Mark said:
:shock: :shock: :shock: You have all three of the extended versions at 4 hours a piece and you say they are FAR too short???? You crazy crazy child. I seriously struggled with the extended versions as they were, any longer and I may just have pulled out my own eyes with cocktail sticks as an excuse to get out of watching them.
Don't get me wrong, I do intend to give them another go, but I would actually really like to see the non-extended versions to see if I enjoy them more once they cut out all the stuff that only works in the book. For me, the extensions are proof of why books don't always work as direct translations and why editors exist.
When you produce a film version that is so accurate and so sympathetic to the source material though, then it does work. LOTR got the book pretty much nailed, which is incredibly rare. As the books have such a huge following, it panders to them directly and hopes to scoop up a few other on the way (as it did me). I think sometimes there is an argument for doing it, if you're doing it right. Wouldn't you love to see Harry Potter in its complete form Mark? All those little subtleties that really give the world and characters depth that is missed? I think especially in numbers 3 and 4 which both skip a lot of stuff.
Anyway
The Hobbit. Snow White meets Bad Taste and doesn't bring along an extra cushion. Butt cheek numbingly excellent though. CGI was a bit too CGI at times, but generally the film moved at a much better pace than I imagined, I loved the ridiculous, comedic quality of it (the dwarf song and dance routine with the cutlery was fab) and I really enjoyed the way it would contrast between dark and light. A few burdenous moments, but really good overall. Sound was superb and the subtle linking to LOTR was brilliant, though it was all a bit Star Wars Episode 2 and Count Dooku for a few minutes
Hobbit feet have improved no end too over the years
My biggest issue - apart from the "rickety bridge surfing" - is Martin Freeman. At times, he really captures Ian Holme and is a believable "Bilbo". Then he does his Martin Freeman mugging face thing and he's just Tim from the Office/Arthur Dent/Martin Freeman.
Mark said:
Anyways... I recently sat and rewatched The Dark Knight Rises again... twice...
Ironically, I actually enjoyed it more at home than I did at the cinema, which is saying something, because, actually I throughly enjoyed it at the cinema! I felt that at home on a smaller screen I could see, capture and be part of all of the action and the nuances that got a little bit lost on such a huge screen. For me, it definitely finished the Dark Trilogy in very good fashion as an entire story. Granted, Batman shouldn't really ever 'end'. He should never truly hang up the cape and cowl but in movieland, you need to have a solid ending and in terms of this film series. It gave me that ending. I think what Nolan wanted to portray was to imagine a world where DC decided to bring the Batman/Bruce Wayne story to an end. How would they do it? How could you make it so that Bruce Wayne could no longer want nor need Batman. Nolan managed it really well and so yes, for me. It really is a brilliant film.
Finally got to watch it and I'm sad I missed it at the cinema now. However, after the disappointment of The Dark Knight and Inception, I just didn't have enough faith in Nolan to give me the desire to make the effort to see it (when there wasn't anyone else I knew around here who also wanted to see it).
It's a very slow and deliberate film, but I didn't find that detrimental. Unlike The Dark Knight, it may have been long, but it never felt anything was superfluous (in fact, it so rapidly washed over the whole Harvey Dent thing and gave it so little importance, it makes The Dark Knight even more irksome). I guess that the entire Catwoman sub-story could have been cut out, but sometimes when there's good film making and story telling going on, you don't mind - it integrated into it, rather than feeling "tacked on".
I thought Bane was excellent and I didn't really struggle to understand him - really solid bad guy. The story was deep enough to be interesting, but it wasn't pretending to be clever (like The Prestige or Inception - which pretended, but were actually **** ). It was just a really good super hero film to watch and Nolan captured the essence of Batman Begins again only made it grander and better. It DOES miss a really strong character like The Joker or Scarecrow (like, the proper Scarecrow), but the film is allowed to shine through a little more because of it.
So yeah, really enjoyed it, it appealed massively to the Batman and film fan in me.
Also got to see
Skyfall at last. Superb stuff. I think Craig is an excellent Bond and he's finally been given a film to show it. A perfect meld of the new, harder, darker Bond we've seen in the previous two outings, but with the story telling and feel of the older, classic Bonds. All the strengths of old and new, but without any of the cheese or pedestrian-ism.
And talking about pedestrian, also saw
Rise of the Guardians. It's a kids film, and it's Dreamworks. That means over sentimental tosh, with a few little giggles here and there and the kids pleased for an hour and a half. Nothing I'll be in a rush to watch again and it held few surprises. Jude Law and the Bogey Man was excellent though.
