Movie Reviews 2.0

[Sigfried1977]

Crawl

Really effective horror thriller about 2 people being trapped in the crawlspace beneath their house by a bunch of angry alligators who came in through a flooded drainage pipe during a tsunami in Florida. The actors do a great job and the CGI alligators look pretty damn convincing too. It's also very well directed by veteran horror craftsman Alexandre Aja, a name that might ring a bell if you know your horror stuff. He left his first big mark during France's new wave of extreme horror with a film called High Tension and was eventually picked up by Hollywood where he worked on Mirrors and the remake of The Hills have Eyes.
The whole thing is very reminiscent of The Shallows (woman trapped on a rock near the coast by a hungry shark), albeit a good deal bloodier.

 

[eloic]

Well, after reading all the books, I finally watched The Hobbit trilogy and now I'm watching The Lord of the Rings trilogy (yesterday I watched The Fellowship of the Ring).

I liked The Hobbit and I think most changes are ok, since they were intended to achieve a more cohesive work with LOTR (the addition of Tauriel, to include more female characters was nice, as well). I think even Tolkien would've agreed with most of them. However, I missed some things in comparison with the book, such as the encounter with elves in Mirkwood, which I think was magical and I liked very much in the book. And bearing in mind that they made a trilogy out of a single book, with lots of filler, it's not that "oh, we don't have enough time to do that".

In The Fellowship of the Ring, I hate that Tom Bombadill was not there. That sucked.

Overall, I'm liking them very much and I don't care if they're so long (I'm watching the extended versions). I look forward to watching the last 2 movies.

 

[tangey]

Well, after reading all the books, I finally watched The Hobbit trilogy and now I'm watching The Lord of the Rings trilogy (yesterday I watched The Fellowship of the Ring).

I liked The Hobbit and I think most changes are ok, since they were intended to achieve a more cohesive work with LOTR (the addition of Tauriel, to include more female characters was nice, as well). I think even Tolkien would've agreed with most of them. However, I missed some things in comparison with the book, such as the encounter with elves in Mirkwood, which I think was magical and I liked very much in the book. And bearing in mind that they made a trilogy out of a single book, with lots of filler, it's not that "oh, we don't have enough time to do that".

In The Fellowship of the Ring, I hate that Tom Bombadill was not there. That sucked.

Overall, I'm liking them very much and I don't care if they're so long (I'm watching the extended versions). I look forward to watching the last 2 movies.

The hobbit film tiliogy, can be at best described as loosely based on the book. The entire sense of dread and forboding in the films relating to an awaking Sauron and the dark side of the ring, is just made up. The book was a lite-hearted adventure romp set in middle earth. 90% of the key action sequences in the film are entirely fabricated, the major war at the end being just one example. It never happens in the book. As such, I did not particularly take to the films.

The Lord of the rings films, are in contrast, a masterpiece of bringing the books to life. I was in awe of the films at the time they were released, they visualise quite accurately my imagination of the realm and the characters, which is amazing. The lack of Tom Bombadill didn't bother me, that story is pretty much a side-bar in the books with the character not involved in the main storyline. LOTR was Jackson at his best, the hobbit was pretty much a cash-grab imo.

 

[eloic]

The hobbit film tiliogy, can be at best described as loosely based on the book. The entire sense of dread and forboding in the films relating to an awaking Sauron and the dark side of the ring, is just made up. The book was a lite-hearted adventure romp set in middle earth. 90% of the key action sequences in the film are entirely fabricated, the major war at the end being just one example. It never happens in the book. As such, I did not particularly take to the films.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's so loosely based. The battle at the end did happen in the books, it's just the movies take it to a bigger epic scale (being the foes an army of orcs linked to Sauron instead of a "mere" goblin army). Of course the book had a different tone than LOTR, but Tolkien himself faced this issue when he linked LOTR to The Hobbit. I mean, he himself turned a fair simpler, light-hearted story for children into something far more complex and darker. This is why I think that he may have liked some of the changes as a plausible explanation to fill in some gaps and achieve a more consistent result. We know that in The Hobbit Tokien presented us with a simple magic ring that didn't seem so important. In fact, the whole thing about it being the one ring in LOTR may seem a bit far-fetched since it is very clear that this wasn't the original idea.

 

[tangey]

I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's so loosely based. The battle at the end did happen in the books, it's just the movies take it to a bigger epic scale (being the foes an army of orcs linked to Sauron instead of a "mere" goblin army). Of course the book had a different tone than LOTR, but Tolkien himself faced this issue when he linked LOTR to The Hobbit. I mean, he himself turned a fair simpler, light-hearted story for children into something far more complex and darker. This is why I think that he may have liked some of the changes as a plausible explanation to fill in some gaps and achieve a more consistent result. We know that in The Hobbit Tokien presented us with a simple magic ring that didn't seem so important. In fact, the whole thing about it being the one ring in LOTR may seem a bit far-fetched since it is very clear that this wasn't the original idea.

You've wandered off into what tolkien may or may not have liked, which is fine, but is a different discussion. I'm not a tolkien expert, and have no desire to get into his mind or to theorise what his thinking may or may not have been. All I know was that the hobbit was a thin "lets go on an adventure" book set in middle earth. LOTR was a much more epic affair, with multiple branches of storyline, and very little in the way of character carry over (Bilbo, Gandalf are the only ones off the top of my head, but it's been 40 years since I read the hobbit). Legolas, Lady Galadriel, Saruman (?) don't appear in the hobbit AFAIR. And where the heck did the entire necromancer sub-story come from, certainly not the hobbit book. But given Jackson was very very authentic to the LOTR, it was disapointing to see he was quite perpared to use the hobbit book as a mere skelton on which to build a 3 film LOTR prequel, which the hobbit book was never.

Now for those that don't really care whether it follows the book or not, I guess it's a good trilogy. Frankly most of the films I watch that are based on the book, whether it's true to the book or not is immaterial as chances are i've never read the book. I personally found the hobbit films a little confusing, with the "new to middle earth" characters not as well thrashed out. And a love story between an elve and a dwarf didn't do it for me.

All I'll say is that modern day writters trying to write tolkienesk storylines for the sake of making a commerically successful film trilogy, will always compare poorly to Tolkien writting the story for the pure reason of being a storyteller.

 

[nutball]

On the subject of films based on books, is anybody here anticipating good things from the new Dune movies?

 

[eloic]

You've wandered off into what tolkien may or may not have liked, which is fine, but is a different discussion.

I didn't "wander off". I posed that thought in my first message regarding the movies in relation to the books, so that was part of the initial discussion.

All I know was that the hobbit was a thin "lets go on an adventure" book set in middle earth. LOTR was a much more epic affair, with multiple branches of storyline, and very little in the way of character carry over (Bilbo, Gandalf are the only ones off the top of my head, but it's been 40 years since I read the hobbit). Legolas, Lady Galadriel, Saruman (?) don't appear in the hobbit AFAIR. And where the heck did the entire necromancer sub-story come from, certainly not the hobbit book.

To make a 3 film epic out of a story that was split into 3 books is reasonable. To make another trilogy out of a book that was a few hundred pages long, means that substantially what is in the films is mostly not in the book and was add-on to make it a money spinner.

I agree with most of what you say. I only said that I don't think the trilogy is "loosely based", since the story is pretty much the same and the most substantial differences and additions were in line with LOTR. I missed some bits of the book and I think that some things could have been done better. That's all.

 

[Malo]

On the subject of films based on books, is anybody here anticipating good things from the new Dune movies?

With Denis Villeneuve directing, and Villeneuve and Roth doing the screenplay? I think it's going to be amazing.

 

[nutball]

With Denis Villeneuve directing, and Villeneuve and Roth doing the screenplay? I think it's going to be amazing.

I hope so. We could do with an iconic sci-fi/fantasy movie for the new decade.

I'm glad that they are seemingly splitting the story across two movies too, to give it space to breathe.

 

[Sigfried1977]

With Denis Villeneuve directing, and Villeneuve and Roth doing the screenplay? I think it's going to be amazing.

My prediction would be it's gonna to be amazing yet few people are actually gonna go see it. Just like Blade Runnner 2049.

 

[Malo]

My prediction would be it's gonna to be amazing yet few people are actually gonna go see it. Just like Blade Runnner 2049.

Likely. It's unfortunate but that's the way it is for a lot of different types of entertainment. It's the same as the music industry.

 

[Sigfried1977]

I'm actually surprised (and delighted) studios are still giving him carte blanche with these massive movies. I still have to watch the Arrival actually. Only seen Enemies, Prisoners and BR 2049. Loved every last one of them. Has he done anyting else?

 

[Malo]

IMDB is your friend.

 

[Mariner]

Have to admit, I didn't mind the Lynch adaptation of Dune. Very stylishly done despite the obvious deviations from the book.

Oddly enough, I'm actually reading through the Dune series now after buying them all in a cheap Kindle deal. I'd never previously read past Messiah. Midway through Heretics now which is quite interesting after God Emperor which was a bit hard work.

I have to admit to reading most of the 'prequels' in the past. They were shite.

 

[hoom]

Legolas, Lady Galadriel, Saruman (?) don't appear in the hobbit AFAIR.

Not in The Hobbit but the LotR Appendixes show that plotline is what happened in the bits where Gandalf disappeared.
I think Tolkein would have been on the one hand impressed to see his universe depicted quite realistically but pretty appalled by most of the plot changes to both Hobbit & LotR, especially ludicrous bouncing Bombur & super-hero Legolas (not mentioned in the Hobbit but as the son of Thranduil makes sense he'd be around).

With Denis Villeneuve directing, and Villeneuve and Roth doing the screenplay? I think it's going to be amazing.

Its quite an exciting prospect.
I have my issues with the plot but Bladerunner 2049 was certainly audio-visually stunning in a way that would translate magnificently to the Dune setting.
I'm a big fan of the Lynch version even though it differs significantly from the book.
Gonna be interesting to see whether they try to do essentially a modernised Lynch version or stay with the book more.

 

[3dilettante]

I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's so loosely based. The battle at the end did happen in the books, it's just the movies take it to a bigger epic scale (being the foes an army of orcs linked to Sauron instead of a "mere" goblin army). Of course the book had a different tone than LOTR, but Tolkien himself faced this issue when he linked LOTR to The Hobbit. I mean, he himself turned a fair simpler, light-hearted story for children into something far more complex and darker. This is why I think that he may have liked some of the changes as a plausible explanation to fill in some gaps and achieve a more consistent result. We know that in The Hobbit Tokien presented us with a simple magic ring that didn't seem so important. In fact, the whole thing about it being the one ring in LOTR may seem a bit far-fetched since it is very clear that this wasn't the original idea.

To cite analysis of revisions to the Hobbit book, Tolkien retconned the importance of the ring into later editions of the book.
http://tolkien.cro.net/tolkien/changes.html
The initial way it was handled was inconsistent with how important it was supposed to be to the world at large and to Gollum in particular.

 

[hoom]

Bladerunner 2049 was certainly audio-visually stunning in a way that would translate magnificently to the Dune setting.

Well heck, its been a while since I watched Dune, just rewatched and actually they're going to have a really hard time even approaching the epicness that is Lynches' Dune.

 

[iroboto]

On the subject of films based on books, is anybody here anticipating good things from the new Dune movies?

Yes. I am looking forward to seeing the first trailer. And I’m positive I will be in theatres to catch this one.
Gotta live the spice life.

 

[eloic]

To cite analysis of revisions to the Hobbit book, Tolkien retconned the importance of the ring into later editions of the book.
http://tolkien.cro.net/tolkien/changes.html
The initial way it was handled was inconsistent with how important it was supposed to be to the world at large and to Gollum in particular.

Exactly. Tolkien himself knew that some things didn't match or had a proper connection between the two books. Heck, how can you even imagine that a cheap wizard only able to perform a few tricks in The Hobbit was nothing less than a powerful Maiar in LOTR?

 

[orangpelupa]

just watched knives out. felt so satisfying when the detective finally saying things out loud. "THATS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS THINKING" then the explanation goes deeper and deeper... "Oh!! so thats why/how". That movie is a better detective conan movie hahaha