Movie Reviews 2.0
- Thread starter Dresden
- Start date
Ok so to go back to dubbing... I'm in Italy right now and just caught the starting song ("it seems today, that all you see is violence in movies and sex on tv") which of course has been completely dubbed in Italian. Same music but different language. And now I wanna die. What the fuck was THAT!!!!
Just finished watching Pacific Rim on blu-ray, and...yeah, this is how you do Japanese monster-movies in hollywood format. Quite enjoyable, not a masterpiece perhaps, but yeah... It wastes two hours quite effectively it does, this movie. There's some good fight scenes, and a bunch of ridiculously over the top ones, and masses of action/fighting movie clichés, but don't you kind of expect 'em by now, including the
and whatnot?
Oh yeah, speaking of movie clichés, there's also the obnoxious ugly bulldog (I really could have done without the dog asshole closeup early on in the movie, thankyou), the testosterone-laden pilot lads (shit, Hunnam's ripped as hell in this movie lol), and no less than three ridiculous, bizarrely improbable comical relief characters, which IMO is at least two too many. The movie's biggest anchor are Ron Perlman's character and the two dumb scientists. Seriously, what is it with hollywood's obsession with portraying scientists in action movies as socially inept dorky gearheads? Is that supposed to be funny, what? I don't get it. Also, Ron Perlman is a really cool dude and a great actor, but in this movie he just doesn't work IMO.
If you want to be a bitch about it, there's a lot that really doesn't work in this movie, starting with the giant lumbering metal men and fleshy monsters that fight each other by slugging at each other with their fists...!
I got a news flash for you, but in the 1500s circa we invented this thing called a "cannon", that shoots heavy projectiles at high velocities for long distances. Of course, I suspect that would make for a really boring action movie, so this is another of those movie clichés that are akin to the computer game cliché that says the most effective weapons you have to fight invading demons from hell are a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun and a chainsaw.
So, yeah. 7/10, or thereabouts I think.
Edit: oh, and that is Idris Elba. Damn. Didn't recognize him without the golden helmet! Also, he's much more enflamed here, passionate. Great screen presence though, of course.
noble sacrifice
Oh yeah, speaking of movie clichés, there's also the obnoxious ugly bulldog (I really could have done without the dog asshole closeup early on in the movie, thankyou), the testosterone-laden pilot lads (shit, Hunnam's ripped as hell in this movie lol), and no less than three ridiculous, bizarrely improbable comical relief characters, which IMO is at least two too many. The movie's biggest anchor are Ron Perlman's character and the two dumb scientists. Seriously, what is it with hollywood's obsession with portraying scientists in action movies as socially inept dorky gearheads? Is that supposed to be funny, what? I don't get it. Also, Ron Perlman is a really cool dude and a great actor, but in this movie he just doesn't work IMO.
If you want to be a bitch about it, there's a lot that really doesn't work in this movie, starting with the giant lumbering metal men and fleshy monsters that fight each other by slugging at each other with their fists...!
I got a news flash for you, but in the 1500s circa we invented this thing called a "cannon", that shoots heavy projectiles at high velocities for long distances. Of course, I suspect that would make for a really boring action movie, so this is another of those movie clichés that are akin to the computer game cliché that says the most effective weapons you have to fight invading demons from hell are a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun and a chainsaw.So, yeah. 7/10, or thereabouts I think.
Edit: oh, and that is Idris Elba. Damn. Didn't recognize him without the golden helmet! Also, he's much more enflamed here, passionate. Great screen presence though, of course.
Was that where you had your operation?
Last edited by a moderator:
Was that where you had your operation?
Well it's much cheaper
Finished watching The Wolverine Unleashed Extended Edition today. Had to go to bed in the middle-ish of the movie yesterday, so that's why I finished today.
Was a bit too long perhaps. There's scenes - particularly during the bit where Logan and Mariko elopes - that feel a bit drawn out and uneventful if you see the movie like an action movie, and way shallow if seen as a drama, so maybe the theater cut is actually better, I'm not sure. I never saw it while it played in theatres; sometimes movies are this way that they benefit from judicious cuts for time and get bloated and slow when released in extended edition format.
Interestingly, James Cameron movies tend to be the opposite, getting better when the story is allowed to play out fully. This is true of The Abyss in particular, but now I digress.
I like that we get to see this story of the Wolverine in Japan, it's a classic in the comics and I believe I read at least parts of it many many years ago and can't remember much. I just recall some bits and pieces here and there. Can't say I thought the story in movie format is particularly impressive though, even by action movie standards. The script feels pretty confused, the motives of several of the characters are fuzzy or opaque, making it hard to judge if they're to be seen as friend or foe to the protagonists, and you don't really get a sense of why that is the case.
One in particular, the woman in green, we don't even get to know at all really despite her being a central character. I can't even remember if we're told her real name or not. This bothered me as I watched the movie, but other than this it is decently well crafted in most respects. The fight scenes are...ahum, technically very well carried out, but I feel they lack spirit in many cases. Guys fighting basically for the sake of there having to be goon asses for Logan to kick, basically. The train sequence was rather cool though I have to say. Harkens back to the original Mission Impossible, which in of itself was a good movie, so Wolverine benefits through association in my mind.
I do like this movie, it's not bad. Actually it's better than most action movies, and another example of a well crafted (although somewhat average and uninspired) Marvel superhero flick. They've done amazingly well over there in that they haven't made any real stinkers yet really (well, apart from Daredevil, which I will ignore), and not having that living zombie Stan Lee put in a prominent and not-so-subtle cameo was also a plus. He might have passed by in the background somewhere I'm not sure, but if so then I missed it, and good riddance. Maybe he forgot his false teeth at the retirement home the day they were gonna shoot his scene and they had to skip it? One can only hope!
6/10
Was a bit too long perhaps. There's scenes - particularly during the bit where Logan and Mariko elopes - that feel a bit drawn out and uneventful if you see the movie like an action movie, and way shallow if seen as a drama, so maybe the theater cut is actually better, I'm not sure. I never saw it while it played in theatres; sometimes movies are this way that they benefit from judicious cuts for time and get bloated and slow when released in extended edition format.
Interestingly, James Cameron movies tend to be the opposite, getting better when the story is allowed to play out fully. This is true of The Abyss in particular, but now I digress.
I like that we get to see this story of the Wolverine in Japan, it's a classic in the comics and I believe I read at least parts of it many many years ago and can't remember much. I just recall some bits and pieces here and there. Can't say I thought the story in movie format is particularly impressive though, even by action movie standards. The script feels pretty confused, the motives of several of the characters are fuzzy or opaque, making it hard to judge if they're to be seen as friend or foe to the protagonists, and you don't really get a sense of why that is the case.
One in particular, the woman in green, we don't even get to know at all really despite her being a central character. I can't even remember if we're told her real name or not. This bothered me as I watched the movie, but other than this it is decently well crafted in most respects. The fight scenes are...ahum, technically very well carried out, but I feel they lack spirit in many cases. Guys fighting basically for the sake of there having to be goon asses for Logan to kick, basically. The train sequence was rather cool though I have to say. Harkens back to the original Mission Impossible, which in of itself was a good movie, so Wolverine benefits through association in my mind.
I do like this movie, it's not bad. Actually it's better than most action movies, and another example of a well crafted (although somewhat average and uninspired) Marvel superhero flick. They've done amazingly well over there in that they haven't made any real stinkers yet really (well, apart from Daredevil, which I will ignore), and not having that living zombie Stan Lee put in a prominent and not-so-subtle cameo was also a plus. He might have passed by in the background somewhere I'm not sure, but if so then I missed it, and good riddance. Maybe he forgot his false teeth at the retirement home the day they were gonna shoot his scene and they had to skip it? One can only hope!
6/10
and not having that living zombie Stan Lee put in a prominent and not-so-subtle cameo was also a plus. He might have passed by in the background somewhere I'm not sure, but if so then I missed it, and good riddance. Maybe he forgot his false teeth at the retirement home the day they were gonna shoot his scene and they had to skip it? One can only hope!
6/10
Leave Stan alone!
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Let's just hope their surgical skills are better than their car building skills. Otherwise you will end up with the best looking scar ever but parts of you will be falling off all the time
Some movies I watched lately
The Iceman: Pretty good movie, I liked it. Good story and things keep happening all the time so you won't be bored. The lead character is the same guy as "Nelson" from Boardwalk Empire so it took me a short while to get use to him in this role (though it's similar in some ways) but good performance by him.
Seven psychopaths: Great movie. Again, stuff keeps happening all the time and the story is interesting as well. Not much of a description but definitely worth watching.
New world: A Korean movie. I like Korean movies and I think more people should watch them. Production values are high and unlike for example Japanese movies Korean movies are pretty westernized so while it's different and definitely has it's own feel to it, it's not something that is difficult to watch (if you are not particularly interested in Asian movies) unlike Japanese movies.
Anyway the movie is about a undercover agent working to uncover some big mafia organization. The story isn't the most unique in the world but it's good enough not the less and overall it's just a good and entertaining movie is you want something with some action and a story that you don't have to think about too much while watching.
The master: No idea what it is exactly what this movie is about. The first hour feels like three and by the end of the movie is was busy playing temple run because I just wasn't interested in what was (or wasn't) happening.
The desolation of Smaug
So, if you've liked the first Hobbit movie even a little bit, then you definitely have to see this. It has less of the bad stuff and more of the good and fun stuff, with some original and unexpected additions that were kinda fine with me for the most part.
There's a lot of action and it's completely bonkers; some critiques seem to think it gets boring or theme-park like, but personally I've been gripping the chair for the most part.
Nevertheless, Martin Freeman is the heart of the movie. I'd say he's even better than McKellen (who's still very good none the less). He manages to make Bilbo a very interesting and engaging character, not quite the impression the book has given me. And yet, it's still consistent with Ian Holm's version in the LOTR movies.
The VFX still has a few unpolished shots but the rest is truly amazing and even better than the first movie. Only saw it in 2D tonight but I'll definitely check the HFR version out, too.
And the dragon... What I've loved about the original LOTR movies was that they didn't really give us visual effects for Gollum or the Balrog or the trolls - but characters instead, believable and living and breathing, with their personalities and all. Smaug is more of that, but perhaps even better in everything. Benedict Cumberbatch has always seemed to have some reptilian qualities and a deep voice, so he was the perfect choice. Then Weta took over and they've delivered.
Oh, and that cliffhanger, well that is cruel.
So, if you've liked the first Hobbit movie even a little bit, then you definitely have to see this. It has less of the bad stuff and more of the good and fun stuff, with some original and unexpected additions that were kinda fine with me for the most part.
There's a lot of action and it's completely bonkers; some critiques seem to think it gets boring or theme-park like, but personally I've been gripping the chair for the most part.
Nevertheless, Martin Freeman is the heart of the movie. I'd say he's even better than McKellen (who's still very good none the less). He manages to make Bilbo a very interesting and engaging character, not quite the impression the book has given me. And yet, it's still consistent with Ian Holm's version in the LOTR movies.
The VFX still has a few unpolished shots but the rest is truly amazing and even better than the first movie. Only saw it in 2D tonight but I'll definitely check the HFR version out, too.
And the dragon... What I've loved about the original LOTR movies was that they didn't really give us visual effects for Gollum or the Balrog or the trolls - but characters instead, believable and living and breathing, with their personalities and all. Smaug is more of that, but perhaps even better in everything. Benedict Cumberbatch has always seemed to have some reptilian qualities and a deep voice, so he was the perfect choice. Then Weta took over and they've delivered.
Oh, and that cliffhanger, well that is cruel.
I watched the new Hunger Games movie last night and quite enjoyed it - it's as entertaining as the first one. I've never read the books so it is quite good to watch a film in which I don't know what is going to happen next (although as usual, it is easy to guess the odd plot point!). It will be interesting to see where the next episode goes with the storyline though I see they are making it into two separate movies which irritates me a little as I think it likely to be a money-making scheme as much as anything.
On the topic of splitting books up into numerous movies, I'd imagine that I'll watch the new Hobbit movie over Christmas but can't say I'm overly excited about the prospect. I found the first episode rather turgid which is surprising when you consider it only told the story of part of a relatively slim book. Quite how they are going to make 3 long films out of a few-hundred page book, I can't imagine. Lots of padding added as well as CGI-tastic unsurvivable stunts/falls/battles, I expect. Are they making a load of stuff up for the third episode or are they just really stretching the original story out to the nth degree?
My only real issue is that the fundamental premise of the plot is a little weak, considering the levels of technology the 'Capital' has available - force fields, matter generation etc. The fact that they need to wickedly dominate the other districts for their resources or as 'punishment' for an attempted uprising 75 years earlier is a little weak. Any civilisation with technology like that isn't going to be reliant on coal miners for their power, for example!
On the topic of splitting books up into numerous movies, I'd imagine that I'll watch the new Hobbit movie over Christmas but can't say I'm overly excited about the prospect. I found the first episode rather turgid which is surprising when you consider it only told the story of part of a relatively slim book. Quite how they are going to make 3 long films out of a few-hundred page book, I can't imagine. Lots of padding added as well as CGI-tastic unsurvivable stunts/falls/battles, I expect. Are they making a load of stuff up for the third episode or are they just really stretching the original story out to the nth degree?
Oh why did you have to go and say that...?
I had decided (pretty much anyway) to NOT go see it because I wasn't terribly impressed with the first one - particularly after trying to get through the extended BR release, which I did not manage - got stuck when Radagast started going on his ridiculous rabbit sleigh. But since you say this one's better, now I have to I suppose.Take comfort it's only a year until it is resolved...
I know it'll only be a year, I also know what's gonna happen as I've read the book (obviously) - but it's still the perfect point to cut to black. Most people in the theater were sitting in complete silence expecting something more to come, until the ending song started to play
And yeah it has its share of extended action sequences, which are however quite exciting. Sure, the heroes are apparently invulnerable and infinitely lucky, but somehow the timings and such were still enough to tense me up. It's some truly spectacular stuff. Also
so I'm kinda surprised that it's still PG13. Then again FOTR also has some stuff and I think they mostly got away with it because they made orc blood black.
I also think that Weta has intentionally thrown in a few more full-CG orcs in these sequences, as they got angry about the sometimes completely unjustified criticism. Now there seem to be an equal amount of people in make-up and totally CG among the monsters, but even I can't always tell which is which
Not to make it sound like perfect, there's also stuff that feels like "greatest hits of the LOTR trilogy", some scenes get a bit too long and you may not even understand why they're there at all... There's also some Radagast
Oh and another interesting aspect is just how many of the characters have questionable morals and decisions, especially for such a mainstream release. Thorin, Bilbo, Thranduil... funnily enough it's Gandalf who's made to look better compared to the book as the movie shows what keeps him busy, thereby justifying his absences.
And yeah it has its share of extended action sequences, which are however quite exciting. Sure, the heroes are apparently invulnerable and infinitely lucky, but somehow the timings and such were still enough to tense me up. It's some truly spectacular stuff. Also
lots of decapitations and other kinds of violent deaths
I also think that Weta has intentionally thrown in a few more full-CG orcs in these sequences, as they got angry about the sometimes completely unjustified criticism. Now there seem to be an equal amount of people in make-up and totally CG among the monsters, but even I can't always tell which is which
Not to make it sound like perfect, there's also stuff that feels like "greatest hits of the LOTR trilogy", some scenes get a bit too long and you may not even understand why they're there at all... There's also some Radagast
Oh and another interesting aspect is just how many of the characters have questionable morals and decisions, especially for such a mainstream release. Thorin, Bilbo, Thranduil... funnily enough it's Gandalf who's made to look better compared to the book
as the movie shows what keeps him busy, thereby justifying his absences.with roughly the same relationship as those they played in Sherlock.
That person has a very strange impression of either Sherlock, or the Hobbit... :O
Hmm, the only way I can understand that is like, Cumberbatch gets to play the strange but fascinating freak, whereas Freeman has to be the anchor that the audience can identify with. The first role is probably a lot of fun to play (and watch), but the second might actually be the harder, requiring more subtlety (and it's Freeman who got a BAFTA for Sherlock, at least so far).
Cookie Monster
Newcomer
Its because the hobbit has incorporated some parts of the silmarillion into its plot.
And the second movie is by far twice better than the first one!
Id give it a 8.5 or 9/10. Really enjoyed it in HFR/3D/IMAX.Smaug/Cumberbatch was great!
I totally, totally loved the ending of Two Towers. It was cinematic in the extreme, IMO, the visuals of the mysterious and floaty choir music, the long, long camera move revealing - pedantic I know, for a ten year old movie, but what the hell -
Mordor
Jackson's somewhat unfortunate trademark, I suppose. I didn't really feel that way with the LoTR trilogy, but in Kong there were several scenes that definitely were too long. The ridiculous dinosaur canyon chase, Kong's capture and death respectively were all way too long. Judicious cuts to those scenes would have made a better movie.
I don't remember that much about the book other than the overarching story (after all, it's been a quarter century since I read it), but Thorin definitely was a rather selfish character in the book as I recall.
That's certainly interesting, as it takes until the LoTR until we actually find out why Gandalf goes astray during Hobbit IIRC. I look forward to seeing the movie myself then, but it might not be until christmas when I get the opportunity, depending on if I want to go see it with an old highschool friend who lives out of town or not...funnily enough it's Gandalf who's made to look better compared to the book
The HFR 3D version is amazing, in particular the barrel riding sequences.
A solid 8/10 for me. The extra bits added to the story didn't seem out of place, or forced at all (including the elven love story).
Cheers
I just saw the new Hobbit movie in extra grey. 3D but not HFR. It wasn't available in 2D , and I really can't recommend the 3D I saw.
I like the movie, but I think the first one was better. This suffers from a lack of pay off. The first had the good sense to end at the end of a story arc. This is all buildup and then nothing, it just stops. I haven't read the book so I don't where it goes from here, beyond where it obviously needs to go for the LotR movies. And that's probably where part of the problem lies. What it does for LotR is known, and what it does for itself it leaves unfinished in every way possible. It's just a shit way to end.
There was one scene that I thought was very odd.
I like the movie, but I think the first one was better. This suffers from a lack of pay off. The first had the good sense to end at the end of a story arc. This is all buildup and then nothing, it just stops. I haven't read the book so I don't where it goes from here, beyond where it obviously needs to go for the LotR movies. And that's probably where part of the problem lies. What it does for LotR is known, and what it does for itself it leaves unfinished in every way possible. It's just a shit way to end.
There was one scene that I thought was very odd.
When they have to open that door into the mountain and it doesn't immediately work. It's like they couldn't quit fast enough. They come all that way and then there's one bump in the road and it's Ok, lets go home, we wouldn't have minded slaying a massive dragon, but waiting on a door is where we draw the line.
I saw The Desolation of Smaug yesterday. It was a lot better than the first movie imo, more action and the dragon is just badass. Weta can just flat out make awesome creatures.
The one thing I'm not sure about is the "look" of the movie (I saw the HFR 3D version). It doesn't look like a movie at all, rather it looks like real life in some places and a TV show in others. In any case, it doesn't have that "film" look.
The one thing I'm not sure about is the "look" of the movie (I saw the HFR 3D version). It doesn't look like a movie at all, rather it looks like real life in some places and a TV show in others. In any case, it doesn't have that "film" look.
Similar threads
