Mist.

Adapted from a Steven King novel by the same man that adapted Shawshank and Green Mile, a tale of a bunch of people trapped in a small town food mart whilst mist rolls across the town.

Turns out there's stuff in the mist. Turns out that shit wants to fuck you up.

And great examination of human nature, and giant fucking alien bug thingies, and a horrifying spider scene that had me shaking for some minutes afterwards because it combined two of my greatest phobias.

And the ending? Fucking intense and spectacular.

8/10.
Image

User avatar
Darkweasel
Denim Demon
Posts: 14551
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 10:08 pm
Location: Shakespeare Cuntry
Contact:

Re: movies

Postby Darkweasel » Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:53 am

Are you ready for this...?

THE HOBBIT

MOVIE SPOILERS

Just got back from watching Peter Jackson's return to Middle Earth, and I must say, as impressed as I was, its faults were all too obvious and it's not as good as any of the LOTR films from ten years ago.
Now, before I hear "Oh, it's unfair to compare them" - no it isn't. We're in the same universe with many of the same characters and locations, but instead of having the playful, whimsical tone of the book (of which I admit I haven't read, but then again I'd never read LOTR before the films either), The Hobbit feels exactly the same as LOTR. From my limited knowledge of the book and from what I've been told by different people on numerous occasions, the tone of The Hobbit is fun and childlike with some dark moments here and there, but instead, the film was full of impending darkness, malevolence and doom with occasional lapses into bouncy frivolity. Even the first song was depressing and dark.

It takes an eternity to get going and Frodo's inclusion is completely unnecessary. The arrival of the dwarves takes too long and the comedy in that section is laboured and occasionally totally misses the mark. The dwarves are likeable enough but they were all much of a muchness - an obvious character quirk or beard style to tell them apart - but there was only one instance of dissent in the ranks during the whole thing. Apart from when criticisms were aimed at Bilbo, of course.

The whole thing felt dangerously uneven at times, shifting between scenes without flair, creativity, or even using naturally created segues. For example, during the scene with the Orc King (I like Barry Humphries as much as the next man but his voice was a total casting mismatch) we flash excitedly from there to the film's highlight featuring Bilbo and Gollum, only to jump straight back like Jackson had suddenly remembered where he'd put his car keys.

And that was the main problem. Too much, too much, too much. What is essentially a small children's book has become a behemoth using references that were only briefly mentioned in the LOTR appendices. Now, that's fine, but instead of just using a handful of ideas, it seems Jackson's become obsessed with not leaving anything out, whether it be a character, a back story, a location, or even a weapon.
None of which has helped his self-editing skills. He turned King Kong into a three week long dullfest, and although The Lovely Bones was kept nice and tight, he's completely forgotten how to use his editing scissors again. The fanboys might have yelped with delight at the stone giants but they served no real purpose, other than to show off even more CGI effects.

Azog was another disappointment. Instead of thinking "fuck, this guy's massive" like I did with Lurtz in Fellowship of the Ring, all I found myself thinking was that the CGI was shonky because they still can't figure out how to do humanoid movements properly.

In its favour though, and even taking my previous comments into consideration, the film does actually get better as it goes along, although yet again, Jackson does his best to scupper himself. I don't know, but the male bonding scene between Thorin and Bilbo may very well be in the book, but it just felt like a cheap re-enactment of Aragorn's speech at the end of Return of the King.

Even Howard Shore's music score was disappointing, simply drawing on his use of leitmotif to utilise the same themes for returning characters and only adding one or two new ones along the way. As nice and familiar as it was to hear the original theme, a bold new one should have been a requirement for the title card, not the exact same score as before.

Still, believe it or not, I did actually enjoy it! As much as I may appear to have dwelt on the film's bad points, there were of course many, many highlights which outweighed the negatives so much that it would have added a further ten thousand words to all of this. Peter Jackson may not know when enough is enough, but I do.
Sort of.
So, even with its slow start and overall asymmetry, it does rocket along at an ungodly rate. Sylvester McCoy is excellent as Radagast, Martin Freeman does a brilliant Ian Holm impression, Ian Holm does a brilliant impression of Martin Freeman doing a brilliant impression of Ian Holm, the eagles are magnificent, the scenery (both real and imagined) is immense, the acting is first rate, and as mentioned, Andy Serkis is beyond awesome.
Good enough to buy on DVD? Absolutely.
Good enough to watch again at the cinema? Not for me.

8/10
Image

bloodfiend
Denim Demon
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:30 pm

Re: movies

Postby bloodfiend » Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:45 pm

So, The Hobbit.

The general criticism seems to be stretching a short book to three 3 hour films, and radically altering the tone of a children’s book, however a film adaption faithful to the book would be aimed at primary school kids, as the book is so twee and bedtime story-like in its tone….plus everyone would much rather see 3 epic LOTR style films, so why the hell not?

Agree that it did start slow, but I still enjoyed start introducing the dwarves, and the dwarves were excellent and all looked the part, apart from James Nesbitt, who just looked like….well, James Nesbitt. Jackson seems to have cut out most of the childish nature of the book, and got for a feel that’s like his LOTR trilogy (Thorin’s character and personality is obviously based on Aragorn), with something of a slight Harry Potter feel to give it a slightly wider appeal (the scene where the goblin servant on a trapeze writes on a scroll and goes around the mountain on tracks is pure Potter).

There were a few naff moments – the crap Dr Who with Sebastian the Hedgehog scene was utterly pointless and stupid, and the scene with Galadriel and Sauron seemed very forced and unnecessary, as if Jackson was just as desperate as possible to cram as many as his LOTR characters into the film. However these were fairly minor quibbles, overall I thoroughly enjoyed it, the battle scenes was as epic as ever, the Gollum scene was brilliant, and even though it was a long film, it flew by quickly. Well done to Jackson for making a more adult film than the book, definitely think this is better than a totally faithful adaption would have been, looking forward to the next one already.

8/10

User avatar
Matty_the_Emo_Slayer
Denim Demon
Posts: 12243
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:48 pm
Location: Hellfast, Northern Fireland

Re: movies

Postby Matty_the_Emo_Slayer » Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:45 pm

Cheers for the spoiler warning. I'm waiting til the lady friend is back in Ireland to see it so avoiding hearing too much about it til then.


Anyway my favourite film of this year, Good Vibrations, finally gets a UK cinema release on March 29th next year. Anyone with an interest in 70's Punk or who music based films like The Commitments or Killing Bono should definitely see it.
Image
Upcoming Gigs
Aug 25|Bangor|PiL+Undertones+XSLF+Outcasts
Sept 7|B'fast|Rose Tattoo+Girlschool
Sept 15|Dub|Cruachan+Skyclad+Waylander
Sept 27|B'fast|RBOTN+Midnight Force
Oct 10|B'fast|Enslaved+High On Fire

User avatar
ANDY HALL
Lowly Peon
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:11 pm
Location: Swindon

Re: movies

Postby ANDY HALL » Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:21 pm

I'm fast finding myself becoming a massive Jason Statham fan, I have seen 3 of his films this week, all bloomin good action films, and the guy can seriously fight

User avatar
Luke_X
Denim Demon
Posts: 4069
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:49 pm

Re: movies

Postby Luke_X » Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:27 pm

Statham does have a lot of interesting films, but id recommend Lock Stock and 2 Smoking Barrels, Snatch, Crank 1&2, Transporter 1&2 (i didnt like the 3rd one), Safe, The Expendables 1&2, Death Race and The Mechanic. With Crank 3 and the inevitable Expendables 3 on the way, its worth brushing up on those.