|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 21, 2014 12:54:00 GMT -5
The new hobbit movie is pretty bad. So excessive. I didn't dislike it because it got into "so bad it's funny" territory, like the George Clooney Batman movie. I was laughing joyously at several scenes in Battle of Five Armies because it just got so bad. (My 13-year-old niece kept threatening to leave the theatre "if one more stupid thing happens!") So it's not boring and I don't regret going. But it is not good. As a big fan of the book and a fan of the LOTR cinematic trilogy, I quite enjoyed the first part of the Hobbit, really disliked the second and am dreading the third. It's not the Hobbit I know and love, at all. Such a shame that they couldn't just do it as one 3 hour film and stick to the simpler story of a treasure hunt and the slaying of a dragon. Instead, we get a bloated, LOTR prequel, with too much bad CGI in it and not enough of the humour and wonder that made the book so enjoyable. I feel pretty much the same way you do, Confessor. It's just soooo bloated. I could read the novel in less time than it would take to watch the three movies. That is a major problem. For all Peter Jackson's strengths as a director he desperately needs someone to curb his excesses and cut most of his recent films by at least a third. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 21, 2014 13:18:26 GMT -5
The new hobbit movie is pretty bad. So excessive. I didn't dislike it because it got into "so bad it's funny" territory, like the George Clooney Batman movie. I was laughing joyously at several scenes in Battle of Five Armies because it just got so bad. (My 13-year-old niece kept threatening to leave the theatre "if one more stupid thing happens!") So it's not boring and I don't regret going. But it is not good. As a big fan of the book and a fan of the LOTR cinematic trilogy, I quite enjoyed the first part of the Hobbit, really disliked the second and am dreading the third. It's not the Hobbit I know and love, at all. Such a shame that they couldn't just do it as one 3 hour film and stick to the simpler story of a treasure hunt and the slaying of a dragon. Instead, we get a bloated, LOTR prequel, with too much bad CGI in it and not enough of the humour and wonder that made the book so enjoyable. As a big fan of the book and a fan of the LOTR cinematic trilogy, I quite enjoyed the first part of the Hobbit, really disliked the second and am dreading the third. It's not the Hobbit I know and love, at all. Such a shame that they couldn't just do it as one 3 hour film and stick to the simpler story of a treasure hunt and the slaying of a dragon. Instead, we get a bloated, LOTR prequel, with too much bad CGI in it and not enough of the humour and wonder that made the book so enjoyable. I feel pretty much the same way you do, Confessor. It's just soooo bloated. I could read the novel in less time than it would take to watch the three movies. That is a major problem. For all Peter Jackson's strengths as a director he desperately needs someone to curb his excesses and cut most of his recent films by at least a third. While both are these are certainly true I have still found that I enjoyed both films. I think I would have liked it better if it was just one film and it had the more light hearted tone of the novel rather than the grimmer tone of the Lord of the Rings, but that's not what we got so I've learned to accept the films for what they are rather than what I'd like them to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 21, 2014 14:04:12 GMT -5
While both are these are certainly true I have still found that I enjoyed both films. I think I would have liked it better if it was just one film and it had the more light hearted tone of the novel rather than the grimmer tone of the Lord of the Rings, but that's not what we got so I've learned to accept the films for what they are rather than what I'd like them to be. I was able to put aside my memories of the book for the first two movies, and I very much enjoyed them in the way they were (presumably) intended to be enjoyed.
But not for The Battle of Five Armies. I enjoyed it, yes, but it was more like the way I enjoy MST3K, with my niece and I sitting in for Joel and the bots.
SPOILER:
When Tauriel was weeping over the body of Kili or Fili or Billy or Silly or whatever his name was, my niece said, "This would be sad if the movie wasn't so bad."
Yes. We had fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Dec 22, 2014 15:08:00 GMT -5
And so we get a first glimpse at Benedict Cumberbatch as Doctor Strange:
Just a concept pic, but it has a lot of potential.
Source:
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Dec 23, 2014 1:58:14 GMT -5
I like the look of that Dr. Strange concept art. Dare I hope that they might be taking the approach I'd like to see with this film?
I haven't seen any of the Hobbit movies, mainly because I think it's one of those books like The Wind in the Willows or Carroll's Alice books, whose charm lies in the way the story is told even more than in the story itself.
The Lord of the Rings movies worked to some extent because they followed the sweeping, epic narrative perhaps more closely than any other movie adaptation I can think of, and that story was so big, the movies could carry you along just by using that element alone.
I think the LoTR films failed in other aspects - for example in regards to the fictional-historical depth of Tolkien's invented world, some of the character-casting, and in capturing the general atmosphere of Tolkien's Middle-Earth (they should have built more from Tolkien's own drawings) - but in terms of pure narrative drive, they were pretty successful, simply by adhering fairly closely to the rhythms and details of Tolkien's plot.
The Hobbit also has a great story - but it sounds like they haven't stuck to it as they did with LoTR, adding elements and expanding it into a trilogy. And excellent as that story is, I think it isn't as important to the overall effect of the book as is the story of the LoTR trilogy, so even if they had stuck to it, most likely the film wouldn't have been as successful an adaptation as was LoTR, relatively speaking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Dec 23, 2014 11:17:24 GMT -5
Spoilers about the third Hobbit movie.
Spoilers.
Agreed on the third Hobbit movie. It was the less annoying of the three but still wasn't very good; I'm convinced a good hour of fighting could have been removed from it without any harm to the narrative. It's not that I dislike long battles on screen; it's just that to engage the viewer, they have to be believable and offer some kind of tension (as was the case with the battle for Helm's Deep in The Two Towers). Here we had some impressive video game visuals, but the action was so far removed from reality that it was hard to care for the characters. I mean, when you get thrown twenty feet into a rock wall, you're supposed to be dead; to just bounce back and keep fighting says that you're invulnerable, and that you'll only be hurt when some movie director says that it is time. No tension there.
The fight between Azog and Thorin would have been much better had we skipped the infernal Hollywoodian habit of apparently killing the bad guy only to have him come back to life. Come on... we all expect it by now. And having the Eagles arrive in extremis and save the day? How often has it happened in this series? Everyone in the audience is going "next time, lead with that!".
Tying other Tolkien writings into the Hobbit (all that happens at Dol Guldur) was an ambitious move, but one that didn't pay off at all. It turned out to be little more than a cameo opportunity for Sauron, Galadriel, Saruman and Elrond and it added very little to the main plot of the film. Sure, we learn that the motivation for the Orcs wanting to get their hands on the Lonely Mountain is a strategic one, but that was hardly necessary. As for the introduction of Radagast, a character we never actually meet in Tolkien's writings... the fellow might have been meant as comic relief, but he was dangerously close to becoming Middle Earth's Jar Jar Binks. It's a good thing he's hardly seen in this movie.
I don't regret having seen this film, but unlike the LotR trilogy that I keep rewatching since it came out, I doubt I'll bother to see it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Dec 24, 2014 9:37:18 GMT -5
We're getting ready to go see the new Hobbit movie! I'm looking forward to it. I haven't seen a hilariously bad movie for a while, so I hope this lives up (down?) to my expectations. I'll just have to keep my brother from throwing ALL of our popcorn at the screen! (He takes movie versions of popular books far too seriously. His half-hour rant on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince should be on YouTube.) In your brother's defense, they really botched the adaptation of the Harry Potter movies in my opinion, though sadly I thought this one was one of the better...no, not better...less bad ones. |
|
|
|
Post by Jasoomian on Dec 26, 2014 0:07:20 GMT -5
Dr. Strange is interesting as the master of the mystic arts, not as a student. Not as somebody who is starting to figure out things, but as a person of knowledge. He has his master's, he's working on the doctorate. |
|
|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Dec 26, 2014 4:03:52 GMT -5
Ernest Saves Christmas > The Interview.
In other news The Equalizer was dope. I wish Denzel Washington could make movies forever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2014 4:27:16 GMT -5
I just saw Birdman today. I liked it, but it was pretty far from what I expected based on the previews. Seems like the superhero part was just added to the movie so the previews could present it as a superhero movie. It would have been the same exact movie if there was no super hero in it.
But it was cool for a quirky indy dramedy. I've spent Christmas at the theater for the past four years now, and I'd say this one was the worst of the four, but the entire reason I go on Christmas (besides the empty theaters) is the movies that show (and premier) on this day tend to be high quality stuff. So I've seen Argo, Lincoln, D'jango Unchained, and Birdman.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jan 6, 2015 13:38:41 GMT -5
Not the first time I've seen it, but at least did get to watch the extras on the DVD this time; Everything Must Go (2010) starring Will Ferrell. The extras had good information to add to the film from all involved; set designers, director, producer, screen writer, actors and actresses. It's a good film even if the direct subject matter doesn't seem apt for everyone's life, we've all at least been there at some point for some reason. For me, though, it's pretty direct, and it's probably why I enjoy the film. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_Must_Go_(film) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2015 13:57:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2015 23:24:57 GMT -5
New Ant-Man trailer is up:
Hmm, no Hank Pym huh? Also Paul Rudd? Hard to see him as an action hero but who knows.
|
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jan 7, 2015 0:31:29 GMT -5
I just saw Birdman today. I liked it, but it was pretty far from what I expected based on the previews. Seems like the superhero part was just added to the movie so the previews could present it as a superhero movie. It would have been the same exact movie if there was no super hero in it. But it was cool for a quirky indy dramedy. I've spent Christmas at the theater for the past four years now, and I'd say this one was the worst of the four, but the entire reason I go on Christmas (besides the empty theaters) is the movies that show (and premier) on this day tend to be high quality stuff. So I've seen Argo, Lincoln, D'jango Unchained, and Birdman. I think the superhero part was essential, because Birdman seems to be a cranky denunciation of superhero movies. It seems to contrast "real acting" with the superhero stuff. Notice, they cast Michael Keaton, Emma Stone, and Edward Norton. And there's a sly meta-fictional reference to Norton's formal role as Bruce Banner. Something like, "Was he fired or did he quit?" "Both." That's probably one of the reasons I didn't like it. I found the attack on a genre I like tiresome. Also, the simulation of a single take was done long ago by Alfred Hitchcock in Rope. So that was interesting, but I wasn't blown away by the idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2015 1:47:20 GMT -5
Yeah, also the main characters career kind of parallels Michael Keaton's. The whole thing about paving the way for all the new billion dollar superhero movies. I just think the same story could have been told without the Birdman character. But then the trailer would have been completely different. I didn't dislike the movie, but it was nothing like what I expected, and besides a scene or two that looked like they cost a fortune, it was surprisingly low budget. Nearly the entire film done in an actual studio. That can't cost much. One scene in Time Square that was essential, and then the couple crazy Birdman scenes.
|
|
