What's new

"Now Showing"

Re: "Now Showing"

Finally saw the Hobbit.

Boring drawn out rubbish. You can see all their make up and masks and due to this it really does feel so fake.

The Lord of the Rings really made you feel part of the world, this just made me want to switch it off.
 
Just watched immortals

Running time was "approx 1 hr 46 minutes", which strangely enough was "approx 1 hr 46 minutes" too long.

my last visit to the dentists was more compeling!
 
Hahahahaaaa... I watched both The Hobbit and Immortals yesterday. - how odd.

I quite like The Hobbit still, but I agree with however said on Facebook it needed a directors cut later and this film to be much "tighter". Oddly, MMF sat through it and loved it, but he won't sit through any of the other films. It's much lighter though and "cartoony". It IS meant to be a kids film though (so why make it over three hours long?). My biggest issue is Martin Freeman though, he's the same character in everything he does and it's not a good character. That and most of the Goblin section.

Immortals, yes, what utter dross. It's rare that a film leaves me feeling like it's offered so little. I didn't even hate it, it was just like a light rain shower that doesn't really get you wet, but denies you the enjoyment of doing "something". Just "something is happening on the screen, but I don't really care what". It never felt "huge" or "epic" or anything. Just really flat, it's so odd because it should have been brilliant. All the right stuff was there. Great sets, great costumes, great basic story - but it all just came out dull and completely underwhelming.
 
Re: "Now Showing"

The Hobbit is the directors cut there is meant to be another 45 mins for the extended version lol
 
Sorry, that's what I meant by director's cut. Usually the cinematic release isn't the one the director has say over (though Jackson may).
 
furie said:
It IS meant to be a kids film though

Is it though? It's based on a kids' book, sure, but I'd say it's aimed towards fans of the original LotR films. It may be more "kid-friendly", but I definitely wouldn't say it's sold and marketed towards kids.
 
Inside Man

It was okayy, it was good for an action movie but as usual, I was a little bit confused. Denzel is a solid actor, but Jodi Foster pissed me off with her constant attempt at a sexy voice.

7/10
 
Re: RE: "Now Showing"

Jurassic Park

Saw it in IMAX 3D last night and forgot how great it was.
Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Board Express
 
gavin said:
furie said:
It IS meant to be a kids film though

Is it though? It's based on a kids' book, sure, but I'd say it's aimed towards fans of the original LotR films. It may be more "kid-friendly", but I definitely wouldn't say it's sold and marketed towards kids.

I think this may be the issue the film has :lol:

I think of it as a kids' film because most of MMF's friends have seen it and the toy and book aisles were full of The Hobbit leading up to Christmas. Colouring books, albums, sticker collections, "the film in photos" - all that kind of kiddie bollocks you get with a film aimed at kids. I think LOTR also had toys, but none of the other gumph. Very few of friends seem to have seen any LOTR films either.

However, I think you're right that it was marketed at LOTR fans, but I think that Jackson (and the distributors) also kept in mind the fact it was meant to be for kids and it's ended up messed up.

I had a read yesterday to find out what extra bits were cut and found out a fair amount about the film. Apparently what Jackson is doing is using all the work Tolkien wrote (both published and unpublished) that surrounds this "period"in Middle Earth history. He then shoe-horning it into the story of The Hobbit to add extra background to the entire of his LOTR film world. He's also expanding some characters (like the white Orc) to help give the film pacing and an antagonist.

Essentially he's pandering to his own inner fanboy, as well as to all the other LOTR geeks out there. So what you have is the very child friendly original story, mixed in with a load of the hard-core appendices and expanded history and the film ends up completely mixed.

What is essentially a tight, standard kids' action/adventure story has been stuffed full of a load of extraneous background fanboy gubbins that ruins the flow and feel of the film. Obviously if you have a great interest in all that extraneous stuff then you'll get more from the film.

As it stands though, it's a really odd film in where it's appeal is meant to lie and I think you're right Gavin, it's not a kids' film, but it's also not a grown up film either - it's a fan film.
 
Watched the highly acclaimed Crash the other day, though how any film with Brendan Fraser and Sandra Bullock in it can possibly be highly acclaimed I have no idea :p

The film was one of those real mixes. It was quite "heavy" in the handling of the racial stories and putting them forwards. Kind of very blunt and in your face "OMG, look at the casual racism and how different races are also racist to each other OMG OMG OMG!!!". Really patronising and annoying. Then at the same time, it was incredibly subtle and moving in parts too with some really great, quiet acting going on.

The stories were linked in a way which would have seemed clever to a 16 year old writing his first "tales with a twist" type of story, which also irked me a little. A few real stand out moments from a lot of quite annoying over the top in your faceness. Not sure (other than "OMG, it tackled casual racisim" ) why it was so well thought of. Still, worth watching, it was a long way from a bad film - 8/10.
 
Why watch the film, Phil? You know the only reason you put Crash in the DVD player is to listen to Maybe Tomorrow at the end, so you might as well scene select to the credits ;).
 
Was that the turd end music then? I did wonder. I'd recorded it, so could just switch it off and delete and never have to suffer it again ;)
 
Life of Pi

What a complete crock of ****! I'm sorry, but this movie sucked and didn't deserve any awards. The tiger looked like ****, the other visual effects were garbage, and it was just a **** movie. 2 and a half hours I'll never get back.

4
 
Das Boot (Director's cut)

Three and a half hours, but it was worth it. Really captured the tension, boredom and claustrophobia suffered onboard a German submarine during WWII. While there were some scenes that made me frown (spoiler below), I felt that it was really well made. The ending was a little sad and unexpected, but on the other hand, I couldn't really see another way to end the movie. The Germans haven't really been fond of glorious portrayals of their military since 1945, and ending it with a victory would be a little inappropriate.

Nuts and bolts were popping left, right and center when they dived below 230 metres the first time, but apart from some initial shaking, the sub is perfectly fine with being at 280 metres for several hours later - only then, the hull is badly damaged and it even bangs hard into the seafloor.
 
Wait, it's not a film about footwear? May have to watch it then ;)

It's on my list of "must get around to watching" films, another I managed to finally watch on Friday night: Breakfast at Tiffany's

I'm not entirely sure what to think about it. It's one of those iconic films - and I can see why - but at the same time it's not very good. I wish I knew more about films to be able to comment properly, but the main characters (while fantastically played) aren't particularly likeable. It's all character interaction over plot, with annoying characters. I don't know, I watched it with madame_Furie and as the song says "we both kinda liked it". Glad I watched it, but it wasn't a film that blew me away like a lot of other "classics".
 
^It's more iconic for the Givenchy dress and the classic image of Audrey Hepburn that it created rather than the film itself, which, as you said, isn't really up to much.
 
Boogie Nights

Even though I heard this movie was supposed to be good, I was still surprised by how much I liked it. Just very well put-together in all aspects, and almost Pulp Fiction-esque at times in the way it blends violence & comedy to create tension.
 
^One of my all time favourite films <3 (That I forgot to put on the top 25 list haha)

Anyway, I saw Evil Dead last night. When I heard about the remake my heart sank a bit. It's nowhere near as kitschy and fab as the original (because Bruce Campbell is nowhere to be seen) but it did retain that sense of utter ridiculousness and over the top madness, loads of blood and gore and was actually really creepy. I adored it and I'm really glad I gave it a chance.
 
Top