Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    It's got a TV!    Outrageous Prices For Food and Entertainment! (The Movie Reviews Thread) « previous next »
 Topic locked! 
Author Topic: Outrageous Prices For Food and Entertainment! (The Movie Reviews Thread)  (Read 22386 times)
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 ... 20 Print
Gorky

Space Pope
****
« Reply #480 on: 01-01-2013 17:41 »

John Dies in the End

What the hell did I just watch?

More importantly: Spoiler Fucking Alert!

Anyway, review: I watched The Five-Year Engagement the other day; it was kind of disappointing. I liked all the actors, and there were plenty of amusing moments (not as many laugh-out-loud ones as there were in, say, Bridesmaids--to which I had heard it compared--but it was still perfectly passable in the comedy department) but the progression of the story itself was kind of lame. The hook-up-with-the-mentor thing was oh-so-predictable (and it didn't feel all that earned, honestly; it was just a way to keep the two characters from getting married before the titular five years were up), and though I found Tom's discontentment and mental breakdown pretty well-done, the occasional leaps in time necessary to accomplish it were not well-denoted enough. I found it all kind of jarring, I guess. Oh, and the ending was cheesy as anything. So, yeah, I'd give it a B- or a 3/5 or something like that.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #481 on: 01-01-2013 18:05 »

John Dies in the End

What the hell did I just watch?

They made that into a movie?
sparkybarky

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #482 on: 01-02-2013 00:09 »
« Last Edit on: 01-02-2013 03:08 »

So "John Dies in the End" is the name of the movie?

I am about to watch Singing in the Rain for the 50th time or so. Yes, it's an old movie, but there's a good reason why the AFI named it the best musical of all time. So fun and cute. And Gene Kelley is a badass dancer.
Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #483 on: 01-02-2013 03:28 »

Do you like the one original song written for it, sparkybarky?

I am of course referring to the classic, "Moses Supposes."
sparkybarky

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #484 on: 01-02-2013 04:05 »

They all covered the same material in 'dem old-timey days.

I think the "Moses" dance is probably my favorite one in the whole movie. He and Donald O'Connor are amazing, and they have great dance chemistry. It's disappointing to read that Kelley was a dick to Princess Leia's mom, though.
Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #485 on: 01-02-2013 05:21 »

The scene where Cosmo mocks the instructor behind his back (and is subsequently discovered) is one of the funniest scenes in all cinema. laff
TheMadCapper

Fluffy
UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #486 on: 01-02-2013 05:57 »

Today I went and watched The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey with a couple of friends. Rest of post is spoilered because why not.

winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #487 on: 01-02-2013 08:16 »

Apparently they're talking about shooting more footage and cutting the last movie into two movies.
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #488 on: 01-02-2013 08:41 »

Today I went and watched The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey with a couple of friends. Rest of post is spoilered because why not.



I actually thought it stayed closer to the source material than the LOTR trilogy did, even if a large portion of the content is from other Middle-Earth lore.
M0le

Space Pope
****
« Reply #489 on: 01-02-2013 08:49 »
« Last Edit on: 01-02-2013 08:51 »

Have the done the spider forest part yet, or is that the next one, or the one of the eleven after that? frown
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #490 on: 01-02-2013 08:54 »

It's in The Hobbit There And Back Again Episode V: The Spider Forest Part I.
M0le

Space Pope
****
« Reply #491 on: 01-02-2013 12:26 »

I believe ju mean Ungoliant Strikes Back?
TheMadCapper

Fluffy
UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #492 on: 01-02-2013 16:42 »

Today I went and watched The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey with a couple of friends. Rest of post is spoilered because why not.



I actually thought it stayed closer to the source material than the LOTR trilogy did, even if a large portion of the content is from other Middle-Earth lore.

There are several characters and scenes that were never in The Hobbit. I agree that sometimes this helped the story, but other times it was just too much for me.
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #493 on: 01-02-2013 22:52 »

I won't argue that it was probably the film's weakest part.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #494 on: 01-03-2013 01:55 »
« Last Edit on: 01-03-2013 02:22 »

Today I went and watched The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey with a couple of friends. Rest of post is spoilered because why not.



I actually thought it stayed closer to the source material than the LOTR trilogy did, even if a large portion of the content is from other Middle-Earth lore.

There are several characters and scenes that were never in The Hobbit. I agree that sometimes this helped the story, but other times it was just too much for me.

All of that stuff that wasn't from The Hobbit that was in the movie was from the appendices. The Rivendale meeting you mentioned, everything involving Radagast the Brown, everything involving the Azog (the Pale Orc), and everything involving the Necromancer is all from the appendices. Very little that they put in was made up by Jackson or the other filmmakers, almost all was taken from Tolkien's writing even if it wasn't in the book The Hobbit. Personally I thought that everything put in from the appendices was interesting and entertaining, and if there was that much material from the appendices just for the first film, I can fully understand having three films. I'm looking forward to the next two.
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #495 on: 01-03-2013 04:41 »

Regarding Azog:
.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #496 on: 01-07-2013 11:37 »

I thought The Hobbit was terrible. A huge, bloated mess with poor writing (mostly stemming from changes to the book), patchy acting and a lot of things being downright poorly conveyed.

That said, who wants to talk about HFR because that was the most fascinating thing about the film for me. I both loved and hated it at the same time. Utterly gorgeous levels of detail once my head adjusted to how different it looked, but it seemed to make a lot of the acting play differently, too. The entire opening dwarves-showing-up scene played like a poorly staged 6th form play. I don't think this was down to much more than the HFR making everything seem slightly off and more "real", but I suppose it could just be a problem with the framing and acting and so forth.
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #497 on: 01-08-2013 12:10 »

Iron Sky was a woeful travesty of a film. I loved it.
~FazeShift~

Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #498 on: 01-08-2013 21:03 »

The Hobbit
-Erebor looks super-cool, but handrails anyone? Seriously, who's the safety inspector?
-Long opening... come on now Dwarves and Gandalf, stop being a shower of bastards...
-Elrond sexy horse rider, INYOURFACE EOMER!
-Galadriel only speaks in slow motion when at home (and telepathically interrupts Saruman, rude!... still a Elf GILF though)
-Yay, Gollums back!
-3D and outdoor shots are amazeballs
-Howard Shore: Y u play the Ringwraith music for Thorin?!

Good, needed edits!
B
Zmithy

Professor
*
« Reply #499 on: 01-12-2013 11:30 »
« Last Edit on: 01-12-2013 11:39 »

Cloud Atlas

Best way to describe this would be "Lost - The Movie"", the 1970s and 1840s segments felt a little flat, but the rest was great, especially the parts set on the island and the old folk's home. Neo Seoul felt like a bit of a matrix rehash but as only 1/6th of the screentime it fitted in place nicely.

Really enjoyed it, favourite movie from 2012. It's just brilliantly bizzare and a proper piece of sci-fi that refuses to make any compromises from the source material, even though that resulted in it being a box office flop. Highly recommended. smile

A
~FazeShift~

Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #500 on: 01-13-2013 21:25 »
« Last Edit on: 01-13-2013 21:30 »

Just watched Cloud Atlas too, Hugo Weaving makes an ugly Nurse Ratchet type character... awesome multiple badguy though.

It looked great, in the Russian rip I watched I couldn't understand some of the dialogue, particularly in the post-apocalyptic island part (funny dialect), and it's quite long (definitely pee-before-cinema-watching long)

It was fun recognizing which actor played who in which segment, I couldn't figure out

Good stuff, needs another watch.
A-
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #501 on: 01-14-2013 18:11 »

Safety Not Guaranteed

One of those quirky limited-release type movies about an intern who goes to track down a guy who put an ad in a newspaper asking for someone to travel back in time with him with another intern and a journalist. Not too heavy on the sci-fi, but extremely enjoyable, very funny and great music. The characters are ace, Mark Duplass does an awesome job as Kenneth and Aubrey Plaza gives a great performance. The ending is pretty awesome too, definitely worth watching.

9/10
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #502 on: 01-14-2013 21:25 »

I enjoyed the movie for the most part but was really mixed about the ending. It seemed to be going for some sort of "oh, okay, so that happened" kind of quirkiness that just didn't resonate with me. I was hoping for something a bit more down to earth.
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #503 on: 01-14-2013 22:36 »

winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #504 on: 01-14-2013 23:09 »

needs more sauce
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #505 on: 01-15-2013 16:38 »

I thought the ending was like they were trying overly hard to be kooky and indie. For the most part, it's a good film, but I would have preferred it if it was played as more of a real-life sort of thing.
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #506 on: 01-15-2013 20:25 »

Any other PEELers seen Danny Boyle's Sunshine? Thoughts?

I liked it. I don't understand why so many people got mad over the flawed science when it's a movie.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #507 on: 01-15-2013 22:05 »

I thought the ending was like they were trying overly hard to be kooky and indie. For the most part, it's a good film, but I would have preferred it if it was played as more of a real-life sort of thing.

Agreed, those were exactly my thoughts. The ridiculous ending almost just seemed like a way to avoid tying up the film's emotional loose ends.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #508 on: 01-16-2013 11:48 »

Any other PEELers seen Danny Boyle's Sunshine? Thoughts?

I liked it. I don't understand why so many people got mad over the flawed science when it's a movie.

Not a bad film and it's always interesting to see Danny Boyle's mastery of different genres but it's nothing particularly special, either. "Solid", I guess, is what I'd call it.

I thought the ending was like they were trying overly hard to be kooky and indie. For the most part, it's a good film, but I would have preferred it if it was played as more of a real-life sort of thing.

Agreed, those were exactly my thoughts. The ridiculous ending almost just seemed like a way to avoid tying up the film's emotional loose ends.
Absolutely; it felt like a quick "Oops, we need to wrap this up soon" sort of ending rather than an organic evolution and conclusion of the story.
~FazeShift~

Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #509 on: 01-17-2013 22:26 »
« Last Edit on: 01-17-2013 23:11 »

Safety Not Guaranteed
I thought he was really nuts until I saw Belinda... shit, I'd build a time machine to go back for Kristen Bell and use Aubrey Plazas chopped up remains as fuel for it!

*not nuts.  shifty
Aubrey Plaza is creepy looking sometimes, I liked the reporter and Indian guys adventures though.

B

The Dark Knight Returns Part 1 & 2
Robocop is Batman, Ben from Lost is the Joker, Conan O'Brien is a talk show host... IT'S  A TOPSY TURVY BAT-WORLD! eek
Some Futurama people voices too: Maurice LaMarche, Tress McNeill, Frank Welker

Animation is great, great to see on of the best Batman graphic novels on screen.

A+
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #510 on: 01-18-2013 12:15 »
« Last Edit on: 01-18-2013 12:16 »

Demolition Man

Demolition Man is ridiculous, but it's ridiculous in a lovable, borderline Paul Verhoven kind of way.
It follows both Stallone and his arch enemy super-criminal played by Wesley Snipes as they're frozen in a somewhat dystopian future only to both be "thawed out" and brought back into existence in a further, much more utopian future where Wesley Snipes' violent ways prove completely over-powering for the, now relatively non-violent and gun-free, society meaning that only Stallone's similarly primitive methods are good enough to catch and stop him, thus saving the day.
It's a beautifully fun and fairly simple set-up and it plays out with many a solid bit of sci-fi, fish-out-of-water / where-are-we-headed comedy. A stupid action movie, it very much is, but it knows this from the get go and plays to it - it never has delusions of being anything more.

8/10


The Master

I have an odd relationship with Paul Thomas Anderson in that he's a film-maker whose work I tend to have a huge deal of respect for without particularly enjoying (the exception to this rule being Boogie Nights, a film that I just love without any particular fine print).
What's weirder still is that there's usually a handful of scenes within his films that I really do enjoy... a lot. I mean, the final moments of There Will Be Blood were stunning. Not to mention the infamous "I drink your milkshake" scene. The Master, strangely, lacks any of these stand-out scenes, but it's certainly not a bad piece of work. In fact, for the first half hour or so, I was utterly in love with it - it's just that, after a while, the meandering of the whole thing begins to take its toll. Yes, that's the purpose of exploring Joaquin Phoenix's character, but it doesn't necessarily make for a consistently engaging film. Frankly, the backdrop of a Scientology-esque cult provided by Phillip Seymour Hoffman's character's proves to be the film's most engaging element and whilst it isn't the point of the film, it's a shame that we don't get to see more of it.
Still, the film is rather beautifully crafted in most ways - as is to be expected when it comes to this particular Paul Anderson, and that's particularly noticeable in the performances. Joaquin Phoenix is utterly incredible in the lead to the point that this might be the best performance of his career so far.
It's a film well worth seeing if you're a big fan of him or Paul Thomas Anderson, but it's also a film that I would never recommend to a casual movie-goer. In fact, this is exactly the sort of film that casual film-goers whine and complain about for being pretentious when they accidentally go along to one, mistaking it for more of a psychological thriller. That's not to say that this is a pretentious, unwarranted film - more that people are stupid and I hate them.

7/10


The Last Broadcast

The Last Broadcast is not a good film by any stretch of the imagination, but it is an interesting film and one that I highly recommend watching for anybody who considers themselves to be a film buff or particularly into the horror genre.
Apparently some of the people involved knew some of the people that went on to make The Blair Witch Project (which was released the following year) and had discussed ideas for horror films that play with the concept of reality vs fiction. As such, this film feels like something of a blue-print for The Blair Witch Project. It's not nearly as good and in many ways it should have just been a short film seeing as it takes forever to pick up any real pace - but the twist ending is certainly interesting even if it's arguable that it never really ticks the boxes it tries to.
Ultimately, it's a remarkable film given how ridiculously cheap the budget clearly was and it's a shame that it didn't have more thought put into fleshing out the story or the mythos or didn't have to endlessly repeat the same few clips of - often fairly uninteresting - footage - although, in the film's defence, this certainly serves to emulate the cheap sorts of documentaries that this is aping - the types that will paw over the same few minutes of footage with talking heads examining them in slow motion and so forth.

4/10


Free Enterprise

Free Enterprise is a film that squanders its potential. It's a comedy about sci-fi nerds who end up meeting their idol, William Shatner - played by himself. Initially it feels like the film is going the indie route of having Shatner pop up as an imaginary friend throughout which would have made more sense (especially when you learn that this was what happened in the original script, but Shatner took issue with not having a "real" role and it was re-written in order to accomodate him).
William Shatner as himself is a perfect opportunity for comedy gold - even if it would be somewhat niche comedy that only plays to a specific audience. That can't be an issue given how niche most of the film is, anyway, though. As it stands, the film just isn't very funny. The plot offers nothing that can't be found in a million other low-budget, indie romcoms and it doesn't play up the sci-fi nerd angle in any clever or interesting ways - in fact, it pretty much serves so as to make the characters less "popular" with mainstream society and that's about it.
It's exactly the sort of film that lives and dies on its gags and, sadly, the gags in this one are about as funny as a child gagging on a boiled sweet and dying.

5/10


National Treasure: Book of Secrets

If you've seen National Treasure, then you should know exactly what to expect from National Treasure: Book of Secrets. It's pretty much exactly on par with the previous entry in the franchise which means that it's reasonably fun and entertaining but in a completely fluff-mediocrity sort of way.
The only thing that compelled me to watch it (and, indeed, the previous film) is my fascination with Nicolas Cage's unravelling sanity and this film delivers on that front with one moment in particular where he has to get himself arrested by causing a scene. He even attempts a British accent. Aaanyway - National Treasure as a franchise is a sort of Tesco's own brand Indiana Jones. They're (obviously) not even close to Raiders of the Lost Ark or The Last Crusade, but hey, to be fair, they're better than both of those shitty Indie movies: Temple of Doom and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. They feature much of the same globe-hopping and tomb-raiding shenanigans and were clearly pitched to various people as "Indiana Jones meets ______". I'm not sure what the ______ would be, though. Bruckheimer? Nicolas Cage?
But yes. The film is fun and more or less stands up in spite of its, at-times, braindead nature. Part of the reason for its success lies with its likable cast. I know a lot of people hate Nicolas Cage, but those people are wrong.

6/10


Sightseers

Sightseers is an odd film. It's a dark comedy in which the comedy is largely situational, meaning that it's played as a drama in a lot of ways. It's based on characters originated by Alice Lowe and Steve Oram on stage which I found hugely surprising given that these aren't stand-up comedy characters - they've very understated and subtle. The film plays very oddly seeing as the protagonists are murderers and we don't even see much of a descent into this behaviour.
I initially expected for the first kill to be a case of a character seeing red, perhaps acting partly out of self defence and for that first kill to make it more acceptable to them to continue killing. That's not the case at all.
The first murder is cold-blooded and motivated out of nothing other than jealousy and a general distaste for the person. Well - technically, the first kill (previous to the one, aforementioned) is innocent - an accident - but it's played as foreshadowing rather than something in the characters' evolutions that allows them to do what they do later.
But I digress; my point is that this makes the characters seem largely more "evil" and, as a result, you disconnect from them as an audience. Combine this with the directorial style which is almost dreamlike in the early parts of the film due to footage and voice-over frequently not matching each other and it's one of the best examples of Brechtian cinema that I've seen in that regard and I want to stress that I don't see being removed from the protagonists as a flaw in a film.
It absolutely isn't the intention of the film that you're on their side in any way more than a purely human level and in so much as you can understand Tina's slowly building disappointment in her relationship - something that it's implied she sees as something of her long-awaited escape from her horrible, usual life. When it begins to turn sour, so then, does she. You're not asked to approve of her actions; you're merely asked to think back to some less than pleasant moments that you've, no doubt, experienced in past relationships and re-live them through the guise of filmic murder and bloodlust.
Sightseers, therefore, contains a lot more depth than would meet the casual eye. It's a fairly standard low-budget and gnarly, British comedy-romp akin to lots of films that pop out from time to time every few years, but it's also very much about relationships and letting go thereof. It's far from perfect - in fact, it's extremely rough around the edges, but it's certainly something that might be considered a gem in the rough. I say gem because a diamond seems like I'd be singing its praises too highly. This isn't a masterpiece, but it's the sort of film that suggests that those involved may well go on to make one, some day.

7/10


Thunderball

I'm on a quest to watch every James Bond film ever made. I'm doing this because I've heard great things about Casino Royale and Skyfall but my vaguely autistic nature won't allow me to watch them before I see all of the previous Bond films, despite the last 3 comprising something of a rebooted franchise. I like to have contextual knowledge of these sorts of things. As such, I have seen Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger and, now, Thunderball. Dr. No is a solid film, From Russia with Love; crap, Goldfinger; good, not great, and Thunderball... well, Thunderball.
It starts with a gloriously ridiculous sequence of events involving Bond punching a woman in the face who later turns out to be a man in drag before jumping into a jet pack and flying away to safety. Good so far! It then treats us to a typically Bond opening credits sequence. I love a film that revels in its opening titles to the point that it could possibly be projected in a gallery as an art-installation.
It's a shame, then, that what follows is an absolutely dire attempt at cinema that makes very little sense at times and is always mind-numbingly boring. The overall plot, involving an unfunny Dr. Evil trying to take over the world, is campy and fun and so, the film should be good, right?
But it isn't. Even the gung-ho action-sequence at the end manages to be completely and thoroughly dull. Maybe it's because things are inherently slower when we try to move underwater. Maybe it's because all of the diving suits further exaggerated how faceless all of the drones and henchmen being thrown at each other are. Maybe it's just because the sequence lasts about twice as long as it should do, but fuck me, Thunderball is an awful film. Boring and some scenes are utterly inexplicable in their inclusion to the point that I'm not even quite sure if it's supposed to be taken as a campy gag or if it's just poorly conveyed peril made laughable due to awkward special effects.

4/10


Phenomena

Dario Argento has a wonderful aesthetic to his films, essentially owning giallo through films such as Suspiria. However, I'm yet to see a single one of his films where the plotting isn't a complete and utter mess.
Phenomena comes very highly spoken of from a dedicated cult of fans including the likes of Joss Whedon. Critics, in general, seem to speak quite kindly of it, too - which baffles me. It's a completely run of the mill, Italian, slasher film, but with a few unique touches that make it somewhat worthy of interest. One of those is Argento's aforementioned aesthetic - but style over substance does not a good film make. Another would be the presence of a chimpanzee character, although this doesn't really do anything for the story itself. I mean... I like chimps and chimps are cool and if they didn't maul people's faces off so consistently after entering puberty, I'd probably have one as a pet, but, as a general rule, don't include one in your film for absolutely no reason.
On top of that, in the English-language version of the film, the creepy Goblin soundtrack is constantly interrupted by completely incongruous heavy-metal music from the likes of Motörhead that doesn't even begin to work within the context of what's happening on screen, let alone the film's overall tone. Also, the lead character can communicate with insects for no reason and this barely comes up in the film's story and certainly not within any part of the story one would deem to be important. It's more of an arbitrary side-note; as if the film was cobbled together from a sketch-pad of Argento's ideas collected over the course of a year.
If you like the sound of watching Dario Argento's stream of consciousness realised as a film, then I highly recommend this film. If, like most people, you like your films to be well-written or, at least, coherent, I anti-recommend this film.

5/10


Seven Psychopaths

In Bruges is a masterpiece and stands as one of the best examples of how to write a screenplay in the history of cinema. Given the sublime nature of the film, Martin McDonagh had a lot to live up to with his "difficult second album" and, sadly, Seven Psychopaths is the weaker sibling of the family, thus far.
It's a valiant effort. The film is clever and showcases the same sort of incredibly intelligent and interwoven writing that made In Bruges work so well - however, In Bruges is beautiful in its simplicity, whereas Seven Psychopaths seems to revel in making things complicated which detracts from the quality of the writing, somehow.
Also, the characters in Seven Psychopaths are inconsistent within the world in which they inhabit. Some occupy what is essentially the real world and are very well written but a handful behave as completely two-dimensional cartoon characters. It's a shame as when they interact with the more "real" characters, they bring everybody down to their level.
That said, Seven Psychopaths is consistently engaging and entertaining - not to mention reasonably funny, so it's not a bad film by any means. And it also sports a wonderful cast including Christopher Walken in the first good film of his career in years.
If Seven Psychopaths had been McDonough's debut, it might have been easier to forgive its shortcomings but to go from such a masterpiece to something as is simply just "good" and also quite forgettable is rather disappointing.
But it's also not really fair to complain about the film for not living up to another film's standards. It's a good film in its own right; it just isn't a masterpiece.

7/10


Ravenous

It takes a while to really sell you on where it stands, tonally; but after the film settles into an oddly supernatural groove and you accept that cannibalism grants a person with healing powers and super-strength - well, it's always fascinating to learn about the horror-based myths and legends of other cultures and to see them presented in the form of a fun horror film is even better. Throw in a period setting that helps to differentiate the film from countless other entries into the horror genre, as well as a distinctive, original and pleasant, yet eerie musical score and you've got Ravenous: an under-appreciated gem of a film.
I don't know why it isn't held in higher regard than it is, but it's certainly earned the cult following it now has.

8/10


Leaving Las Vegas

Leaving Las Vegas fits into the subgenre of Nicolas Cage films where he portrays a man on a descent into the lowest depths of madness, substance abuse and generally having a bad time. These tend to be the films in which Nic Cage gets to prove that he's actually a very talented actor in spite of what Joe Public and Cage's recent spate of action-durge might lead you to think.
Sadly, Leaving Las Vegas has little to offer beyond Cage's performance. In no way is it a bad film - in fact, it's crafted completely competently - it's just lacking any powerhouse elements that can lift it beyond the realms of just being good, but largely forgettable. Nicolas Cage's performance is one element of that nature but, sadly, it isn't enough.
But, hey, negativity aside, it is good.

7/10


Hollow Man

When I used to talk about how strange it was that I was hugely aware of Kevin Bacon without having seen any of his films, the big, iconic role that people used to throw my way was always Hollow Man for some reason. I can't say it's the best I've seen of Bacon, so far, so I'm not sure, why.
Paul Verhoeven directs. He's an odd director. I suppose I like him in that he's got a very unique and distinctive flavour that he injects into his films and he's produced some utterly brilliant work (RoboCop, Total Recall). But, then, he's also produced a lot of shit.
Hollow Man is sort of in-between the two. It's extremely watchable with a handful of nice ideas dotted around inside it, but it never really manages to take off or go anywhere particularly interesting with its premise - at least, not for more than a few seconds at a time. What's left is a fairly generic horror thriller. It could be a lot worse, but it could also be a lot better.

6/10


Sling Blade

Sling Blade isn't a hugely original film. It's a fairly typical actor-portraying-a-mentally-ill-man-to-Oscar-nominee-standard film, in fact and as soon as the antagonist is introduced, you know exactly how the film is going to play out and end.
It's strange, then, that Sling Blade is absolutely brilliant. Billy Bob Thornton's performance flirts with being laughably cartoonish and over the top but somehow always manages to walk the line and come out on the side that impresses. And the scenes are all crafted and played out practically perfectly.
It's not exactly pushing into new territory as a film, but it does what it does and it does it beautifully. Sling Blade is a smart, emotionally resonant and, most importantly, extremely entertaining film.

9/10


The Philadelphia Experiment

The Philadelphia Experiment takes a fascinating "true" story (conspiracy theory) and turns it into a mediocre time-travel film about a man from the past trapped in the present.
It's not really a concept that has enough meat to its bones for a feature film and the rest of the film inhabits a strange "should be a comedy, but instead it's a light drama" sort of tone due to its fish-out-of-water nature, but the fact that it clearly felt the need to be vaguely respectful to the real people involved seeing as their story might just be true (even though it isn't).
Not a bad film and easy to watch, but other than a few minutes of interesting footage (the stuff you imagine when you read up on the "incident"), it's all extremely pedestrian.

6/10


Whistle Down the Wind

Just as was the case with Seance on a Wet Afternoon, my second venture into the work of Bryan Forbes also proves to be tick every box one could possibly want from a film.
It's constantly completely engaging whilst also being utterly charming, whimsical, funny, touching, smart - you name it - all to the point that I don't understand why they aren't held up as all-time classics of cinema.
Whistle Down the Wind follows the story of some quaint Northern children in the '60s who find a criminal hiding from the law in their dad's barn and assume him to be the second coming of Christ. As a premise; it's absolutely perfect and, to be honest, it executes it pretty much to perfection, too.
If the next Bryan Forbes film I see lives up to these two, he's going to go straight on my list of directors whose films I want to see every last one of.

8/10


Final Destination 3

Final Destination 3 is a fairly easy film to review in so far as it's basically exactly the same as the previous 2 Final Destination films. If you like them, chances are that you'll like this seeing as it's probably marginally better than those two due to an increased amount of playing with the basic concept. If you don't like those films, you definitely won't like this because it's essentially more of the same. If you haven't seen those two films, then what are you doing jumping straight to the third one?
It tries hard and it works in ways, but a lot of the kills are just death for death's sake (lacking the irreverent sense of humour that some of the entries have) and the ending is particularly weak - a problem that plagues this franchise.
Anyway, the lead is Mary Elizabeth Winstead which makes it better than the first two films, anyway, seeing as their protagonists are just faceless drones.

5/10


Land of the Lost

Land of the Lost is a bizarrely tonally unsure film. It flitters between self-aware send up of a "classic", family fare gone awry and other general styles. It's highly watchable as are the vast majority of Will Ferrell films - particularly, in this case, because there are dinosaurs and other strange creatures thrown into the mix. But, that doesn't make it good, exactly.
It's the sort of film you expect to show up on TV during the late morning of a week in the Summer holidays as something of a daily film to keep kids entertained. Passably entertaining, basically... without really being good from any reasonable, objective standpoint.

5/10


Fiddler on the Roof

Fiddler on the Roof is charming and amusing, but given how bland and samey many of the songs tend to be and that even the "stand-out" songs aren't exactly incredible, combined with the way that the film is a mammoth 3 hours long, it's all a bit... meh. It's a shame that they couldn't cut it down to a more palatable size, but assuming that it came from the stage, it had fans to please, I suppose. But still, much of the film felt completely unnecessary, given the length and, ultimately, not a huge amount happens.
But hey, the charming nature of it all goes a long way. It winds up being good as opposed to great.

7/10


The Hustler

It's easy to see why The Hustler is regarded as a classic. Whilst none of the scenes showcase anything particularly unique, they're all carried out to a certain degree of quality - never really allowing themselves to become dull despite being largely predictable.
It paints a portrait of a man with few positive traits, and, to be honest, there are many better films with similar tones and subject matter, but this one is perfectly acceptable and achieves its goals.
Good, but not quite the classic some would have you believe.

7/10


The Sorcerer's Apprentice (2010)

I enjoy most of Nicolas Cage's generic action crap to an extent. The National Treasure films, for instance, are fun in spite of their mediocrity. The Sorcerer's Apprentice somehow manages to lose that sense of fun despite it being about Nicolas Cage shooting magic plasma balls at people and adding Alfred Molina to the cast.
This film is so completely pedestrian that it's hard to understand how it got made. I mean - nobody involved could have cared in the slightest, otherwise it wouldn't be so run of the mill, surely? I can't imagine a director pouring their heart and soul into something only to end up with this, for example.
But then, surely this is the sort of film that needs to be reasonably alright in order to be financially worth Disney's time in making it. I'm assuming Disney are behind it seeing as it's an adaptation of a public domain story that they like to pretend that they own, just like Aladdin and Cinderella.
This film is stupid and Nicolas Cage doesn't go mental in it there's no point in watching.

5/10


Earth Girls are Easy

Earth Girls are Easy is a waste of a premise that could have been turned into a solid comedy, not to mention a waste of a great cast of people who were mostly all up and comers at the time. It's consistently unfunny and is a musical, except that it forgets that it's a musical for huge stretches of time which means that each song feels completely and utterly out of place within the rest of it.
In fact, the film feels like they deviated hugely from the script for some reason because countless set ups and plot points are hinted at only to never pay off properly. The aliens' ability to mimic noises sort of comes into play near the end of the film, but only extremely briefly and it feels like they were setting it up for more, for instance.
I don't really know who this film was made for because I have no idea who would particularly enjoy it on its own terms.

5/10


Look Who's Talking

When I heard about Look Who's Talking, I assumed it would be bad. Like, really, really bad. But it's much worse than that.
This abysmal film attempts comedy without any actual jokes, as if dubbing the vocal stylings of Bruce Willis over footage of a child is somehow inherently amusing (it isn't).
What's worse is that, unlike what I expected which was a film about a child who could talk, complete with awkward special effects to make the mouth move and everything, this film is actually just about a completely ordinary child, but we're treated to his inner-monologue - an inner monologue that makes no sense because within the child's head, he's as intelligent and matured as any adult, but, ignoring the voice-over, he's just a normal child.
The voice-over makes no sense within the context of that character and the whole thing just feels like a YouTube video of some moronic parent doing a voice over footage of their baby in a cot that somehow goes viral like that God-awful "Ultimate Dog Tease" piece of shit - a video I understand is also being developed into a feature film (no, seriously) - presumably as a conscious effort to further lower the bar than what this film did over two decades ago.
The film's focus is rarely even on the child, which makes things worse. Instead, it quickly becomes an incredibly dull, production-line romcom starring John Travolta and Kirstie Alley. And this is honestly one of the worst romcoms I've ever seen; if not, the worst - which really is saying something seeing as the genre is ripe with turgid shite.
My understanding is that they squeezed at least two sequels out of this travesty. And Guillermo Del Toro can't get funding for At the Mountains of Madness. Fuck you, the human race.

2/10


Safety Not Guaranteed

Safety Not Guaranteed is hugely typical of its quirky, sort-of-rom-sort-of-com subgenre. It's also one of the best films within said subgenre that I've seen. For all of its overt "kookiness", it never really feels like it's trying too hard and it works. That is, up until the ending which does a lot to undermine the rest of it, but ignoring that - particularly as this is a film that's all about the journey as opposed to the plot, itself - it's funny, charming and vaguely sweet. It's certainly admirable for turning such a fluff-piece bit of nothing of a true story into a feature film. For those of you who don't know, the film is based on - or rather, inspired by a true story in which a man placed an ad in a local paper seeking a companion for time-travel, claiming that he'd done it once before and intended to go back and claiming that he couldn't guarantee the safety of anyone that travelled with him. Safety not guaranteed - I get it.
Its subplots are, typically of a lot of indie films, largely irrelevant and don't really tie into anything, but for the most part, the film is well written and engaging. And, ending aside, well-crafted and feels natural. It's good, but it's not a classic for the ages.

7/10


The Most Dangerous Game

Off the bat, The Most Dangerous Game has a phenomenal premise - one that we've seen shades of in countless more recent works such as Battle Royale, Saw and The Hunger Games.
The film sees a shipwrecked couple taking refuse on an island where a man lives, obsessed with hunting. It soon transpires that he orchestrated their boat's crash. Why? Well, he's hunted so many of everything that the only way to get his kicks is now to hunt the most dangerous game: human beings - just like my friend who watched so much porn that now he can only get off over videos of fat men climaxing into the hair of Japanese school-girls dressed as cats.
This hunter's perversion takes the form of a game in which the couple are given a head-start before he is to pursue, shoot and kill them. He's so confident in his abilities that he offers them their freedom if they can survive for 3 days. But I mean, I'd be pretty confident in my abilities too if I was chasing two unarmed people on a tiny island with a pack of trained dogs and a gun at my disposal.
The film works because the premise is outlandish enough to get your attention and, yet, really quite terrifying when you think about it. It's a classic "what would I do in that situation?" sort of film by which I mean that when watching it, you're constantly imagining what you'd do in that situation and, to be honest, I'm not sure that I - or most people for that matter - would stand much chance of survival. That's why it's so thrilling to watch. There's no easy way out for them and the peril feels extremely real.
It's also an extremely simple premise which, as anyone who's read a few of my reviews will probably gather, is a big plus for me. And, you know... it could happen. In fact, I bet that it basically has. I will now do a quick search on the internet for cases similar to this film and I'll get back to you at the end of the review.
The story itself plays out in a fairly run of the mill fashion, but it contains all of the character and charm that one should expect from the horror classics of its era and overall, it's both a hugely satisfying film and one that I'm amazed doesn't have a big-budget remake in production right now so as to compete with The Hunger Games. Not that I'm saying they should remake it - this film is good enough for me.
I'm back from my hunt for information, now, and yes, it appears than in the '80s, a man named Robert Hansen "did" this film, albeit in the woods rather than on an island. I don't think it was because of or in any way connected to this film - it just was very similar. Life imitates art.

7/10


Hey look, it's my blog where I just post inane drivel like this semi-regularly. Check it out.
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #511 on: 01-18-2013 12:21 »

I hate how Thunderball has literally twenty minutes of no dialogue whatsoever.
~FazeShift~

Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #512 on: 01-18-2013 14:44 »

For 1965 Thunderball was technically (underwater cinematography-wise) good, all you can really do is reaction shots... the lack of dialogue can be done well too (Wall*E for example), perhaps I am remember it more fondly as I watched it when younger.

Also what about the Thunderball remake Never Say Never Again, DON'T FORGET THAT!

Heh, Dr. Thunderballs
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #513 on: 01-18-2013 14:46 »

All Of The Movies

Some of this was pretty good, and I enjoyed some of the scenes.  Some of it was terrible though.

2-8/10

Neat sauce!
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #514 on: 01-18-2013 16:56 »

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I should begin this review by saying that I'm not a huge fan of The Lord of the Rings films. I really can't be bothered justifying my opinion on the matter here - that's another discussion to be had altogether.
I still went to see The Hobbit and I sincerely tried my very hardest to enjoy it seeing as, as a fan of cinema, I feel the need to keep up to date with films such as this, I was intrigued to see something in HFR for the first time and, unlike The Lord of the Rings, I've actually read The Hobbit and I remember enjoying it as a child, though I also remember enjoying the act of counting to 10 so that shows what value me as a child's opinion holds.
I'll cut right to it; The Hobbit is a bad film. The film starts with Bilbo Baggins Classic from the first three films in a pointless exercise in tying the film directly into the The Lord of the Rings trilogy by retroactively crow-barring every character back into the story. The scene genuinely serves absolutely zero purpose beyond fitting an Elijah Wood cameo into the mix.
Then we backtrack to the film's opening act in which an unexpected party show up at New Bilbo Baggins' house because Gandalf told them to rendezvous there before their next big quest.
Not only does this sequence last half the running time of a normal movie for absolutely no reason (you could easily cover it in 10 minutes), but it plays absolutely horribly. It might be due to the High Frame Rate (which I'll talk about in more detail, later), but the whole thing felt like a poorly staged amateur play. Everyone (with the exception of Sir Ian) was ridiculously over the top, performing stupid pantomime-esque gags to the back row.
However, once they leave The Shire, the staging and acting do improve, to be fair, though I'm not exactly sold on Martin Freeman. I like Martin Freeman. I think he's a likable presence on screen. That said, I think he's best suited to TV in roles like Tim from The Office. His abilities seem too stretched in The Hobbit and it feels like he's still playing the thing as a sitcom, with awkward faces to camera aplenty - except now that the camera isn't necessarily facing him straight-on when he does them.
Then there's the next problem: the film's tone. It walks a fine line between accepting the fact that The Hobbit is a children's book and playing to it whilst also trying to appease the legions of fans of the previous films who want something darker and more adult. The end result is a film that tries to scare you and make you feel genuine emotion one second, only for a character to burp for about 10 seconds, the next. It doesn't work. I mean, hell, there are musical numbers in it. Most of them work within the world of the film in so far as, presumably, the characters are either performing an old classic of their world or they're just singing a made up song to themselves, but there's a moment at the start where everybody breaks into a song that couldn't possibly have been written previously due to the lyrical content being about what's happening then and there, yet everyone is playing it perfectly together like a rehearsed band. I know that there are songs in the book, but like I said, the book doesn't have the same tone as the film and "It's in the book" isn't a valid excuse for something that doesn't work on film, anyway.
Another of the film's problems is how poorly things are conveyed. There are countless moments that fly past far too subtly to land if you haven't read the book, or in some cases, don't even fly past at all to begin with. For example, in this opening sequence in the shire, everybody except for Bilbo comes across as a grade-A tosser. The dwarves are all rude and expectant, putting a great deal of stress on their host who clearly isn't happy that they're there. They're obviously (mostly) not stupid enough characters to be completely oblivious to his distaste for what's happening to when they raid his pantry and start throwing his crockery around... well, it's just bullying. Not exactly the best way to introduce our team of 13 heroes that we're supposed to like, care for and see as the good characters that the film is setting up against the evil ones, exactly. Gandalf, in particular, plays as a horrible person, essentially just tormenting Bilbo by causing all of this trouble. The thing is that in the book, he's quite happy to be hosting the gathering, but thanks to the film's desire to play the opening as a scene from a sitcom with a doddery, Basil Fawlty type as the protagonist, everything has an entirely new spin on it that prevents it from working. This is a problem that plagues the film, throughout.
Then there's the writing - one of the weakest aspects of the film. Bilbo is clearly unhappy to be so put upon by Gandalf et al - I mean, he has a panic attack and faints because of it all. This isn't just mild annoyance; they're causing him severe stress. They ask him to join their quest and he rejects the offer quite strongly without even a hint of changing his mind or underlying doubt or any sort of subtext to his actions. Cut to the next morning as he wakes to find everyone gone and suddenly, for no reason whatsoever, he decides that he does want to take part and chases after the party, holding the contract they offered him in the most impractical fashion imaginable. There's no reason for his change of heart whatsoever; it just happens - and that sums up the film's characterisation in general. It's appalling.
Obviously, it varies depending on the edition of the books, but on average there are something in the region of 1,500 pages of text that compile The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Compare that to less than 500 pages for The Hobbit. In The Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson adapted 1,500 pages into roughly 9 hours of cinema - that's 500 pages per film - and, even there, the films felt overly long and bloated. With The Hobbit, Peter Jackson has decided to adapt 500 pages into roughly 9 hours of cinema - that's less than 167 pages per film.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why The Hobbit couldn't be adapted into a single 2-hour film. In fact, an animated film from the '70s already exists at under 2 hours and that film hardly cut anything important from the book. I have a serious issue with long films. I don't mind them provided that everything in the film is justified and necessary, but I cannot stand it when a film runs over 2 and a half hours for no reason other than self-indulgence. The Hobbit may well be the worst example of self-indulgence in a running time that I've ever seen. So little of the film has any real bearing on the overall storyline that they're crafting.
I mean, there's a 10-minute sequence in which characters find themselves standing on top of stone giants in the middle of a big stone-giant fight, having mistaken the stone giants (who are made out of stone, you see) for mountains. This comes out of nowhere, has no relevance to the plot and is based on a single, relatively short paragraph in the book in which Bilbo sees the giants in the distance. The paragraph has so little relevance to anything in the overall story that it could easily be taken as being a nice bit of metaphorical writing explaining the harshness of the landscape, but that's not how Peter Jackson does things. Jackson's law is that EVERYTHING from the book makes the film and most of that should be converted, from its original intention within the book, into an action scene. Even the troll-campfire-sequence - one of the best parts of the book - now has a big fight inserted into the middle of it for no reason whatsoever.
To further pad things out, they - for some reason - saw it fit to go into the book's appendices and add in lots of details mentioned in them as well as new stuff they just made up because they felt like it. As a result, the film stops every half hour or so to try and tell a story about some evil big-bad who's chasing everyone except that I don't care. The scenes seem to serve no purpose other than to have allowed the screenwriters to insert an action beat every 10 pages as the old writing tip suggests - the problem is that at 3 hours, the action just gets relentless - particularly as almost none of it is interesting to watch. You can't just throw a million characters at each other with swords and expect it to look interesting. Things have to be carefully thought through and choreographed and almost all of the action sequences in this film are lifeless and feel like no effort has been put into them. That's not to say that all of the action sequences are bad, however. One of the film's earlier battles - told as a flashback - is wonderfully orchestrated, as is the sequence in which the characters escape down, down, from Golbin Town.
The ridiculous length of the thing leads into the next complaint which is there is absolutely nothing in the way of conclusion. I don't like films with no ending. I especially don't like 3-hour films with no ending. I know that they're making sequels but I don't care - a film is a story and a story without an ending isn't a story - it's just a waste of everybody's time. The Lord of the Rings trilogy was almost as bad for the complete and utter lack of conclusion up until the final film, but at least in the case of The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, they were based on books which were written so as to offer a natural winding down at the end of each section of the story - not an adequate conclusion as such, but certainly much better than the bullshit we're peddled in The Hobbit that essentially just stops after about 5 scenes that feel like they're winding down without offering a true ending, followed by a horrible cliched and completely unnecessary "button" cliffhanger in which we see Smaug's eye opening in his nest of gold before the film cuts to black.
The fact that The Hobbit was originally shot to be two films produced back to back, but at the last minute, they decided to cut the footage into three films, instead pretty much confirms that the film was made with absolutely no regard for structure, outright. Clearly, the two films were pushing 8 hours in running time and Peter Jackson was upset about the hour of footage he'd already cut from them, so he just said, "You know what? Let's shift the first ending forward, shove another arbitrary ending in two thirds through and just release 9 hours of this drivel".
A story can easily tell its own tale whilst being part of a larger whole. Back to the Future: Part II is a great example in that it's very much its own film but it draws from the previous film heavily and after concluding its own story, it sets the next one up as a cliff hanger. I mean, hell - any good TV drama does this. The episodes in Breaking Bad, for instance, tend to tell a largely self-enclosed storyline (this week is about Walt and Jesse trying to dispose of a body, next week is about Walt & Jesse being kidnapped, etc) but, obviously, they all make up a beautifully rich tapestry of fiction. You could argue that The Hobbit couldn't do this seeing as it had source material to stay true to, but firstly, the film already shits all over its source material and secondly, I don't have to give them a free pass because they made the wrong decision about how to adapt it. It shouldn't be three films. End of discussion. If someone decided to remake Taxi Driver as an obnoxious Adam Sandler comedy that was essentially made up of Adam Sandler accidentally hitting himself in the balls with the car door whenever he tried to get into his cab, you wouldn't give the film a free pass for its flaws on the grounds that "Well, they were making it into an Adam Sandler comedy so they sort of had to do it that way"; you would criticise it for the choices made to turn it into an Adam Sandler comedy in the first place. There's an allegory. Deal with it.
Another of the film's big sins is its direction in general. I used to adore Peter Jackson and his work, but honestly, some of The Hobbit is very poorly directed on a very simple film-making level. The sequence involving Gollum, for instance - another of the book (and admittedly the film)'s highlights - doesn't play properly at all. The entire point of the scene is that Bilbo has encountered Gollum and that Gollum is a real threat. It's supposed to be tense and gripping in spite of its light-hearted surface. There's supposed to be an underlying sinister nature to the whole thing. This is because Gollum lives in the crevices below Golbin Town. He knows the place inside out. It's almost pitch-black down there so if ever anything accidentally finds its way down there, Gollum can sneak around them, track them, bide his time until the perfect time to strike, then throttle them from behind so that he can eat them. In the film, the scene is lit considerably brighter than it is in, say, Bilbo's pantry earlier on the film - and that was hardly dark.
This completely undermines everything that makes the scene work and robs it of any emotional power over the audience. It just feels flat and, frankly, that's a criticism that could be thrown at any sequence in the film, really. The direction never goes beyond functional. Obviously, some of it is impressive because functional, in this case, means throwing billions of dollars at countless numbers of extras and CGI wizards and production designers and shooting it on an amazing camera that makes everything look great. But a film like this, surely, deserves something more from the direction, does it not?
Anyway, after the Gollum sequence, we're treated to another, needless half-hour action sequence in which the protagonists climb up some trees to escape bad guys then jump onto the back of some deus ex machinas who come to save them in the form of eagles. The reason why the eagles can't just fly them the whole of their journey is never so much as hinted at which makes up one of many absolutely gigantic plot-holes in the film. Yes, the book explains it. I don't care. This isn't the book; it's the film. It constitutes a separate entity and has to stand alone.
Believe me when I say that I could continue to criticise this film for hours but I shalln't as I feel that I've covered most of the major points that I took issue with and my mother keeps tell me off for being so negative about everything. It's with that in mind, then, that I bring you to the positive portion of the review; starting with the visuals. For the most part, the film looks amazing. That's almost certainly down to the HFR and Red cameras used so, not exactly the film's doing, but the landscape is wonderful, the costumes great, the makeup all fantastic and the special effects, for the most part, wonderful. HFR really compliments CGI so the sequences that were essentially 99% CGI looked gorgeous. Sadly, the cinematography never goes beyond incredible amounts of detail, but I've already touched on this.
The acting is all solid, for the most part, once the film gets out of The Shire. There's nothing spectacular to see but it's worth mentioning as a plus. And the music is great. The score composed for "Song of the Lonely Mountain" is essentially the theme that drives the entire film's score, but it is quite lovely.

[side note]And, HFR is a fascinating new development in film-making. I don't quite feel like it's right to criticise the film based on HFR seeing as I'd essentially be reviewing a format rather than the film itself... but as a footnote to this tome of mine, it's worth mentioning how strange it was. I've seen it compared to cheap TV or behind the scenes footage. I can see where these people are coming from, but to me it looked like when a computer playing a DVD freezes for a second whilst still playing the audio and then plays the visuals really quickly to catch back up with itself. Initially the film looked completely out of sync, but once people start speaking, you realise that it isn't.
Somehow, HFR seems to allow for an absolutely mind-boggling level of clarity and detail in an image. In ways, this served to highlight how fake things like the set or people's makeup were as well as how overplayed some of the performances were initially, but genuinely, at times it was as if the image was right there in front of me. At the start, it feels like Ian McKellen is stood, performing right in front of you. There was a shot of a waterfall in particular that was stunning. If you waited for me to fall asleep then woke me up in the cinema at that moment, it would have taken me a good minute to realise that I wasn't sat in front of a real waterfall.
And, as I said before, CGI seems to look much better in HFR. It just blends in a lot more seamlessly. As a result, CGI-heavy sequences look incredible. Oh, and 3D works a lot better. The technology does, indeed, eradicate the ghosting effect that can plague 3D films in general.
That said, it's extremely jarring and it does look distractingly cheap in a lot of ways but I can't really say how much of this is down to just not being used to it. I definitely see HFR as being something that's likely to catch on (eventually) and I'm excited about that. It seems to have a place for intimate films (it'll be like two actors are having a conversation right in front of you, like on the stage) as well as huge blockbusters (CGI looks gorgeous, remember?) so I think it ought to prove itself as having a lot of applications. I certainly like it as a new potential tool at filmmakers' disposals.[/sidenote]

Much like this review, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a bloated, self-indulgent mess, but my review is better because it conveys its points better and it actually has a concl

5/10
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #515 on: 01-18-2013 20:22 »

Also what about the Thunderball remake Never Say Never Again, DON'T FORGET THAT!

"Hey, let's remake a bad Bond film, and make it even worse!"

Please don't remind me that Never Say Never Again exists. Ever again.
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #516 on: 01-19-2013 00:26 »
« Last Edit on: 01-19-2013 00:30 »

Cyber Turnip:

While I disagree with a large amount of your review, you do have some good points. The random song feels out of place, and the dwarves come across as giant pricks at the start. And while I agree that some parts could have been cut down and left for an inevitable extended edition, I think it would have felt worse as a single film. The LOTR trilogy, despite being extremely long, almost felt like it didn't have room to breathe.

With The Hbbit, the decision to split it into three films allows it to not only stay closer to the original novel, but expand upon it.
 
Googzeez

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #517 on: 01-19-2013 07:38 »

Cyber, your arguments are on pacing. The pacing in the movie is spot on with the book. Don't blame a movie for what is the source materials fault. It's very true to the novel (Minus adding in the White Orc, because he was dead in the novel. Also I agree, HFR sucked monkey salmon.
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #518 on: 01-19-2013 20:41 »


Shit, they made a movie about that? I need to check that out. smile
sparkybarky

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #519 on: 01-19-2013 22:25 »

I watched The Philadelphia Experiment back in the 80s, when I was a kid. I recall enjoying it very much, but my tastes in movies back then were pretty rudimentary.

Lucas Black is the best thing about Sling Blade. He's a wonderful actor, so I'm disappointed that he isn't in many movies these days. He was also the only good thing about All the Pretty Horses (directed by Billy Bob). I wish they had left one of my all-time favorite books alone.

Speaking of Hustler, I think I'm going to watch Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. I love Paul Newman.

Also, has anyone seen The Impossible?
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 ... 20 Print 
 Topic locked! 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.395 seconds with 18 queries.